Reviewing Trash So You Don't Have to
I am asking my readers not to get angry, but I picked up this week's Star magazine to read about the "Baby Battle's" of the celebrities. I know that I should not be reading this trash but I am only doing so to keep the thinkers of the internet (my readers) up to date on current events in the world of trashy tabloids. Why is this important from a psychological standpoint? Because it shows us how celebrites manipulate the MSM (and vice versa) by using victimhood to get more publicity for their wilting careers--and we fall for it.
Case in point. I discussed Terri Hatcher revealing to the media that she had been sexually abused as a child in a post entitled, "Is this Really Breaking News?" This week's Star has a section called "In & Out" that mentions that the new "In" is Terri Hatcher as the cover girl of Vanity Fair's April issue. The "Out" is Sheryl Crow, Lance Armstrong and Natalie Portman as VF covers--Teri replaced them after revealing she had been sexually molested as a child. In the Vanity Fair article, Ms. Hatcher brings up her sexual abuse:
Well, if you really cared about being the altruistic helper you portray yourself as, you could have waited until Natalie Portman had her chance at the cover of Vanity Fair before you pushed her aside with your tale of woe. When we allow celebrities to use their status as a victim to sell books (Ann Heche), make the cover of magazines or gather other goodies, we cheapen the experience of other victims of abuse and reinforce the idea that victimhood pays--big time.
Case in point. I discussed Terri Hatcher revealing to the media that she had been sexually abused as a child in a post entitled, "Is this Really Breaking News?" This week's Star has a section called "In & Out" that mentions that the new "In" is Terri Hatcher as the cover girl of Vanity Fair's April issue. The "Out" is Sheryl Crow, Lance Armstrong and Natalie Portman as VF covers--Teri replaced them after revealing she had been sexually molested as a child. In the Vanity Fair article, Ms. Hatcher brings up her sexual abuse:
"I didn't intend to talk about this with you," she tells Vanity Fair contributing editor Leslie Bennetts, "but it is something that's been surfacing with me for the past three years. This is something I've tried to hide my whole life."
Hatcher tells Bennetts that, in 2002, when she learned that her uncle was arrested, she hesitated going public with her story of sex abuse, fearing that cynics might accuse her of using it to get attention and resuscitate an expiring career. But Hatcher found herself tormented by the thought of Sarah Van Cleemput, the young girl who had shot herself, and she was wracked with anxiety over whether Stone would be convicted. "I kept thinking, If she'd known me, especially me being famous, if I could have said to her, 'Look, it happened to me!,' if I could just have said to her, 'You're going to be O.K.'—I kept thinking, What do I do with this information I have that no one else has?"
Well, if you really cared about being the altruistic helper you portray yourself as, you could have waited until Natalie Portman had her chance at the cover of Vanity Fair before you pushed her aside with your tale of woe. When we allow celebrities to use their status as a victim to sell books (Ann Heche), make the cover of magazines or gather other goodies, we cheapen the experience of other victims of abuse and reinforce the idea that victimhood pays--big time.
posted by Helen at 2:40 PM
30 Comments:
First People magazine and now the Star?
Failing a good scandal, the mindless mob loves a sob story. There is injustice and tragedy everywhere, the question is what are these people doing about it besides using it to feed their narcisistic tendencies? What are the odds of Hatcher going on a speaking tour to shelters nationwide? Eh?
I'm with the others, Helen, stop reading this drivel and give us something real to think about.
JD
Women's magazines forever search for tales about women being victims; e.g.
http://www.harrysnews.com/tgSpinSistersSellMisery.htm
Indeed, stories about some kind of 'abuse' are one the most preferred genres when it comes to women's fantasies.
I appreciate Dr. Helen reading this so I don't have to. And I think it's important, even if it's drivel.
Anne Heche's book is at Amazon.com Sales Rank: #526,526 in Books.
From the Editorial Reviews: "Read this book to know it's possible to grow up sane, compassionate and creative in a crazy, cruel, dictatorial world -- providing you have guides like Anne Heche." Perhaps she is not talking about society, but I hate it when liberals through words around lightly like "dictatorial."
Dave said,
"Seems to me you have bought into the celebrity culture hook line and sinker?
Why not just ignore and it and go on with your life?"
Why be rude to Dr Helen? She is merely addressing a rather important issue concerning the way in which people manage to sell themselves through claiming to have been abused in some way. Further, given that this phenomenon is something with which the mainstream media seem fairly obsessed, I would have thought this was a rather important topic.
As for this remark, "stop reading this drivel and give us something real to think about" - I would suggest that this is a very serious issue well worth thinking about given the enormous negative effects that this unhealthy focus on 'abuse' has on people.
Finally, this particular issue is highly germaine to most of the other issues that Dr Helen addresses.
Dave: If you cannot see the rudeness in your post, I can't help you.
Dave,
I am posting about this topic because it ties into the other post on victimhood that I wrote about previously. Teri Hatcher is rewarded by our society for playing the victim and talking about her sexual abuse. This encourages other people to use victimhood as a lifestyle. This is what I find distasteful.
I am simply using the "Star" as a vehicle for examining the tendency to reward victimhood (as it points out how it is "in" to be a celebrity who has been sexually abused). I could ignore it but the issue of using victimhood as an attention getter to gain goodies is a problem in our society. That is why I am addressing the issue--I do not buy into celebrity culture--quite the contrary--I am pointing out how the celebrity culture of celebrating victimhood by splashing celebs on the front of magazines for being a victim is not a good role model for any of us. If rewarding victimhood affects the culture and thus, our schools, kids, and our psychological way of viewing the world, I think that it is important to discuss. You may feel differently and believe that people in our country are not affected by what they read or see in these magazines or in the culture. That is your right.
If I may, Dr Helen, I would like Dave to read this, ...
http://tinyurl.com/h4nxo
... so that he might see just how truly poisonous is the victim culture and the hysteria that it generates.
Hello Bert
You said, "I think most of us watch them not because we admire or feel sorry for them, but because we are amused by the show they put on."
I wish that this was true, and that the public merely viewed them in the way that you suggest. But you are underestimating by orders of magnitude the scale of the negative impact that this abuse hysteria is having on western societies. As just one example, men increasingly have to prove their innocence when it comes to allegations of criminal 'abuse'. You also seem to remain blissfully unaware of just how well-funded and well-orchestrated are the attempts by media and academic feminists to raise continually the hysteria over matters to do with 'abuse'.
There are whole industries out there that make a good living out of this hysteria.
Wait. I don't understand.
Hatcher should have kept her mouth shut about being sexually abused as a child so that Natalie Portman could get the Vanity Fair cover? Perhaps you're being ironic. It's hard for me to pick that up sometimes.
And you were definitely being ironic about your original intent for picking up the Star, right?
Even still, assuming all irony, aren't you still falling into the manipulative trap you seem to believe the celebrities and the MSM are setting for us by purchasing such banal material?
Barb O,
I actually like the National Enquirer best as it does a good job of making fun of some of the celebrity causes and makes important points such as how anti-American some of the celebrities are so they have their place. I believe some of their reporting before I do the NYT etc.
I started reading the Star and National Enquirer etc. when I became sick and tired of dealing with serious matters all of the time and wanted some light entertainment. But on a larger scale, I think it is important to understand how the media that is consumed by mainstream America shapes the way that people think about issues. It all plays a significant role and to downplay it as drivel etc. is to miss the point entirely of the impact that such entertainment shows and media such as Oprah, etc. have on our society--one area being the focus on sexual abuse as a way of gaining sympathy and status (and magazine covers). The more emphasis on sexual abuse and women, the more draconian laws we put in place for those who are even suspected of looking at someone the wrong way.
Seems to me I remember a congresswoman who got a lot of attention when she brain-dumped her childhood abuse at a hearing. Sheesh, what a cheap way to get attention. I'm running for legislative office and I have made a vow to myself NEVER to go the personal-confessional route on the stump. It's just too easy, too tempting, and so pervasive in our Oprah-infused culture to pull this stunt just because you need some publicity or some "different" message.
Helen says...
I am posting about this topic because it ties into the other post on victimhood that I wrote about previously. Teri Hatcher is rewarded by our society for playing the victim and talking about her sexual abuse. This encourages other people to use victimhood as a lifestyle. This is what I find distasteful.
I honestly don't see how -- at least in this case -- the dots connect up. Do you have direct evidence/knowledge that her story was nothing more than a publicity stunt? Or, are you merely assuming it was?
If the former then I think you are quite correct in your criticism, but if the latter I think you are being unfair. I say that because the latter implies you are using a definition where most anyone whose stories of sexual abuse et al get published is using "victimhood" to get ahead. Is that by definition always the case? Is it not possible that someone might be motivated by a sincere desire to help others? And, can't one accuse someone of using their "vicitmization" to hijack the spotlight from someone else regardless of when their story gets published?
Let me be clear -- I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm just not seeing compelling evidence that you right.
This from the chick in the "Death, Been there done tha shirt". You're a hack.
JN
Barbo, you gleaned all this from a single typo-ridden sentence? You are a perfect fit for this blog of made up bs.
JN
there is a using mentality a feeling of look at me, which when done out of an altruistic motive is good, but when its done out of a self publicising angle, then thats bad.
it all depends on the personality, and in the situation (btw i am glad dr helen said this as since i live in the UK we dont get the same news as there so good on you dr helen).
where does the self publication begin and the altruistic motive end, we cant say unless we know more about the people involved. if teri hatcher had no job and used this to put her face into the public awareness then that would be wrong, many other actors seem to do this, they have a slump then they have a revelation, a story etc.. or they joined a new religion or whatever.
Barbo, you have issues. I point out the hypocrisy of this post and you want to make me out to be some sort of disconnected elitist based on nothing. Says a lot about you.
JN
Here's my problem with the Teri Hatcher story in Vanity Fair...
First I have to say I have not read the story and probably won't as I won't shell out money for VF.
That being said - from the one news article I've seen about it - describing how she got involved in the Sarah Van Cleemput case - my immediate reaction was - it was good of her to come forward and give her statement so the creep could be put away. I could wish she had done something like this before Sarah died... but I don't know how difficult that would have been legally.
However, this interview was calculated to draw attention to her victim status. There was no compelling reason for her to talk about this in VF. And the cover shot seems rather creepy in light of the revelations in the story. (I've seen it at checkout counters)
I would have had far more respect for her if she had put that topic off limits for the interview and let Natalie Portman get a cover shot in... then again I'm not narcissistic enough to be a Hollywood star.
She could have come out about this earlier, when she wasn't getting any work, but she waited until she was back on top, with a hit show, so that people wouldn't think she was being opportunistic.
I'm not entirely sure that this is super-important, but I think it's worth noting, since we are accusing her of exploiting her abuse for personal gain.
The idea that Teri Hatcher wanted to give the public this story for anything other than her **own** benefit seems unlikely - to say the least. And I doubt that either she or her agent are unaware of how much mileage can be gained by being a 'victim' these days. The feminists, the women's groups and the victim-loving media will adore her, and I am sure that she will be invited all over the place to pontificate about all sorts of issues associated with her victimhood.
Was it not Woody allen who said that, these days, if one is taken as a hostage by a criminal gang then the media will thereafter see you as an exepert on everything from economics to foreign policy?
I think that Teri Hatcher knows the score when it comes to furthering her publicity quotient.
Christ almighty. Nobody here seems to doubt the validity of Hatcher's accusations. She was molested as a child by her uncle, people. Sure, she could have kept this horrible bit of information to herself. I certainly would have. But you sure are jumping to alot of conclusions about her motivations. And this all seems in awfully poor taste, considering the nature of what happened to her.
Some people have difficulties in their lives (you know, like heart attacks for instance) and they want to talk about it alot. You know, always making references to it, going on TV to talk about it, wearing t-shirts announcing the experience to anyone with vision. Sure, it's most likely a pathetic ploy for attention and sympathy. But not necessarily.
While nothing requires you to actually feel any sympathy for such people, I think turning on the offensive is unbelievably rude. Oh... wait...
And once again, I ask: You feel bad for Natalie Portman because she didn't get her little picture on the cover but you don't feel anything for Hatcher?
And once again, I ask: Why would you criticize the "MSM" and the celebrities for selling this crap (victimization chic) when you're buying it??? That's why they sell it--because so many Americans, (like yourself) fall for it. You are supporting the very behavior you criticize.
Physician, heal thyself!
anonymous 1.54, are you saying that famous people never do anything out of any other motive that altruism.
there is a point where altruism, becomes self publicity. the cynicism in me says 75% of these actors use this type of thing to publicise their new job, new baby, new whatever. look at tom cruise on oprah, he publicised scientology when he spoke about his marriage plans. the words "i was a victim" have become synonymous with look at me, this is the fault of those in the public eye using it to publicise themselves.
they damn all the true altruistic ones, with the same brush. like all the false rape allegations, they cause a more cynical beleif in everyday populations towards real victims of rape.
victim hood sells. and who would be surprised that the press in selling papers or tv shows or films, would us such a thing.
Hi, I live in the UK and there is a nice little publication here (a paper product) called "The Week". It is a summary/analysis of all the week's happenings in the world -- news, books, plays, financial etc.
It carries this one little column called "It must be true, I read it in the tabloids". The editors post there the most outrageous quotes from the world's media. Maybe you could try something like that on your blog!
This is a long-winded way of saying "don't believe anything you read in these magazines (and some newspapers)". As you imply in your original post, Dr Helen, subjects of interviews make things up, or interviewers make things up, or both, for a gullible audience. I think it's best just not to believe any of it and read an improving book instead ;-)
(or label it "fun but fiction" as does the Week.)
all best
Maxine.
What does this revelation of abuse get her directly, except more publicity? That is to say, how is being a "victim" going to get her any more actual work? (As opposed to gossip column inches.)
Women Ms. Hatcher's age (don't get me started) often have a tough time finding roles that are worth playing. Scripts don't magically appear overnight that are worth performing in. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt regarding her own motives, because all this revelation qualifies her for are Lifetime victim-of-the-week movies, which aren't exactly on actresses' shortlists as hot career builders.
Publicity for its own sake may augment fame, but it doesn't ensure any more tangible benefit.
Given that we now know that there has been something of an orchestrated conspiracy by feminist media women for three decades to highlight as much as possible issues of 'abuse' against women - wherever they can find it - I think that Ms Hatcher, her agent, and her publishers are fully aware of the publicity benefits of claiming to be a victim.
And the very idea that these professionals are unaware of such benefits is risible.
...While the doctor raises a good point about "victimhood" being used these days for all kinds of purposes, one must remember that more often than not the victims are real. The little girl that lead Teri Hatcher to tell her story was my little sister. Her suffering was real. Thanks to Ms. Hatcher her abuser is in jail. While one can debate Ms. Hatcher's antics as much as one wants, the fact of the matter is that thanks to her one more dispicable monster is in jail. And that's all that matters to me.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
sex520免費影片一夜情視訊s383視訊 a片85cc免費影片歐美免費影片77p2p影片網youtube影片sex888影片分享區成人影片影片土豆網影片終極三國影片小魔女免費影片UT視訊美女交友a片免費下載守護甜心影片楓之谷影片sex999免費影片youtube影片下載色情影片一葉晴貼影片區性感影片
Post a Comment
<< Home