F%#K yeah Ashely!!

zarocatzarocat Posts: 1,901
edited April 2012 in A Moving Train
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... rance.html

Apr 9, 2012 4:45 AM EDT
Ashley Judd’s 'puffy' appearance sparked a viral media frenzy. But, the actress writes, the conversation is really a misogynistic assault on all women.


The Conversation about women’s bodies exists largely outside of us, while it is also directed at (and marketed to) us, and used to define and control us. The Conversation about women happens everywhere, publicly and privately. We are described and detailed, our faces and bodies analyzed and picked apart, our worth ascertained and ascribed based on the reduction of personhood to simple physical objectification. Our voices, our personhood, our potential, and our accomplishments are regularly minimized and muted.

As an actor and woman who, at times, avails herself of the media, I am painfully aware of the conversation about women’s bodies, and it frequently migrates to my own body. I know this, even though my personal practice is to ignore what is written about me. I do not, for example, read interviews I do with news outlets. I hold that it is none of my business what people think of me. I arrived at this belief after first, when I began working as an actor 18 years ago, reading everything. I evolved into selecting only the “good” pieces to read. Over time, I matured into the understanding that good and bad are equally fanciful interpretations. I do not want to give my power, my self-esteem, or my autonomy, to any person, place, or thing outside myself. I thus abstain from all media about myself. The only thing that matters is how I feel about myself, my personal integrity, and my relationship with my Creator. Of course, it’s wonderful to be held in esteem and fond regard by family, friends, and community, but a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration. And casting one’s lot with the public is dangerous and self-destructive, and I value myself too much to do that.

However, the recent speculation and accusations in March feel different, and my colleagues and friends encouraged me to know what was being said. Consequently, 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.

A brief analysis demonstrates that the following “conclusions” were all made on the exact same day, March 20, about the exact same woman (me), looking the exact same way, based on the exact same television appearance. The following examples are real, and come from a variety of (so-called!) legitimate news outlets (such as HuffPo, MSNBC, etc.), tabloid press, and social media:

One: When I am sick for more than a month and on medication (multiple rounds of steroids), the accusation is that because my face looks puffy, I have “clearly had work done,” with otherwise credible reporters with great bravo “identifying” precisely the procedures I allegedly have had done.

Two: When my skin is nearly flawless, and at age 43, I do not yet have visible wrinkles that can be seen on television, I have had “work done,” with media outlets bolstered by consulting with plastic surgeons I have never met who “conclude” what procedures I have “clearly” had. (Notice that this is a “back-handed compliment,” too—I look so good! It simply cannot possibly be real!)

Three: When my 2012 face looks different than it did when I filmed Double Jeopardy in 1998, I am accused of having “messed up” my face (polite language here, the F word is being used more often), with a passionate lament that “Ashley has lost her familiar beauty audiences loved her for.”

Four: When I have gained weight, going from my usual size two/four to a six/eight after a lazy six months of not exercising, and that weight gain shows in my face and arms, I am a “cow” and a “pig” and I “better watch out” because my husband “is looking for his second wife.” (Did you catch how this one engenders competition and fear between women? How it also suggests that my husband values me based only on my physical appearance? Classic sexism. We won’t even address how extraordinary it is that a size eight would be heckled as “fat.”)

Five: In perhaps the coup de grace, when I am acting in a dramatic scene in Missing—the plot stating I am emotionally distressed and have been awake and on the run for days—viewers remarks ranged from “What the f--k did she do to her face?” to cautionary gloating, “Ladies, look at the work!” Footage from “Missing” obviously dates prior to March, and the remarks about how I look while playing a character powerfully illustrate the contagious and vicious nature of the conversation. The accusations and lies, introduced to the public, now apply to me as a woman across space and time; to me as any woman and to me as every woman.

That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

A case in point is that this conversation was initially promulgated largely by women; a sad and disturbing fact. (That they are professional friends of mine, and know my character and values, is an additional betrayal.)
That the conversation about my face was initially promulgated largely by women is a sad and disturbing fact.
News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this “story” without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It’s an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.

I hope the sharing of my thoughts can generate a new conversation: Why was a puffy face cause for such a conversation in the first place? How, and why, did people participate? If not in the conversation about me, in parallel ones about women in your sphere? What is the gloating about? What is the condemnation about? What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment? How can we as individuals in our private lives make adjustments that support us in shedding unconscious actions, internalized beliefs, and fears about our worthiness, that perpetuate such meanness? What can we do as families, as groups of friends? Is what girls and women can do different from what boys and men can do? What does this have to do with how women are treated in the workplace?

I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women. It doesn’t actually matter if we are aging naturally, or resorting to surgical assistance. We experience brutal criticism. The dialogue is constructed so that our bodies are a source of speculation, ridicule, and invalidation, as if they belong to others—and in my case, to the actual public. (I am also aware that inevitably some will comment that because I am a creative person, I have abdicated my right to a distinction between my public and private selves, an additional, albeit related, track of highly distorted thinking that will have to be addressed at another time).

If this conversation about me is going to be had, I will do my part to insist that it is a feminist one, because it has been misogynistic from the start. Who makes the fantastic leap from being sick, or gaining some weight over the winter, to a conclusion of plastic surgery? Our culture, that’s who. The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation.
1996: Toronto
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    we live off reality tv and processed food ... we are too stupid to change ...
  • Eh. Too long for my attention span. But, Ashley Judd doesn't mind when she's being paid to be on the front cover of magazines or in movies because of her "perfect" shape. So, criticism of said asset is fair game. Sorry. If she doesn't like it, she should give back all her money and fame she's made from it. She didn't have to go into that game. Or, now hide behind the - we're ruining our little girls - argument. She's more of the problem than anyone who "attacked" her. Don't accept the money for your looks, and the issue won't start in the first place.

    The rest of the discussion is specious from there. Yes, we are a shallow society. That's evolution - we've always picked/desired mates either consciously or sub-consciously that we believe will carry on our genes the best. It's human instinct. You can argue others have "evolved" beyond that. I would argue that's unnatural.

    Personally, I've been looking for someone born without an appendix, so I can have a 50/50 shot of my kid not having something he doesn't need (praying that's the dominant gene, or how would that have happened in the first place?). Unfortunately, Cosmo doesn't put pictures of women's appendix sites on the cover. So, I'll just stare at the next "perfect" beauty that will complain later when it starts to fade....
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • zarocatzarocat Posts: 1,901
    Eh. Too long for my attention span. But, Ashley Judd doesn't mind when she's being paid to be on the front cover of magazines or in movies because of her "perfect" shape. So, criticism of said asset is fair game. Sorry. If she doesn't like it, she should give back all her money and fame she's made from it. She didn't have to go into that game. Or, now hide behind the - we're ruining our little girls - argument. She's more of the problem than anyone who "attacked" her. Don't accept the money for your looks, and the issue won't start in the first place.

    The rest of the discussion is specious from there. Yes, we are a shallow society. That's evolution - we've always picked/desired mates either consciously or sub-consciously that we believe will carry on our genes the best. It's human instinct. You can argue others have "evolved" beyond that. I would argue that's unnatural.

    Personally, I've been looking for someone born without an appendix, so I can have a 50/50 shot of my kid not having something he doesn't need (praying that's the dominant gene, or how would that have happened in the first place?). Unfortunately, Cosmo doesn't put pictures of women's appendix sites on the cover. So, I'll just stare at the next "perfect" beauty that will complain later when it starts to fade....

    You're missing the point.

    Information which is false is the context that she is drawing from. She isn't complaining because she is being critiqued.
    1996: Toronto
    1998: Barrie
    2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
    2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
    2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
    2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
    2006: Toronto X2
    2009: Toronto
    2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
    2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
    2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
    2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
    2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
    2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
    2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto
    2023: Chicago X2
    2024: New York X2
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    zarocat wrote:
    You're missing the point.

    Information which is false is the context that she is drawing from. She isn't complaining because she is being critiqued.

    i was gonna respond but he admitted he didn't read it fully ... he just went off on a tirade ... it wasn't worth it ...
  • polaris_x wrote:

    i was gonna respond but he admitted he didn't read it fully ... he just went off on a tirade ... it wasn't worth it ...


    I did go back. All I will say is :roll: . Yeah. That's what she where she was really coming from. What has she done lately? Oh, yeah. Her favorite basketball team won the National Championship. :roll:
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    I did go back. All I will say is :roll: . Yeah. That's what she where she was really coming from. What has she done lately? Oh, yeah. Her favorite basketball team won the National Championship. :roll:

    haha ... again ... you are taking some personal dislike for either her or something about her and focusing on things that have no relevance ... she could be the queen of england or some girl working the counter of a starbucks ... her point is valid ... it's just too bad you aren't interesting in listening to it ... which in a way proves her point ...
  • polaris_x wrote:

    haha ... again ... you are taking some personal dislike for either her or something about her and focusing on things that have no relevance ... she could be the queen of england or some girl working the counter of a starbucks ... her point is valid ... it's just too bad you aren't interesting in listening to it ... which in a way proves her point ...

    Actually, I like Asley Judd. I like everything about her. I find her motive to be suspect like so many before her. So, try again.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Actually, I like Asley Judd. I like everything about her. I find her motive to be suspect like so many before her. So, try again.

    :lol:

    ok ... i give up :?
  • polaris_x wrote:

    :lol:

    ok ... i give up :?


    I didn't see her saying this 5 or 10 years ago when she was making money off of her looks. So, in a lot of ways, folks like yourself should be appalled at this. She only "discovers" this when she has the most to gain from it. So, in a round about way, she's once again profiting off her looks.....

    It's so silly. I actually admire Megan Fox more - at least she was honest in saying she wouldn't want to live the life of an ugly chick. I'm sure folks wrote her off as a shallow person. Quite frankly, what she said was true, and more refreshing than this drivel.

    And before we go on about - look what it's doing to our daughters - how 'bout doing a little parenting? I don't need a starlet (or star) to raise my kids. My son likes Leonel Messi, but he's not quitting school at 14 to go to a soccer academy.....

    Does that help?
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    I didn't see her saying this 5 or 10 years ago when she was making money off of her looks. So, in a lot of ways, folks like yourself should be appalled at this. She only "discovers" this when she has the most to gain from it. So, in a round about way, she's once again profiting off her looks.....

    It's so silly. I actually admire Megan Fox more - at least she was honest in saying she wouldn't want to live the life of an ugly chick. I'm sure folks wrote her off as a shallow person. Quite frankly, what she said was true, and more refreshing than this drivel.

    And before we go on about - look what it's doing to our daughters - how 'bout doing a little parenting? I don't need a starlet (or star) to raise my kids. My son likes Leonel Messi, but he's not quitting school at 14 to go to a soccer academy.....

    Does that help?

    not even close ...
  • polaris_x wrote:
    not even close ...

    Fair enough. Get back to me if Puffy Face gets another job without reducing her puffy face. :lol:
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,160
    This is the way media is now. Entertainment stars have it the worse. Sports media has devolved into a TMZ-like funnel as well. And even main-stream media has fallen prey to the "report now, ask questions later" mode.

    I do agree with E that Ashley was able to achieve more with her looks early on in her career and probably wasn't as vocal about things like this. She has to know this, especially being in Hollywood.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • puremagicpuremagic Posts: 1,907
    I can respect the point she’s making, however, not the reason why? You don’t get a ‘free rant’ just because it happened to you – when you freely admit you do the same thing. Pick better friends!
    SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
  • whygohomewhygohome Posts: 2,305
    Jason P wrote:
    This is the way media is now. Entertainment stars have it the worse. Sports media has devolved into a TMZ-like funnel as well. And even main-stream media has fallen prey to the "report now, ask questions later" mode.

    .

    As long as their is an audience........

    We all hate Creed, I assume. Creed still had an audience though.
Sign In or Register to comment.