Academics are studying three of the most written about public figures of our age:Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan and Amy Winehouse. These academics are looking for reasons why media swarm around them in their moments of trauma...unlike the way the media reacts to their male counterparts.
One suggestion is that every story about these women is a "cautionary tale". It tells women they can not have a family and a profession.
Another theory is that readers like to see celebrities who "have it all" loose it a bit because it helps them feel better about themselves.
Personally i like the theory that these are cautionary tales. While i can see many male celebrities have similar break downs, i don't see the media fuss over them like they have these women. Women are expected to be able to "hold it together"and when they can't, it only goes to "prove" that women can not lead a "man's life". (there were too may "" in that sentence. forgive me) This in turns put women back into the role of passive observers and obedient buyers.
"Britney's having trouble with the courts again. She can't take care of herself. I can though, and i'll prove it by buying face cream. See i'm caring about how i look. If i were her, i'd never go out looking like that"
We might not go through that exact thought process, but the result is meant to be similar. Tabloids are not about selling stories, but selling advertisements. The stories are there to help guide readers to the products.
But what is your theory? Do you think these are cautionary tales? or are they simply a random coincidence of women's meltdown?
1 comment:
I think it is even simplier than that. Its a, "look at that person, see how bad they are doing. Look at me, I am doing so much better."
Even better if you don't like the person.
Could even have something to do with tall poppy syndrome.
Post a Comment