Oh, for goodness sake.
A short while ago I checked my aol email account & was greeted on aol's home page by the trivial celebrity headline of the day. Apparently some female celebrity (never heard of her) is pregnant and - oh wait! - HERE'S THE JUICY PART! - she's unmarried! Wow!
Good grief, I thought. Who the heck cares? Now - part of my grumbling is due to a free-floating irritation with our celebrity saturated culture. But the other part of my grumbling has to do with the sexist, holier than thou gasping nature of the headline over the fact that she is unmarried.
This is a new concept? Single, unwed motherhood? Public figure unwed single motherhood? Remember the broohaha over the Murphy Brown pregnancy about which Dan Quayle so famously (stupidly) opined? At the time the issue was forced into open discussion as a public debate erupted over the definition of family, over the puritanical shaming of women "caught pregnant" out of wedlock, etc. That was over a decade ago but apparently we have not moved on from our gasping at such news - at least in the media driven, sensation generating headlines of pop culture.
And dare I ask the question? Where is the headline about the father of this soon to be born child? Just once I would like to see a headline gasping out the words - HOLLYWOOD CELEB JOHN SMITH IS GOING TO BE A FATHER BUT HE'S UNMARRIED! or better yet - HOLLYWOOD CELEB JOHN SMITH HAS IMPREGNATED HIS GIRLFRIEND!
If we are going to insist on puritanical, sensational headlines to fuel our pop culture appetite then we can at least stop being so sexist about it. Let's at least strive for an egalitarian approach to our puritanical shaming.
On a final note - I actually don't think that all that many people (the RIGHT excepted) care that much about the fact that this celebrity is unmarried & pregnant. What I do find fascinating, however, is that the media continually tries to play on old puritanical ideas of shaming to generate sensation about the story they are trying to sell. The extent to which we are suckers for this is debatable.
All those stories are aimed at the National Enquirer crowd (read: Limbaughs base). They decry the values of that "librul hollywood" but have TMZ as their home page; and secretly wish they could hang out with Perez Hilton.
ReplyDeleteHi Editor,
ReplyDeleteActually, I partly disagree. I do agree that the Limbaugh crowd are probably the most likely to buy the Enquirer. However, I'm not too sure this sums up the aol target audience. Aol is pretty mainstream. The latent puritanical sexism that such on-line media are playing to is that of the non-Limbaugh crowd. Mainstream media is laced with "latent" (I'm being kind) sexism. Film, TV, advertising. Aol & co. know this & are trying to capitalize on it as well.
The country's economy is tanking, there's deadly violence all over the world, human oppression and abuse and I'm supposed to be all aflutter because Actress A is having a baby without benefit of marriage!?!
ReplyDeleteGeez!
I have never liked AOL and I don't use it -- thank you for reminding me why.
Speaking of real news, has anyone heard if Anna Nicole Smith is still dead?
ReplyDeleteLeave it to Truth to get right to the heart of the SERIOUS news! LOL!
ReplyDeleteTruth,
ReplyDeleteI believe Anna Nicole was spotted the other day with Elvis....
Actually, right now my most interesting story is about the guy who posed as a girl on facebook and then got a bunch of guys to send him photos and videos of themselves nude and then he blackmailed them into agreeing to sex with him, in which he took more pictures...
Hmm, young males send nude photos of themselves to a "girl" obviously for no other reason than attempting to have sex.
Then recipient of pictures agrees to sex....and they feel that they have been.....victimized?
Why, you got "sex"?
One parent wants more done to protect their kids...
Hmm...why not explain to them that stupid things happen to stupid people who send out nude pictures of themselves to strangers....
Tao - this story just came up on the news. Now this kid, if convicted, could face 300 years in prison! He needs to do some time and he REALLY needs some professional help, but 300 years?
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't see the other kids facing any sort of pornography charges.
What is this world coming to?
@ Rocky: Crimes involving sex are considered particularly heinous. Or so the intro to "Special Victims Unit" opines five days a week in syndication.
ReplyDeleteTrue Matt, but I have a real problem with all those kids that sent naked pictures to this "girl" to start with.
ReplyDeleteThe whole situation is surreal and it would be more helpful to the whole community if someone tried to sort out the motivations and where they come from.
Shouldn't they applaud the actress having the baby--I mean if Sarah Palin could use her daughter to show that being unwed and pregnant really does represent the highest ideals of the right to lifers, I'm sure this woman has a chance as well. Maybe she could even play Sarah Palin or her daughter in a movie?
ReplyDelete"Out of wedlock."
ReplyDeleteWedlock! What a word, and how it illustrates our flight into medievalism, antique prudery, bigotry and the subjugation of women. Methinks that slattern wench doth deserve a scarlet letter!
Wedlock - I dare anyone to say that all by itself and with a straight face.