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

[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.

This is also total bullshit. My favorite cooking demo show ever was one hosted by Amy Thielen, who worked initially at Chanterelle in NYC and then moved to rural Minnesota and presented recipes as a home cook. She never smiled much for the camera. She referenced her family as the show was still a typical food network show, but it didn’t intrude on what she showed, which included cocktails as profiling at least one food shop in Wisconsin. My point - she did not ever beg through her expressions, her tenor, anything, to be admired. To be liked. She just did her thing, and it was an excellent show.

Meghan built her prison brick by brick, because that is what SHE values - slick, stupid, faux-humble, millennial pink and Park Ave doyenne style. She’s an empty-headed grasping influencer estranged from family and many friends, with a rotten reputation as catalogued in UK and more damningly, US media. For years. She is her problem, not society at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes, like I said - you perceive her as authentic. And that's the difference.

People perceive MM's authentic self as fake, and it bugs them. I have no idea if she is or not - but that's how she's perceived. And that, in addition to racism, is why she rubs so many people the wrong way, to put it mildly.

[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?

I'm not a Royal fan so maybe I'm wrong but Kate and Diana only "tried" to be relatable when doing good deeds. Meghan does it to make money. Gwyneth does as well, but she's not a royal. I guess Meghan isn't anymore either, so maybe that's the problem - you're comparing celebrities with public figures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Doesn't George Clooney sell a relatively average brand of liquor?

[Anonymous]

Some are givers and some others are takers. Social climbers and nepo babies are the worst. We can see through the BS. Of course we really don't know any of these people and I suspect most of them are unhappy.

[Anonymous]

I was bummed to discover that this is not a thread about how relatable Ilona Mahre is and how not relatable some other Olympian is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

This is an interesting analysis and makes me think of her "no one has asked me if I'm okay" comment that came off very whiny and tone deaf. I felt like, don't you have any close friends or family to tend to your needs? Why do you need this validation from the public? But PP lays it out pretty well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think this would be a credible argument except for the fact that MM was really embraced by the UK in general and the royal family specifically in the early days. They turned on her after she was such a neurotic weirdo after she whined about not being ok on a fully taxpayer paid for royal trip to Africa to visit third world HIV inflicted women... also when she insisted on going to Wimbledon and having like 50 empty seats around her when it was sold out just so she could have "privacy"... and the list goes on... she dug her own grave imo