Let me be honest about one of my worst vices: I’m thoroughly hooked on, maybe even downright obsessed with celebrity blogs. I regularly check at least six of them (perezhilton, theybf, evilbeetgossip, etc). It’s an evil, dirty habit and I know I should stop. But sometimes these blogs actually have interesting commentaries on pop culture and things to say about one of my favorite topics: gender. Recently, I’ve kept noticing that multiple blogs have been talking about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s golden child, Shiloh, and her “image.” They noted, as did Life & Style magazine, that Shiloh’s haircut is now short and that she dresses “like a boy.” The headline on the magazine even says, “Why is Angelina Turning Shiloh Into a Boy?” People, people, people...
Let’s start at the beginning: the child is pictured with a shorter cropped haircut, which (though incredibly unfortunate looking) is not an especially atypical haircut for a 4-year-old girl. She’s also wearing a yellow polo shirt underneath a gray V-neck sweater (I guess maybe the V doesn’t cut down low enough to hint at her future cleavage?) and some black pants. We actually have a term for this. She’s what we call a “tomboy.” Yes, she wears black and yes, she doesn’t wear $300 dresses every day like her counterpart, Suri Cruise. She’s a bit more rugged, a little bit more boisterous. It’s just her way. Maybe if we analyze this further, we could pin it on the fact that she’s one of six children and is trying to stand out. Or maybe this is a deeply personal expression of her identity. Or....she could just be a tomboy. I’m gonna go with option C.
I also just love the headline because it means that this is Angelina’s responsibility. It’s basically saying, “Angelina, you’re a mother, a woman and an especially beautiful, famous woman at that. Why are you intentionally leading your daughter astray?” or “why are you letting this genetically perfect little girl obscure her femininity?” First of all, why it Angelina’s task alone to guide her daughter’s femininity and not Brad’s? Second of all, what is wrong with a little girl not liking dresses? And third of all (and I think this might just be the most important question) why is this on the cover of a magazine?
Now, I’ve seen some pretty ridonkulous headlines in my day. Headline’s showing me how some 350 lb woman finally took charge of her life and lost half her body weight or how the finale of The Bachelor was such a shocker or about how some 40-something actress is finally free to be herself after splitting up with her third husband. But this just takes it to a new low: we’re now expected to pay $3.50 to learn the details about two famous people’s child and her gender-bending ways. Not about the celebs themselves who’ve actually worked on movie sets and starred in films. No, now we’re hearing about what clothes their first biological child is wearing. I mean I guess it’s actually hilarious because it means nothing new or important is going on the celeb world or even (gasp) in the REAL world. But dayum. We’re really up in arms about how a 4 year old dresses? I say, Shiloh, push all the gender boundaries you can with your badass, little kid self!! And for the haters who spend $3.50 to hear more about this story, I ask you this simple question: what’s up with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment