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

You have no way of knowing if she has enhanced her look (fake as you put it - nice but of misogyny here) in that shoot - I certainly can’t tell - she looks the same as she always has done

To be fair, it’s obvious that she has enhanced her appearance with fake lashes and hair - in addition to ongoing dental work and a conspicuous rhinoplasty - but my point was that she is still cultivating an artificial image now - along similar lines to the one she complained about having to present on the game show. Which is exactly why she ‘looks the same’ now as she did then.

Further, Meghan herself referred to ‘fake tan’ - it’s what it is called - please explain the misogyny there? I’ve used fake tan & lashes before myself. Baffling.

Beware anyone who disparages the very system that they are embracing. This act alone tells us that the person is all hot air and has no genuine interest in seeing the system disappear (why would they when the system works in their favour?). H & M are racking up quite a list in this respect: disparaging patriarchy while benefiting from it, disparaging environmental pollution while benefiting from polluting behaviour, disparaging the RF while benefiting from it, disparaging inequality while benefiting from it, etc..These people use language to pull the wool over eyes of an unsuspecting public so that they can continue to profit from systems that hurt others, but not them. I have no idea why H & M 'supporters' fail to see this.

Well said.

I'm still waiting to see any evidence that she had anything more to offer than what was displayed on Deal Or No Deal. It is really cringeworthy when vain people grossly overestimate their beauty/intellectual ability. The fact is that she is primarily a legend in her own mind.

Yes they signed up for it. But they shouldn't have to, that is the point.

They were not forced. Neither was ever hand to mouth. Their past/present ego needs are blatantly obvious. Many beutiful women would have walked away or not desired to go there in the first place.

They chose to do it because they wanted to feel desired, admired, successful. They milked the system as far as it would deliver for them. After their shelf lives were up, they suddenly pipe up with all this hypocritical drivel.

Being attractive is a privilege (to use the current terminology meaning an advantage.)
It's a privilege people who have it are able to exploit. It provides opportunities that less attractive people don't get.

People work hard to maximise their attractiveness because they know it has benefits in social status and opportunity.

MM is an extraordinarily privileged woman. She is attractive, she is reasonably bright, she had wealthy supportive parents and a good education. Pretty much the golden ticket 99% of the world don't get.

And yet still she complains.

About being so attractive she got jobs based on it.

She continues to utilise her attractiveness (as most people would) to get acting parts based on being sexy, & to bag the world's most eligible bachelor. Doesn't she think her looks had something to do with this?
And she continues to do glamorous photo shoots while complaining about people noticing how attractive she is.

It's absurd.

She seems to have some weird image of herself as a serious woman changing the world to make it more kind, who just happens to be attractive, but that doesn't matter as it's just being your authentic self which matters.

When in reality she's an attractive privileged women who's used her skills to bag a prince whilst saying meaningless platitudes.

Quite interesting how she makes this primarily about how she feels in the bimbo role. Fair enough. But how does it make other women feel? She presents an idealised image of feminine beauty that very few other women can live up to. Clearly, I don't think she should be blamed for that. She is not responsible for these wider systems or a very long history in which women have been valued primarily for their looks. But it would be interesting to at least acknowledge and discuss that tension maybe. I see this as similar to her liberalism on culture and identity but less so on matters of structural inequality (from which she also benefits).

Well said.

She seems like someone who never reads the job description before signing up. Just like joining the Royal Family without understanding the expectations.

I see, sorry @susan12345678 I thought those were your personal views.

Very valid points on this thread about the hypocrisy MM is displaying, does she not think of these things or the people she pays don’t have the foresight to understand she just keeps putting her foot in it

Whoopi Goldberg is also right.

so you read a summary and judged Meghan on that writers opinion of her podcast? I'd suggest reading the transcript instead.
open.spotify.com/episode/3dzByHY9XyTWhF21Nt0xZU

I haven't listened to all of it yet but in response to your points:

• She said the internship was a role in which she was valued for her brains vs being eye candy, and how that felt. It wasn't a discussion about how she got that job or her successes or failures in it.

• She became a 'briefcase girl' while pursuing acting, so no there isn't an implication that she sabotaged a stellar career in e.g. diplomatic corps. She says she was grateful for a steady paycheque and I don't think she said anything negative about doing the job really other than she eventually quit because it didn't feel right. She did mention how bright all the women on there were.

• Bimbo economy is an odd phrase. I don't think it would be her natural environment particularly, or anyone else's for that matter. The podcast is a discussion of how different labels can make women feel limited and reduced to tropes. It's not about criticising the women who fall into those roles or are characterised that way. It's not about calling one type of career or image better than another.

Agree with this. And the bias in this case is almost always negative.

so you read a summary and judged Meghan on that writers opinion of her podcast? I'd suggest reading the transcript instead

I read a bit of it and honestly, I gave up. It's just not engaging - it reminds me a bit of sitting on a train beside a couple of people having a loud, banal conversation.

Today there was an article/video in the press about a part she had in the first episode of 90210. She was in the front seat of a car and bent down to act out giving the driver oral sex till the drivers girlfriend appeared at the car and Meghan sat up again. This was apparently 2 years after she stopped being a suitcase girl because it made her a bimbo.

She is the gift that keeps on giving when it comes to showing herself up for the hypocrite and liar she is.

Only because you jump on what she says in this ridiculous manner. So what if she played some sexualised parts? Working in that industry I'm sure she had to compromise and deal with the reality of what kind of roles were available.

The podcast is about the judgements around certain labels that women are given; the format is clearly that she starts off by making a personal connection to the issue, which is quite a good way to kick things off each week IMO - it's her podcast and she's a big name so it would be a bit strange not to include anything about herself.

Only because you jump on what she says in this ridiculous manner. So what if she played some sexualised parts? Working in that industry I'm sure she had to compromise and deal with the reality of what kind of roles were available

Sorry about that. I posted way too soon.

But suffice to say.

She did have a choice. She could have not taken the part in the first place and gone off and trained as something else. But she didn’t. She took the role on and even after leaving it because it apparently made her feel like a Bimbo she went on over the next 7 years? to take on at least two more roles that became even more sexualized each time she did one. It’s quite obvious the more desperate she became to find fame the more she was willing to do to get it. And you can make of that what you want because nothing you say will take away from the fact she is a hypocrite and a liar.

I'm looking at the VF photos and I have to wonder what exactly is going on with them. They don't look one bit polished or professional. M is unarguably beautiful and most of the dresses lovely, but these photos don't seem to be saying anything. There's one where she's lying on what looks like a crumpled old parachute and there's just nothing pulling it together, there's no reason for her to be lying on it and it's not arranged in any way - like someone just flung it down and told her to go lie on it. I don't understand what they were going for and some on Twitter are suggesting that this spread and interview are tongue in cheek on the part of VF.

"The podcast is about the judgements around certain labels that women are given; the format is clearly that she starts off by making a personal connection to the issue, which is quite a good way to kick things off each week IMO - it's her podcast and she's a big name so it would be a bit strange not to include anything about herself."

I suspect that she chose the podcast topics because they were ones that she has experienced. So of course she wants to talk about her connection to the topic.

Forgot to attach the photos.

I agree about the photos Londonwolf. She looks great, but the set up is not good at all.

She's only a 'hypocrite' if she went against her moral principles. Saying that she felt somewhat uncomfortable with a job where she was there to be eye-candy doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' per se with doing those sorts of jobs do get by. You can critique something while also participating in aspects of it because that's the nature of living in an imperfect world.

Yes she could have gone off and retrained or held out for better roles while living on thin air, but why should she if she wanted to pursue acting? And why are you so weirdly prudish about it?

Being paid to smile, flirt and hold a briefcase as 'yourself' is also a different thing from an acting role, so you're comparing apples with oranges there anyway.

If she was so much more at home with the internship than the bimbo work then why did t she go into that field instead? Unless perhaps they felt she didnt have what it took so had to follow this other career in bimbo and z list parts before she married into her next career platform adventure