Opinion

Is Jolie the Next Feminist Icon?

Naomi Wolf thinks so. But what would she be without the boobs and lips?

By Vanessa Richmond, 10 Jun 2009, TheTyee.ca

Angelina Jolie on cover of Harper's Bazaar

Jolie, from brother-kisser to saint.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

"Oprah Winfrey is dead. Long live Angelina Jolie," trumpeted one paper last week. In this year's Forbes' rankings, kind of like the Stanley Cup of celebrity competitions, Jolie deposed Winfrey's long reign as monarch of fame. She whooped some serious head-of-state heinie too: Obama was the top-ranked head of state, but with his paltry $2 million annual salary, he came 49th.

Since the win, plenty of people have been weighing in about why Jolie now wears the crown. After all, the new queen is a mediocre actress in "movies full of abrupt transitions and overblown characters." Winfrey makes 10 times Jolie's salary. And though Jolie is a UN ambassador and all, it's not like she has a real job. She plays make believe for a living, and collects children and houses.

Figuring out why certain people become mighty, even though they're almost identical to other people who live in normal obscurity, is arguably some of the best sport there is. So it's no surprise that the celebrity academics are suiting up. And in this month's Bazaar, heavyweight third-wave feminist, Naomi Wolf, Rhodes Scholar and author of the Beauty Myth, who most recently postulated on the hairy legs versus high heels debate in "Who Won Feminism," weighs in on how Jolie has risen from her awkward near-Goth beginnings to being the most desired person on the planet. Wolf's essay occasionally verges on fandom, or at least overt admiration, but that's maybe because she sees Jolie's win as a feminist triumph. Either that, or she's just been reading too much Perez Hilton.

In Bazaar's cover story, "The Power of Angelina," (the other headlines offer such delights as 525 new ideas to revamp your look, but never mind that), Wolf says it's because Jolie is the new embodiment of having it all -- something women have never actually been able to pull off before.

"She has created a life narrative that is not just personal," writes Wolf. "Rather, it is archetypal. And the archetype is one that really, for the first time in modern culture, brings together almost every aspect of female empowerment and liberation."

Beauty on the outside, actually

Wolf's first theory: um, Jolie is gorgeous. "Bosomy and wasp-waisted, with that curtain of hair and those crazy pillowy lips, she is an obvious male sex fantasy." But equally interestingly, polls show that her "appeal and magnetism play at least as powerfully in the fantasy life of females." Straight, lesbian and bisexual women would choose Jolie, if they had to choose a female lover. You know how the saying "women want to sleep with him, men want to be him," gets applied willy-nilly to powerful, attractive men? Well, in this case, women and men want to sleep with her, and women want to be her.

The reason for the lady lust, according to Wolf, is that Jolie has become what psychoanalysts call an "ego ideal" for women -- "a kind of dream figure that allows women to access, through fantasies of their own, possibilities for their own heightened empowerment and liberation."

Wolf argues that until now, patriarchal civilization has managed to convince women that identity is a series of high-stakes either-or choices. You're a virgin or a whore. You're a mom or a home wrecker. You're successful in your career or you're feminine.

But Jolie not only has it all, she does get away with it. And that gives her audiences a vicarious thrill.

Single motherhood rebranded

After starting out in the public eye as a slightly odd, brother-kissing, blood-vial-wearing sex symbol, she started to emerge when she became a single mother who didn't seem to need a partner (financially or otherwise) in order to be able to be a parent. A quarter of American households are headed by single parents, often portrayed as sad, poverty-stricken and pathetic, and Jolie turned that it into a "fairly radical, vision... that made the relationship seem tender, glamorous, and complete, father figure or no father figure in the picture." She re-framed single motherhood "from a state of lack or insufficiency to a glamorous, unfettered lifestyle choice." I wonder if it's easier to be a single mom if you're a millionaire? Hmm. At any rate, "paradoxically, having done so, she makes the choice of a man to help her raise her kids seem like one option among many for a self-directed woman rather than either a completion of a woman or a capitulation."

As selfish as any man

That man, Brad Pitt, also adds to her mega-power, given that he's "the male seen as the most desired of the tribe, who is always ranked at the top of indexes of male beauty and virility," (though eight spots behind her on the Forbes list). It wasn't a given that he would: her scarlet-letter infraction, her "megascandal," her alleged seduction of him while married (to a celebrity with an American girl-next-door sweetheart persona no less) could have discredited her completely. But she turned the home-wrecker label into a "wholesome, family-friendly triumph." Shortly after she and Pitt got together, on the set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, there were photos of her new uber-partner (formerly childless) playing football with Maddox, her adopted son.

And in the end, "Jolie's evident disdain of that social constraint [of falling for a married man] certainly, for better or worse, put her in the same self-entitled category as those men who have traditionally taken what they wanted and let the emotional chips fall where they may."

Wolf then argues Jolie "kicked her career into overdrive" when she started doing public appearances (and work apparently) in aid of stricken women and children worldwide. Then Brangelina's rapid adoption of additional children, though problematic for many reasons, in my opinion, "certainly stood out in a raft of narratives of stars who simply shop, tan, and go into rehab."

I am woman, hear my plane roar

Oh and "then there is the plane." Yes, she flies. Her own plane. Because women are usually "dependent on others (certainly on men) for where they go, metaphorically, and how they get there, the plane " is the classic metaphor for choosing your own direction."

But as other feminists have pointed out, Jolie is still not much more than a sex symbol, "a pornographic feminist fantasy," who talks.

Look, I get that Angelina Jolie does some volunteer work and gives money to charity, and sure I'm pleased about that. Just as I am that someone is rebranding single motherhood, and that a celebrity with some conscience beats out others like Paris Hilton. But does she match Oprah when it comes to personality or service?

Jolie's win shows that men and women's fantasy female is built primarily from boobs and lips. Is Jolie really all that knowledgeable about world politics (like Wolf)? Of course, we don't even really know what she is knowledgeable about: Jolie is a professional pretender, a blank canvas for our projections.

Maybe we shouldn't declare that women can now have it all. Unless, of course, we're willing to admit that's our fantasy of choice.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Tyee contributing editor Vanessa Richmond writes the Schlock and Awe column about popular culture and the media.

32 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • sunshine coast girl

    2 years ago

    Angelina Jolie

    is a waste of space. She is not an icon of modern day feminism. And if she is we should be ashamed. There is absolutely nothing of value to her. She stole another woman's husband (not that he is by any means innocent). She collects children like trophies and pays other people to look after them (except during photo shoots). She has a non-existent relationship with her own father. You can bet her appearances on behalf of women and children isn't for free. About the only thing she does that is fairly admirable is act not too badly. Big deal. She has a ginormous carbon footprint; what with jetting around the world and maintaining her however many houses in however many countries. She moves her kids around like checkers on a board so they don't have any routine or stability. She blows disgustingly outrageous amounts of money on those children and herself. I certainly hope that none of the young girls I know idolize her. She is not a good role model. Not impressed.

  • Umslopogaas

    2 years ago

    Who cares?

    Why is the Tyee wasting time on this pap?

  • Umslopogaas

    2 years ago

    Who cares?

    Why is the Tyee wasting time on this pap?

  • nechakogal

    2 years ago

    you've come a long way baby!

    Jolie is a profitable product that elicits an emotional response - to say this product epitomizes the new feminism is taking us full circle back to the "Torches of Freedom" where women's freedom was equated to lighting up a cigarette. It's toxic, just toxic. Yikes perhaps Freud was on to something?

  • MichaelT

    2 years ago

    no.

    no.

  • snert

    2 years ago

    No

    I just wish she'd do one more Tomb Raider movie though.

  • dave49

    2 years ago

    NO!

    MichealT put it succinctly. No.

    Angelina Jolie is on a lot of magazine covers and keeps the gossip/celebrity journalism industry very busy.

    Yes, she is beautiful, her husband handsome and she is not following the usual script. However, don't impute cultural significance to her level of celebrity. Recall the observation of Daniel Boorstin, "The celebrity is a person who is known for his/her well-knownness."

  • wayfarer

    2 years ago

    Talk about rebranding...

    Forget about Jolie rebranding single motherhood, the real story here is the Tyee's apparent attempt to rebrand itself as a mainstream online magazine! Good grief! Between this story and yesterday's TMZ-style gossip pap by Bill Tieleman, I can only guess that the Tyee is facing some serious financial issues, seeking ways to become more mainstream without appearing mainstream.

    I hope this is just an anomaly.

  • lynn

    2 years ago

    Oh the humanity!

    I think this is a good article for what it reveals about the lightweight choices of "heavyweight third-wave feminist".... and glitterati-groupie, Naomi Wolf."

    Proof that:

    We've got a long way yet to go, baby.

    Or at least Ms. Wolf does.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    hmmmm...

    I've always thought Naomi Wolf's writing is gorgeous and lush - not sure she's a lightweight, Lynn.
    Wolf is arguing something that is undoubtedly true - what used to be called the madonna/whore demarcation, woman was either one or the other - and though female story roles have changed, little has changed in gender role. Just try being sexy in the boardroom, hey? Faster than you can say glass ceiling you'll be relegated to HR or some obscure department, although you may still get asked out on dates. Wolf argues that Jolie is an archetype, not a role model - and maybe she's on to something here that is really positive. Because, truth be told, how do we separate ourselves from our sexuality?

    Anyway, the positive I see in Wolf's POV is that perhaps for the first time in decades there is a genuine shift in the frontier of the possibilities for women that I would see as the very essence of feminism - the freedom to choose for oneself, not to have one's life story plotted - one's sexual choices, one's motherhood (or not) choices, one's career choices - in advance by someone else's definition of 'good girl'.

    Saying that Jolie is an archetype is not the same thing as holding her up to be someone we emulate - the archetype is not about her "boobs and lips" but about the fact that she can choose. I want to CHOOSE for myself, and I want everyone else to CHOOSE for themselves, too. Vanessa wants us to believe that we could all CHOOSE if we only had Jolie's looks, or money - or even her gorgeous man - but Naomi says we can all CHOOSE anyway. I'm with Naomi. I CHOOSE.

  • Jeffrey J.

    2 years ago

    Interesting Mix

    Great to see debate about women and their many roles in our society. Discussion of almost any aspect involving 50% of our population has value. The exception, which is quite significant, is the press originating from chauvinistic, thinly veiled misogyny. But that's another story.

    When assessing contrasting views by literate, thoughtful authors like Naomi Wolfe and Vanessa Richmond, we are challenged. Because there is no question neither are closet chauvinists. So the simple answer that one is favouring the male chauvinist narrative of America doesn't apply. So what to do?

    In the end, after some thought, my vote goes with Ms. Richmond's concerns. Why? Hollywood, while empowering some women, has by and large been dominated by purely male, economic, financial forces. And such forces symbolize all that is wrong with power and oligarchs. The ultimate question for Ms. Wolfe is can women in Hollywood "reform from within". This is the same question for any person concerned with social justice, and whether existing structures will EVER permit reformation from within. The evidence is against this hypothesis.

    In the end, Hollywood symbols like Angela Jolie will probably do less for women's equality, inspite of their significant fame.

    Great discussion!!

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Could I offer another opinion

    Angelina Jolie is nothing more than a marketeering creation.

    That's what she was when she was married to Billy Bob Thornton and carried a vial of his blood around her neck; that's what she was as a creation of Hollywood and that's what she is now as a flavour of the month 'earth mother' schlepping around the world with Madonna scooping kids from poor countries.

    Sorry folks nothing here - Naomi Wolf has it wrong for once.

    What women are and do best is competent and that has nothing to do with how much cash they can 'draw' or how they look.

    Until society progresses beyond that level of superficiality the fuss about women like Angelina Jolie is about a pathetic as the fact the best woman for the job just wasn't elected as Premier of BC mainly because she's a woman....

    Sorry, we've got a lot of 'real' choices to make about what's really important.

    We should stop looking to phony ‘leaders’ and equally inappropriate ‘role models’ and develop some smarts of our own.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    boobs and lips, again

    Respectfully, G West, I have only one point of disagreement with your post...

    Jolie is completely unimportant to me except in the sense that Naomi Wolf captures - a catalyst for female dreams of empowerment. Qoting Wolf:
    "So you can be respected as a symbol of goodness (Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa) but not, obviously, be seen as sexual. You can have a hot sex life (Marlene Dietrich) but not at the same time be seen as a symbol of goodness. You can't get away with it." Wolf posits that Jolie 'gets away with it' - again, completely unimportant - except that I posit that the female dream of being who you want to be is the key to equality in its broadest sense. The polls tell us that women resonate more to Carole James than to Gordon Campbell, and obviously, if all the women had voted we would have had a different leader. Maybe it was apathy that caused them not to bother voting - or maybe it is just that they have absorbed the lesson too well that you cannot, as a woman, have a fully-faceted personality, therefore, why try? Why rock the boat?

    As a young woman my avatar was Catherine Deneuve - I admired her elegance, her grace, her polished warmth. I never met her, and know nothing of what she is like personally, but she inspired me to attempt to be a better person in the way I related to other people. That is the point of the archetype, is it not? To transcend the pettiness and ordinariness of the everyday and allow us to dream, to imagine, to soar...

    My personal dreams of empowerment bear little resemblance to Jolie's, I expect - her life seems just too frivolous to me. But I will repeat what I said above: the act of choosing for oneself is the very essence of equality.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    No problem with that VivianLea

    But I think the 'idea' of 'choosing' is over-rated: And, out of the question for most of us!

    I'm far less impressed with the hyper-personal aspect of making choices for 'oneself' than I am with the urgency of making choices with the public good in mind...

    The people I 'respect' - I don't believe in avatars I guess are all folks with a reputation of putting 'themselves' on the back burner because there is something else that's more important.

    The thing that bothers me most about a certain kind of expression is hyper self-awareness...to me the important element is what one 'does' not what one 'is' or how one appears.

    In the end, we're all going to grow old and ugly and become irrelevant and invisible...and the current culture of 'personality' won't change that agenda one little bit.

    Some people do that better than others too...If I'd had a female avatar it would likely have been Eleanor Roosevelt....

    I have another book I'd like to recommend though, fiction this time:
    The Uncommon Reader by Alan Bennett...short, funny and won't keep you away from The Calculus too long.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    oh...G West!

    F*** the calculus, I have to respond.

    (Am actually working on some personal writing, though, for the past few days.)

    Yes, appearance of folks has never meant too much to me - but don't you know? Smart is the new sexy. My choices are much more limited than Jolie's, and that is part of what feminism attempted to change, yes? Never the less, I do choose - perhaps my choices are more politically correct than Jolie's in this forum because I also believe that the common good is more important than the individual good. But except in rare instances (and Jolie may be one of those), I think this is a false dichotomy...but that's a long argument, and perhaps intensely personal for me.

    We will all get old, but not irrelevant...and ugly? In the eye of the beholder, surely. As for me, I've never been happier; I hope that does not blind me to the suffering and want of others. My happiness also does not rest on how I look, or how much money I earn, or how many things I own...perhaps I am simply fortunate that my father taught me from a very young age that I can choose.

  • G West

    2 years ago

    Good on you

    The problem is the vast majority of our fellow citizens - men and women - boys and girls - gay and straight - who don't have "choices".

    'Nuff said - I'm not against choice - just how those choices are categorized and I resent the idea that we all have them...all the time

    And I don't think you're right about the diminishment in respect that comes with age and poorer health.

    Everything I've seen tells me that the vast majority of our citizens become invisible once they pass through a certain gate in life.....family excepted - though not necessarily!

    And yes, ugly - on average.

    Had a look at Arnold the Governator without a shirt on lately?

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    NO!

    And I'm not going there!

    Stop, stop - I only argue with my (ex) husbands...

  • lynn

    2 years ago

    pretending carnal knowledge

    "So you can be respected as a symbol of goodness (Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa) but not, obviously, be seen as sexual. You can have a hot sex life (Marlene Dietrich) but not at the same time be seen as a symbol of goodness. You can't get away with it." Wolf posits that Jolie 'gets away with it"

    But does Jolie?

    And how does Wolf know this?

    And are any of Wolf's assumptions about Jolie based in reality? Or People magazine?

    That's why I called Wolf's choice (in this instance ) to be a lightweight one... that of all her "choices" she made one of high, almost camp, celebrity.... a revelation in itself.

    I'm allergic to feminist icons anyway....they cause me to break out in hives, and I get dizzy... well, more dizzy than usual.

  • Stump

    2 years ago

    Everything you need to know about Angelina Jolie

    can be found by learning about the long-term effects of the sleep-deprivation and jet-lag she subjects her own children to in her unending journey to stay in the limelight, and by calculating how many hours a day are spent searching for fuel to cook and heat by children living in the developing nations she so loves for their photo-opportunitie.s Contrasting that with the amount of kerosene it takes to fly her hither and thither shows demonstrates Ms Jolie's insensitivity to anything other than her own image.

    - 100 gallons of kerosene could heat a home for a whole winter
    - Private jet from L.A. to Africa - approx. 11,000 gallons of fuel.

    Hmmm, no photo opp with the first charitable gesture, but plenty of media on hand to watch Jolie pose with a child.

    Stay home and donate your wealth. We all know there's suffering. Stop pimping it Angelina, and start making a difference.

    It's too bad celebrities don't hire people to talk some sense into them once in a while.

  • HawkEyes

    2 years ago

    Still hating…

    ...and short on research…
    “the new queen is a mediocre actress” …with an Oscar somewhere.

    “we don't even really know what she is knowledgeable about”
    Really? …it’s not that hard to find out:
    http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10120144&d=2008
    or:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022702217_pf.html
    or her most recent effort:
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903006,00.html
    etc.

    Perhaps the biggest mystery with Jolie is the intense negativity she brings out of some people…there is no question her kids could do with less negative press.

    Anyone who thinks Jolie is a fake hasn’t seen that picture of her, walking in a mine field while pregnant, wearing only a metal shield to protect her unborn children.
    Which hater would do that? None.

    Forbes has a lot of lists-the “Celebrity 100” is a measure of entertainment-related earnings and visibility… in a sense, media qualifies the participants; Alec Baldwin made the list with only bad press? Considering Jolie has been on the cover of many magazines at least once last year, she’s a legitimate contender; any magazine can put her on their cover and be certain of a cash flow, no matter the quality of content.

    As if this wasn’t enough, now Ms. Wolf uses Jolie to reveal some feminist need as well; a little research should have revealed Ms. Jolies’ closeness to her mom, who was of American Indian descent, and her possible matriarchal influences. But, f it’s down to “hairy legs versus high heels” for Ms. Wolf, this woman had it all quite some time ago:
    http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/47171/monique-flaunts-hairy-legs-on-the-red-carpet

    I’m just not sure having it all is a worthwhile or realistic goal -and nobody knows that better than Ms. Jolie.

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    HawkEyes

    I think you raise interesting questions...where does all that hate come from? Checking out your informative links,we see, among other things, that women are demonized for various forms of body hair, too! Less hate would be a good thing...

  • lynn

    2 years ago

    Get real

    I think Stump raises a better question.

    About real life. And real women. And real men.

    Some people quietly take care of their own children themselves and by doing so save the world in a much less attention-getting way.

    At last count, Jolie had six nannies, one for each child.

    And seven grand mansions around the world that she flies to on a whim. The one in the south of France is over a thousand acres, has 35 bedrooms and boasts a vineyard, lake, moat, forest, and 20 fountains. There are both indoor and outdoor pools, his-and-hers gyms, and an enormous banquet hall. The driveway alone is three miles long."

    But the restless Jolie searches on....she is presently looking to buy another home....this time in Portugal.

    Fine for Jolie. But most women haven't the luxury of those kind of "choices"....nor would they would they be drawn to them...more importantly the world cannot "sustain" those kind of choices for much longer.

    "Anyone who thinks Jolie is a fake hasn’t seen that picture of her, walking in a mine field while pregnant, wearing only a metal shield to protect her unborn children. "

    hmmmmm...... or she is addicted to thrill
    and risk.....and thus put her unborn children at great risk for another attention-getting photo-op.

  • Hyeena

    2 years ago

    ummmm....

    An archetype (pronounced: /ˈɑːkɪtaɪp/ (Brit.) or /ˈɑɹkɪtaɪp/ (Amer.)) is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype after which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior.

    In the analysis of personality, the term archetype is often broadly used to refer to

    1. a stereotype—personality type observed multiple times, especially an oversimplification of such a type; or
    2. an epitome—personality type exemplified, especially the "greatest" such example.

    I disagree with VivianLea, not that what she says isn't true, but that her argument is not logical. Women HAVE the power to choose, and have for some time now. Do you want an abortion? You got it. Do you want to be a working mom or a stay at home mom? Do you even want to be a mom? You can do whatever you want because you have several choices. The power to choose is over and done: you have it. enough said.

    Regarding being sexy in the boardroom, the answer is simple. Companies are in the profit business, not the flirt business. Sexual harassment suits destroy companies. If you want to shag someone do it on your own time, not company time. Same goes for men. If I hire a carpenter to build me a deck, that's all I want. Don't bring your girlfriend. Enough said.

    VivianLea, the flaw in your argument is thus:

    'for the first time in decades there is a genuine shift in the frontier of the possibilities for women that I would see as the very essence of feminism - the freedom to choose for oneself, not to have one's life story plotted - one's sexual choices, one's motherhood (or not) choices, one's career choices - in advance by someone else's definition of 'good girl'.

    Negative on that, Viv. Only if you are wealthy can you 'get away with it'. Both you and Ms Wolf claim that ALL women can have it all. Vanessa claims that you can have it all provided you are rich. I'm with Vanessa.

    Vivian, you tried to wiggle out of it by saying 'no, no, no -Angelina isn't a role model, she's an archetype'. Come on. Please. Spare me, ok? As I posted at the top, an archetype is that which we emulate. Don't even try to wiggle out of it.

    Now, let me ask you, VivianLea: Next time you go to the supermarket to buy your groceries and you see the single mom pushing her baby stroller, do you really expect us to believe that Angelina Jolie is breaking ground and advancing freedoms for her? She's lucky if she can afford rent and not live with her parents. Good luck with your response. I'm just dieing to see how you respond.

    peace out.

  • Hyeena

    2 years ago

    ummmm...

    remember: sex and the city isn't about sex. It's about loneliness. Here, this isn't about the right to choose. It's about who has the money, boobs and lips, and who doesn't.

  • HawkEyes

    2 years ago

    lynn

    Thanks for making my point.
    Haters don't want to know.
    Here's the pic, hmmmmmmm...

    http://www.usmagazine.com/first_pic_camouflaged_angelina_jolie_tours_central_baghdad

    Here's more of that same, thrill seeking, risk taking, 'desperate for attention' moment:

    http://www.usmagazine.com/pregnant_angelina_jolie_surfaces_in_baghdad

    For your added pleasure, here's one the feminists missed:

    http://www.wutheringjolie.com/nuke//modules.php?name=ForumNews&id=5857

    Jolie's topping the 'Celebrity 100' list means there is a lot of easily accessible information about her... if someone real-ly cares to know...

  • lynn

    2 years ago

    HawkEyes

    And I think you just proved mine.

    US magazine as a news source? Ya gotta be kidding?

    Look, you are the one calling people "haters" just because they don't agree with you that Jolie is a feminist icon. We are entitled to our opinion as are you.

    For the record, I think Jolie is a good actress, and has a generous heart. Both good things. And IF I believed in feminist icons, which I don't, I would not consider her one, largely for the same reasons Stump referred to above.

    The "public" life of celebrity is largely a sham. We should move past its flimsy pretensions.

    (I have no idea why you included the last link where Jolie states she has only slept with four men. It is really none of our business... and makes absolutely no difference to anything.)

  • VivianLea Doubt

    2 years ago

    Hyeena

    I had to debate with myself about responding to you, but here goes.

    Yes, I used the word archetype in the Jungian sense. Jesus Christ is an archetype; if we say we are trying to emulate Christ it is really an amorphous concept of goodness we are trying to emulate. The archetype that Naomi Wolf is positing for Jolie (if I have it right) is a blend of such amorphous qualities that include sexual, beneficent motherhood, power – something like that.

    Women have the power to choose in the sense that discrimination is outlawed in Canada by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But that does not change the fact that women earn less money than men (statistically, as a group), or that women in my community can’t get abortions because the hospital is Catholic. Why isn’t my community outraged that abortions aren’t available at a publically funded hospital? Is abortion, in fact, a realistic choice for a teenager here? The power of choice rests not only in changing the laws, but in changing societal attitudes. When I referred to being sexy in the boardroom, I was referring to earlier writings of Wolf in which she talked about how beautiful women are sometimes perceived as less than serious, or competent, or worthy of being promoted – simply by virtue of the stereotypes of ‘beautiful’ or ‘sexy’. (Wolf is a very beautiful woman herself.)

    When I speak of choosing, I meant what I said: that one should not have to choose between being beautiful/sexy – a good mother and /or wife – a competent capable woman. But as some responses here show, it is very difficult to be all those things, because for some the old demarcations still hold.

    Is Jolie someone we should emulate? I don’t know – I know little of her, and in fact, have never seen any of her movies. But the archetype that Wolf posits – yes. Or at any rate speaking personally, I want to be valued for all the facets of myself, and not just the ‘good girl’ stereotype as defined by popular culture. So in that sense, that archetype might advance for all of us – men, women, single mothers, and poverty-stricken students like me.
    I have no difficulty that you, or anyone else, disagrees with me. I fail to see how it is possible to learn if we do not attempt to take in other viewpoints. For myself, I want the debate/conversation to take place on respectful terms, and I might point out that I am posting here with my real name. Are you?

  • HawkEyes

    2 years ago

    lynn

    Sorry. What was your point? Who is your uptown source of real estate information? And you know Jolie is restless how? Right. You're a snob fly on the wall and I have to get real.
    I called Vanessa a hater because her articles always put Ms. Jolie down, no matter the dance. Few people agree with me but that doesn't make them haters-that's people who spew forth nasty negativity based on ignorance. Does the shoe fit? Would you repeat everything you wrote in front of Jolie's children?????????? If not, you added to the 'shit' that is always in their faces.
    Now you want to stay out of the bedroom? You said she's got 35 of them... Now you want to mind your business??
    I brought up that last link because it contradicts a basic premise that brought us here. It was another example of Ms Wolf's own lack of credibility. It was a test...

    But I go on. I don't believe in repeat or defend. I must have respected some of your past posts to bother...

  • Hyeena

    2 years ago

    I read my previous post and

    I read my previous post and see I did take an unfair tone and was a bit combative. Yes, you have a point. Jolie does symbolize the power to choose, no doubt about it. As you say, you are a student so perhaps I am a little older than you, and less idealistic. But don't you find it to be a delicious irony that most elderly Canadian women rely on Old Age Pension, without which they would be paupers? It took a Depression to win that benefit. Fast forward to modern day and well, that's all forgotten now. CPP, Universal Health Care, all yesterday's battles. Now you're outraged you can't get an abortion at a taxpayer-provided clinic. Also, you're upset women make less money than men. What will you tell your children when they are outraged they don't have their own personal trainers, and a Porsche and yacht?

    And on it goes. If you entertain any thoughts whatsoever of changing attitudes by using Angelina Jolie as a female archetype, you are doomed to failure. If you are a student at a public university in Canada in 2009, you will have to make do with less, even upon graduation. Your parents had more than you. More money, time and leisure. You and your spouse will have to work flat out, full time if you wish to enjoy what your parents had. And forget about staying at home to raise your kids, the loss of income will destroy you. Daycare -forget it, too expensive. Wouldn't it be ironic if you were dreaming of living Angelina Jolie's life while preparing yet another Kraft Macaroni dinner in your one bedroom apartment?

  • cerea

    2 years ago

    angelina

    angelina is the new greta garbo. The engmatic smile, the down cast eyes, the secret life and the powerful CN role. The woman is a genius. She knows how to keep them coming back for more. she imagine her looking at jennifer's life and wanted what jennifer had angeline is a human being who knew how to market her self and millions people bought the product. She is an icon because the masses made her one. If no one reads about her, goes to her movies or react to her scandles she would be just like me ordinary.

    Cerea

  • lynn

    2 years ago

    acting for the cameras

    "100 gallons of kerosene could heat a home for a whole winter
    - Private jet from L.A. to Africa - approx. 11,000 gallons of fuel."

    Do you not see the glaring contradiction?

    Do you not see that it reveals little understanding of vital sustainability issues?

    This is the flimsy perch of celebrity.

    It is all about image and it lacks real weight.

    It's basically old school "charity ball" kind of stuff that does nothing to change the world...it just provides a "feel good" moment for the privileged while their private actions and choices only serve to maintain "their" status quo: the ever-increasing gulf between the rich and the poor.

    Why would women want to emulate that kind of behavior?

  • cerea

    2 years ago

    Angeline

    Rereading my previous post it was a bit confusing. what I was trying to say is that celebrities are nothing without an audience. We are that audience and we keep creating them. Wouldn't be nice to be paid for just being you? It really doesn't matter how much money she spends flying back and forth to Africa, what matters is where she is getting the money. We can either be for her or aganist her that is not the issue. The issue is we keep creating these people and giving them our money. Case in point 'Oprah." Now the younger generation is looking for the next guru. It will on and on and the generations to follow will have the same issues. Technology changes but people don't.
    Cerea

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.