There is a very intelligent reaction to the Charlie Sheen fiasco on the New York Times today. The article is titled "The Disposable Woman" and was written by Anna Holmes, from feminist-tinged news service Jezebel.
The article focuses on how the audience's poor image/perspective of the women in Sheen's life (the angry ex-wife, the social climbing porn star, the low-standards call girl) creates acceptance to his abuses of power and increased displays of violence against others (particularly women). These are disposable women.
The article goes on to compare the Sheen fiasco with the masses' unabated love of reality television. People are so easily engrossed with the antics of reality TV that they sometimes forget those dramatic climaxes and incendiary confrontations are pre-scripted to get a ratings boost.
Sheen's uncontrolled inebriation--with himself and his drugs--causes him to continuously lose control of his judgement. In reality TV, there are no consequences. In real life, there should be. Just ask Robert Downey Jr.
There's a passionate hunger for the train-wrecked lives of entertainers these days. Celebrities are RARELY off-camera anymore--what with paparazzi up the wazoo, on most days--and the audience is continuously stimulated by outrageous off-camera antics: the train-wreck lives, divorces, relationships, custody battles, non-panty clad crotch flashes, and more.
We're cheering on the lions in the Colosseum--but the lines have blurred in our mind of what and where the Colosseum really is. You just can't take your eyes off. Or can you?
The debasement of the female characters in Sheen's life is in spectacular bad taste. The audience is really casting these women in substandard roles, based on old-fashioned stereotypes. Judged guilty before presuming innocent. We forget we know NOTHING about these people. We only know what is being shown.
I've been able to weigh the claims and facts the NYTimes article puts forward. I like the writer's perspective. It's an intelligent reaction that cuts to the bottom of the issue.
Being exposed to a strong, thoughtful, and well-written article makes me feel like I got my anarchy in, against Sheen. That article truly makes for good reading, and even better, good thinking.
I disagree in part with the article. I don't believe the women who have been involved with Charlie Sheen are being dismissed because of their backgrounds or careers but because of Sheen's own reputation.
ReplyDeleteThat is to say Sheen's reputation is not a newly acquired one. He has a LONG history and most of his relationships with women (both casual just for sex and more serious-- leading to relationships and/or marriage) that are in the spotlight have occurred SINCE he gained the reputation he has arguably had for at least 20 years.
It's more a matter of-- "You date Charlie Sheen and you're actually surprised when it doesn't end well?!?!?" I guess most of us feel that given his reputation, any women who get involved with him are doing so at their own peril. Given his increasing saturation in the media the number of women who could legitimately plead ignorance to his shenanigans is shrinking exponentially.
And I believe people would have the same opinion of the women he's been involved with regardless of their backgrounds.... They could have phDs or be rocket scientists... but dating Charlie Sheen regardless of their backgrounds shows a tremendous lapse in judgment.
Does that make sense?
I completely agree. It's unfortunate that many people tend to willfully lose themselves (and their judgement) in order to "have a good time." 99% of the people who associate themselves with train-wreck celebrities, be it in a relationship or casual acquaintance/sex, are mostly trying to have a good time and forget about consequences. Sadly, real life is all about the consequences.
ReplyDeleteI don't think those women are worthless, socially or intellectually, but they definitely lowered their image by the mere association to this spectacular loser.
Thanks btw, your post inspired a post of my own on this subject. It's the same basic gist of my comment to your post but with more detail.
ReplyDelete