Katherine Schwarzenegger Pratt’s Picture-Perfect Life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway to read this without the paywall?

I generally think people should either pay journalists for their work or go without, but let's see if I can use one of my gift articles here, because wow, a puff piece that can't overcome the awfulness? ::chef's kiss::

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/style/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt.html?unlocked_article_code=2VRsSsUbxDOFm13X7ap6IesA7AiaLqSxbDj9qoVDHJnjLcFUHnC01-HQuxw-QE1-zV7rqYrhvlkxpqvDukOhOZHzzfnFw2RgCMBYc_mXU1SiRizJZmDog8A41Ac_m5a2liQYz8Gq6e4vBK4hwRc_8hc9TXO4pI22TdPtA6ZuhPFIuuwlLmiT6XjtuHcfDlEnwIc06ez50Zm7iB2Qi-EFPgbi2iGL0vkTmHceiQHWlfM-HCQwiCLg-dnT-iioQbdrYcST8UgY2uMWWlAWunUrN_V4QCKRM0SD5-A8Do7evFEV0NQhKJECAHWRv-YThuIYPnONHe0VMEPCRILi-0RwYEgPs-aB5w&smid=share-url

Thank you for sharing this PP!

[Anonymous]

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.

Exactly. Her dad is not a good guy in real life.

And I heard that from one of his friends!

[Anonymous]

It reads like the writer really, really resented being assigned to write it. Like the whole profile was a favor the publisher was doing one of his rich friends, and she drew the short stick and hated every minute of it.

The photo they used for the top of the article is hilarious. It's literally a picture of her through a window, with the outdoor reflections slightly obscuring her appearance. She's not smiling but not frowing, looks neither sexy nor chaste. Just perfectly coifed and made up and neutral. A cipher.

The profile definitely gets some digs in at her. She comes off as vapid, bland, and hypocritical. She praises her parents for keeping them out of the public eye, claims she wants to do the same, but only after explaining that she intends to bring her daughters on her book promotions with her because they are sisters and the book is about sisterhood.

The profile also often provides all of the available details about something without comment, and leaves it to the reader to draw their conclusions. For instance: there is no evidence she is evangelical. She was raised Catholic, of course. But she met Pratt at a "hip" evangelical church frequented by Justin Bieber. So you think, "oh she's evangelical." Nope, her daughters were baptized at the same Santa Monica Catholic Church she was baptized at as a baby. The impression you get is that she is actually not religious at all, just an opportunist who knows how to work an angle.

At one point Shriver says “Sometimes people don’t realize how methodically she’s gone about building her career,” and, uh, Maria, that's abundantly obvious. She wrote a book at 19 about interning at a PR firm. She wrote another book at 22 about figuring out what to do after college while she was... figuring out what to do after college. She released a book about forgiveness that curiously enough came out after it was revealed to the public that her very famous father had cheated on her very famous mother with a housekeeper and fathered a love child. The book, of course, doesn't mention any of that, but there is no question that the publisher of that book anticipated some people would buy it based on that connection, hoping for insight into her famous family.

She's clearly a methodical opportunist who has used her name and connections to build a "career" that amounts to writing bland bablum on a generic, broad topic every few years and knowing people will buy it because of her name. The whole thing is absurd.

I didn't know anything about her before reading the profile and now I have an extremely low opinion of her. Impressive!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How tedious.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also did not understand the point of the article. Is she selling us her happiness? Why do we care? Is it a humblebrag? Is the NYT mocking her? Or is it a piece they had to do as a favor for her well connected family and spouse?

Don’t get me wrong- have nothing against them. Just don’t understand why a relative nobody is in the NYT gloating about her life.

I definitely got the impression that the writer hated her. It's incredibly mocking, right down to using her full name throughout the entire article. It's more of a hate-icle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyway to read this without the paywall?

Here is my gift to you random DCUMer!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/style/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt.html?unlocked_article_code=RRktVByHNkQnDW1VlHXVWjEEbBeIggtk0xTHZ5jQJodGVClXKOWQvy--dZn7nL9GXuEZhpcvHJ59BjDR1iAZ8skA1S4lcb-WRu1Ufu-Gv4EqRO9okJ3ObpGkETROtQTirKQm3RlTB-akf8cC8bRPAM8SpihR0Qq8PsXCZ-Z_LzYgO1V0Bv-dtSzNhrMWnUusRrFwoUf5Yeh_i6UmyB4fG5qTTz89e1OZRbg1Ie1l9R2ec1HzgBHh6PrOvVZD-aclyE-V6kY714YlKMIhD-wbkIEIQCuEiUpw6WPIEDoAFkjGlx_nAQrbbM-NwF2CHIj2Ju6fnmujEXDWHQiAhLvHMG8SWcxA&smid=share-url

[Anonymous]

Super snarky article + kind of fun to read. Sadly, she will probably end up divorced like her mom when Chris dumps her for an even younger woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway to read this without the paywall?

Here is my gift to you random DCUMer!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/style/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt.html?unlocked_article_code=RRktVByHNkQnDW1VlHXVWjEEbBeIggtk0xTHZ5jQJodGVClXKOWQvy--dZn7nL9GXuEZhpcvHJ59BjDR1iAZ8skA1S4lcb-WRu1Ufu-Gv4EqRO9okJ3ObpGkETROtQTirKQm3RlTB-akf8cC8bRPAM8SpihR0Qq8PsXCZ-Z_LzYgO1V0Bv-dtSzNhrMWnUusRrFwoUf5Yeh_i6UmyB4fG5qTTz89e1OZRbg1Ie1l9R2ec1HzgBHh6PrOvVZD-aclyE-V6kY714YlKMIhD-wbkIEIQCuEiUpw6WPIEDoAFkjGlx_nAQrbbM-NwF2CHIj2Ju6fnmujEXDWHQiAhLvHMG8SWcxA&smid=share-url

Thanks!
It does sound like the writer was writing tongue in cheek and mocking her. The part about her parenting show and how as host, she asks questions about issues she has experienced herswlf such as how to introduce solids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It reads like the writer really, really resented being assigned to write it. Like the whole profile was a favor the publisher was doing one of his rich friends, and she drew the short stick and hated every minute of it.

The photo they used for the top of the article is hilarious. It's literally a picture of her through a window, with the outdoor reflections slightly obscuring her appearance. She's not smiling but not frowing, looks neither sexy nor chaste. Just perfectly coifed and made up and neutral. A cipher.

The profile definitely gets some digs in at her. She comes off as vapid, bland, and hypocritical. She praises her parents for keeping them out of the public eye, claims she wants to do the same, but only after explaining that she intends to bring her daughters on her book promotions with her because they are sisters and the book is about sisterhood.

The profile also often provides all of the available details about something without comment, and leaves it to the reader to draw their conclusions. For instance: there is no evidence she is evangelical. She was raised Catholic, of course. But she met Pratt at a "hip" evangelical church frequented by Justin Bieber. So you think, "oh she's evangelical." Nope, her daughters were baptized at the same Santa Monica Catholic Church she was baptized at as a baby. The impression you get is that she is actually not religious at all, just an opportunist who knows how to work an angle.

At one point Shriver says “Sometimes people don’t realize how methodically she’s gone about building her career,” and, uh, Maria, that's abundantly obvious. She wrote a book at 19 about interning at a PR firm. She wrote another book at 22 about figuring out what to do after college while she was... figuring out what to do after college. She released a book about forgiveness that curiously enough came out after it was revealed to the public that her very famous father had cheated on her very famous mother with a housekeeper and fathered a love child. The book, of course, doesn't mention any of that, but there is no question that the publisher of that book anticipated some people would buy it based on that connection, hoping for insight into her famous family.

She's clearly a methodical opportunist who has used her name and connections to build a "career" that amounts to writing bland bablum on a generic, broad topic every few years and knowing people will buy it because of her name. The whole thing is absurd.

I didn't know anything about her before reading the profile and now I have an extremely low opinion of her. Impressive!

THIS- all of this. It was tongue-in-cheek the whole time.

And Mary's Gone Cracker--- c'mon at least be relatable with Ritz or Wheat Things or oohhh those Ritz toasted crisps *now I am hungry*

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway to read this without the paywall?

Here is my gift to you random DCUMer!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/style/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt.html?unlocked_article_code=RRktVByHNkQnDW1VlHXVWjEEbBeIggtk0xTHZ5jQJodGVClXKOWQvy--dZn7nL9GXuEZhpcvHJ59BjDR1iAZ8skA1S4lcb-WRu1Ufu-Gv4EqRO9okJ3ObpGkETROtQTirKQm3RlTB-akf8cC8bRPAM8SpihR0Qq8PsXCZ-Z_LzYgO1V0Bv-dtSzNhrMWnUusRrFwoUf5Yeh_i6UmyB4fG5qTTz89e1OZRbg1Ie1l9R2ec1HzgBHh6PrOvVZD-aclyE-V6kY714YlKMIhD-wbkIEIQCuEiUpw6WPIEDoAFkjGlx_nAQrbbM-NwF2CHIj2Ju6fnmujEXDWHQiAhLvHMG8SWcxA&smid=share-url

Thanks!
It does sound like the writer was writing tongue in cheek and mocking her. The part about her parenting show and how as host, she asks questions about issues she has experienced herswlf such as how to introduce solids.

A single and childless Brooklyn renter who seethes with jealousy beneath a snarky patina when she comes in contact with bubbly married with children rich women her age? Sounds about right.

“I’m a writer and editor. My work has appeared in The New York Times, New York, GQ, Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair, and other places. I also write a weekly newsletter about celebrity gossip called Gossip Time. Currently, I'm a contributing writer at (new) Gawker, and previously, I was a senior writer at The Cut and a staff writer at (old) Gawker. I live in Brooklyn with two perfect Chihuahuas.”

[Anonymous]

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.

I mean maybe I’m not bitter, but it doesn’t drive me crazy. I just don’t understand the point of the article. There’s no story or drama- makes for a nice life, but a strange article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway to read this without the paywall?

Here is my gift to you random DCUMer!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/style/katherine-schwarzenegger-pratt.html?unlocked_article_code=RRktVByHNkQnDW1VlHXVWjEEbBeIggtk0xTHZ5jQJodGVClXKOWQvy--dZn7nL9GXuEZhpcvHJ59BjDR1iAZ8skA1S4lcb-WRu1Ufu-Gv4EqRO9okJ3ObpGkETROtQTirKQm3RlTB-akf8cC8bRPAM8SpihR0Qq8PsXCZ-Z_LzYgO1V0Bv-dtSzNhrMWnUusRrFwoUf5Yeh_i6UmyB4fG5qTTz89e1OZRbg1Ie1l9R2ec1HzgBHh6PrOvVZD-aclyE-V6kY714YlKMIhD-wbkIEIQCuEiUpw6WPIEDoAFkjGlx_nAQrbbM-NwF2CHIj2Ju6fnmujEXDWHQiAhLvHMG8SWcxA&smid=share-url

Thanks!
It does sound like the writer was writing tongue in cheek and mocking her. The part about her parenting show and how as host, she asks questions about issues she has experienced herswlf such as how to introduce solids.

A single and childless Brooklyn renter who seethes with jealousy beneath a snarky patina when she comes in contact with bubbly married with children rich women her age? Sounds about right.

“I’m a writer and editor. My work has appeared in The New York Times, New York, GQ, Cosmopolitan, Vanity Fair, and other places. I also write a weekly newsletter about celebrity gossip called Gossip Time. Currently, I'm a contributing writer at (new) Gawker, and previously, I was a senior writer at The Cut and a staff writer at (old) Gawker. I live in Brooklyn with two perfect Chihuahuas.”

LOL. Has Maria Shriver found this board?

[Anonymous]

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.

I would never for one moment be jealous of a twit like this.

[Anonymous]

Before I got past the paywall (thanks PP!) I didn’t quite believe everyone’s take that it was tongue-in-cheek, but wow - it absolutely was. Or maybe the writer was reflecting what was put forth by Katherine during the interview, which was an absolute lack of depth or connection or relatability. Katherine was described as answering questions like it was a class presentation - I can’t imagine that’s a compliment?