Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, spotted out and about, part 4

[pipsfromthefuture]

Part 4 of a nice, unproblematic thread to discuss some of the fab outfits from the Duchess of Sussex, and some of the many great causes she (and Harry) and Archewell supports.

I hadn’t seen the other posters response so I wasn’t piling on, just responded to that post as I read it. I haven’t goaded or been snarky at all so I expect that’s directed at others anyway.

Ok thanks!

Everyone here has contributed nicely in the Photography thread and kept it fun and positive, so there's no reason we can't all do the same here!

I wish I could edit the OP to put in the disclaimer from my other thread

Thank you 💐 - it’s really nice when it’s light and positive 🌻

This one is one of my favourite photos of the two

Lazy tropes indeed, not just on TV, in advertising too.

Right now there's a Peppa Pig ad on Amazon Prime at the moment. It goes: "Mummy Pig was packing the family's suitcases for the holiday"....

cringe! who'd have thought, in 2024. Good on Meghan and Geena for helping raise awareness. A drop in the ocean, but probably better than naught...

Geena Davis and her organisation have been doing some good work for awhile now, I remember a report some time ago now about the amount of minutes women spoke in films and TV and although I can't recall figures it was pretty abysmal and incredibly disproportionate. I'm pleased to see this collaboration, thanks for sharing @TallerSally

She’s very admirable! And such a striking woman.

It’s the Bechdel test, which looks at how much a woman talks and if it’s just to drive the male story arc etc. Very insightful!

Thanks @Pushtart

Here's a summary of the report's findings - those on childcare make for sobering reading!

• Moms on TV are mostly white, young, and thin. Of all TV moms of kids under age 18, 57.5% are white, 23.8% are Black, 9.2% are Latina, and 7.0% are Asian or Pacific Islander. Only 1.8% are fat,[1] 6.2% are queer, and no moms are disabled — a stark contrast to the demographics of the American population. An intersectional analysis of motherhood highlights the potential for more diverse depictions of motherhood on screen that reflect moms in reality.
• When a TV family has a clear breadwinner, nearly 9 out of 10 times it is a dad. In real life, the myth that moms’ salaries are not necessary to their families’ finances is pervasive, untrue, and limits moms’ earning potentials. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, among families with children ages 6–17 in the U.S. 44.4% of mothers earned at least half of the family income, with another 24.8% earning at least a quarter of it. TV does not reflect this reality.
• The realities of childcare are invisible on TV. Only 1 in 5 TV parents with kids under the age of 11 mentioned any form of childcare. The rest of the time, audiences are left to assume that these children are cared for safely and effortlessly. And this glosses over the difficulties of securing, coordinating, and affording childcare. In reality, 85% of primary caregivers in the U.S. reported that their focus at work and commitment to work are negatively affected due to challenges with childcare.
• TV homes are spotless, but we almost never see the work involved to keep them that way. Less than 1 in 10 TV parents had a messy house, and yet only 15.0% were shown doing domestic tasks like cleaning. In the real world, research shows that even when both partners have jobs, 70% of moms take on more domestic tasks and more of the mental load — the cognitive effort that goes into the invisible tasks necessary to run a household. This is a shared experience among the majority of moms in the U.S., and yet it is invisible on TV. Furthermore, when domestic tasks were shown on TV, they were carried out by a mom twice as often as a dad. These disparities reinforce pervasive gender roles that relegate mothers and sideline fathers, even though surveys show that, in reality, dads want to be more involved.
• TV moms are effortlessly attractive. Over three times as many moms were depicted to be desirable to the viewer (or desirable to other characters) as were characterized as unattractive. Nearly 8 out of 10 moms were slender, as were 6 of every 10 moms with a child under the age of one. The necessary steps to achieving this level of physical beauty are not shown on screen. TV moms rarely explain how they can afford beauty products, flattering clothes, and a gym membership or how they find the time to apply a full face of makeup, style their hair, iron their clothes, and exercise regularly. These unrealistic standards broadcast a message that attractiveness is effortless and affordable and thus should be attainable for the everyday mom.

Thanks so much for sharing that summary. I always think about how tidy the houses on tv are, and nobody is ever cleaning! I loved the character Julia on Motherland, she was always doing endless housework or child related things- Mothers load- while her husband worked on his fitness. Her struggle to keep up and her anger over it all, really made the show for me. I could totally relate.

It's an excellent photograph and it is a good example to show students the elements that create an enduring image: planning, access, framing, focus, light, and luck. The right image has longevity. I've seen a black and white version that is just as impressive in terms of the light and rain interplay.

@skullbabe I'm so sorry, i didnt even realize the tag wasn't in the OP! Thank you for part 3!! 💐

Not a problem - part 3 filled up so quickly 😂

I’m all in favor of diversity but also more than a bit dubious about television in the US ever becoming a force for good or educated anyone.

However these stats are not terribly far off with the US census.

Moms on TV are mostly white, young, and thin. Of all TV moms of kids under age 18, 57.5% are white, 23.8% are Black, 9.2% are Latina, and 7.0% are Asian or Pacific Islander.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US#

Also not interesting in pretending that Dad’s are packing the suitcases more often than reality.

And my word - Suits is fantastic but almost never showed anyone having a child other than Chloe’s neice?

I wouldn’t change a thing about that.

It's really the thin bit that they're missing on. I used to adore Roseanne, before she actually went mad and Trumpy.

The thing is, everyone just watches Netflix/Prime/AppleTV these days.

I am also not sure about these two particular women being the face of “we need more diversity” and especially not “we need less thin and traditionally considered beautiful women.” It may seem like virtue signaling.

Are two thin and beautiful actresses going to say they would have given up their opportunities for this cause?

Dual purpose post:

Two photos of the cute hats Meghan was wearing in Whistler.

Also, I thought the purpose of SoHo house was the privacy. Why is someone telling the media they were there??! Seems crappy!

https://people.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-date-night-austin-ahead-sxsw-panel-8606197

Privacy? I remember reading something about Soho House before.

Maybe a date night?

Someone has a flappy gob…

People article says it was a date night in Austin before the Archewell event at SWSX today.

I thought there were nights in one in Britain too? Must have got muddled.

You know what show they need to reboot: Desperate Housewives - showed a whole range of mother good and wifehood and friendship. Love that show

Thanks for the summary @TallerSally . It is true that people are influenced by media and how culture is represented there, both positively and negatively. That's why representation is important

Will anyone be following the SBSW event?

She's so good at casual looks but when she does suits or more formal wear it always looks like it needs a tailor and iron.

I still love her makeup and her hair looks nice.
The outfit though isn't it.

Panel sounded good overall - good flow of conversation

Oh that's a little bit untidy. It's always so difficult to get a clean neckline with a floppy fabric.