Words: Brooke Fraser (she/her)
Gender roles and harmful stereotypes lurk beneath the surface of our perceived progressiveness, and famous women become a kind of cultural magnifying glass for them.
The “Madonna-whore” complex, coined by Sigmund Freud, everyone’s favourite weirdo, introduced the idea of categorising women as 1 of 2 things: pure and angelic, with mother-like influence, or the opposite; an impure prostitute. Limiting women to 2 archetypes has dripped down into culture and media, pitting them against each other and reinforcing misogynistic tropes. The persona of the female celebrity has regrettably fallen into this complex: is she a saint or slut? Despite the “pure” personas female celebrities may adopt, the stalking and harassment they tend to face truly highlights the paradox of femininity under the patriarchy. How do these standards affect women in their everyday lives? Will women and female celebrities ever be able to take charge of their own personas, and not be constantly held to account by men and their invented standards of “purity”?
Celebrities wield great influence over how we live our lives – sometimes subconsciously – and are often viewed as products themselves; walking advertisements for their newest skincare drop or makeup line – which only furthers their own fame and image. Ariana Grande has often leaned into a sweet, feminine persona which some fans then felt supreme ownership and control over, many being near obsessed with her music, products, and person. Unfortunately, some fans cross the line into dangerously parasocial behaviour – violating private life or physical space – something which led to Ariana being physically assaulted. These red carpet boundaries are instances our current culture does not take seriously – but why?
Well, this is not a new phenomenon. There are countless examples of female celebrities being harassed because of society’s objectification of soft, feminine, “girl-next-door” personas, viewing these women as public property available to be owned and violated. One such woman was Princess Diana. A royal, public divorce was unprecedented and unheard of; cue the never ending harassment of press, media, and paparazzi itching to make the headlines of gossip magazines. The largest consequence of this harassment of a pure persona was ultimately her death, surrounded by the glare of paparazzi cameras. Women have often been expected to smile and accommodate in uncomfortable, or even dangerous, situations. You wouldn’t invite a masked burglar into your home with a smile telling them to make themselves comfortable, so why are female celebrities expected to surrender their own safety and comfort to uphold a persona in the face of harassment? It is clear that attitudes towards women have been impacted by the unachievable standard set on female celebrities, and living in an online world makes the parasocial relationships displayed on the red carpet even more dangerous.
The rise of social media has only heightened the impossible standards set for female celebrities. In an interview with Out Magazine, Beyonce Knowles came to her own conclusion that, in general, ‘men are free and women are not’. Ultimately, men are in charge of their own persona; they can have a say in how their story is told, how their work is displayed, usually without the risk of backlash. IMDB has produced many articles that list celebrities who fulfill different sets of criteria. One charming article (which someone thought was a good idea to publish) is titled Actresses that are not that attractive. This article is still up today, along with various similar pages. Interestingly, those on the list just so happen to be individuals that are not fully submissive or always innocently batting their eyelids. Women known not to be completely subservient to interviewers, or those who dare to speak up about past negative experiences or issues that affect them, are portrayed as rude or selfish. Gender roles and harmful stereotypes lurk beneath the surface of our perceived progressiveness, and famous women become a kind of cultural magnifying glass for them.
However, there is some evidence to suggest that things may be looking up. Looking back at the harassment experienced by Ariana Grande, the first person who came to her physical defence was Cynthia Erivo. Instead of this response being misconstrued and tainted by immediate, mainstream accusations of being a rude celebrity or bullying a devoted fan, she was praised for standing up for her colleague and friend. This strong yet respected persona has also been displayed throughout the meteoric rise of your favourite artists’ favourite artist: Chappell Roan. When paparazzi approached, barking orders with intense aggression, she responded with the same energy. But, as happens when a woman sets boundaries, the media almost immediately labelled her as “aggressive” and “ungrateful.” Once again, we are faced with the harsh reality of a culture that expects women to be endlessly accommodating – or face social punishment. Through public support, Chappell has shown that not displaying “purity” in a persona should be a reason to be respected, not shunned. These initial public examples of strength could be encouraging for other women to speak up and not allow this mistreatment to pass unchecked any more.
The important thing to take away from these incidents is that their public nature can spark conversation on how we treat women on an individual level. Celebrities influence culture, and if this issue is taken more seriously on the red carpet, then this advocacy for spatial respect and non-judgement of persona can enter mainstream conversation. Moreover, this change could trigger a move away from feminine personas being something to be owned and controlled, potentially revolutionising the way in which society views and treats women. Who knows, we may even be able to overcome the hangover of the “Madonna-whore” complex.
