Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
I am certainly not going to solve the MM problem today - but I don't think it's just that. It's part of the thing, but not all of it. |
Anonymous
| Because some celebrities are content being rich and famous and others want to sell us stuff we don't need. |
Anonymous
|
It’s persona. If you’re extreme, you can be off the charts unrelatable.
Beyoncé. Madonna. Prince. Boy George. A King or Queen (England, Spain, name the country). Richard Simmons. I don’t know. People who stand out as a little eccentric, private, isolated, or above it all. <—the examples I gave have some of these characteristics; they don’t have to each embody all But if the persona is meant to blend in, be a mom, a hands-on mom, not necessarily artistic, mystical, or elite.. then they are supposed to be relatable. So it’s not racism, is not Meghan or Kate, it’s not Blake or Leighton, etc etc etc. It’s “are you as a public persona allowed to be anything other than what we want you to be?” Meghan completely fits into the California scene. A lot of CA’ans are in a bubble of produce, amazing weather. Everyone around them is talking about their garden, nature, etc. I know so many, from high to low. But especially the more wealthy you are (and willing to be hands on), yes, you are going to be doing exactly what Meghan does. I *knew* composting would come up (not a criticism). It’s standard Californian conversation. I’m interested in this conversation less about Meghan and more about other celebrity examples, though. OP, did you have anyone else in mind? |
Anonymous
|
The majority of people don't care one way or another about any celebrity.
There is only a small minority of people who think fit to have opinions on public figures they have never met, or met such few times that they really should not pass judgement on who these public figures really are. Of this minority, yes, there are racists and classists who treat some celebrities differently, mostly because they dare to have opinions and and push back against societal expectations. A multiracial small-bit American actress marrying a Prince, and daring to take offense at her less-than-ideal welcome? It's at once the stuff of legend and incredibly aspirational, and also disgusting because the white British wife of the Crown Prince found ways to always behave with due decorum, even though she, too, as been criticized for her family's commoner origins - and never mind that she's been too thin for years and obviously suffers from stress. I have a lot of sympathy for the wives of Prince William and Prince Harry. I think they are both good and decent human beings, who are simply trying to do what's best in circumstances when someone, somewhere, is always going to criticize them. I wish them and their families well. |
Anonymous
|
I think it comes down whether you think women should be well-liked or well-respected. I disagree that women have to humble and relatable to be successful. Mariah Carey, Aretha, Liz Taylor, Madonna, Diana Ross are examples where they are absolutely not relatable, are divas but well-respected. Well-liked-maybe not so much. But, they have talent, they were/are confident and don't for a minute pretend they are relatable.
Other women are successful and well-liked. I think those women are nice enough women who don't have to fake it, like Sandra Bullock or Jennifer Garner, and they seem genuine even though they are way richer than us and probably still out of touch. There are women who want to be well-liked but are jerky or don't have talent, or just fake and those women get blasted like Blake Lively, or Hilaria or MM. But, at the end of the day, I think men don't care about being liked and we don't hold them to that standard. |
Anonymous
| Sorry, but people like goop and GP?? Really? I know she’s stuck it out, but everyone I know made fun of her when goop started and still thinks she’s ridiculous |
Anonymous
Bullshit. Grace Kelly was so much more than MM. For one thing, she was a much more accomplished respected actress than MM ever was. She had a Best Actress Academy Award (and another nomination), two Golden Globes, and much more. She was considered one of the best actresses of her generation. |
Anonymous
It's apples and oranges. Kelly retired at the age of 26. She had the career she had because of luck (looking the way she looked right as Hitchcock was in his heyday, being a Main Line society girl at a time when Hollywood was obsessed with that type) and family connections (uncle was a screenwriter who helped her land her first jobs). No, Meghan has not been as successful. But she's worked harder and longer and under much more intense media scrutiny. There's nothing about Grace Kelly that made her more "deserving" of being accepted as a Princess. Kelly and Meghan both married princes. Kelly was viewed as deserving of that life and title, Meghan is not. I don't think it has anything to do with acting acumen. |
Anonymous
Diana and Kate never tried pretending they were perfect or acted in a manor that suggested we should envy them/strive to be like them. GP and MM carry on as if they’re God’s gift to the average woman and we should be thankful they’re sharing their tips on their lifestyles so we can try really hard to be more like them. Diana was not afraid to let us see her imperfections. Kate has shied away from the spotlight as much as she possible can given her role. She doesn’t want us to want her, she just wants to live her life. |
Anonymous
|
GOOP and GP were mocked and disliked a plenty. Sure some people still bought her products and some will buy Meghans.
Meghan has a very unlikeable personality on top of not being relatable. She is fake and lacks any sense of authenticity, sincerity or genuineness and that makes her even more unrelatable. She just comes across as a horrible person. Go read the Blake Lively threads. Lots of people hate her too and think she is entitled and unrelatable and complete against her hawking her products too. But again, some people will buy them. Another one like Meghan is Hilaria Baldwin - also white. She gets a ton of hate too. |
Anonymous
Setting GP aside because I think her situation is totally different (she's a civilian, not a royal, her fame is not premised on her marriage). I have personally never gotten the sense that MM thinks she's "God's gift" to me or any woman, or that I or anyone should be thankful to her for sharing her tips or lifestyle. I do think she is ambitious and wants very much to be liked. This is very common for actors (male and female) and, to armchair shrink for a moment, I think often stems from emotional neglect in childhood, which makes sense given Meghan's parent's divorce and the way she was shuffled around a bit between them. I think this is likely also why she so willingly entered into marriage with Harry. I do think she actually cares about him but also that she was enamored with the idea of being beloved. Some might view that as her "demanding" attention and appreciation. I tend to view it more empathetically as insecurity and wanting validation. She can be needy, it's true. But a therapist once told me that sometimes people are "needy" because their emotional needs have gone unmet for a long time. I see no arrogance in Meghan, personally. I think Diana also had a need to be loved, and also had childhood trauma, but unlike Meghan she was incredibly shy and wound up kind of forced into the spotlight at a young age, whereas Megan wanted the spotlight and didn't start to achieve enough career success to get it until she was a decade older. This of course changes their relationship to fame. As Diana got older, she did lean into her fame more. Often for good causes but sometimes also just because I think it felt nice to be adored. It's understandable because her own husband didn't seem to care for her and his family was truly vile towards her. She grew to love fashion and the spotlight. I think in a parallel universe she might have tried to become a performer. She used fashion to get and hold the spotlight. She became less shy. By the time she died, Diana had started to get a lot of the same criticism Meghan now gets -- people criticized her spending, especially on what they viewed as frivolous things (clothes, vacations), they criticized her parenting, her relationship choices. People called her vapid and lazy. Her death made her a martyr and all of this was rapidly forgotten, but Diana was viewed much the way Meghan now is for some time -- as a leach with no skills who felt entitled to money and fame. I think people forget this and thus don't understand why Harry so obviously views the attacks on Meghan as reminiscent of those on his mother. But the parallels are there even though the women were in very different positions. Kate is just a separate situation altogether. She's from a loving and doting family so likely has more self assuredness and self worth than either Meghan or Diana ever had as kids. That probably helped her a ton with the criticism she received when she was dating William and early in her marriage. Her family is close, emotionally and physically, and that must be different for her as well, to have loyal and loving people in her life, present, as she navigates the royal family. And finally, Kate really chose her life. Like with eyes open. I think Kate, like Meghan, also likes the idea of being beloved. But the difference being that perhaps it doesn't come from such a needy place. So it might feel less like she is demanding adoration, and more like she accepts it. I think her lack of insecurity also enables her to keep the public at a distance, to stay mysterious and to always be pulling back a little. This reads to the public as her being reserved and dignified, and I think she is those things, but I also think she just doesn't need fame as much as Meghan does or Diana did, in terms of validation. Having that emotional distance from fame is a lot healthier, mentally, but I think also beneficial to her image because it's always easier to love someone who can take you or leave you. Three very different women in different circumstances. I have empathy for all of them and at the same time am like "who cares, they are rich, they are fine, there are much more important things to care about." I have my own sht to deal with. |
Anonymous
Gwyneth has never made herself a victim, even as a very young actress going through a painful public breakup with Brad Pitt. She has publicly said of that period in her life "I was the architect of my own misery." Can you imagine Meghan doing anything but pointing fingers at other people/things for her champagne problems? No. Gwyneth knows who she is and doesn't hide it and she sure doesn't have a "woe is me" attitude. |
Anonymous
| I think everything flows from the fact that aside from her mom, Megan had no family or friends at her wedding. That's a red flag for anyone and fair or not, the public largely views her as responsible for separating Harry (and kids) from his side of the family. So while not directly related to the Netflix show, people are going to be less inclined to give her much grace. It would be different if she was truly living the life of a private citizen, but the public is not going to admire her for any entertainment and sales work that she does. |
Anonymous
|
It’s not race, it’s authenticity.
People mocked the living hell out of Gwyneth Paltrow, Martha Stewart, Jennifer Lopez, and Mariah Carey for years. YEARS. But each of those women, two of whom are as “ethnic” as the odious Meghan, are who they are. Meghan is faker than a $3 bill and anyone with any instinct for honesty or intellect recoils from her presence. It’s not the money, the privilege, or the access, or the chiclet-toothed bald, ugly, uneducable, bitter idiot husband. It’s the fake humility and faker Good Girl persona. No. |