Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Jillian Michael comments about Lizzo
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think anyone is debating whether the entertainment industry is shallow. It does seem to be a valid point to make, however I would love to hear why anyone on those top twenty lists Bry provided qualifies as an "emaciated barbie." Is it because they are fit and beautiful? So we have stooped to the level of insulting people for that now? Yes they are beautiful, but they are also talented, and they worked very hard to get where they are at. The argument that its ok to say whatever we want about someone because they aren't likely to read it is ridiculous and I can't believe he is even trying to defend that position. Am I offended by what was said? No, but I don't need to be personally offended by something to point out to someone that what they are saying may be offensive to others. Its literally no different than fat shaming Lizzo and saying its ok because she won't ever read it.
There are tons of slender and very slender women, even beautiful ones, who try really hard and never make it in entertainment. Clearly something extra is needed, on some level people need to appreciate what you're doing (even if it is hard for non-fans to see the appeal).
There are tons of attractive people trying to make it in entertainment although it's the ones with talent that make it. Even in today's reality TV culture it's the ones with character that tend to make it. Unless you're the (attractive) family of a lawyer who got a Holllywood actor out of a murder charge.
We've come a long way from the hairy hippies of the 60s - in the wrong direction...2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think anyone is debating whether the entertainment industry is shallow. It does seem to be a valid point to make, however I would love to hear why anyone on those top twenty lists Bry provided qualifies as an "emaciated barbie." Is it because they are fit and beautiful? So we have stooped to the level of insulting people for that now? Yes they are beautiful, but they are also talented, and they worked very hard to get where they are at. The argument that its ok to say whatever we want about someone because they aren't likely to read it is ridiculous and I can't believe he is even trying to defend that position. Am I offended by what was said? No, but I don't need to be personally offended by something to point out to someone that what they are saying may be offensive to others. Its literally no different than fat shaming Lizzo and saying its ok because she won't ever read it.
There are tons of slender and very slender women, even beautiful ones, who try really hard and never make it in entertainment. Clearly something extra is needed, on some level people need to appreciate what you're doing (even if it is hard for non-fans to see the appeal).
There are tons of attractive people trying to make it in entertainment although it's the ones with talent that make it. Even in today's reality TV culture it's the ones with character that tend to make it. Unless you're the (attractive) family of a lawyer who got a Holllywood actor out of a murder charge.
We've come a long way from the hairy hippies of the 60s - in the wrong direction...
Attractiveness was also valued in the 1960s.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think anyone is debating whether the entertainment industry is shallow. It does seem to be a valid point to make, however I would love to hear why anyone on those top twenty lists Bry provided qualifies as an "emaciated barbie." Is it because they are fit and beautiful? So we have stooped to the level of insulting people for that now? Yes they are beautiful, but they are also talented, and they worked very hard to get where they are at. The argument that its ok to say whatever we want about someone because they aren't likely to read it is ridiculous and I can't believe he is even trying to defend that position. Am I offended by what was said? No, but I don't need to be personally offended by something to point out to someone that what they are saying may be offensive to others. Its literally no different than fat shaming Lizzo and saying its ok because she won't ever read it.
There are tons of slender and very slender women, even beautiful ones, who try really hard and never make it in entertainment. Clearly something extra is needed, on some level people need to appreciate what you're doing (even if it is hard for non-fans to see the appeal).
There are tons of attractive people trying to make it in entertainment although it's the ones with talent that make it. Even in today's reality TV culture it's the ones with character that tend to make it. Unless you're the (attractive) family of a lawyer who got a Holllywood actor out of a murder charge.
We've come a long way from the hairy hippies of the 60s - in the wrong direction...
I dunno. Not only - as Jane says - was attractiveness highly valued in celebrities then as now (though the trendy standard of attractiveness differed somewhat from now), but it was also the Twiggy era (for those way younger than me, an iconic model/celebrity who was setting quite a popular appearance standard for some at the time).
I'd agree that there were some male pop stars or other celebrities of questionable attractiveness back then (even ignoring the style aspects, just talking about semi-healthy weight within a fashionable range, regular features, etc., not details of hairstyle, facial hair, makeup and whatnot). I'd argue that most female celebrities were as supposedly attractive then (in these same non-style-dependent ways) as now. Someone like "Mama" Cass Elliott was considered quite an outlier at the time, and she came to popularity in a group with a more conventionally "attractive" woman (Michelle Phillips, who though competent vocally really was not nearly as talented as Elliott, as an aside).
In general, I feel like then as now, the industry expectations for attractiveness for male vs. female celebrities cuts a little more slack for males vs. females. It's gotten more stringent for men, though, perhaps, than it was then. In terms of larger body sizes, it seems like there are still more Garth Brooks or James Cordon, etc., types now, I think, vs. the Kelly Clarkson or Queen Latifah types, and that the expectation for some sort of glamor is higher for women.
In terms of how someone becomes a celebrity, even with strong talent, appearance is clearly a factor (for both sexes), hard work, connections, persistence, and frankly blind luck, among other things. Prince promoted Lizzo on account of her talent and training, but not everyone talented/trained crosses paths with a Prince.
I do wonder a bit when considering British actors vs. US actors. I think the US imposes a higher appearance requirement (not saying the Brits are ugly, just that there seems to be a bit more acceptance of B+ appearance where there's obvious talent), to the slight detriment of average talent level in the US cohort. Or maybe it's just that we see the cream of the Brits here, talent-wise.6 -
I think the main reason any normal person brings her weight up in conversation is because it's remarkable that an overweight person is successful. It gives her talent a sense of credibility. It's like, "hey, it's not her looks that got her where she is, this girl has talent." There seems to be a notion that talent will only get you so far, that you also have to have the looks to go with it. So when you see someone that doesn't look the part it makes you think she must be especially gifted.4
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think anyone is debating whether the entertainment industry is shallow. It does seem to be a valid point to make, however I would love to hear why anyone on those top twenty lists Bry provided qualifies as an "emaciated barbie." Is it because they are fit and beautiful? So we have stooped to the level of insulting people for that now? Yes they are beautiful, but they are also talented, and they worked very hard to get where they are at. The argument that its ok to say whatever we want about someone because they aren't likely to read it is ridiculous and I can't believe he is even trying to defend that position. Am I offended by what was said? No, but I don't need to be personally offended by something to point out to someone that what they are saying may be offensive to others. Its literally no different than fat shaming Lizzo and saying its ok because she won't ever read it.
There are tons of slender and very slender women, even beautiful ones, who try really hard and never make it in entertainment. Clearly something extra is needed, on some level people need to appreciate what you're doing (even if it is hard for non-fans to see the appeal).
There are tons of attractive people trying to make it in entertainment although it's the ones with talent that make it. Even in today's reality TV culture it's the ones with character that tend to make it. Unless you're the (attractive) family of a lawyer who got a Holllywood actor out of a murder charge.
We've come a long way from the hairy hippies of the 60s - in the wrong direction...
I dunno. Not only - as Jane says - was attractiveness highly valued in celebrities then as now (though the trendy standard of attractiveness differed somewhat from now), but it was also the Twiggy era (for those way younger than me, an iconic model/celebrity who was setting quite a popular appearance standard for some at the time).
I'd agree that there were some male pop stars or other celebrities of questionable attractiveness back then (even ignoring the style aspects, just talking about semi-healthy weight within a fashionable range, regular features, etc., not details of hairstyle, facial hair, makeup and whatnot). I'd argue that most female celebrities were as supposedly attractive then (in these same non-style-dependent ways) as now. Someone like "Mama" Cass Elliott was considered quite an outlier at the time, and she came to popularity in a group with a more conventionally "attractive" woman (Michelle Phillips, who though competent vocally really was not nearly as talented as Elliott, as an aside).
In general, I feel like then as now, the industry expectations for attractiveness for male vs. female celebrities cuts a little more slack for males vs. females. It's gotten more stringent for men, though, perhaps, than it was then. In terms of larger body sizes, it seems like there are still more Garth Brooks or James Cordon, etc., types now, I think, vs. the Kelly Clarkson or Queen Latifah types, and that the expectation for some sort of glamor is higher for women.
In terms of how someone becomes a celebrity, even with strong talent, appearance is clearly a factor (for both sexes), hard work, connections, persistence, and frankly blind luck, among other things. Prince promoted Lizzo on account of her talent and training, but not everyone talented/trained crosses paths with a Prince.
I do wonder a bit when considering British actors vs. US actors. I think the US imposes a higher appearance requirement (not saying the Brits are ugly, just that there seems to be a bit more acceptance of B+ appearance where there's obvious talent), to the slight detriment of average talent level in the US cohort. Or maybe it's just that we see the cream of the Brits here, talent-wise.
I didn't know that Lizzo was promoted by Prince, that's a very high endorsement in my book. As far as brits having different standards when i comes to attractiveness/talent I'd say it's pretty much the same. You do see the cream of our talent as Hollywood/Oscars is their goal. Especially comedy wise Steve Coogan, Sasha Baron-Cohen, James Corden, John Oliver and Ricky Gervaise are obviously not very beautiful but show that there is hope yet for the entertainment industry.
As someone making my own moves to have a career in music and make a decent living doing what I love I am all for quality and talent winning through. I can't help but get annoyed to see so many un/little talented people (of all genders) churning out boring, lazy music and promoting themselves with racy bathroom selfies hoping to get famous and become influencers.
I hoped the Internet would give more of a chance to genuinely talented people and in a small way it is, but the mainstream is still heavily dominated by an industry that's become so heavily commercilaised there are now 'pop star factories' in Korea and China:
https://www.spin.com/2012/03/seoul-trained-inside-koreas-pop-factory/
https://1businessworld.com/2019/12/business-news-china/inside-chinas-child-pop-star-factory/
What ever happened to a bunch of people getting together in a garage and making a racket until they don't suck any more?6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think anyone is debating whether the entertainment industry is shallow. It does seem to be a valid point to make, however I would love to hear why anyone on those top twenty lists Bry provided qualifies as an "emaciated barbie." Is it because they are fit and beautiful? So we have stooped to the level of insulting people for that now? Yes they are beautiful, but they are also talented, and they worked very hard to get where they are at. The argument that its ok to say whatever we want about someone because they aren't likely to read it is ridiculous and I can't believe he is even trying to defend that position. Am I offended by what was said? No, but I don't need to be personally offended by something to point out to someone that what they are saying may be offensive to others. Its literally no different than fat shaming Lizzo and saying its ok because she won't ever read it.
There are tons of slender and very slender women, even beautiful ones, who try really hard and never make it in entertainment. Clearly something extra is needed, on some level people need to appreciate what you're doing (even if it is hard for non-fans to see the appeal).
There are tons of attractive people trying to make it in entertainment although it's the ones with talent that make it. Even in today's reality TV culture it's the ones with character that tend to make it. Unless you're the (attractive) family of a lawyer who got a Holllywood actor out of a murder charge.
We've come a long way from the hairy hippies of the 60s - in the wrong direction...
I dunno. Not only - as Jane says - was attractiveness highly valued in celebrities then as now (though the trendy standard of attractiveness differed somewhat from now), but it was also the Twiggy era (for those way younger than me, an iconic model/celebrity who was setting quite a popular appearance standard for some at the time).
I'd agree that there were some male pop stars or other celebrities of questionable attractiveness back then (even ignoring the style aspects, just talking about semi-healthy weight within a fashionable range, regular features, etc., not details of hairstyle, facial hair, makeup and whatnot). I'd argue that most female celebrities were as supposedly attractive then (in these same non-style-dependent ways) as now. Someone like "Mama" Cass Elliott was considered quite an outlier at the time, and she came to popularity in a group with a more conventionally "attractive" woman (Michelle Phillips, who though competent vocally really was not nearly as talented as Elliott, as an aside).
In general, I feel like then as now, the industry expectations for attractiveness for male vs. female celebrities cuts a little more slack for males vs. females. It's gotten more stringent for men, though, perhaps, than it was then. In terms of larger body sizes, it seems like there are still more Garth Brooks or James Cordon, etc., types now, I think, vs. the Kelly Clarkson or Queen Latifah types, and that the expectation for some sort of glamor is higher for women.
In terms of how someone becomes a celebrity, even with strong talent, appearance is clearly a factor (for both sexes), hard work, connections, persistence, and frankly blind luck, among other things. Prince promoted Lizzo on account of her talent and training, but not everyone talented/trained crosses paths with a Prince.
I do wonder a bit when considering British actors vs. US actors. I think the US imposes a higher appearance requirement (not saying the Brits are ugly, just that there seems to be a bit more acceptance of B+ appearance where there's obvious talent), to the slight detriment of average talent level in the US cohort. Or maybe it's just that we see the cream of the Brits here, talent-wise.
I didn't know that Lizzo was promoted by Prince, that's a very high endorsement in my book. As far as brits having different standards when i comes to attractiveness/talent I'd say it's pretty much the same. You do see the cream of our talent as Hollywood/Oscars is their goal. Especially comedy wise Steve Coogan, Sasha Baron-Cohen, James Corden, John Oliver and Ricky Gervaise are obviously not very beautiful but show that there is hope yet for the entertainment industry.
As someone making my own moves to have a career in music and make a decent living doing what I love I am all for quality and talent winning through. I can't help but get annoyed to see so many un/little talented people (of all genders) churning out boring, lazy music and promoting themselves with racy bathroom selfies hoping to get famous and become influencers.
I hoped the Internet would give more of a chance to genuinely talented people and in a small way it is, but the mainstream is still heavily dominated by an industry that's become so heavily commercilaised there are now 'pop star factories' in Korea and China:
https://www.spin.com/2012/03/seoul-trained-inside-koreas-pop-factory/
https://1businessworld.com/2019/12/business-news-china/inside-chinas-child-pop-star-factory/
What ever happened to a bunch of people getting together in a garage and making a racket until they don't suck any more?
But how are Korean "pop factories" substantially different than the industry forces that gave us the Mickey Mouse Club stars or the Monkees or the Partridge Family or the Brill Building songwriting powerhouse or Menudo or New Edition? As long as pop music has existed, there have been people banging it out in garages, but there have also been producers figuring out what sells and finding young attractive people to make songs in that vein.
And the producer-driven young attractive people are always derided in their day and a lot of it is disposable, but sometimes they manage to make music that really touches people and helps define an era. (And I'll add that most of the people banging it out in garages make music that is pretty transient too -- I say this as someone who witness a lot of music being created in a lot of garages in my younger years).2 -
To be honest never heard of this woman until this thread. Saw a qoute on a magazine at store checkout described herself as curvy.
Based on the picture accompanying the quote, she is close to if not clinically morbidly obese.
She may make wonderful music but her future health will be an issue if not already at that weight.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions