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!