Meghan’s latest Archwell podcast- Paris Hilton

[susan12345678]

Having started threads on earlier editions of the Archewell podcast, I felt compelled to comment on the latest - an interview with Paris Hilton - on the theme of the Bimbo.

I’ve not listened - but have read a summary - and the premise strikes me as rather hypocritical.
Meghan apparently mentions taking part in a diplomatic motorcade in Argentina during an internship at the Embassy, a role she claims to have received for her intelligence and education, but neglects to mention that her uncle arranged the (very brief) role for her or the small matter of failing the diplomatic exams. The implication seems to be that she should have been destined for a stellar professional career but sabotaged these possibilities by taking on ‘bimbo’ roles in a short-sighted effort to pay the rent.

The truth of the matter is that she may never have succeeded in a more intellectual or professional career and being a ‘bimbo’ actually served her extremely well - after all, she is someone of middling talent and would never have gained the prominence she has, or access to a wealthy husband, without these ‘bimbo’ roles.

In general, one only has to look at Instagram, Only Fans, Sugar Daddy sites to appreciate the true scale of the ‘bimbo’ economy which was Meghan’s natural habitat. It’s not going anywhere- and it’s an amusing conceit to imagine, now that she’s in her 40s and safely married to a rich man, that it was all somehow beneath her all along

I wouldn't call what she did being a bimbo. She took some low talent roles like deal or no deal where she had a great advantage because of her looks rather than because of a lack of intelligence. Plenty of actors and actresses take bit parts while establishing their careers. Few get to walk into a casting call and walk out with the main part without a bit of experience behind them. She wasn't playing a bingo in her role on Suits.

Looking at her Variety interview, I found it really interesting that Meghan pretty much says The Cut article (which I think made her look ridiculous) was an a breach of her trust. Maybe the journalists’s sudden sabbatical after it was published wasn’t actually a coincidence?

“You’ve done two major interviews since returning to America — one with Oprah Winfrey and the other with [The Cut] Magazine, which some found to be snarky. What has it been like to open up about your life now?
The [Cut] story was intended to support “Archetypes” and focus on our projects. I’ve had some time to reflect on it. Part of me is just really trusting, really open — that’s how I move in the world. I have to remember that I don’t ever want to become so jaded that that piece of me goes away. So despite any of those things? Onward. I can survive it”

But then the Variety article says things like this:

“She burst out laughing at the drop of a hat, almost like a princess in a Hollywood movie”

And has a whole story about how star-struck a bunch of 60-something women, teetering on their kitten heels, are as Meghan waves at them as she passes by. Presumably she’s signed that writing off as absolutely fine?

Yes this is exactly right, it she's just empty underneath her spoutings, she's literally been riding the bimbo wave til she got a part in Suits, albeit a z list celeb as she wasn't anyone really and it's the only thing she's done. Then, Miss Feminist has just tried to hoik herself into any platform possible by jumping off her husband and his family's status (how very feminist you are lol 😆) but why and how does she have anything to offer? Nothing with any credibility, and quite how did Didn't see the hypocrisy of her own podcast when she carried on bimbo'ing anyway ... it's laughable and the more she says the less people consider her anything other than a liar and a fake

Her extended confusion and stubbornness regarding archetypes vs stereotypes and why she got it wrong in the first place makes her look thick and arrogant.

Yes, she is confused about the difference between the two words "archetypes" and "stereotypes", and I do get the feeling that she's now realised her mistake, but is hoping the more she uses the word "archetypes" incorrectly, the more it will begin to embrace the meaning she originally thought it had, and now wants it to have.

This does happen with language. If a word is misused enough times in the same way, it begins to take on the incorrect meaning. Through repetition, the incorrect becomes the correct - or at least one of the accepted usages.

She also misuses the word "guttural". She has used it in the past when I am sure she meant "coming from the gut" - basically the word she was looking for was "visceral". She probably heard that this misuse was commented on, and felt embarrassed. So then, when she gave her interview to The Cut, she instructed the reporter to describe the noises she was making as "guttural" - she basically gave the reporter this exact qualifier. I am convinced that it was in order to paper over her previous mistake... an attempt to say "yes, you see I'm not alone in using the word guttural to refer to the guts"... It's stuck in my memory because this is the first time I've read a report on an interview where the interviewee has clearly given the reporter the words she must use to describe a moment in the interview. Much like a stage manager.

Certainly, there has always been a type of high profile women whose self-worth is tied up in publicly demonstrating that she can be bright, funny, successful, intelligent, sexy, wealthy, young, fit .... basically everything positive she can think of all at once.
I think that one of the main (real) aims of her podcast series is to drive this home and reinforce it using 'clever language'. She is raising her profile as an individual by associating herself with successful people.

However, the cracks are easily visible at surface level and it is embarrassing more than it is impressive once you can see what she is trying to do.

I had so hoped that this was going to be a good conversation regarding the latest podcast, which wad another great episode. But I can not take anyone serious who bitches about something they have not even listened to.

It's just so weird to start a discussion on a podcast you haven't even bothered to listen to, complete with critique! The hubris! It speaks to an obsession with something. Lazy criticism, maybe.

"Part of me is just really trusting, really open — that’s how I move in the world."

"I hope that in preparing for that role, she finds the softness and the playfulness and the laughter."

"'We’re creating multi-dimensional, interesting, kind, creative people,' she gushed. 'That’s who our kids are."

Who talks like this??

She just makes me squirm with second hand embarassment.

She is like Tump. In that she talks about herself in grandiose ways and there is obviously a grand narrative in her head about her story and who she is and how she thinks comes across.

She uses syrupy language whereas Trump is bombastic, so the style is different but the communication is the same: I think I'm amazing.

Trump: I'm a winner, I'm the best.

Meghan Markle: I'm so warm and playful and empathetic, I'm the best.

I find the way she talks about her children weird. She's basically saying: my children are just how I would want them to be because I'm so amazing.
That's a good recipe for healthy kids...live up to your mother's expectations, be interesting and creative to validate her narcisstic parenting.

the more she speaks the more she reveals.

I wonder if ex staff members recognise this bouncy, giggly, joyous character whom she is unsuccessfully trying to sell in this description. Perhaps it ios only reserved for the moneyed friendship group.

In answer to the question of why she is less worthy of being listened to than all the thousands of podcasts out there - she isn't less worthy, but her offering is just one of many vanity projects available. She doesn't have a unique viewpoint, or anything original to say, or a particularly entertaining way of saying it. If she wasn't married to Harry she would just be a middle-aged former actress yakking on in a personal podcast for her mates.

Give us an example of a unique view point? Unless it is something as controversial like she loves the taste of dog poo, you are placing expectations on her that are not placed on other podcasters. None of them has a unique viewpoint. We have heard it all before, we just choose who we want to hear it from.

What strikes me as odd is the openings to these podcasts where she tries to make an episode of her life fit the topic and it often comes off as tone deaf and patronising.

This week was the perfect example. She sketches out this anecdote about how she was made into a bimbo by Deal or No Deal. But she went into that with her eyes open. How many of us in our younger years had the choice between a well paid exploitative job or something a bit less risqué? I know that I did and chose not to do the thing that required me to be half naked all the time (people would definitely pay me to put it back in these days).

And then to contrast that with a story that shows that she didn’t come from a desperate background where she had no choice to do Deal or No Deal. Her uncle hooked her up to do work experience at a US embassy. Her dad put her through college. Why take the gig that requires you to be set dressing and then moan that it is beneath you?

I don’t think women should ever be treated like bimbos but I also think that the people who have actively made money from that stereotype have zero credibility to preach about it.

MoChridhe True. I think where she's unfortunate is that people like to laugh at people who take themselves too seriously, which Meghan undoubtedly does. There was the Ellen thing but that was painfully unfunny - I think if she found her own sense of humour it would serve her well.

Yea, but are they even her mates ... or schmoozing to elevate her status (as usual!) ... and likely vice Versa

Most of what she says and does comes across as unauthentic and self-promoting. I do not think that she will ever overcome this obvious credibility problem. I do not think she became like that after meeting H. I think she has been like that for decades. Even the details of her first marriage celebrations revealed something similar. Even before that, actually, driving around LA providing commentary. Is there anything of substance even there if one was to dig deeply. I am not so sure.

I feel a bit bad about posting now but I've had a tough day, dealing with genuinely vulnerable people who have little access to support or resources. It hacks me off that MM, while damaged herself, can use her looks and money to play the victim at family members' expense. I've seen it too often and it annoys me.

You should be angry at the politicians who have cut funding to services needed by the vulnerable over decades, long before you found out about Meghan Markle. She hasn't taken any money from the health service. Hundreds are going to die this winter from lack of heating and its nought to do with Meghan. Even if she didn't do her podcast. Mental funding for the UK vulnerable wouldn't be reinstated. She is on a whole other continent far from the UK. I bet if she spoke about poverty in the UK on her podcast you wouldn't be happy either.

I fondnit fascinating that posters are disparaging Meghan regarding doing , something that made her feel like a bimbo, yet not saying the same thing about Paris.

It is ok to look back and regret participating in it and use a platform to change the conversation about it for future actors. Which is why Meghan and Paris did this episode.

*find it

This thread has made me genuinely curious.
why do people listen to something by someone they don’t like?
i really don’t get it, I really dislike frankie boil for instance, so i advising him like the plague.
seeking out and spending time on someone you don’t like just seems pointless

Avoid obviously

@AutumnCrow well said about craving authority and credibility. I was surprised when she referenced her internship in the foreign service. To be a diplomat you need to be calm, patient, strategic and able to read the room. All qualities she didn't display in her brief time as a working royal.

Yes I'd agree, it's her complete lack of credibility that irks me.

She and Harry just jump from one bandwagon to the next without pause for thought.

Ahhh but @samcro