It has been stated publicly that Ashley Judd is no longer 100% beautiful, and on behalf of women everywhere, she will not stand for that.

Your daily outrage: Jezebel, Ashley Judd team up to ruin my day

It has been stated publicly that Ashley Judd is no longer 100% beautiful, and on behalf of women everywhere, she will not stand for that.

This is an article about Ashley Judd. I apologize for that in advance.

I was watching Ashley Judd on TV recently – purely by accident – when she complained that a recent television interview changed her life. During that interview – this is horrifying, so just get ready – someone assumed that she’d had (gulp) plastic surgery.

I will wait for you to stop weeping and throwing up. I know it’s hard. Please try to pull yourself together.

In a truly bizarre coincidence, at exactly the same time that people said negative things about Ashley Judd’s appearance for probably the first time ever, Ashley Judd realized that people should stop judging women based on their appearance.

Because you see, this is not about Ashley Judd, as she has said repeatedly. And if you buy that, here’s a healthy diet pill and some pajama pants that really look like jeans.

Here’s what happened: Ashley Judd has been looking a little puffy in the facial area of late. So the media did what the media do: they speculated. Did she have plastic surgery? Was she aging badly? What was up?

Because this isn’t about Ashley Judd, but the exploitation and sexualization and mediazation and magazinizination of women, it was pure coincidence that at that moment Judd decided to publish an essay in The Daily Beast about how unfair it is that women are judged based on their looks.

Not Ashley Judd, mind you! But women everywhere! Because it’s bigger than her! Really! It totally is!

An excerpt from her essay:

When my skin is nearly flawless, and at age 43, I do not yet have visible wrinkles that can be seen on television, I have had “work done,” with media outlets bolstered by consulting with plastic surgeons I have never met who “conclude” what procedures I have “clearly” had. (Notice that this is a “back-handed compliment,” too—I look so good! It simply cannot possibly be real!)

Um, can this possibly be real? Because it seems like almost too much even for Ashley Judd. In an essay about how terrible it is that women are judged based on their looks, Ashley Judd manages to talk about how beautiful she is.

Of course my favorite online magazine ever, Jezebel, stumbled all over its stupid self to verbally genuflect before Her Juddness. In a sycophantic piece titled “Ashley Judd Follows Kickass Feminist Essay With Kickass Feminist TV Appearances,” the fauxminist hipster pseudo-intellectuals and professional day-ruiners over at Biblical Ho Daily kicked off the first paragraph with an F-bomb to remind us that they don’t need our stifling patriarchal rules all over their uteruses or their vocabularies.

It’s appropriate somehow that the inane self-styled feminists at Jezebel have joined dark, evil forces with one of the most annoying celebrities I have ever come across. Every time an already pretentious actress gets an advanced degree from a major university and starts writing about Eastern spirituality, a demon gets its horns.

Ashley Judd first trebucheted herself onto my S-Word List several years ago when she narrated a Defenders of Wildlife video whining about how Sarah Palin shot baby wolves from helicopters and then drank their blood or something. This bugged me because culling wolf populations in Alaska is something which many in that part of the world believe is not only acceptable, but necessary.

But mostly it bugged me that Judd was wailing and gnashing her teeth about “defenseless” wolves when she is a self-described feminist activist who donates time and money to organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America. In 2004, Judd participated in the March for Women’s Lives, a pro-“choice” event lousy with celebrities who love abortion. Apparently her big fancy Harvard degree did not teach her the meaning of the word “defenseless,” or “predator,” for that matter. Sarah Palin, according to Judd, “champions the slaughter of wildlife.” Meanwhile, Judd champions the slaughter of unborn humans. Can you smell what The Rock is cookin’? (It’s hypocrisy.)

(Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the blonde on “The View,” has pointed out this logical inconsistency of Judd’s; by way of argument, Jezebel responded with the following headline: “Elizabeth Hasselbeck Needs To STFU.” Sample argument from this “article,” which I am not making up: “I mean, really, shut the f*** up.” One thing I will say for Jezebel: they absolutely never fail to fail.)

Do I think that judging women based on their appearance is great? No. But the Juddstress is a little late on the scene. It’s kinda been goin’ on for a minute. Ouch that it finally got to you, Ashley, but yay that you have a fancy degree so you can write essays that impress all the fauxminists.

I’m so glad Judd found yet another cause to throw her weight behind – which isn’t very much, as she also finds a way to mention in her “it’s not about looks essay” that she is normally a size 2/4.

Ashley “My Skin Is Nearly Flawless” Judd is turning her own wounded ego into a cause. Do we place too much emphasis on looks? Sure we do. But that didn’t start with Ashley Judd. I guess what bugs me the most, besides how puffy Ashley Judd’s face is, is that women who are so self-absorbed that they turn their own vanity into a cause are celebrated. All they have to do is hide behind concern for “women.” Meanwhile, if you express concern for the unborn, you’re accused of loathing women.

It’s all you hear about nowadays: women women women. Ann Romney can’t speak for women because she’s rich and “doesn’t work.” (Really? She’s a mother of five.) The ObamaCare birth control mandate and the Sandra Fluke nonsense have started talk of a Republican “war on women,”and politicians have run with it. Women women women! Why is this word such a lightening rod? Anytime you see a word bandied about for PR like this one, you know someone is benefiting.

As a woman, I resent being scooped up with the turd when it comes to all these ridiculous “women’s” causes. From Sandra Fluke to Ashley Judd to the pro-abortion movement, the crusade for “women’s rights” is all too often a front for the celebration of self-absorption. There’s nothing wrong with thinking you’re awesome. I, for one, am completely convinced that I am pretty cool. But I can’t imagine putting my own fear, desire for convenience, or any other emotion, great or small, before the life of a child or the religious liberty of the American people.

The crusade to eradicate religious conscience rights in favor of free birth control for everyone is not about women who have ovarian cysts and need birth control pills for their terrible cramping pain, or even about that lofty-sounding catchphrase, “women’s rights”; it’s about people getting what they want for free.

The sacrosanct “right” to an abortion the Supreme Court discovered in 1973 (“Oh, hey! There it is!”) is not about saving women’s lives or wombs or psyches, as many would have you believe. It’s about people wanting to do what they want when they want, without having to suffer any consequences or answer to anyone or accept responsibility.

I’m in favor of calling things what they are. That’s why my favorite movie title – not my favorite movie, mind you, but my favorite title – is Snakes on a Plane. Because there it all is!

So, Sandra Fluke and all you birth control crusaders, admit it: you want free birth control because you believe that consequence-free recreational sex should be available for everyone all the time on the government’s dime, because you’re not smart enough to understand what liberty is, or that nothing is free, to paraphrase Mattie Ross, except the grace of God.

And as for you, Ashley “It’s Sad When Wolves Get Killed But Babies Not So Much” Judd, why don’t you just admit it: you got called something other than beautiful for the first time in your life, and you didn’t like it. There, there, Ashley! You’re still pretty! And hey, PETA and Planned Parenthood, despite my best efforts, still exist, and the gray wolf still has more rights than an unborn human child. So take heart!

  • http://www.facebook.com/rhoslyn Rhoslyn Thomas

    I am yet to read a piece written by Kristen Walker which doesn’t hit the nail on the head. Absolutely fantastic! 

  • Marie V.

    This is some of the worst, most biased, ignorant, childish writing I’ve ever seen. High school essay, C-. REAL journalism? Fail. 

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

      Why because you don’t agree with it? This is the most biased, ignorant, childish comment I’ve ever read. Nanny nanny boo -boo, your writing sucks. Seriously, that’s the best you got?     

      Comment Fail.

  • http://twitter.com/HouseUnseen Dwija Borobia

    Gosh, I love this woman!  Don’t scoop me up with the turd.  Exactly.

  • Oedipa

    I’m not sure why writers here continue t obsess on B-list (and C- and D-list) celebrities and their public pronouncements. At least I’ve heard of Ashley Judd. There’s some actresses that pop up who necessitate a trip to The Google. Maybe they’re easy straw-men to beat up on.

    The “free stuff: meme is another straw-man. I don’t know how Ms. Walker continues to peddle the lie that reforms to health care somehow equates to women getting “free stuff” (ie: “free” birth control, as Ms. Walker fabricates, “on the government’s dime”). I’m tired of repeating it, but here’ goes. If you pay a premium for your health insurance, or your health insurance is a benefit of employment, or some combination thereof, no medical service or treatment or prescription you get through that insurance is “free”. You’ve paid for it, via your premium.

    Here’s a thought experiment. If there was a $15 co-pay for birth control pills would Ms. Walker’s opposition to them fall away? I think not. The fact that there is no co-pay simply allows here to lazily conflate one right-wing ideology (birth control is bad) with another right-wing talking point du jour (too many free-loaders want “free stuff”). I’m all ears if conservative critics have some ideas about constructing the “minimum standard of care” differently, but they just seem intent on making stuff up.

    And, really, as a writer who has honed a snarky and sardonic style for herself, she sure does hate a website that utilizes that same tone. One of Nietzsche’s aphorisms might be apt: “vanity only offends if it offends one’s own vanity”.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat Katrina Fernandez

      I don’t think it’s the sardonic tone she despises about Jezebel but they fact that their writers think being a strong and edgy feminists means writing like you don’t own a thesaurus and swearing like a man.  It should actually be quite insulting to intelligent woman everywhere. 

      • Oedipa

        While they might have different audiences, they’re using the same tactic: cutting through the sanctimonious flatness that can afflict writing about public policy debates with some sarcasm and not a small amount of cynicism.

        The main difference is not the vulgarity (or lack thereof). It’s that the writers at Jezebel can take on a diversity of subjects and make it funny and – your word – edgy. Ms. Walker seems to be able to write about only two topics: herself and the people who aren’t living the lifestyle she’d prescribe for them.

        • Marci

          Because the writers at Jezebel are so accepting of people with different viewpoints than theirs. 

    • JoAnna Wahlund

       Okay, I don’t think you realize how insurance works. The co-pays help the insurance company pay the pharmacies pay for the drugs in question. When drugs are mandated to be given without co-pays (i.e., “free”), then the insurance company has to make up the difference by raising premiums (i.e., what everyone pays).

      So yeah, a $15 co-pay might very well help keep premiums lower for everyone else and keep those of us who object from having the insurance company use our money, paid to them for premiums, to purchase recreational contraception that is handed out like candy.

      • Oedipa

        Since I have a chronic disease, I have a relationship with health insurance that is, IMHO, too intimate. I’m loathe to try and explain this to someone who actually felt like crafting the phrase “recreational contraception is handed out like candy”, but here ‘goes.

        Insurance is risk management. I had a choice between plans last Autumn. One had a low premium, but I paid steep co-pays for the drugs I needed. One had a higher premium, but my maintenance drugs came with no co-pay. I took that one. Am I getting my insulin for free? No. Is the insurance company getting screwed? No. They crafted the plans to meet their own risk management needs.

        Now, I take your point that the floor created by the Minimum Standard of Care changes that dynamic a little for insurance companies. But I’m left wondering if know how risk management works. If you’re an insurance firm, it’s a pretty solid actuarial bet to pay for The Pill over paying for full spectrum pregnancy care. Your fear of The Pill driving up costs is unfounded.

    • MoonChild02

      I, too, believe that insurers should cover insulin, diabetic supplies, IVIG, cancer treatments, etc., and no one should be discriminated against for a pre-existing condition. My dad has type-1 diabetes, as well, as do a couple of my aunts. A friend of mine has XLA. I have family members who have had cancer. When someone actually has a pre-existing, life-threatening illness, insurance should be required to allow coverage. The Church has even said as much: http://old.usccb.org/healthcare/HC-Letter-to-Congress-012610.pdf

      However, that’s not the issue with the contraception mandate. The issue is that most religious institutions are self-insured, and the new law is forcing those religious institutions to pay for contraception, which we don’t believe in, when we hire and serve those outside of our faith. There are other ways of getting birth control for free, such as community health clinics, free clinics, and Planned Parenthood. Target and Walmart both have programs that lower the cost of prescriptions to $5 for those who cannot get their medications via insurance. Making us only cater to our community of faith makes us discriminatory, and goes against not only the law, but against our beliefs, as well.

      Catholic institutions are willing to allow birth control pills in cases of medical necessity, meaning, for off-label use, so the whole Sandra Fluke debate is really a non-issue, despite many on both sides trying to make it an issue. The actual issue comes when religious institutions are being required to support someone’s chosen lifestyle.

      Many often scream, “Keep your religion out of my government!” Jefferson’s Wall of Separation, however, was specifically meant to keep the government out of the Church. Therefore, in order to keep the peace, the government and the secular crowd should practice what they preach, and keep the government from violating our free exercise of religion.

      • Oedipa

        You make a thoughtful case about the knotty issue of self-insured religious institutions. And I pretty much agree with you. I’m not sure why the government didn’t apply the exceptions more broadly.

        Unfortunately, Kristen doesn’t make any of the distinctions you’ve made. We’re just birth control “crusaders” who want “free stuff” for our slutty slut lifestyles.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1163596624 Elizabeth Shearer

    I’m pretty sure you have hurt Ashley Judd’s delicate feelings by writing this thought-provoking article, but maybe you made up for it in the end by saying that she really pretty and that baby wolves have more rights than unborn humans. 

  • Alex Perrier

    i think you should have made it more clear that she is an actor in Dolphin Tail and Missing.  i don’t always know who does what unless i really search for such information.  Here in Canada, we watch Missing with the CTV logo on it instead of ABC’s because there is so little Canadian shows.  It’s no big deal, but it can be annoying to see CTV pass on so many USA shows as its own.

    Anyway, Missing is a pretty good show for what it is.  To me, it is like a longer version of the movie “Taken” with the roles reversed (female is now the hero and male is the kidnapped).  i am more interested in Micheal’s role than Rebecca’s (Ashley Judd).  The Dolphin Tail movie was good too, but the theatre screen was small and 3D was unnoticeable.  It is a shame Ashley Judd supports pro-abortion groups, so i will be more careful if and how much i spend to buy her movies.

    What about the few good Canadian shows like Flashpoint?  These and their actors will probably not be talked about much here because they receive less attention than the ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC programs.  i think Canadian networks like CTV should make more investments in Canadian progamming and depend less on simsubs from the States.  Who knows, we may have some not-well-known pro-lifers here who want to make a difference in the media world!  :)

    • EliDraconis

      Flashpoint used to air one CBS in the States.

  • Marie P

    FYI- Kristen, you are awesome! Keep up the awesome work!

  • Keith Shedron

    “Meanwhile, if you express concern for the unborn, you are accused” of bias and ignorance. Pro-infanticide people, people that believe women have the right to murder their children, people who believe that an unborn child does not have an inherent right to life, must focus  on attacking, rather than evaluating, the pro-life/pro-child position,  else their conscience, if by chance one still exists, may accuse them for the murder they promote and the narcissism they embrace. 
    You are spot on Kristen Walker!

  • Bob

    This is perhaps one of the best things I have ever read.

  • Botanist53

    Well done, Kristen. Thanks.

  • Guest

    You’ll be happy to see that Ms. Judd is taking up a new cause: that of the defenseless presidential campaign callously terminated when the candidate decides that he doesn’t really feel like seeing the it through to the end.

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/2e87bd3144/rick-santorum-aborts-presidential-campaign?playlist=featured_videos

     

  • Marci

    Love this!  Love the writing!  Love the style!  Love the message!

  • Hamannkimberly122

    I don’t like the killing of wolves OR the killing of babies-where do I fit in? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1177956815 Lisa DellaVecchia

    Kristen, you are my new favorite writer.

  • http://twitter.com/thesecretcervix Susie

    You must not read much.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cassie.powell.50 Cassie Powell

    Lol

  • http://twitter.com/JessicaLevin27 Jessica Levin

    Every so often I google “Ashley Judd” + “pretentious” (or “annoying”) just to see if anybody else has figured out what a condescending narcissist she is. From my brain to your keyboard, it almost seems! Thank you for NAILING it!