Strollerderby : celebrity worship

Babies And Benjamins: Should Celebs Sell Photos?

Amy Kuras — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:02:00 GMT

With the long-awaited birth of the Jolie-Pitt twins this week came the inevitable bidding war over their first photos. The couple reportedly got $11 million from People for the newborn's first photos.

They claim they'll donate it to charity. But I am still thoroughly disgusted. ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS.

I live in a city where people are losing their homes, food banks are empty, and old people can’t afford to go to the doctor and some idiot thinks THAT'S the most appropriate use of $11 million?

There's a better and more in-depth discussion of the issue here. As one of the journalism profs in the article noted, this is a couple who is already, to say the least, in a position to donate huge sums to charity. The fact that they donated half – half! – of the $4 million they got for pictures of their daughter Shiloh to worthy causes is certainly better than those celebs like Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony who say "thankyouverymuch" and pocket the cash without a second thought as to the good that money could do. And by "good" I don’t mean several new pairs of Manolos.

The only reason celebrities are celebrities is because they already have a good deal of our money. I mean, someone saw Gigli. To give them yet more for something as silly as baby pictures just feels wrong, like the world's out of whack.

And it leads to scary celebrity worship. I understand celeb's attitude that they wantot control when and how the pictures come out, but as the article linked points out, other magazines certainly don’t respectfully step off once a star inks a deal. It just feeds the cultural sickness that means Britney Spears can't go get a Slurpee without 70 photographers hounding her. Would be still even be hearing about Nicole Richie or Tori Spelling if they weren't pimping out their babies? If we gave a fraction of the attention to serious matters, not to mention a fraction of the money, that we give to celebrities and their babies we would not be in half the trouble we're in economically, politically and socially.

And, you know, there's the whole pimping out their babies aspect. I think if you're going to show off your baby as a celeb, do it for free. Otherwise, it's just exploitive. Even if the money goes to a good cause. Use some of your own millions for that and let the baby have some shred of normalcy, please. How would you feel is you'd been treated as a commodity from before you were born?

Oh well, as Northwestern journalism professor emeritus Abe Peck said: "The bottom line is the public wants to see this stuff. In a better world, maybe someone would pay $20 million for photos of Nelson Mandela's grandchildren."

They Say: Celeb-Watching Boosts Self-Esteem

Madeline Holler — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:01:00 GMT

Does your daughter feel bad about herself? Take her to a Hannah Montana concert! Is your son not the confident boy he used to be? Make sure he has a subscription to People magazine! As for you? Don't listen to Adrienne -- keep following every move of your favorite celebrity mom and you're gonna love yourself in the morning, every morning.

Why? Because, they say, this is going to make you stronger.

A new study from SUNY-Buffalo shows that admiring celebrities can actually boost your low self-esteem, not drive it down. Who knew?

One hundred undergraduates in the study described their favorite celebrity in an open-ended essay. Self-evaluations in these essays were then assessed using a self-esteem scale. Apparently, the students' "relationships" with the celebrity provided some benefits that real relationships didn't.

From UPI:

These parasocial relationships, which have very low risk of rejection, offer low self-esteem people an opportunity to reduce their self-discrepancies and feel closer to their ideal selves, the researchers said.

Huh. So Angelina loves me? She really loves me? Suddenly, I feel fabulous!

Photo: lovebscott.com

Strollerderby Playdate: The Awful Blog I Can't Stop Reading

Madeline Holler — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:32:00 GMT

How can it be that I am a regular reader of this blog? I mean, you could hardly call it a blog -- she posts only once or twice a month, it's not terribly interesting, it's surrounded by ads for gentle yet overpriced baby laundry detergent that you don't even need.

And it's her! Her! I don't even like her! I am not interested in her! I do nothing but criticize and disagree with her. I didn't watch her on TV before and, now that she's back, I still don't. I won't! Yet, I read her blog. I check it for updates, feel let down when there are none. I find myself identifying with her truly mundane stories and smiling at -- and I mean this in the rudest ways -- the very unfunny funny things she strains to write. Please, what is wrong with me?

Somehow, I have let Elisabeth Hasselbeck get under my skin and into the heart of my web browser. Bafflingly, I don't consider the three minutes I put in each month checking out her posts -- she doesn't even have links or games or a photo album to look through! -- wasted time. How could I? I love reading it! But shouldn't I hate myself a little more for loving it? Shouldn't I want to soak in a tub of scalding hot water and gentle Dreft soap bubbles?

It's like the playgroup I go to again and again. The membership is dwindling, the only mom who shows up is the one you have nothing in common with. Nothing! But I keep going -- once or twice a month -- to not connect, to not agree, to not enjoy. Why go? Why not.

(Grey's) Anatomy of a Baby Naming Trend

Madeline Holler — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:04:00 GMT

What kind of embarrassing is it when you realize that you named your kid after a TV character? Because nobody does that on purpose, right? It’s TV. It’s fleeting. It’s getting canceled next season. Nobody actually says, “We’re naming her Olivia. We’re big fans of Law & Order SVU!”

So all you parents of an Addison under the age of 2, tell me: where’d you come up with that name? ABC Thursdays, 9 p.m./8 central? That’s what I thought, you Grey’s Anatomy automatons! Well, prepare yourselves for cast reunions at your weekly playgroups, because your Addison is going to be fighting over crayons with a lot of Baileys, Izzys (Izzies?), Callies and Jacksons.

The fastest rising baby names in 2007 have some kind of connection to Grey’s Anatomy and its stars, according to Baby Center. Let’s start with Addison, the name of a hot OB/Gyn who was spun off onto her own series Private Practice. She jumped 20 spots in the name rankings to land in the Top 10 names.

And Isobel, the character played by Katherine Heigl, moves an average of six spots a year since the show’s launch in 2005.

Bailey, the name of the no-nonsense doctor with a heart of gold, was the fastest rising, jumping 39 spots.

Callie, new to the Top 100 list, is, don’t you know, the name of Dr. Torres on the show.

Over in the land of boys, Jackson jumped 10 spots and is now in the Top 10. Who’s Jackson on the show? Well, this is where Baby Center’s arguments for the show’s influence gets tenuous.

They say: Actor Justin Chambers (who plays Dr. Alex Karev) has a daughter named Isabella and a son named Jackson.

You know, I’ve been in the baby name business for at least seven years now and let me tell you, I’ve met enough pre-2005 Jackson’s to fully staff a city hospital starting in the year 2020.

While I’m at it, there has always been at least one Isobel in every park too – though rather than Izzie, the pre-2005 nom de play of choice was always Bella.

So maybe Grey’s Anatomy isn’t as influential on names as the website argues. Maybe … maybe! … writers for Grey’s Anatomy’s pilot went to a kid's birthday party in 2002 and named the characters after the guests who brought the best presents.

Now, tell me. Why did you name your baby Isobel?

Kid Nation, Every Parent’s Dream?

Madeline Holler — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:38:00 GMT

I won’t be watching Kid Nation when it premieres on CBS Wednesday night, but not as a silent protest of the alleged exploitation or broken child labor laws (though I’m certainly opposed to both). No, I watch my daughters go Lord of the Flies about six hundred times a day. I’m not interested in an extra hour of it on TV.

But I did read with interest Meghan Daum’s take in the LA Times on the controversy surrounding the show and the question: what kind of parents would willingly turn their children over to producers, writers, directors – and worse, other children -- after signing what amounts to accidental death consent forms?

Looking at the 40 Kid Nation stars’ parents, Daum sees a generation whose life goal, in this decades-long era of celebrity worship, was nothing more noble than to be famous. Success, we're told these days, is not just about achievement but public (preferably televised) achievement, she writes. Alas, these parents never became household names. So they offer up their offspring to Hollywood in order to protect them from the fate we’ve come to fear most: invisibility.

What about you? Doctor or Hollywood starlet? Teacher or NBA superstar? Wouldn’t you like your kid to be president – or a host on Good Morning America – some day?