Paris Hilton in sex ban shocker!

[soopermouse]

It is Paris Hilton's choice to become famous.
Paris Hilton does not NEED to be famous. Her life is not in danger by not being famous, she will nt lose health benefits or anything else from not being famous.


The decision is hers, and as such she is responsible for the path that she takes and the consequences coming from it. She is an adult, and treating her like a mindless infant does not helpanybody.

[CoolAunt]

It is Paris Hilton's choice to become famous.
Paris Hilton does not NEED to be famous. Her life is not in danger by not being famous, she will nt lose health benefits or anything else from not being famous.


The decision is hers, and as such she is responsible for the path that she takes and the consequences coming from it. She is an adult, and treating her like a mindless infant does not helpanybody.

I understand SuperMouse's opinion, too. In fact, she's got me rethinking the PH predicament again.

Oh, so much to ponder.

[delphyne]

"As such, wher exactly IS the pressure on her again?"

Sexism and male oppression. All women in this world suffer from it whatever their other privileges.

yet not all of us end up like that, and the pressure on her is a lot less than the pressure on tthe non righ non white non blonde non barbie lookalikes.

Oh well we can all feel very smug and proud of ourselves. And we can feel smug that we never ended up as prostitutes or porn actresses or lap dancers except some of us do end up in that position.

The point isn't that most women don't end up like Paris Hilton, the point is that NO MAN ever will. Until you look at it from that point of view you're going to be stuck blaming women which politically gets us nowhere and is also unfeminist - it is not feminist to blame women who are used by men.

[soopermouse]

"As such, wher exactly IS the pressure on her again?"

Sexism and male oppression. All women in this world suffer from it whatever their other privileges.

yet not all of us end up like that, and the pressure on her is a lot less than the pressure on tthe non righ non white non blonde non barbie lookalikes.

Oh well we can all feel very smug and proud of ourselves. And we can feel smug that we never ended up as prostitutes or porn actresses or lap dancers except some of us do end up in that position.

The point isn't that most women don't end up like Paris Hilton, the point is that NO MAN ever will. Until you look at it from that point of view you're going to be stuck blaming women which politically gets us nowhere and is also unfeminist - it is not feminist to blame women who are used by men.

Delphyne, all women are exploitred by men. However, that is not in any way and excuse to treat them as powerless children and excuse everything that they do because they are exploited by men. This is dehumanizing- How do you expect anyone to treat a woman as a mature responsible person if you don't consider her a mature person yourself?

This is the exact patriarchal view of women, as feeble children that cannot make decisions for themselves and are unaccountable for their own actions. You just changed the reason for it- replaced "women are not smart" with "women are exploited" but the result is the same- you are denying them the responsibility over their own choices.

I would feel bad for Paris Hilton if she was helpless and had been forced to tart herself up. Unfortunately, that does not hold. It is time to accept tat women are human, that we all do make mistakes and are acocuntable for them. Just like real people do.

[delphyne]

This is dehumanizing- How do you expect anyone to treat a woman as a mature responsible person if you don't consider her a mature person yourself?

No it isn't, it's accepting that women are collectively oppressed. To be honest (and I know you aren't one of them) the argument that feminists are "infantalising" women by noticing our oppression is one that usually comes from anti-feminist trolls. I mean what are you saying - that women are oppressed but if they ever actually suffer consequences because of that oppression that that is their own individual fault?

It is pointless singling out women who have succumbed to the machinations of male supremacy, if it isn't them it will be another woman. Bashing Paris Hilton over the head may feel satisfying but where does it get us politically? Because I can't see it taking us anywhere useful except dividing women amongst ourselves. If Paris Hilton was arguing that what she does is feminist and empowering I'd be having big arguments with her but she's not and I'm not going to attack a woman for being used by men. I just won't do it and I don't see why you are either.

If this is all down to Paris Hilton's "individual" "choices" (scare quotes getting out of hand there) why do you think that no man will ever be in her position? Is it because of some innate superiority of character in men or is it because there is actual a system, and a social structure in place that creates the Paris Hiltons of this world? I say the latter and that some women are going to be victims in that system. That's male power in action. Saying that isn't dehumanising to her or any women it's looking at things the way they actually are.

[delphyne]

I would feel bad for Paris Hilton if she was helpless and had been forced to tart herself up. Unfortunately, that does not hold. It is time to accept tat women are human, that we all do make mistakes and are acocuntable for them. Just like real people do.

So you're basically saying that you'd sympathise if she was suffering from class oppression but women who don't, don't deserve our sympathy if they are suffering because of sexism.

[sunnysmiles]

It is Paris Hilton's choice to become famous.
Paris Hilton does not NEED to be famous. Her life is not in danger by not being famous, she will nt lose health benefits or anything else from not being famous.

Sure, Paris Hilton does not need to be famous, she would have already been famous for the sheer fact that she was a hot million dollar baby of famous hoteliers... That fact alone would have drove the media wild and stalking her.

But if you want a "successful" career in singing and acting - you would have to be famous or why bother. I want to be a successful fiction writer (I write sometimes) - I'd hope I would have some sort of fame to help my career. I don't see how Paris Hilton wanting to be an actor/model/singer is any different from my desire to be a successful/famous writer - except that the pressure to look SEXY (as I have explained above in a previous post) is excessive. If I was a good-looking novelist, I'm sure I would get more publicity too - just like Danica Patrick or Anna Kournikova did in their respective fields (who are probably more famous for their looks than talent). Which leads into another point - even if women want to 'excel' at their respective career choices, we are told that we'll excel even more if we look good. This idea proliferates into the mainstream and reinforces beauty standards (glam standards) onto other girls who want to be mathematicians/scientists/lawyers blah blah bla.

Everyone wants to be successful in their careers, however, we all face different types of pressure to do well in them and due to mass communication acting/singing are careers in which we can see overt sexism manifest itself directly on to women's bodies. Whether someone enters these professions for the 'art' or the 'fame', this becomes secondary to what is actually 'appreciated' by the patriarchal public and what the driving message is behind the media companies intent.

edited for shoddy grammar, I know it's still shoddy...

[sam]

if women want to 'excel' at their respective career choices, we are told that we'll excel even more if we look good. This idea proliferates into the mainstream and reinforces beauty standards (glam standards) onto other girls who want to be mathematicians/scientists/lawyers blah blah blah.

Or anti-pornstitution activists like me. When I give talks at local colleges I dress up a little and wear more makeup than I usually do, which is SPF face lotion and tinted lipgloss most days.

Susan B. Anthony was a fan of bloomers but found people coming to hear her speak were distracted by them so she stopped wearing them and adopted a wardrobe of simple black dresses. The message is what matters most, and as a beautiful radical feminist woman in this day and age I play up my good features with makeup when I speak because I absolutely believe my looks matter when I'm presenting the case against men's right to demand sex from women.

We're all trapped in this man-made system doing what we feel we must to survive and maybe even thrive, it just varies by degree for each woman.

This is such a necessary and worthwhile discussion to have so I sincerely hope folks can stay openminded and as polite as can be expected. We're all allies against the real enemies of pimps and tricks here, and who among us hasn't struggled with feelings of anger and disappointment towards women supporting the oppression of other women via pornstitution?

[Army Of Me]

Well I still think Pink was fantastic in her portrayal of the Stupid Girls - she just about covers it all in that video and song. Visually, lyrically, everything.

Yes, PH and her ilk are working within a patriarchal system, but given the nature of this forum, I would have thought that it was a given that taking the piss and asserting a bit of criticism towards PH, means we hate patriarchy. I cannot believe this has turned into a pro-PH-as-victim versus anti-PH-as-victim debate. See? One headline with her proclaiming she is going off sex for one year, and here we all are - talking about her. Sheesh.

We are allowed to take the piss, as we are trying to change the aspirations of other girls, who are trying in vain, and causing themselves a lot of grief, because they don't have PH's money, to emulate her and her lifestyle.

The video - was she really humiliated? I think the opposite - she got the attention she craved. She signed the legal document that permitted release.

And as far as PH wanting a career whether she is already famous or not, at least if she fails, she won't go broke.

[soopermouse]

This is dehumanizing- How do you expect anyone to treat a woman as a mature responsible person if you don't consider her a mature person yourself?

No it isn't, it's accepting that women are collectively oppressed. To be honest (and I know you aren't one of them) the argument that feminists are "infantalising" women by noticing our oppression is one that usually comes from anti-feminist trolls. I mean what are you saying - that women are oppressed but if they ever actually suffer consequences because of that oppression that that is their own individual fault?

It is pointless singling out women who have succumbed to the machinations of male supremacy, if it isn't them it will be another woman. Bashing Paris Hilton over the head may feel satisfying but where does it get us politically? Because I can't see it taking us anywhere useful except dividing women amongst ourselves. If Paris Hilton was arguing that what she does is feminist and empowering I'd be having big arguments with her but she's not and I'm not going to attack a woman for being used by men. I just won't do it and I don't see why you are either.

If this is all down to Paris Hilton's "individual" "choices" (scare quotes getting out of hand there) why do you think that no man will ever be in her position? Is it because of some innate superiority of character in men or is it because there is actual a system, and a social structure in place that creates the Paris Hiltons of this world? I say the latter and that some women are going to be victims in that system. That's male power in action. Saying that isn't dehumanising to her or any women it's looking at things the way they actually are.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I do not want to accuse anyone of infantilizing women for noticing their oppression. My point, which may have not been obvious as I am not a native English speaker, was that there is a line between where oppression ends and where personal responsibility begins.

I believe it is wrong for anyone to sweep all of the women's actions under the oppression carpet,without leaving any room for personal accountability in the process.

As far as Paris Hilton goes, considering that by what I have seen she does not have neither singing nor actin talent, yet she has construed somekind of a career based on her willingness to be naked and promiscuous- does that not mean that she is using sexism to her advantage instead of being oppressed by it?

[delphyne]

Yes, PH and her ilk are working within a patriarchal system, but given the nature of this forum, I would have thought that it was a given that taking the piss and asserting a bit of criticism towards PH, means we hate patriarchy. I cannot believe this has turned into a pro-PH-as-victim versus anti-PH-as-victim.

We are allowed to take the piss, as we are trying to change the aspirations of other girls, who are trying in vain, and causing themselves a lot of grief, because they don't have PH's money, to emulate her and her lifestyle.

See I'd say given the nature of this forum, bashing Paris Hilton or women in her position, would be the last thing I'd be expecting people to do here. Hating the rich white bitch is misogyny writ large. Why don't we hate her father with an equal or greater passion? He's got everything she's got plus a dick.

I was also completely unimpressed with Pink's "Stupid Girls" - first off calling women stupid is sexist because it's one of the biggest stereotypes used against us, secondly I'm unable to see what differentiates Pink with Paris and the rest as she seems to do the makeup/cleavage/hair/appealing to men thing, just like they do. Maybe she's just a little more aggressive when she does it.

[Army Of Me]

Ah I see now.

God almighty, we are not bashing the rich white female for crying out loud - we are bashing what she represents. And I would say that we would bash her dad just the same for god's sake.

What do you suggest is done then, hold her up as a victim as originally suggested? Cuz it's one or the other - victim or good example?

[delphyne]

What does she represent? A woman whose body was used by men to masturbate over? I don't accept your framing that she's either a victim or a good example. She's not a good example but it is pointless to hate her because that is what the patriarchy wants from us. She's there for us to hate.

Alyx from here did a brilliant post about Paris Hilton, maybe her arguments will persuade you better than mine -

"Forget Paris*

I never thought I’d be doing this. Really. The day I go into bat for Paris Hilton is the day Tony Abbott becomes a pro-choice lesbian agitating for women’s rights, I’d think, while hastily cutting sundry tabloid photographs of the hornbag** heiress into confetti.

Well, Tony Abbott may yet have a sex change and hook up with a bolshie babe, ‘cuz my view of Hilton has softened to the point where I don’t believe she deserves much of the faecal matter flung at her.

If there’s one thing that unites feminists and sexists like nothing else, it’s a big-titted Barbie of few brain cells and questionable talent. The adolescent urge to take these women down a peg, either because they refuse to fuck you (sexists) or because they fucking piss you off (feminists) seems as natural as the drooly chin of the proverbial Pavlovian pooch.

For sexists, who’ve refined ripping on women into an artform over centuries, slut-bashing is just one pastime among many, not unlike arse-grabbing, cat-calling or foetus-fetishizing (take your pick). A beautiful imbecile whose leg-splayed antics are available for popular consumption represents the Holy Grail for these Oxygen Thieves. For a sexist, the name ‘Paris Hilton’ functions as a kind of metonymy for the Two Misogynist Truths: 1) Women=Sex, and 2) That women really are shallow, self-absorbed shopaholics who don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

For feminists, the motives are more obscure, more connected to our politics and the way we’re pitted against one another in a sexist society than our crude joking would suggest. Paris Hilton is everything that a feminist (and any girl who’s not a complete masochist or a Martha Stewart) loathes about patriarchy: A spoilt rich white girl who got famous because of her capitalist Daddy and then augmented said fame by spreading her legs and fellating a pornographer. Add to that the fact that she’s materialistic, vain and thicker than two wooden planks, and you can see why Ms. H is the target of much misdirected feminist fury. Hell, the glamorous sexbot’s blemish-free head seems perpetually plastered by a more-Zen-than-Dopey the Dwarf expression. She’s basically the embodiment of everything that’s wrong with dick-dominated society: A collection of sexist clichés poured into skyscraper heels and sporting a hot-pink handbag and weasel-dog. She’s the repository for our scorn, the feminist’s corporeal waste basket.

“At least sexists are consistent,” a dull-witted but perceptive male friend once told me. “They hate all women indiscriminately. Feminists only hate a certain type of woman.” While there’s a lot that’s omitted by these statements, they’re basically true: Women do hate a certain type of woman, and we hate her because it’s a lot easier to hate another woman than it is to hate the system that created her. The woman in question, whether she’s a Surrendered wife or a garden-variety Jezebel, is the one we all point and jeer at, mainly because she’s visible in a way that patriarchy isn’t; she’s tangible, she’s flesh-and-bone, she exists in the physical world to be poked and prodded and mocked ad nauseum. Sexism has no body, no skin and only exists in the abstract for the patriarchs, who have never experienced it and are hence often blind to its very real consequences. What I’m saying is, no-one can point to sexism and laugh the way we can point at Paris Hilton and laugh, because sexism is a thing, not a person. And even as a symbolic system, sexism functions incredibly effectively, because it employs only the image of the oppressed and keeps the oppressors well out of view.

Let me put it this way: When I say the word ‘sexism’, what do you think of? Do you think of hawt Girls-Gone-Wild in handkerchief tube-tops, gymnastically swinging ‘round poles and waving their waxed pussies just inches from men’s faces? Or maybe you think of Doris Day and June Cleaver types, serving Master Hubby’s dinner for him Like A Good Woman Should. Either way, when I say ‘sexism’, what invariably comes to mind are images of women, not men. Men are the main perps of sexism, yet they’re conspicuously absent from its symbolism, making their privilege invisible and putting the spotlight on the very people who benefit least from the exposure: Women. So the Jezebel is hated in the way that her John isn’t, in the same way that the rape victim is named but her rapist isn’t—to protect male privilege. And so it is with Hilton-bashing.

Despite her many crimes against our politics (and against common sense), I believe that we’re really barking up the wrong tree when we blame Hilton for the so-called failure of feminism, or for the Girls Gone Wild fad, or for the fact that another girl gave our boyfriend head, or whatever. Because it’s not Hilton’s fault. Yeah, ok: She lives a life of insane privilege and could probably buy Africa (the continent) if she really wanted to, but even this privilege isn’t enough to insulate her from the barrage of patriarchal messages that seep into our pores like so much Oil of Olay every fucking minute of the day. And, at the end of that day, Paris Hilton is like anyone else: She laughs, cries, loves, hurts and bleeds. She may wipe her arse with silk sheets, but she still shits like the rest of us.

SEXISM is the enemy, not sheilas. Don’t hate the sheilas for following their obedience training and being rewarded for it with a pat on the head and a warm bed to sleep in. Hate the sexism that reduced those girls to patriarchy’s bitches in the first place. And don’t be afraid to hate sexism, girls, ‘cuz you’d better believe that it hates you.

And every time a left-wing male celebrity—Rove McManus from Rove Live, Peter Berner from Backburner, Wil Anderson from The Glass House—smirkingly reveals yet another ‘Bimbo Hilton Exposé’, what they’re actually revealing is their own misogyny. You don’t need to be a Germaine Greer or an Anne Summers to know that Aussie culture is rife with sheila hatred; indeed, it’s this country’s unofficial favourite sport. And it seems, at least to me, that sheila-hatred often occurs when the woman in question ignores the Australian cultural mandate to make herself smaller so that others can feel bigger (the inverse of Tall Poppy Syndrome, TPS, which could also stand for ‘Tiny Penis Syndrome’) and speaks and behaves and does whatever the fuck she feels like doing, without censoring herself for the benefit of male egos. Shameless self-promotion is a crime in the Great South (Waste)Land, and it’s one Hilton is certainly guilty of.

So pervasive is this hatred for Sheilas Who Don’t Give A Shit that it’s gotten to the point where Rove can spend an entire segment of his show joking about what an idiot Hilton is, and then plug Jemma Jameson’s ‘How To Male Love Like A Porn Star’ book in the follow-up segment. Or that Dave Hughes—the retarded co-host of Wil Anderson with the nasal voice on The Glass House—can joke about how Hilton should rent her head out as a storage compartment for circus animals one minute, and then wax poetic over his porno collection (like he does every other episode—original!) the next. Or that Corinne Grant (a female comedienne) and Mia Freedman (former Cosmo editor, current Media Darling) sit beside one another on The Glass House in a revealing episode where Grant is rebuffed when she tries some sexual innuendo on a male guest (who responds flatly, ‘I’d never do YOU’, to much audience laughter), and said guest then proceeds to proposition Freedman because he clearly found Grant’s take-charge attitude too threatening (after rejecting Grant, he promptly turned to Freedman and said, ‘Now I’d totally do YOU.’ Cue more audience laughter. Later on in the show, this same jerkarse joked about how female comedians ‘just weren’t funny’ and should consider stripping instead. The fact that this guy is a comedian himself may explain his arseholery.)

So Freedman—A woman who’s conventionally attractive, quiet and only willing to speak up when it’s to agree with what the guys say—gives Boy Culture a boner, whereas Grant—Who’s not a great beauty, who’s witty, who’s a wisearse woman direct in thought and action—is enough to make the guys resort to ridicule, her very presence enough to induce impotence in Ockerland.


In a not wholly dissimilar way, left-wing guys don’t have many reasons to like Hilton—unlike Kylie Minogue, she doesn’t feign modesty and naiveté. Unlike Missy Higgins, she doesn’t support trendy dude-driven organisations like the ‘People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.’ Unlike Toni Collette, she doesn’t proclaim her hatred of the Bush Administration from the rooftop of her million-dollar penthouse, or threaten to slit her wrists if John Howard wins the next election (gee, a hot woman who mutilates herself—subversive!) And unlike Elle McPherson, she doesn’t crap on about how much she loves a country (Australia) that means bugger all to her.

But don’t think that these guys hate her because she’s selfish and lacks a political consciousness—nup. They just hate her because she doesn’t do the faux-modest, faux-nice, obligatory pandering to their egos (too wrapped up in her own). And of course, because preteen girls love her. And don’t forget, whatever girls like automatically becomes petty, stupid and Lame. For further examples, see ‘Britney Spears.’

Am I saying that Paris Hilton deserves to be pitied? No. Over the tape incident maybe, but in a world where 60% of people don’t even have access to something as basic as a phone line, the last group of people deserving of pity are the ones who can afford to pamper their pooches by sending them to a fucking Health & Beauty Spa for canines. Am I saying that Hilton is a feminist role model? Come on! Am I saying that she deserves even one fourth of the attention accorded to her by the monopolistic Murdoch Media? Is the Pope a posterchild for Women’s Liberation?

What I am saying is that attaching the ‘slut’ moniker to Hilton ultimately does feminists more harm than good. When a feminist mocks the so-called slutitude of another woman, she gives the misogynists a green light to do the same. She is saying that she doesn’t give a fig about how men talk about women, that blokes can boink anything that moves but sheilas can’t, and that some women really do deserve to be hated for what they are—for what patriarchal society expects them to be. And every time a feminist participates in this Eve Excoriation Exercise, she is reinforcing that same name-the-victim-but-not-the-rapist, shame-the-sheila-but-not-the-bloke mentality that encourages us all to burn the witch while the arsehole who engineered the patriarchal pyrotechnics gets off (literally, in the case of the pornstitution industries) scot-free.

Even if the "Slut!" branding of Hilton wasn’t the sexist and damaging beastie that it is, even if it were wonderful and beautiful and stamped with the Gloria Steinem Seal of Approval—it would still be wrong for us to do it, as women who purport to care about other women. ‘Cuz let’s face it: Female celebrities are often—not always, but a good 96% of the time—pathetically incognisant of the way gender politics work, and of the way the world works in general. I’m pretty sure that when Pamela Anderson bought herself a new rack on credit (celebrities have some kind of cosmetic surgery credit system; like, ‘buy one set of implants, get a botox hit free’) that she wasn’t thinking ‘Man, these babies oughta show those ugly feminist bitches what for!’ Alas, she was probably thinking, ‘These new breasts will provide me with the masculine love and attention that Daddy deprived me of in childhood.’ Enter Tommy Lee. And yeah, that’s pathetic of her, but as I said, you can’t blame a gal for following her obedience training.

If there’s any group of women who do deserve our contempt, it’s women like Christie Hefner and Heidi Fleiss and Mary-Anne Kenworthy. These women consciously profit off selling other women up Merde Creek. They are patriarchy’s lackeys and proud of it. They don’t coin idiotic catchphrases like ‘That’s Hot’ or sell their body parts because they sincerely believe it’s empowering and really don’t know otherwise—they sell other women like property to the highest bidder and they do so with full knowledge of the addiction and trauma and cum-rag status that their human merchandise is reduced to. If anyone deserves a roasting, it’s these Miss Capitalist Piggies here.

But even focusing on these women too much lets the boys off the butcher’s chook. Especially when stupidity and not exploitation is the main crime. For every Paris Hilton, how many Russell Crowes are there? What about Keanu Reeves? Or Sean William Scott? Or Tom Green? Or Dave Hughes? Or the entire cast of the aptly-named Jackass ? What about these dick cheeses—guys who hump dead farm animals and consume 5-kilo bags of salt and set each other’s pubes on fire for kicks? Why do we worship them and put them on a pedestal, when we should really be putting them in a strait jacket? Why is it bad to be a bimbo, but good to be a suicidal show pony with ADD and, apparently, a full frontal lobotomy? Compared to these guys, Hilton is Florence Nightingale.

When I hear a feminist call Paris Hilton a slut, a slag, a slapper or a whore, what I’m really hearing is the sentiments expressed by a woman who’s wearing patriarchal blinders. Said blinders are very easy because momentary bitching about a culturally-approved hate-object precludes action—you don’t actually have to do anything, least of all challenge male power. And that’s the way the boys like it. Put the woman on a pedestal and watch her go down on it. And while this doesn’t appeal for women who value our voices for something other than mouthing patriarchal platitudes, it does no good if feminists use those voices to call Britney Spears a whore—a gift for patriarchy, and truly one of its favourite kind of mouth jobs.

*Title of post derived from a crappy 90’s movie written by, directed by and starring Billy Crystal

**Term used on the Australian television show ‘Kath & Kim.’ Apparently, it means, ‘A really hot babe.’"

http://madsheilamusings.blogspot.com/20 ... chive.html

[SaltyC]

The only thing I have to say about Ms Hilton is she's part of this media trend to put the super wealthy on max exposure so we see their personal lives and talk about it in detail.

It is putting a human face on people who are unjustly, grossly wealthy in order to erase some potential class resentment. The idea is, we won't hate the rich is we identify with them.

A basic knowledge of economics will show that the money in their pockets has to be taken away from others. If everyone has more, there's inflation. If it stays the same, either you have a large middle class like there was in the 50's in the US or you have a lot of fabulously wealthy and way way more poor like you have in Brazil. But so long as most people realize this and resent the rich, you don't get the tax cuts and other policies that allow them to get criminally rich.

Most Americans seem happy to watch E! in their trailers and live vicariously off the exploits of their own exploiters.

[delphyne]

The question we should be asking though is why is super-wealth being represented by a woman. Only a tiny minority of the richest people are women, most wealth is held by men, yet somehow she's ended up being the symbol of rich people. It's shades of Marie-Antoinette again.

[Army Of Me]

Again, I and I don't think anyone on here has said PH is a slut. And no one doubts that the male idiots you mention are slimeballs either. We would be the first, way ahead of PH, to call these wankers out.

But there has to be a point where some examples of the damage patriarchy and this misogynistic culture does to women, need to be pointed out - what else can you use?

PH is an example - no one in this forum hates or slags off other women to my knowledge - they are slagging off patriarchy and it's results - you have to have something as an example. We are NOT criticising her in any way shape or form, in the context by which a misogynist ignoramus would. That's outrageous.

Again, what do we do? Keep quiet about the effects of patriarchy on women like PH? Praise her and hold her as an icon? Not say anything? Those seem to be the alternative options - and none work against patriarchy.

Commenting on the unfavourable influence she has on young girls is not saying we think she is a slut. We are not saying she is a horrible person - we are saying she has bought into the system. I am done with trying to make this point.

[SaltyC]

Delphyne, it does erase the feminization of poverty, doesn't it?

Another point it brings up is how much women are required to conspicuously consume. Women with the means to do so spend a huge part of their income on clothes and shoes, cosmetics and of course plastic surgery.

[resisterance]

it's just another way to hide the men behind the curtain.

[delphyne]

"Commenting on the unfavourable influence she has on young girls is not saying we think she is a slut. We are not saying she is a horrible person - we are saying she has bought into the system. I am done with trying to make this point."

ArmyofMe, none of these criticism you and Soopermouse have made of Paris Hilton are feminist criticisms. They are sexist and woman-blaming. Is this what you think of every woman who appears in porn or is it just the ones with the trust funds who get it in the neck? I've spent quite a lot of time arguing with pro-porn feminists that anti-porn feminists don't hate women in porn, but it seems like they might have a point:

"that vacuous mind of hers"

"poor little paris didn't know, her evil ex did it, so, got more attention as such"

"the poor little extremely right girl who made a name for herself by way of sexual promiscuity"

"The video - was she really humiliated? I think the opposite - she got the attention she craved"

I don't agree with *anything* Paris Hilton does, but it really doesn't help to start attacking her. She said she didn't know anything about the tape I believe her. What is the more likely scenario - that her sleazebag boyfriend distributed the tape and made a lot of money out of it or that the cunning manipulative Paris released it because she just *knew* somehow (it had never happened before) that the tape would increase her popularity and her marketability?

[CoolAunt]

What is the more likely scenario - that her sleazebag boyfriend distributed the tape and made a lot of money out of it or that the cunning manipulative Paris released it because she just *knew* somehow (it had never happened before) that the tape would increase her popularity and her marketability?

I think the former except that he did it for spite, not money. No one knew who she was before he distributed the tape so it wouldn't have gotten him much. He would have gotten 100s or even 1000s of times more by using the tape to blackmail PH.