Katherine Schwarzenegger Pratt’s Picture-Perfect Life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they member of the hillsong church where the pastor was a huge cheater? Also, the church is notoriously anti LGBTQ.

Wow what a dig! One of their pastors (was he ever at the church they attended?) was scummy and was removed from the church. You totally took her down with that one!

DP. I used to love Hillsong’s music but it honestly so much bigger than Carl Lenz (who you’re right wasn’t at their location). There were multiple pastors that left for sexual harassment and affairs from all of the locations, there was basically a culture of borderline slavery with upper leadership pressuring volunteers for free labor, financial resources being spent on extremely questionable luxury items, and to top it off the founder covered up his father’s decades of sexual abuse against underage boys. Obviously no one knew this stuff until recently but if they do still go there it reflects very poorly on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they member of the hillsong church where the pastor was a huge cheater? Also, the church is notoriously anti LGBTQ.

Yes, they were, which the article also conveniently left out.

Supporting an organization that hates a segment of the population is not “perfect”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren't they member of the hillsong church where the pastor was a huge cheater? Also, the church is notoriously anti LGBTQ.

Wow what a dig! One of their pastors (was he ever at the church they attended?) was scummy and was removed from the church. You totally took her down with that one!

DP. I used to love Hillsong’s music but it honestly so much bigger than Carl Lenz (who you’re right wasn’t at their location). There were multiple pastors that left for sexual harassment and affairs from all of the locations, there was basically a culture of borderline slavery with upper leadership pressuring volunteers for free labor, financial resources being spent on extremely questionable luxury items, and to top it off the founder covered up his father’s decades of sexual abuse against underage boys. Obviously no one knew this stuff until recently but if they do still go there it reflects very poorly on them.

It wasn’t a dig it was a a question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s an evangelical. Part of it is to sell the lifestyle as beautiful and perfect. Why? Bc that’s a woman’s only job: to be beautiful and look happy next to her husband.

No one grew up in a perfect household when your dad was nailing the cleaning lady.

Interesting, I assumed she was catholic. Did she become evangelical when she met Chris Pratt?

She was raised Catholic but the story is that she met Crisp at an evangelical church.

And then returned to the Catholic Church (Saint Monica).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is clearly meant to be insulting but that doesn’t mean it was well done. It’s just sort of nothing for me. It didn’t land.

I fully agree that she is icky. No one is mad or jealous about the details of her life. Most people find creating a public, personal brand that’s so sanitized and sanctimonious to be kind of gross. It feels pompous and hubristic. But I actually think maybe what’s happening is those of us outside of Christian culture just aren’t used to it, whereas people inside Christian-land don’t find it jarring or unusual.

It’s “nothing” and doesn’t land because that’s what the writer absorbed from Katherine; there wasn’t much substance or depth. There’s a lack of vulnerability and relatability and the article reflected its subject. And that’s fine - Katherine isn’t a bad person, and she isn’t harming anyone; she’s benign. Some people might emulate or aspire to that but most won’t pay much attention (although how were her books best sellers?).

Then again, that could’ve been the author’s bias and perhaps this was indeed a very unkind article. I haven’t seen any controversy about it, though (beyond this thread).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty embarrassing look for the Times. Seems more like a People puff piece.

Maria must have really pushed hard.

-1. Those of you reading this as a pure puff piece need to reassess. The article contains about 40 not-so-subtle digs, and 100% makes the reader dislike its subject. Agree with pp that even the photos are used effectively. It's pretty entertaining to think about how much fun the author had...hmm, how to incorporate Mr. Pratt's tree knowledge? What better dig than DIRECTLY quoting her own descriptions of her podcast topics?

This was fun reading.

Agree! The author was openly mocking her… The article made her sound, incredibly incredibly shallow, and not very bright. She can’t be happy with how this turned out, but I’m not sure what she expected. She doesn’t have an ounce of authenticity in her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is clearly meant to be insulting but that doesn’t mean it was well done. It’s just sort of nothing for me. It didn’t land.

I fully agree that she is icky. No one is mad or jealous about the details of her life. Most people find creating a public, personal brand that’s so sanitized and sanctimonious to be kind of gross. It feels pompous and hubristic. But I actually think maybe what’s happening is those of us outside of Christian culture just aren’t used to it, whereas people inside Christian-land don’t find it jarring or unusual.

It’s “nothing” and doesn’t land because that’s what the writer absorbed from Katherine; there wasn’t much substance or depth. There’s a lack of vulnerability and relatability and the article reflected its subject. And that’s fine - Katherine isn’t a bad person, and she isn’t harming anyone; she’s benign. Some people might emulate or aspire to that but most won’t pay much attention (although how were her books best sellers?).

Then again, that could’ve been the author’s bias and perhaps this was indeed a very unkind article. I haven’t seen any controversy about it, though (beyond this thread).

Vanity fair mocked the article too: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/02/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt-is-a-character-on-any-prestige-hbo-drama/amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Katherine were just living her rich girl life, no one would care about her. But she's decided to push herself into the public eye, and the public is reacting.

It reminds me of Ree Drummond (the Pioneer Woman), who used/uses her money and connections to peddle her not-very-substantial wares while posing as some sort of Everywoman. Which just be sort of annoying but avoidable if people like one of the early posters weren't feeling bad because they think they ought to be able to produce that sort of life, too.

The Drummonds are from an extremely wealthy family, but they also do work on their own land/ranches which is hard work and live most of the time in rural Oklahoma.

I don’t watch her show or have any of her cookbooks but man I want her life. I would love to live in an outdoorsy place and spend lots of time cooking for a crowd and have a bunch of dogs. When I was in college I joked to my parents that I wanted to marry a rancher and live on a sheep farm and my dad was like “man, you picked the wrong place to go to school” (which was a fancy NE college)—and I had a lightbulb moment that I probably building entirely the wrong life for myself. But never managed to figure out how to turn that ship and here I am a DC desk jockey with a house in the suburbs and only one dog.

You got off easy. My family is from out west and my mom almost had the life you talk about and she ran screaming. SO MUCH CONFORMITY. Plus, post Covid, a life built on cooking for crowds as a rich wife is less likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really drives the bitter malcontent wannabe girl bosses here nuts when an idle woman is pretty, skinny, rich, married, with kids — and devout. Clutch the pearls - she CAN’T be perfect. Or maybe she is and it makes you jealous as hell.

Nope, none of us need her advice, that's what we are mocking.

Pretty can be made with enough money.
Skinny can be made with enough money.
Rich = money.
Married= is it really a good deal unless you have money?
Kids= made way easier with money
Devout= I personally believe religious indoctrination-especially evangelical- is the main source of evil in this world so nope not interested in her opinions

That fact that she thinks she has something original to say when her entire existence is because of mommy and daddy money.....she is just a snake-oil columnist.

Judging by the photo posted, pretty cannot he made with enough money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really drives the bitter malcontent wannabe girl bosses here nuts when an idle woman is pretty, skinny, rich, married, with kids — and devout. Clutch the pearls - she CAN’T be perfect. Or maybe she is and it makes you jealous as hell.

Nope, none of us need her advice, that's what we are mocking.

Pretty can be made with enough money.
Skinny can be made with enough money.
Rich = money.
Married= is it really a good deal unless you have money?
Kids= made way easier with money
Devout= I personally believe religious indoctrination-especially evangelical- is the main source of evil in this world so nope not interested in her opinions

That fact that she thinks she has something original to say when her entire existence is because of mommy and daddy money.....she is just a snake-oil columnist.

Judging by the photo posted, pretty cannot he made with enough money.

The pantsuit she’s wearing really gets at that farmhouse look a lot of evangelical influencers go for

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How tedious.

Are we being punked? This reads like it was written by a ChatGPT and this is a bizarre picture:

No, I think she’s the one getting punked.

I’ve never seen any other photos of her, but in this one, she looks like one of the least attractive famous people I’ve ever seen.
Putting this photo under the headline is a total dig, and if she doesn’t know it, she’s stupid or delusional.

[Anonymous]

Nobody lives a perfect life. How we feel about other people's lives is really just a reflection of how we feel about our own.

When I look at a celebrity I think, ugh, it must be terrible to lose your privacy, to have to keep up appearances for strangers, to never know who you can trust. It's not something I would want for myself. The more power/fame/wealth you have, the harder it is to stay grounded and connected to what's really important. Life is hard enough without those extra challenges.

But if your life is hard and you're thinking, boy it would be nice to have that extra help/money/resources, then yeah, that's totally normal. No judgment there. Just be careful what you wish for . . . the grass usually isn't greener on the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How tedious.

Are we being punked? This reads like it was written by a ChatGPT and this is a bizarre picture:

No, I think she’s the one getting punked.

I’ve never seen any other photos of her, but in this one, she looks like one of the least attractive famous people I’ve ever seen.
Putting this photo under the headline is a total dig, and if she doesn’t know it, she’s stupid or delusional.

I think she looks fine — maybe not glamorous, sure, but attractive enough. But the article is definitely making fun of her. I’d be so pissed at NYT if I were her PR person.

[Anonymous]

Anna Farris is so likeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article is clearly meant to be insulting but that doesn’t mean it was well done. It’s just sort of nothing for me. It didn’t land.

I fully agree that she is icky. No one is mad or jealous about the details of her life. Most people find creating a public, personal brand that’s so sanitized and sanctimonious to be kind of gross. It feels pompous and hubristic. But I actually think maybe what’s happening is those of us outside of Christian culture just aren’t used to it, whereas people inside Christian-land don’t find it jarring or unusual.

It’s “nothing” and doesn’t land because that’s what the writer absorbed from Katherine; there wasn’t much substance or depth. There’s a lack of vulnerability and relatability and the article reflected its subject. And that’s fine - Katherine isn’t a bad person, and she isn’t harming anyone; she’s benign. Some people might emulate or aspire to that but most won’t pay much attention (although how were her books best sellers?).

Then again, that could’ve been the author’s bias and perhaps this was indeed a very unkind article. I haven’t seen any controversy about it, though (beyond this thread).

Vanity fair mocked the article too: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/02/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt-is-a-character-on-any-prestige-hbo-drama/amp

That article was not really mocking the New York Times article. I'm not sure you read that very carefully. It actually seems to basically agree with the premise of the Times article.