I think, that in our part of the world, it's more a question about equality. Like why, in 2008 men are better paid than women and so on.
But although things like these don't usually apeal to me, I've been thinking about the difference between people's view of rebellious girls and rebellious boys.
Take Amy Winehouse, or Kate Moss.
They've both been busted for drugs, Wineouse quite a lot of times, and whenever an incident like that has occured, the media has made them look like tragic addicted women who can't take care of themselves. Whilst whenever something like that happens to a male celebrity, they're concidered wild and exiting and quite a rebel. I'm not saying it's like this in every case, 'cause I don't think many people digged Pete Doherty's falling out.
But still, men get more respect than the women when they go "crazy" like that.
Like Keith Moon. He's worshiped by who-fans all over the world as the loonie, druggie, alcoholic god of the drums, while Lindsay Lohan, who shows quite a similar behaviour is referred to as an unstabile, slutty and tragic person.
I know Moon might have been a tad more tallented and experienced than Lohan, but still...
Then again, I don't know how people talked about Moon in the late seventies, and maybe Lohan will have to die before people start treating her as an icon.
What triggered me to write this is actually a headline on the front of a magazine saying that some norwegian b-celebrity was a "Recless Sex-Symbol".
It's just that a boy can shag whoever he wants, drink as much as he likes and get drug-busted a kazzillion times, and still be a "Recless Sex-Symbol".
If a girl shagged thirty different people, got drunk every night and someone found 10 grams of marihuana in her matress, she wouldn't exactly be reffered to as a sex-symbol. More like "Problematic crack-whore"
I don't know if it's really a big deal, I just came to think about it.
Sunniva
No comments:
Post a Comment