Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?

[Anonymous]

The criticism around Meghan Markle's new show about how unrelatable her content and lifestyle is to the vast majority of viewers reminds me of the hate that Gwyneth Paltrow has received since the inception of GOOP for being tone deaf and out of touch. Meanwhile, Kate Middleton and Princess Diana are beloved public figures even though they are also extremely rich and extremely out of touch. Why are some women so hated for being successful and rich vs others are not?

[Anonymous]

MM and GP try to draw attention to themselves v. Diana and Kate drawing it to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The criticism around Meghan Markle's new show about how unrelatable her content and lifestyle is to the vast majority of viewers reminds me of the hate that Gwyneth Paltrow has received since the inception of GOOP for being tone deaf and out of touch. Meanwhile, Kate Middleton and Princess Diana are beloved public figures even though they are also extremely rich and extremely out of touch. Why are some women so hated for being successful and rich vs others are not?

Eh, I disagree that Kate is out of touch. She obviously has beautiful jewelry and plenty of designer clothes, but when she is off-duty, she is often wearing more normal brands (like she has been photographed pushing her cart in the grocery store in jeans and a normal sweater (not hundreds of dollars). And even when she is on-duty, she is often wearing British brands that- while not accessible to everyone- are certainly not at the price point of Armani or even Loro Piana (a Meghan favorite).

Diana was beloved for her charity work. She actually walked mine-fields that had been cleared and held an HIV positive baby without gloves at a time when nobody famous was doing those things. She wasn't perfect, but she really "walked the walk" to showcase causes that were important to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MM and GP try to draw attention to themselves v. Diana and Kate drawing it to others.

Yes, women get punished for not being self-effacing and modest. Men don't get punished for this. Women who are rich, famous, and successful, are supposed to act as though they don't deserve it and only use their fame or wealth to help others, selflessly. Women are also expected to be personable and everyone's best friend -- the "likability" factor. A famous woman is supposed to be likable, otherwise where wealth and fame is undeserved.

None of this gets put on famous or wealthy men. When they are criticized, it's never for not being nice enough or not being relatable enough. You have to be a really terrible person as a successful man to get even a tenth of the criticism that someone like Meghan Sussex or Goop get just for saying something in a slightly off-putting tone of voice. Like you have to go full Elon Musk and even then people will defend you as smart and "just trying to help" because you are a man and people automatically think that makes you more qualified to be famous or have money.

At the end of the day, we live in a very misogynist society and a woman who dares to act as though she is important or her ideas matter or that she deserves is viewed as uppity and threatening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MM and GP try to draw attention to themselves v. Diana and Kate drawing it to others.

Yes, women get punished for not being self-effacing and modest. Men don't get punished for this. Women who are rich, famous, and successful, are supposed to act as though they don't deserve it and only use their fame or wealth to help others, selflessly. Women are also expected to be personable and everyone's best friend -- the "likability" factor. A famous woman is supposed to be likable, otherwise where wealth and fame is undeserved.

None of this gets put on famous or wealthy men. When they are criticized, it's never for not being nice enough or not being relatable enough. You have to be a really terrible person as a successful man to get even a tenth of the criticism that someone like Meghan Sussex or Goop get just for saying something in a slightly off-putting tone of voice. Like you have to go full Elon Musk and even then people will defend you as smart and "just trying to help" because you are a man and people automatically think that makes you more qualified to be famous or have money.

At the end of the day, we live in a very misogynist society and a woman who dares to act as though she is important or her ideas matter or that she deserves is viewed as uppity and threatening.

There's no shortage of misogyny in the world, but I don't think the comparison is here. Paltrow and MM are trying to create a self brand of being relatable so they can sell us shit - but then that shit is out of touch with what most women can buy. So its the disconnect of "oh i'm so down to earth and just like every woman.....here buy $500 vagaina steamers just like me!" George Clooney isn't trying to create a relatable image - he wants to be seen as glamerous and rich and aspirational and sell us hermes or whatever he's shilling....he's not trying to appeal to the average suburban guy as just like them

[Anonymous]

Charisma and branding/authenticity. It's really not a lot more complicated.

I'm sure there are other things, too - cough cough racism. Plus how good your PR team is and whatever.

But I think the tl;dr of it is (1) are you charismatic enough to get away with all this stuff, and (2) do people perceive you as being "authentic" or not.

People perceive MM as being inauthentic, whether fairly or not. They perceive GP as being "authentic" - and that her authentic self is a weirdo out of touch rich beautiful lady.

I think it's part of why people are drawn to Melania (barf) and not Ivanka (also barf). Melania, for however weird and totally out of touch she is, does seem like her authentic self - vain, fashionable in a cosplay sort of way, a real fook Christmas type. Ivanka always seems like she's trying out different personalities and looks to see what people will like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The criticism around Meghan Markle's new show about how unrelatable her content and lifestyle is to the vast majority of viewers reminds me of the hate that Gwyneth Paltrow has received since the inception of GOOP for being tone deaf and out of touch. Meanwhile, Kate Middleton and Princess Diana are beloved public figures even though they are also extremely rich and extremely out of touch. Why are some women so hated for being successful and rich vs others are not?

Neither Diana nor Kate hock crap ! They didn't create fake luxury BS products. They just live (lived) their lives and do their jobs and keep their mouths shut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charisma and branding/authenticity. It's really not a lot more complicated.

I'm sure there are other things, too - cough cough racism. Plus how good your PR team is and whatever.

But I think the tl;dr of it is (1) are you charismatic enough to get away with all this stuff, and (2) do people perceive you as being "authentic" or not.

People perceive MM as being inauthentic, whether fairly or not. They perceive GP as being "authentic" - and that her authentic self is a weirdo out of touch rich beautiful lady.

I think it's part of why people are drawn to Melania (barf) and not Ivanka (also barf). Melania, for however weird and totally out of touch she is, does seem like her authentic self - vain, fashionable in a cosplay sort of way, a real fook Christmas type. Ivanka always seems like she's trying out different personalities and looks to see what people will like.

GAG GAG... how can both Gwen and MM vilification be due to race? Just strop trying to make that a thing.

[Anonymous]

oh look another MM-hating thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The criticism around Meghan Markle's new show about how unrelatable her content and lifestyle is to the vast majority of viewers reminds me of the hate that Gwyneth Paltrow has received since the inception of GOOP for being tone deaf and out of touch. Meanwhile, Kate Middleton and Princess Diana are beloved public figures even though they are also extremely rich and extremely out of touch. Why are some women so hated for being successful and rich vs others are not?

Neither Diana nor Kate hock crap ! They didn't create fake luxury BS products. They just live (lived) their lives and do their jobs and keep their mouths shut.

This. Kate Middleton is also regularly seen wearing Lululemon, Boden, Marks & Spencer, Gap, not just high end couture. When MM first started on the "royal circuit" her clothing budget was very high. Her engagement dress was $75,000. Kate Middleton's was $400.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh look another MM-hating thread

Sorry if some of these facts disturb you. Nobody has written anything mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:oh look another MM-hating thread

Can we at least limit them to one at a time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:oh look another MM-hating thread

Sorry if some of these facts disturb you. Nobody has written anything mean.

"facts"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charisma and branding/authenticity. It's really not a lot more complicated.

I'm sure there are other things, too - cough cough racism. Plus how good your PR team is and whatever.

But I think the tl;dr of it is (1) are you charismatic enough to get away with all this stuff, and (2) do people perceive you as being "authentic" or not.

People perceive MM as being inauthentic, whether fairly or not. They perceive GP as being "authentic" - and that her authentic self is a weirdo out of touch rich beautiful lady.

I think it's part of why people are drawn to Melania (barf) and not Ivanka (also barf). Melania, for however weird and totally out of touch she is, does seem like her authentic self - vain, fashionable in a cosplay sort of way, a real fook Christmas type. Ivanka always seems like she's trying out different personalities and looks to see what people will like.

GAG GAG... how can both Gwen and MM vilification be due to race? Just strop trying to make that a thing.

Except Gwynneth isn't villified. Gently mocked, maybe, but overall people like Gwynneth. She is able to get away with selling $500 vaginal steamers because people believe that GOOP is the sh** she actually likes and this is really her weird life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charisma and branding/authenticity. It's really not a lot more complicated.

I'm sure there are other things, too - cough cough racism. Plus how good your PR team is and whatever.

But I think the tl;dr of it is (1) are you charismatic enough to get away with all this stuff, and (2) do people perceive you as being "authentic" or not.

People perceive MM as being inauthentic, whether fairly or not. They perceive GP as being "authentic" - and that her authentic self is a weirdo out of touch rich beautiful lady.

I think it's part of why people are drawn to Melania (barf) and not Ivanka (also barf). Melania, for however weird and totally out of touch she is, does seem like her authentic self - vain, fashionable in a cosplay sort of way, a real fook Christmas type. Ivanka always seems like she's trying out different personalities and looks to see what people will like.

GAG GAG... how can both Gwen and MM vilification be due to race? Just strop trying to make that a thing.

Except Gwynneth isn't villified. Gently mocked, maybe, but overall people like Gwynneth. She is able to get away with selling $500 vaginal steamers because people believe that GOOP is the sh** she actually likes and this is really her weird life.

People view Gwyneth as authentically rich and out-of-touch because she looks like a rich WASP -- blonde, thin, tall, her mom cosplays as a rich WASP for a living, etc.

People find MM "inauthentic" because she doesn't look like an aristocrat (where "aristocrat" is 100% based on historical racism). It freaks them out. She will never be considered authentically "upper crust" even though she's literally a member of the British royal family because she's biracial.

I think if MM were a white American actress from a middle or upper middle class family with otherwise the same background, but she looked like Gwyneth Paltrow, no one would find her inauthentic. In fact, I know this to be the case because people effortlessly accepted Grace Kelly as a European princess (both in the US and in Europe) and she's just the blond, white MM.

Sorry but it's racism. I don't even like MM! But people find her "inauthentic" because she occupies a role that is historically and culturally "supposed to" go to not just a white woman, but a specific type of white woman. It's racism.