She takes to Daily Beast to vent her frustration with the celebrity-media complex. Stacy:
OK, enough: You can go read the whole damned preachy treatise for yourself. I’m just stunned that this woman — a movie/TV star, which is by definition a looks-oriented gig — suddenly decides, at age 43, that being judged for her looks is a bad thing.
This didn’t bother her, apparently, when she was cast in 1996 to play a young Marilyn Monroe. But now, 16 years later, it’s bad to judge her for her looks because, well, the tabloids and HuffPo are saying not-nice things about her looks. She’s a multimillionaire star, and she’s also a victim of the misogynistic patriarchy.
Except it’s not really about her, it’s about all girls and women everywhere, on whose behalf she suffers on her cross, St. Ashley of Hollywood.
The long and the short of it is, she blames it on teh patriarchy and spouts pithy nonsense such as “a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration.” Surely she means botheration? No, “the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.” Subsequent, consequent . . . the important thing here is that we (by which we mean Ashley) are walking through the decades and casting our pearls of wisdom before a captive audience of swine.
What does it mean that women are among the most pitiless interpreters of Ashley’s visage?
That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it.
It’s salient, and it means that they’re unwitting dupes to the ever-desirous male gaze, which Ashley has too much integrity to cast herself before. And what kind of work does Ashley do with these news outlets, so-called, which publish this remorseless trash?
News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this “story” without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It’s an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.
Serious work. And you know that it’s serious, because she goes to the bother of assembling exactly three modifying clauses (and/or examples) to characterize each of these abominations. And three is the magic number of seriousness. What kind of journalistic standards do they violate when they publish such calumnies? Time-honored. What kind of mineral mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Conflict mineral mining, which is as serious as mineral mining (as opposed to mining for a heart of gold) ever gets.
What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment?
I don’t know what it is all about, and not knowing what it is all about, how can I say how it symbolizes constraints on women’s right to be simply as they are (at any given moment)? Surely, that is beyond me, though not apparently beyond Ashley, who knows what that stance is all about, without (however) adopting a posture of omniscience.
Is this going anywhere, Ashley?
I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women.
Right. So, you see, there’s no female justice, which would be like male justice, only fair. Just as black justice would be juster than the justice of dead white males (witness victim Emanuel Cleaver). The way the system is rigged, women can’t win, which is why Ashley Judd is so unsuccessful, so bereft of the rewards that society unfairly lavishes on men.
The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood.
Fortunately, the focus on herself is only apparent, and what she’s really on about is how victimized each and every one of us is by our objectification, which is a bad thing, unless the President is yammering about how women really are and should be recognized as an economic force with which to be reckoned.
In related news, Miley Cyrus is not anorexic.
Starless on April 10, 2012 at 8:18 am said:
Dear Ashley:
If you were a better actress, your looks wouldn’t matter so much, but you’re not, so they do.
BTW, did heteronormative, misogynistic, patriarchal oppression force you to pose for this photo, or this one, or maybe this one? Or was it the money?
Sincerely,
Everyone Who Does Not Live In Your Fashionable Progressive Hollywood Fantasy World
Meep on April 10, 2012 at 11:25 am said:
You know, my face has gotten pretty puffy.
It’s called I gained 50 pounds.
Steroids do also make for puffy faces, though.
I’m not sure why I should care about this.
Starless on April 10, 2012 at 1:14 pm said:
Ah, yes: steroids. I believe actresses use that to stay thin and toned, though there are more than a few unwanted side effects.
Meep on April 10, 2012 at 1:49 pm said:
Steroids are pretty common for treating allergies, too. Seems like the time of year for it….
Starless on April 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm said:
True. But are the allergy doses big enough to cause a puffy face?
Meep on April 10, 2012 at 9:23 pm said:
Actually, yes, if you’re having to take them over several days. Several people in my family have had to use steroids over a few weeks to deal with blocked sinuses, and the like, and you do get a noticeably puffy face from that.
For somebody like me (i.e., 50 pounds overweight) it would be difficult to tell. But the great thing about being fat-faced is that it really smooths out the wrinkles.
jefferson101 on April 10, 2012 at 11:43 am said:
LEAVE ASHLEY ALONE!
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 2:34 pm said:
I believe, if you filter all the nonsense about “the patriarchy” out, that she’s saying people–and women in particular–ought to try to stop being assholes to each other on the basis of their looks.
Now, that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon (or ever). But it’s actually a nice thing to suggest, every now and then. Because there are some women who are reachable on this, and can be made to understand that it’s unattractive to be catty about women who are more beautiful than we are.
And although actresses and models make their living with their faces and bodies–and this is therefore fairly unavoidable in their cases–it is going a bit far when people start suggesting that someone’s husband is shopping around because one has gone up to a size 8, or when they start judging one’s looks on the basis of a movie role that has one looking a bit haggard on-screen.
What I would suggest that conservatives do is try to make sure that we aren’t talking about actors and actresses the way the Occupiers talk about “the 1%.” Are there, for instance, moments when we go beyond pointing out, say, Larry David’s hypocrisy on global warming issues, and start in directly on class hatred? It’s a thing to check ourselves about. (Particularly since most of us value our privacy on some level, and actors/actresses have none of that.)
I do believe, for instance, that Ms. Judd is a gun-owner, and I think I read in Women and Guns that she’s a supporter of the Second Amendment.
The “patriarchy” nonsense is annoying, for sure, but gossip can be hugely destructive to both its subject and its practioner.
Think about your motives before you slam someone else.
Dan Collins on April 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm said:
Sure, but I don’t believe Ashley should take particular offense, generalize it, implicate me in it, and tell me that she’s doing so on my behalf.
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm said:
How did she implicate you in it?
Dan Collins on April 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm said:
The moment she started talking down to me.
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 7:29 pm said:
When did she do that?
Dan Collins on April 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:
Are you serious?
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 7:36 pm said:
Yes. I’m genuinely curious about what it is that you took so personally.
Dan Collins on April 10, 2012 at 7:53 pm said:
I guess when she started lecturing me about my false consciousness. I have no opinion regarding the puffiness of her face. Her ego: that’s another matter.
Starless on April 10, 2012 at 7:04 pm said:
I have to go with Ace on this one.
FTR, I saw what I think was supposed to a before/after of The Puffy Face and I could not tell one way or another. To me, Ashley Judd is the actress who came onto Star Trek: TNG to be cute and to be Wesley Crusher’s first love interest, and then she did some stuff I didn’t really notice, and then she became a preachy Hollywood “activist”. I really don’t care whether she has a Puffy Face now and I’m not particularly interested in having a Conversation about it.
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 7:32 pm said:
Ace is about 80% right on this one, but there are certainly males who wax judgmental about women and their bodies. A lot of ‘em are homely middle-aged guys who consider themselves to be the sex-equivalent of foodies: they pride themselves on their discernment as consumers, and they honestly think that it elevates them to sit around and pick apart women’s flaws.
I know this: I used to be a low-level person in a male-dominated industry, and I overheard an awful lot.
Meep on April 10, 2012 at 9:28 pm said:
I assume you’ve heard of sour grapes….
Joy McCann on April 11, 2012 at 1:56 am said:
Oh, snap!
Starless on April 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm said:
What I know is that I’ve worked with a lot of women over the years and the difference between them and the dufuses you’re talking about is that the women can and will mercilessly pick apart the flaws of both men and women.
Additionally, there’s a very fundamental difference between talking about people within our own circles (relatives, friends, co-workers, etc) and talking about people far outside our circles (like, say, 43-year-old Hollywood actresses we will never meet in our lifetimes). I thought of this article that Insty linked to and how I have never, and likely never will, talk about a woman like this woman’s male friends do in front of her. None of my male friends talk about women like that, nor any of my male relatives. Yes, I’ve worked with men (in “male-dominated” industries) who have pushed the boundaries when talking about women outside the circle of acquaintance, but I’ve never known it to be an acceptable style of conversation.
You know where it seems to be acceptable? Gossip blogs, gossip TV shows, gossip tabloids and women’s fashion magazines. All media which are written and edited very much by (not to mention for) women and gay men.
jefferson101 on April 10, 2012 at 7:54 pm said:
“In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood.”
I don’t know about Dan, but I took that part to mean that I was included. I could easily be accused of being “heteronormative”. (Well, Hetero for sure, although anything related to “normal” has been disputed on occasion.)
And I have been known to note the physical attributes of a female on occasion. As a Fellow of the McCain-Collins Institute, it’s part of my job as a guy, actually. That does not mean that I have any less respect or appreciation for all the other women, any more than it does when all the ladies drool over Fabio, or whoever is the current eye candy for the distaff set.
Be that as it may, I do get a bit annoyed when someone who has made bales of money for looking hawt and not much else starts whining about someone commenting about her appearance. Live by the sex appeal, die by the sex appeal.
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 8:06 pm said:
“boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed . . .”
That means that men can also be led to believe that it’s all about how they look.
I mean, I get that there was some cut-and-paste doctrinaire nonsense in there, but I think we have to remember that people were ripping on this woman’s marriage after she went from a size 6 to a size 8.
And I also get that it’s normal for men to look at women, and vice versa.
But people were placing pictures of her side-by-side with ones from six months before, and speculation about whether she’d had plastic surgery–that’s a level of micro-managing someone’s looks that is extraordinary, and a bit beyond the pale.
And I acknowledge that those who “art” is conveyed by their faces and bodies are giving up something very personal when they do so, and thereby forfeiting some of their privacy.
I further acknowledge that we haven’t really lived in a patriarchy in this country for something like a full century.
But I also think that when someone writes an essay, and part of the message is, “people shouldn’t be such assholes about judging others’ looks,” and their marriages have been dragged into picayune discussions of their face . . . well, there might be some wheat in there, along with the chaff.
OTOH, I’m 49 and I lost my own looks about a month ago,* so perhaps I’m a bit sensitive here as well.
* It turns out it’s really freeing: once it happens, you know for a damned fact who the real gentlemen are.
Dan Collins on April 10, 2012 at 8:09 pm said:
You’ve never done any such thing, no matter how you judge yourself. Plus, stop it.
Joy McCann on April 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm said:
{Stopping it.}
But, for the record, I’m not judging myself. Myself =/= my looks. That was my point.
Dan Collins on April 10, 2012 at 8:52 pm said:
I’m skeptical, and I think you must stop tormenting my friend.
Roxeanne de Luca on April 10, 2012 at 11:41 pm said:
Ah, but Joy, you forget – or undercut – a few things. As Da TechGuy said upon meeting you, you are lovely, with the kind of beauty that does not diminish with time. There’s a lot of your personality that shines through and makes you a very lovely woman, and you underestimate that.
Second, and I say this as a woman who is part of a generation behind you, you have a tremendous generousity of spirit towards young women. It stands in very sharp contrast with the way many other women your age treat women my age. Very sharp contrast.
I’m a bit sensitive about the preaching from women in their 40s, when it seems like hardly a week goes by without someone from that age bracket ripping me to shreds just ’cause she can and it makes her feel better about her own life. Very often, it’s done by women who were happy to play the pretty-sexy game when younger but then scream like scalded cats when other women are prettier and younger than they are. Ms. Judd’s rant seems to be the same snittiness about getting older, directed at everyone but herself, just dressed up in different clothes. Yuck.
Joy McCann on April 11, 2012 at 2:12 am said:
I couldn’t do that thing you’re talking about–I just couldn’t. Because of course it happened to me, too, when I was in my 30s. It was so hurtful and confusing: I actually had a woman who was only five years my senior make it her mission to get me fired from my job. She didn’t succeed at that, but she did manage to get my name on the list when it was layoff time.
She wasn’t the only one, of course–and it got to the point that if I started getting that sheer malevolent nastiness from a woman in her 40s/50s I’d have to consciously remind myself that it was probably because she envied me my looks or my brains or both. I’d start to project it back to them: “I’m beautiful, and I’m smart.” I’d never say it in words, but I’d say it in my actions. It was the only way I knew to fight back.
And I get shit from my mother, too, of course, in the present day–but I can’t turn it back on her, really. No matter what, one cannot be cruel to one’s mom, particularly when she is facing her own mortality. She’s 75. (We’ve been down this road before: when I was 18 and she was the age I am now. At the time I yelled back, and then I moved out. Now, I generally take it unless I can’t. Then I leave and come back later in the week. I yell back once every six months or so, for a moment. Mostly I just tell her to stop it.)
Rocketman on April 10, 2012 at 10:28 pm said:
My two cents?
People in the entertainment industry who, by and large, trade on their looks/charisma/presence can’t complain with all the trappings of such a lifestyle; such as scandal rag gossip or discussions of appearance/lifestyle. Choices have consequences, or as the old saw says, One who lives by the sword etc…
On the larger point of whether people should be judged by their looks, whether it be organic appearance, sartorial flourish, or outward behavior? Well in my book another cliche is applicable, one about covers and judging books. But it is, fortunately or unfortunately, something that’s hardwired into human nature that must be consciously kept in check either episodically or as learned behavior.
Finally, Joy, if you’ve contend you’ve lost your looks at 49, well then I must be completely broke down in my early/mid fifties; which I assure I am not. But it would be a lie to stay my roguish charm hadn’t developed a grizzled edge
Thoughtful folks are most often their own harshest judge.
Meep on April 11, 2012 at 6:42 am said:
One of my fave sites I go to is Tom and Lorenzo (http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/). They’re a couple of gay men who mainly post on fashion-related topics. Now, they do not comment on plastic surgery or body issues per se, and they clamp down on commenters who go in that direction.
BUT
They do critique dressing inappropriately for your body, age, and awful makeup jobs. They mainly review pics of celebs who are making official appearances (such as award shows, movie premieres, and TV appearances), and many of their critiques have to do with people whose job it is to look good to actually put in the effort to look good or pay someone who can do it for them. They have posts called “Girl, That’s Not Your Dress”, commenting on poor sartorial choices that do not show off the person to their best effect.
One of my fave type of posts they do, though, is called WERQ (sometimes with snaps up). And WERQ, shows no limitations with shape, size, age, race, or pregnancy/post-pregnancy:
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/02/oscars-werq-octavia-spencer-in-tadashi-shoji.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/02/oscars-werq-viola-davis-in-vera-wang.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/02/werq-diane-kruger-in-giambattista-valli.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/02/werq-beyonce-in-alice-by-temperley.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/02/werq-cate-blanchett-in-alexander-mcqueen.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/01/werq-dita-von-teese-in-alexis-mabille-couture.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2011/12/werq-sandra-bullock.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2011/11/werq-elle-fanning-in-vintage.html
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2011/10/werq-hailee-steinfeld-in-chanel.html
Okay, they’ll give it to a guy sometimes (but very rarely):
http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2012/01/werq-daniel-radcliffe-in-antonio-azzuolo.html