I have to call bullshit on Ashley Judd’s Daily Beast article which is getting Go Grrl gold stars all across the web’s fruited plain.
Credit: Gary Gershoff/WireImage.com; George Pimentel/WireImage.com
To summarize the article, Ashley Judd became incensed when US Magazine speculated that a picture of her with a Puffy Face – not to be confused with the shirt of a similar name worn by Jerry Seinfeld – was not due to any swelling from plastic surgery or Botox injections. Judd’s reps stated that she had been taking medication to combat a sinus infection and the flu. So Judd took to the Daily Beast to write a long piece about misogyny and patriarchy and all of that. She wrote:
I choose to address it because the conversation was pointedly nasty, gendered, and misogynistic and embodies what all girls and women in our culture, to a greater or lesser degree, endure every day, in ways both outrageous and subtle. The assault on our body image, the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.
This type of argument has always seemed so frail to me. I’d love to see a 21 year-old hottie du jour wax feministic about lookism and objectification. But they don’t. It’s only when actresses and celebrities enter the Dame Judy Dench side of their careers that they ever become so hostile against what they’d seemingly always accepted as an Iron Law of their business: sex sells.
Judd’s rep told US Magazine:
“There is zero sign of plastic surgery, puffiness, fillers, etc., that has become a silly and erroneous topic of conversation. Ashley is a natural beauty enjoying her 40′s gracefully,” Tripicchio added.
So we see that the point that Judd and her staff are trying to make isn’t that objectification and superficiality are patriarchal, misogynistic, and heinous; it’s that Ashley Judd is still beautiful.
For Judd or her rep to make the case against misogyny or objectification, they’d have to argue that it doesn’t matter what type of beauty Ashley is. If they wanted to make a legitimate case against such a system they’d reject the notion that physical beauty is in any way an important quality in Ashley Judd or in Hollywood or in something as fundamental to humanity as mate selection.
But beauty has always been important for Ashley Judd. Her bread has been buttered on the back of beauty. So the first crack – the first shot across the bow – and she lashes out against the notion that people place a premium on beauty? If it’s not for beauty and, yes, objectification of some sort (I think Ashley Judd was objectified for her classically beautiful face more than seething sex appeal; but same concept here), people wouldn’t be drawn to movies. Men and women alike favor attractive people in various occupations; silver screen actors are surely right at the very top of that list. So the nature of that business values beauty and attractiveness. That is the focal point. Thus, magazines place a lot of focus and scrutiny on it.
Like this:
Like Loading...
For a woman who’s hitting the hill, she’s got the genetics to keep that good face. As long as she keeps the weight off she’ll do fine. Her main problem is being a rabid femnazi.
Ashley needs to go fuck herself. People get old and their appearances decline; end of story. Patrairchy is the reason we wound up in a gynaecocentric culture you stupid cunt. Puffy face? This is what a feminist looks like!
Pingback: Ashley Judd the Hypocrite | I'm a Man! I'm 41!
She may be on the rag. Father Time with take care of that problem soon.
While Ashley Judd seems orders of magnitude more sane than her mother or sister, hey, genetics are still at work. These three women are so self-aborbed if they were paper towels, they could wipe up a water heater burst with a single sheet apiece.
“her bread has been buttered by beauty.” …………that’s inspired writing.
Her bread was also buttered by publicity, and now she asks for privacy.
I rankle when she writes for “all girls and women in our culture experience every day”
. Ms. Judd, you and I have experienced widely disparate appearances, so stop being my spokeswoman.
Here’s where I agree with her:
1) She points out ” no presumption of good will” . Puffy face = “she’s had work done” , rather than “Is she on prednisone”?
2) She writes, “Patriarchy is not men.” She states women objectify women.
Ms. Judd writes better than her publicist speaks.
Who give a flying fig about Ashley Judd. Her latest mini-series is such a crock as well, but then so is that Bourne Identity crap as well.
What’s funny about it is that the women who complain about objectification are often quick to throw out code purple shaming language toward any man who upsets them in any way (“you’re bitter because you’re a loser who can’t get laid”, etc.). So apparently it’s okay for women to judge and objectify men based on their attractiveness to the opposite sex, but when men do the same it is patriarchal oppression.
^^ Should be “when men do the same to women…”, of course.
I’ve always thought that feminists trying to make a moral issue out of the basic nature of males’ sexual attraction to females particularly on first impression by calling it “objectification” was utter nonsense. Yeah we’re attracted by the visual, in particular young, 0.7 or lower waist to hips ratio, symmetrical and healthy looking beauty. We have individual preferences particularly at the higher levels of beauty but also a whole lot of commonality in what men find most attractive. Trying to shame that by calling it “objectifying” women is just absurd. Men are different from women, and no that’s not mostly a social construct.
I think it’s a good strategy. If she puts up enough of a stink, she can stay in the limelight and extend her career, playing those empty nest and autumn romance roles. She just needs to spout a few feminist platitudes now and then to make people believe she’s a thoughtful, benevolent celebrity
and the fans will keep watching her movies.
“I’ve always thought that feminists trying to make a moral issue out of the basic nature of males’ sexual attraction to females particularly on first impression by calling it “objectification” was utter nonsense.”
Yep. It’s not really “patriarchy” that feminists hate, it’s maleness itself.
It’s an obvious truism that most feminist railing against beauty and standards is mostly about the fact that they don’t measure up or no longer measure up. In their primes, few women complain about the fantastic power this gives them over men and other women.
It’s a sign of the narcissism inherent in most interpretations of modern feminism. ME ME ME ME.
Agreed with doug1111 above. Objectification is a nonsense word. What feminist bullshit artists refer to as objectification is indistinguishable from normal male sex drive.
US Magazine is written by women for women. So, it’s not misogeny, it’s self-hatred.
Doug1111, Reym,
Feminists invented the word objectification when it should be sexualization. Men don’t see women as sexual “objects”, they see them as sexual “beings”. We need to start fighting back against this demonization of male sexuality with better language.
Pingback: Notes from Madrid « Rivelino in Spain
great post and comments. ashley’s essay is not just bullshit though, it’s actually dangerous. she doesn’t just complain about male objectification, she does a nice job of making EVERYTHING “misogynistic”, all attitudes and behaviors among normal men and women. it’s really fucked up. i need to write about this more.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of April 15, 2012