Anonymous
Post 03/13/2025 10:59     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2025 10:43     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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
Post 03/13/2025 09:44     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2025 09:15     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/13/2025 04:01     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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
Post 03/12/2025 23:57     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2025 23:47     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
Anonymous wrote:
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.


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.


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
Post 03/12/2025 23:17     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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.


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
Post 03/12/2025 16:52     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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
Post 03/12/2025 16:26     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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
Post 03/12/2025 13:39     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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
Post 03/12/2025 13:38     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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
Post 03/12/2025 13:31     Subject: Re:Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
Because some celebrities are content being rich and famous and others want to sell us stuff we don't need.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2025 13:29     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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 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
Post 03/12/2025 13:27     Subject: Unrelatability Olympics: Why are some stars admired for being unrelatable and others are vilified?
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.