babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Paris Hilton -- Anti-Feminist, or Counter-Feminist?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Paris Hilton -- Anti-Feminist, or Counter-Feminist?
Patrick Ross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12756

posted 18 June 2006 06:15 PM      Profile for Patrick Ross   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a question that has probably been asked here multiple times before. BUT:

Should Paris Hilton and her like, in your opinion be considered anti-feminist (rejecting feminist ideals and portraying a shallow image) or counter-feminist (portraying their shallow image as an ideal in order to supplant feminism)?

I've read all kinds of garbage about Paris Hilton allegedly being a feminist, and it just amuses me.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 18 June 2006 08:28 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To me, feminism is an end to sexual oppression- this means anti-racist, support equal opportunity, rights like voting, and a radical change in social norms.

What Paris Hilton benefits from is her appearance, her use of her sexuality, class, and fame. She also seems to like to hook up with rich men, and get engaged to them. I don't think this is really a fair basis to judge her on as it is just what is portrayed though the media, butit's the info I've got.
Given my brief definition of feminsm is, and what I know about Paris Hilton, I don't think that she is really anti-feminist herself ( i.e saty at home barefoot and preganant conservative), but I do think that she seems to follow a false route to empowerment, and that the ideal she projects reinforces oppression.
I say she follows a false route to empowerment, because it seems to be one of getting power by those age old tools women have oft used sex, looks, and money. The first two may give one temporary power through men, but make one dependent on them, and probably reinforce the idea that they are the most important things a woman has. The use of them to get money- well the effect is more or less the same. Money can't buy evereything as the refrain goes.
Due to these the example she sets for other wome isn't so great. She does seem to be independent in spirit, and has no problem with her own sexuality- these are good things. However as I say the way she uses them isn't exactly inspiring, and sets a bad example for younger women. She has all this fame, newsworthiness, and fits a certain type of beatuy ideal and directly benefits from it- this is how she reinforces oppression.
I guess in the end my answer is more yes she's bad than no she isn't, but that's that.

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 18 June 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bargain-counter feminist.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maidenhead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12721

posted 19 June 2006 08:57 AM      Profile for maidenhead        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anti-feminist.

She's part of the girls-gone-wild set that is doing nothing to advance women, their rights, or any of their progressive causes.

Since when did being a media-wanting-heiress-check-out-my-booty-no-talent-ahem-cebrity with nothing but a large bank account from daddy to support the level of attention she gets become representative of 'feminism'?

Paris Hilton advances no other cause than her own celebrity...and surely her 15 minutes are up?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 19 June 2006 09:30 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[Thread Drift]

The irony is that she's not even particularly good-looking. She just looks like she's easy. Personally I don't understand why she gets all the attention she does... a lot of people have had leaked porno films.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 19 June 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
500_Apples, could you please explain to me what your post has to do with feminism? What judging someone by her looks has to do with feminism? What writing "She just looks like she's easy" has to do with feminism?
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 19 June 2006 09:54 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps it would be more related to feminism if I had gone into deeper details?

The thread is about trying to relate her fame to a specific clas of feminism or anti-feminism, and I basically explicitly pointing out just how shallow the foundations of her fame really are. Perhaps you would have preffered my post if I had followed it with the words "I believe the answer to the question in the thread title, as such, to be a 'no.'"

quote:
What writing "She just looks like she's easy" has to do with feminism?

That's pretty offensive language I used, at least when referring to most people, which is why most of us don't use it for most people. But in the case of the individual in question, that's specifically the image she seeks to project and as such the comment reduces to plain description rather than chauvinistic condescension. Or at least I think it does. I admit I could have written, "she conciously chooses to behave in such a way so as to give off the impression that she's easy."

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 19 June 2006 10:12 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And what's wrong with being "easy"? And with being open about being "easy"? What's wrong with a woman being clear that she enjoys sex?

This thread is in the feminism forum. Posts to it should be from a pro-feminist POV. Saying that a woman isn't really that good looking, and only looks like she's into having sex does not indicate an obvious pro-feminist POV.

Belittling a woman because she's not beautiful (according to you) and seems to be comfortable with her sexuality doesn't seem to be in line with women's liberation.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 19 June 2006 10:45 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Paris Hilton: Irrevelant or Inconsequential?

[Note that this is not meant to discount what writer, er, wrote above.]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
maidenhead
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12721

posted 19 June 2006 10:46 AM      Profile for maidenhead        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Patrick - that's a hard one!
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
JaneyCanuck
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12682

posted 19 June 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for JaneyCanuck     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not tough at all - Paris can hardly be called a feminist!! Give me a break!!!
From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 19 June 2006 01:50 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
like I said in my initial post, she has nil problems with her sexuality, and this is a good thing. The word whore or the "easy" expressions that have been used to oppress women, to reduce them to their bodies ( as I have said in other posts, woman is body in our culture, not brains). Ever noticed how the word whore only seems to apply to women, and the word player seems to apply to men, the later with connotations of dominating masculinity, sexual prowess , etc ? If people like sex, they should just do it ( with condoms of course) as much as they please as consenting adults. Sex is natural, after all. In the end, to me there's no such thing as a whore, just people with varying levels of sexual activity. People shouldn't have to put others down, create inferior groups in our society just to define themselves- this is what sexism is after all.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 19 June 2006 02:19 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
And what's wrong with being "easy"? And with being open about being "easy"? What's wrong with a woman being clear that she enjoys sex?

This thread is in the feminism forum. Posts to it should be from a pro-feminist POV. Saying that a woman isn't really that good looking, and only looks like she's into having sex does not indicate an obvious pro-feminist POV.

Belittling a woman because she's not beautiful (according to you) and seems to be comfortable with her sexuality doesn't seem to be in line with women's liberation.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


I don't think it's necessarily about whether PH is personally comfortable with her sexuality or not.

Paris Hilton (TM) is not a real person. She is a media construction, employing certain devices and stereotypes in that construction. Part of what makes her, as a media construction, interesting is her use of the "easy" stereotype, and the idea or convention that the "rules" that apply to most women (patriarchal or feminist) do not apply to the very rich.

What PH actually thinks or feels is something completely other from the public persona. I don't think we ever get a true glimpse (or maybe we do on rare occasions) but it's not relevant to PH the industry.

So. I don't know if PH is a feminist. Hard to say. The public persona is not, I wouldn't think, but one could make an argument either way.

[ 19 June 2006: Message edited by: Timebandit ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Ross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12756

posted 20 June 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for Patrick Ross   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maidenhead:
Patrick - that's a hard one!

Come on. We all know it isn't.

My view on Paris Hilton, just for the sake of posterity:

http://www.gateway.ualberta.ca/view.php?aid=5508

Just for the record, the article contains an unfortunate factual error. Apparently, El Tigre is NOT collaborating with Paris Hilton on her album, although this was reported by www.MTV.com
For me, just another reason to say "fuck MTV!".


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 20 June 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
like I said in my initial post, she has nil problems with her sexuality, and this is a good thing.

I'm not sure we can actually reach that conclusion. She has been willing(or those who are making the decisions about her future on her behalf have been willing)to allow an image of what her sexuality MAY or MAY NOT be like to be marketed. It is not clear, however, that this means that she is comfortable with her sexuality or even, for that matter, a particularly sexual being.

We have no way of knowing what her actual sexual feelings are, or whether she enjoys sex in any form. What we know is how she has been willing to be photographed(and, also, unfortunately, how someone who she used to trust saw her sexuality when he covertly videotaped it.)

If Paris is anything, she is entirely a creature of advertising. Feminism or anti-feminism are beside the point. What matters, in this case, is how she can be sold, not how she feels about the status of women in society or even how she sees herself as a woman.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Ross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12756

posted 21 June 2006 07:04 PM      Profile for Patrick Ross   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would disagree, and would daresay that the way she is selling herself, and the way she is allowing herself to be promoted as an "ideal", she is, in fact, making a very profound (if disturbing) statement on how she feels about herself as a woman, and about the role of women in society.

Furthermore, I believe I can describe her feelings about her sexuality fairly simply: she isn't sleeping with any of these guys she's with because she likes them, she's doing it because it's fashionable. I have my doubts as to whether or not Paris Hilton could even begin to comprehend passion, or love.
But I do find that this "ideal" has been picked up, and is being spread by our media. Just look at the sudden popularity of Jessica Simpson, for example. I don't think I need to say much more than that.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 21 June 2006 07:56 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I watched her movie, (the one where she fucks her boyfriend) and I don't really think she has a clue about much, based on that.

Seemed to me that she was pretty clued out and high, and that boyfriend of hers (no Eienstein either) had her wrapped around his finger, and if someone is so clueless as to fall for someone as clueless as that you are really dipping into the nether world where stupidity meets evil.

At best it seemed she was letting herself be conned into to thinking that being dirty on camera was some kind of rebelious psychological atrocity she wanted to inflict on her family, and the only thing I can really think about that is that if someone is so intent to allow themselves to be duped into a wierd coke and sex, personal humiliation, revenge trip against her parents (and society as a whole I guess, which is probably what you are getting at) one really has to consider the possibility that her parents deserved every ounce of humililation they got by having to hear about their daughter humiliating herself on camera with her coke dealer.

Other than that I don't think feminism comes into it.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Ross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12756

posted 21 June 2006 08:31 PM      Profile for Patrick Ross   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps.
But here's a little observation-based pseudo-expiriment we can conduct for ourselves:
How many women in their 20s now own irritating dogs like the famed Tinkerbell, and take them everywhere with them? Next time you're out in public, keep an eye out for it: if you're in a large city, I think I can safely guarantee you'll encounter at least a few of them on a daily basis.
Especially if you frequent the more "fashionable" areas of whichever city you're in.
When you look at the number of young women persuing the "Paris Hilton" lifestyle, I think it becomes alarmingly relevent to feminism.

From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
indiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12564

posted 21 June 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for indiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Well, I watched her movie, (the one where she fucks her boyfriend) and I don't really think she has a clue about much, based on that.

Seemed to me that she was pretty clued out and high, and that boyfriend of hers (no Eienstein either) had her wrapped around his finger, and if someone is so clueless as to fall for someone as clueless as that you are really dipping into the nether world where stupidity meets evil.

At best it seemed she was letting herself be conned into to thinking that being dirty on camera was some kind of rebelious psychological atrocity she wanted to inflict on her family, and the only thing I can really think about that is that if someone is so intent to allow themselves to be duped into a wierd coke and sex, personal humiliation, revenge trip against her parents (and society as a whole I guess, which is probably what you are getting at) one really has to consider the possibility that her parents deserved every ounce of humililation they got by having to hear about their daughter humiliating herself on camera with her coke dealer.

Other than that I don't think feminism comes into it.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I have to second Cueball on this one. Except to say that I think that Paris actually looks, not so much clued out in the video, but very uncomfortable. The stopping and starting and answering of her cell phone makes me think that she had found herself in a situation that she didn't really want to be in. It actually reminds me of some early sexual encounters of mine, but now I've said too much.

I also think that a lot of these women (Hilton, Lohan, Olsens etc.) are being used and simply don't realize it or, if they do, realize it too late. How many times do you read stories about the Greek heirs or washed up c-list celebrities dumping one of these girls for the next. The argument could be made that they were using as well as being used, but personally, I don't buy it.

So too sum up. We've got a bunch of young women, who are making money based on nothing other than their sexuality. They are (IMHO) being used by the men in their lives and (possibly) being put into sexual circumstances that they are not ready for/not comfortable in. So no, I don't think that Hilton and her ilk should be considered any kind of move forward into the feminist movement.

[ 21 June 2006: Message edited by: indiemuse ]


From: The exception to every rule . . . | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tuppence
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4191

posted 22 June 2006 09:57 PM      Profile for Tuppence     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, to agree with some of you, I don't just think she's unfeminist, I think she's anti-feminist (probably not consciously, of course), because as long as women buy into the lie that acting like a porn star makes them empowered they're not making any real progress. That's not to say that expressing a healthy sexuality can't be part of a feminist's make-up, but certainly if a woman needs to to be vapid, skinny, blonde and promiscuous to be considered worthwhile there is something truly wrong with mainstream culture. Ariel Levy articulated it very well in her book "Female Chauvinist Pigs".

I mean, Paris (and her ilk) is only non-threatening to men because she doesn't appear to have a great deal of brainpower. Imagine if she were not only "hot" (I don't find her so, but in the mainstream ideal) but incredibly smart. She wouldn't be considered sexy then because she truly would be empowered. Being vapid is considered essential to the package. Which I'm appalled by. It's not her fault per se, it's a cultural issue, but women need to start realizing they're being played for fools.


From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Patrick Ross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12756

posted 23 June 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Patrick Ross   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuppence:
I mean, Paris (and her ilk) is only non-threatening to men because she doesn't appear to have a great deal of brainpower. Imagine if she were not only "hot" (I don't find her so, but in the mainstream ideal) but incredibly smart. She wouldn't be considered sexy then because she truly would be empowered. Being vapid is considered essential to the package. Which I'm appalled by. It's not her fault per se, it's a cultural issue, but women need to start realizing they're being played for fools.

I pity the self-absorbed dimwit who think that stupidity is sexy.


From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Tuppence
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4191

posted 25 June 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for Tuppence     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, absolutely. And that's not all men, of course. It's happening enough, though, to be profoundly distubing.
From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 26 June 2006 08:38 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm afraid that what's been said in this forum is antifemminist-look at the way we're all putting her down based on what little we know- which comes through the reflecting glass of the media. We're saying sexuality is good, and then basically calling her a wh*re. By repeating all this, it seems to me we're reinforcing negative notions about women- you're calling her a dumb blonde after all. You're reducing her to her body, and to her sexuality- just what our culture does to women evereyday.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 26 June 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's no one on this forum reducing her to anything. It was merely comment on the public perception she has deliberately chosen to have.

My own framing of the question, is not whether or not to call this woman a "whore" (to quote Pride for Red Dolores), which I did not do; but why she deliberately opts to promote herself in terms of her public image as fulfilling that stereotype.

She opened up to the world by a porno flick and asks if wal-mart is a store that sells walls. I really doubt she's that clueless in real life. She's perhaps hoping that appealing to the supposed mass of men who prefer ditzy women will increase her celebrity.[Personally, I can't think of a single man I know who thinks that way, but then again I'm really tired].

[ 26 June 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
spitfire
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12851

posted 07 July 2006 09:21 AM      Profile for spitfire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
maidenhead said it best.
From: Manitoba | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Drinkmore
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7371

posted 07 July 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for Drinkmore     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm wondering why this discussion is about PH and not the gatekeepers who keep putting her on TV - Moses Znaimer, Anti-Feminist or Counter-Feminist.
From: the oyster to the eagle, from the swine to the tiger | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca