| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2008 06:11:21 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Yeah, and I was also saying that both are known for their beauty. It may not be what their careers are but doesn't mean that it isn't what helps them sell? |
They are known for what they've achieved. Their looks might be part of that, but you don't get to be world #1 at tennis by being pretty.
Similarly you don't get a degree from Harvard by being pretty.
There are plenty of 18-25 year olds who are known for their looks and not much else, because most 18-25 year olds, male, or female, haven't done much of anything other than be pretty and this culture celebrates youth. Those two above happen to have done other things than their looks, which was what the question was as far as I could see.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:12:36 PM · #27 |
And if you're gonna wiki it, keep reading down the page...
"Sharapova's endorsements have earned her considerably more than she has won in tournament play"
"Sharapova posed in a six-page bikini photoshoot spread in the 2006 issue of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, annual magazine that debuted on Valentine's Day, along with 25 scantily-clad supermodels"
"In 2006, Maxim magazine named Sharapova the hottest athlete in the world for the fourth consecutive year"
Current Sponsors:
Canon
Colgate
Gatorade
Land Rover ?
Nike, Inc.
Parlux Fragrances
Prince Sports - signed a lifetime endorsement in 2007.
Samantha Thavasa
Sony Ericsson
Tag Heuer
Tropicana
OK she's good at tennis, but don't say that she's not just as well known for being beautiful, and being able to sell that image. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:12:58 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by soup:
aren't role models sort of dictated by the things you're interested in persuing?
so if you're interested in a modeling or acting career as a female, in all liklihood your role models would fit that description.
but what if you were interested in politics ( as mentioned ) ?
|
Mia Handshin isn't a bad example. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:13:41 PM · #29 |
more power to her !~
Originally posted by rob_smith:
OK she's good at tennis, but don't say that she's not just as well known for being beautiful, and being able to sell that image. |
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 18:13:46.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:15:36 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
OK she's good at tennis, but don't say that she's not just as well known for being beautiful, and being able to sell that image. |
She was successful at tennis, then marketed. If you asked people who Maria Sharapova was, do you think they'd mention her looks or tennis first ?
The question was 'To prove the point, can anybody name five 18-25 year old female role models who are not known for their beauty?'
One is known for her tennis playing. The other one is known for her acting. Do people have to be ugly & talented now to be valid role models ? Their looks are secondary to their success, unlike various vapid and untalented singers. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:20:27 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rob_smith:
OK she's good at tennis, but don't say that she's not just as well known for being beautiful, and being able to sell that image. |
She was successful at tennis, then marketed. If you asked people who Maria Sharapova was, do you think they'd mention her looks or tennis first ?
The question was 'To prove the point, can anybody name five 18-25 year old female role models who are not known for their beauty?'
One is known for her tennis playing. The other one is known for her acting. Do people have to be ugly & talented now to be valid role models ? Their looks are secondary to their success, unlike various vapid and untalented singers. |
All I'm doing is answering your question. Both of them are known for their beauty, among other things. I'm not saying role models have to be ugly, but Sharapova earns the majority of her income (and possibly fame) through her looks, so her looks are not secondary, they are her current main asset. (And fair play to her for managing a great career and sponsorship deals etc)
Ok lets just drop it, we're both being pedantic..
: ) |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:22:28 PM · #32 |
This Natalie Portman? (Link is NSFW)
I agree that 18-25 year olds haven't really arrived in life and perhaps we can't expect great things yet. But what does current popular culture dictate a girl can aspire to? Pop culture is almost exclusively about beauty and increasingly limited to sexual beauty.
I am not a prude, but sometimes it's worth pointing out such things because they have become so pervasive as to now go unnoticed. I agree with iamwoman. How Herculean is the task of raising my daughter in this society? I'm not saying it is impossible, but some days I just wish it were different.
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 18:23:04.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:24:58 PM · #33 |
ok i found the discussion about jock sturges photographs. seems to have a lot of pro/contra arguments about these aspects, even tho of course on a higher level as the girls in most of his photos really are naked...
this photograph of jock sturges reminded me on miley's pose... |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:25:14 PM · #34 |
| Famous or not, I'd never let my sixteen year old daughter pose like that, no way! |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:25:20 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree that 18-25 year olds haven't really arrived in life and perhaps we can't expect great things yet. But what does current popular culture dictate a girl can aspire to? Pop culture is almost exclusively about beauty and increasingly limited to sexual beauty. |
What does current popular culture dictate a boy can aspire to ?
Perhaps you shouldn't be looking for your role models in locations that are entirely devoted to looks before substance ? Or perhaps the mass media isn't the best place to be looking for role models for your children ?
and if your daughter happened to get a degree from Harvard, won a golden globe, was nominated for an oscar and published a few papers by the age of 26 and along the way happened to pose for some pictures, would you think you'd done a bad job ?
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 18:27:13. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:27:08 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree that 18-25 year olds haven't really arrived in life and perhaps we can't expect great things yet. But what does current popular culture dictate a girl can aspire to? Pop culture is almost exclusively about beauty and increasingly limited to sexual beauty. |
What does current popular culture dictate a boy can aspire to ?
Perhaps you shouldn't be looking for your role models in locations that are entirely devoted to looks before substance ? Or perhaps the mass media isn't the best place to be looking for role models for your children ? |
Agreed. unfortunately a) that's what our culture tells you to look to and b) kids are really going to look to them anyway.
Boys basically have athletes to aspire to, which is silly in a different way.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:30:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Agreed. unfortunately a) that's what our culture tells you to look to and b) kids are really going to look to them anyway. |
Right. Which is why your original post is somewhat odd, as if you are surprised this well trodden career path is well trodden. Did you think Hannah Montana wasn't going to grow up ? If not, why be surprised that she's growing up, in exactly the same way as every other Disney product has ? It is what they do. Was nobody paying attention with the previous round of stars from the Mikey Mouse club ? That's what's most odd about this whole controversy - this is just business as usual for Disney and their female talent.
There are other female role models who don't have to follow that same path, but this isn't exactly a surprising twist of events in this particular case. The Britney album you have above as if it shows some transition seems to ignore the obvious reality of the video that accompanied that particular song, too, FWIW. She's always been trashy.
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 18:33:45. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:39:11 PM · #38 |
Not to jack this thread, but this is exactly the kind of issue I wanted to tackle with a series of photos I did about a year ago.
I am only posting this because I think it is really relevant.
The most effective one was this:
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:39:36 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Right. Which is why your original post is somewhat odd, as if you are surprised this well trodden career path is well trodden. Did you think Hannah Montana wasn't going to grow up ? If not, why be surprised that she's growing up, in exactly the same way as every other Disney product has ? It is what they do. Was nobody paying attention with the previous round of stars from the Mikey Mouse club ? That's what's most odd about this whole controversy - this is just business as usual for Disney and their female talent. |
I'm not sure I quite agree. I don't necessarily see such a direct Mickey Mouse club path as you mention. Sure Britney and Christina were MMC members, but that is almost an accident. As far as I know, neither used their MMC status to vault to the next step (but maybe they did and I just don't know). Alanis Morrisette was on that Nickelodeon show (the name escapes me). Did she use that to launch her career?
However, even if this is the "Path to Fame as a Hottie Icon", it seems to be coming earlier and earlier.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:48:42 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rob_smith:
OK she's good at tennis, but don't say that she's not just as well known for being beautiful, and being able to sell that image. |
She was successful at tennis, then marketed. If you asked people who Maria Sharapova was, do you think they'd mention her looks or tennis first ?
The question was 'To prove the point, can anybody name five 18-25 year old female role models who are not known for their beauty?'
One is known for her tennis playing. The other one is known for her acting. Do people have to be ugly & talented now to be valid role models ? Their looks are secondary to their success, unlike various vapid and untalented singers. |
All I'm doing is answering your question. Both of them are known for their beauty, among other things. I'm not saying role models have to be ugly, but Sharapova earns the majority of her income (and possibly fame) through her looks, so her looks are not secondary, they are her current main asset. (And fair play to her for managing a great career and sponsorship deals etc)
Ok lets just drop it, we're both being pedantic..
: ) |
I shouldn't, but I just have to join in on this one...
There are MANY young woman just as attractive as Sharapova and Portman, so what does it say when we have to reduce the accomplishments of these two woman down to the assertion that they are successful because they look good. They are significant because of their accomplishments and they are good advertising because they are significant AND they look good.
Now this will sound really stupid, but a photograph of a person is almost never just about what they look like. In my many attempts to photograph people I have met many who are "pretty" and their photos end up looking essentially empty. It takes character and talent to relate to a camera.
Of course I've gotten way off the Mile and Liebovitz topic, so I'll try to bring it back. We are over simplifying when we reduce somebody to being a sexual object because they have showed their back in a photo or to being successful because they are pretty.
Where is that popcorn eating smiley when it's needed!
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:55:28 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Originally posted by rob_smith:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by rob_smith:
OK she's good at tennis, but don't say that she's not just as well known for being beautiful, and being able to sell that image. |
She was successful at tennis, then marketed. If you asked people who Maria Sharapova was, do you think they'd mention her looks or tennis first ?
The question was 'To prove the point, can anybody name five 18-25 year old female role models who are not known for their beauty?'
One is known for her tennis playing. The other one is known for her acting. Do people have to be ugly & talented now to be valid role models ? Their looks are secondary to their success, unlike various vapid and untalented singers. |
All I'm doing is answering your question. Both of them are known for their beauty, among other things. I'm not saying role models have to be ugly, but Sharapova earns the majority of her income (and possibly fame) through her looks, so her looks are not secondary, they are her current main asset. (And fair play to her for managing a great career and sponsorship deals etc)
Ok lets just drop it, we're both being pedantic..
: ) |
I shouldn't, but I just have to join in on this one...
There are MANY young woman just as attractive as Sharapova and Portman, so what does it say when we have to reduce the accomplishments of these two woman down to the assertion that they are successful because they look good. They are significant because of their accomplishments and they are good advertising because they are significant AND they look good.
Now this will sound really stupid, but a photograph of a person is almost never just about what they look like. In my many attempts to photograph people I have met many who are "pretty" and their photos end up looking essentially empty. It takes character and talent to relate to a camera.
Of course I've gotten way off the Mile and Liebovitz topic, so I'll try to bring it back. We are over simplifying when we reduce somebody to being a sexual object because they have showed their back in a photo or to being successful because they are pretty.
Where is that popcorn eating smiley when it's needed! |
I'm not saying that at all, they are successful and they look good. I was just being pedantic about the original question "not known for their beauty"... |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:57:15 PM · #42 |
I think that this may be manufactured...with or without Annie's knowledge. Miley is not far from coming of age...and in order to have her be seen as someone maturing and viable in the future, they need to start showing her in that light. After being inundated with her, the tween's are already tiring of her (I know my daughter is as soon as she saw her being advertised by Walmart). So what would be her next step? They will need to move her career into another realm...an adult one. She's in the precarious position of being on the edge of adulthood, but still having her foot still planted firmly in the teen world. It's quite a tight rope...one her handler's and parents are trying to walk.
I also want to mention...any publicity is good publicity...and this isn't hurting Annie either. She made her apology and looks like the good guy again. Miley says it embarrassed her...so she looks like the good girl again. And Vanity Fair prints the pics and sells magazines to further her career in the future. Everyone is happy.
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 18:58:11. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 06:59:14 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, even if this is the "Path to Fame as a Hottie Icon", it seems to be coming earlier and earlier. |
It it a "path to Fame as a Hottie Icon" that they are following or is a path away from the good and wholesome Disney machine that makes millions of dollars selling an idealized view of the world that was created back in the 50's. I think even us non-performers crashed when we realized life wasn't really like a Disney show.
I've never seen Miley look as real as she does in the Liebovitz photo. What I usually see is a lot of manufactured hype and marketing with no soul behind it.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:03:29 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Right. Which is why your original post is somewhat odd, as if you are surprised this well trodden career path is well trodden. Did you think Hannah Montana wasn't going to grow up ? If not, why be surprised that she's growing up, in exactly the same way as every other Disney product has ? It is what they do. Was nobody paying attention with the previous round of stars from the Mikey Mouse club ? That's what's most odd about this whole controversy - this is just business as usual for Disney and their female talent. |
I'm not sure I quite agree. I don't necessarily see such a direct Mickey Mouse club path as you mention. Sure Britney and Christina were MMC members, but that is almost an accident. As far as I know, neither used their MMC status to vault to the next step (but maybe they did and I just don't know). Alanis Morrisette was on that Nickelodeon show (the name escapes me). Did she use that to launch her career?
However, even if this is the "Path to Fame as a Hottie Icon", it seems to be coming earlier and earlier. |
Jessica Simpson was also on MMC and so far, she hasn't squeezed out spawn with a semi-talented rapper/backup dancer, paraded her pantiless coochie all over town for a paparazzi, or mentioned genital piercings.
She comes across as a sexy dingbat, but she's got class. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:04:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by rob_smith:
I'm not saying that at all, they are successful and they look good. I was just being pedantic about the original question "not known for their beauty"... |
Ya.... I may have lost the thread as I read through the posts. I have four daughters ranging from 14 - 22 years old and have been spun around on this topic many times over the years... just different disney girls each time around.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:11:45 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Jessica Simpson was also on MMC and so far, she hasn't squeezed out spawn with a semi-talented rapper/backup dancer, paraded her pantiless coochie all over town for a paparazzi, or mentioned genital piercings.
She comes across as a sexy dingbat, but she's got class. |
Are you holding Jessica Simpson up as a fine example of young female role model ? Or just not quite as tragic a modern day story as Britney ?
Actually, I think the whole discussion is somewhat messed up. Why anyone would consider pop/ rock stars as potential role models is pretty strange in my mind. Isn't the whole point that they lead a life of ridiculous excess that we watch in horrified fascination ? Perhaps mixed with some jealously, maybe laced with some contempt, but as role models, ever ? Something is seriously wrong in that picture.
Was Mick Jagger ever a role model ? Ozzy Osbourne ? The Beetles ? Would you expect them to be ?
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 19:15:48. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:22:52 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Was Mick Jagger ever a role model ? Ozzy Osbourne ? The Beetles ? Would you expect them to be ? |
We get your point, but I don't hear you offering a cross-section of people that youth should/will look up to. Nobody particularly wants their kids looking up to these people, but that is what corporate culture is offering. We all wish it were different.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:23:32 PM · #48 |
I always wonder when reading these threads who on earth is raising all these eight year old girls? Disney? Or their parents? How hard is it it to tell a child that's it's appropriate for (insert current teen star here) to wear mini skirts and show her back but she's a teenager and you're not, ask me for that mini again when you're 15 and we'll discuss it. I see little girls parading around in clothes inappropriate for their age but someone has to buy them and I'm guessing that someone is their mother. When did parents turn their responsibility and brains over to Hollywood? I think there's some parents that need to grow up and learn to say no.
FWIW I like the photo, I think it's cute and does show that tentative, on the brink of growing up, feeling very well. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:24:33 PM · #49 |
How about Mom and Dad as role models?
ETA:
I think the issue is that some expect the people in public to be role models for their children instead of being the role model for their children.
Message edited by author 2008-04-28 19:26:13. |
|
|
|
04/28/2008 07:26:23 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I've never seen Miley look as real as she does in the Liebovitz photo. What I usually see is a lot of manufactured hype and marketing with no soul behind it. |
Amen... While I deplore the increasingly early sexualization of our youth, I despise even more the rank, commercial manipulation-of-cultural-archetypes-for-profit perpetrated by the Disney Corporation and their ilk. I appreciate the Leibovitz Miley a heck of lot more than I do the nauseatingly commercialized Hannah Montana.
R. |
|
