Log in

View Full Version : Mayim Bialik is jealous of a young starlet



Pages : 1 [2]

wednesday86
09-14-2014, 09:34 AM
Not always, many sahm aren't lazy but some are, especially the ones without kids or kids at school. However I do question how one can be a sahm yet judge dancers because dancers are making money and the sahm is not. Some women (all jobs, races, ages judge women.

Let me tell you something about SAHMs from someone who was a SAHM/W for the last 2 years...A lot of them are LAZY, entitled and miserable, especially American ones. Their houses are dirty, their kids are out of control and they sit on face book all day ranting and raving about how awful the world is because they are bored out of their minds. There are a very select few who actually enjoy it and are good at it. I had some of my fellow SAHMs tell me I was being suppressed by my husband because I cleaned the house, cooked dinner and did my hair and make up every day (?) They make rants about how it's not "their job" to clean the house..There are whole BLOG posts written about it. Actually, if your husband is working and you're at home it IS your job, sweetheart. Again I blame this new wave of feminism for putting all these ideas into their heads. And of course, they must hate on pretty girls (especially sex workers) for "degrading themselves." Because being sexy or attractive is the bane of all evil.

Dancer friends>SAHM friends

Kellydancer
09-14-2014, 09:41 AM
Let me tell you something about SAHMs from someone who was a SAHM/W for the last 2 years...A lot of them are LAZY, entitled and miserable, especially American ones. Their houses are dirty, their kids are out of control and they sit on face book all day ranting and raving about how awful the world is because they are bored out of their minds. There are a very select few who actually enjoy it and are good at it. I had some of my fellow SAHMs tell me I was being suppressed by my husband because I cleaned the house, cooked dinner and did my hair and make up every day (?) They make rants about how it's not "their job" to clean the house..There are whole BLOG posts written about it. Actually, if your husband is working and you're at home it IS your job, sweetheart. Again I blame this new wave of feminism for putting all these ideas into their heads. And of course, they must hate on pretty girls (especially sex workers) for "degrading themselves." Because being sexy or attractive is the bane of all evil.

Dancer friends>SAHM friends

I agree. Sounds like you were definitely one of those hard working SAHM and that is a very honorable job.The others you mentioned sound like so many I see. I sometimes post on this one message board with these SAHM (not because of that)and quite a few mentioned they don't clean the house or cook. To me that is part of the job of being a SAHM and when they don't do it then they are lazy. My sister in law unfortunately is one of the lazy ones. She doesn't cook (my brother does)nor clean and my niece is in school. It drives the family nuts with her laziness.

Cheo_D
09-14-2014, 10:25 AM
And honestly, I don't think it's that she's jealous - but that, as a woman who clearly has focused more on her brains and other talents over obsessing about achieving a "mainstream feminine look," she feels the need to defend the idea that she is a woman who is worth more than what she looks like. I'm sure she's gone through her entire life getting "fat, jealous" cow comments all the time and receiving unnecessary comments about her looks and femininity - the same way all women do - and is sick of being labeled nasty things just because she's not "super hot" by traditional standards, and therefore gets unduly angry by the idea that nothing but looks is all women are generally reduced to, rather than other talents. Yeah, being ticked off at the "sex sells" value system in the entertainment world she works in, and that she would prefer it to not exist (lotsa luck, that ship sailed a century ago) does not make someone a "jealous fat cow". That name calling was entirely gratuituous. Unless we have redefined "fat cow" as "someone is wrong on the Internet".


But that doesn't make it ok to slam other women in your defensive pursuits. Exactly. Ariana Grande is NOT Mayim's "enemy", if anything it would be the "sex sells" business model (which ain't going nowhere), however when Mayim says "And if she has a talent (is she a singer?), then why does she have to sell herself in lingerie?" then Bialik, disappointingly for someone with her intellectual credentials, herself judges Ariana (someone she ostensibly never heard of) on externals alone: if she sells sex then she must be untalented; the corollary being that anyone with real talent should refuse to participate in any form of "sex sells".

When you are a parent, you WILL be asked "Mommy, why is that lady in her underwear on the billboard?"; "Daddy, why is this rapper acting like being called a 'thug' is good?"; "Mommy, what does it mean when someone online tells me to blow him?"; "Daddy, what is a stripper?"; etc. It's inevitable, you should start preparing for that the day you get the pregnancy test results back.

Aurora_Sunset
09-14-2014, 10:38 AM
Ariana Grande is NOT Mayim's "enemy", if anything it would be the "sex sells" business model (which ain't going nowhere), however when Mayim says "And if she has a talent (is she a singer?), then why does she have to sell herself in lingerie?" then Bialik, disappointingly for someone with her intellectual credentials, herself judges Ariana (someone she ostensibly never heard of) on externals alone: if she sells sex then she must be untalented; the corollary being that anyone with real talent should refuse to participate in any form of "sex sells".

Exactly. I love how you worded this. She's getting mad at and attacking the wrong person. Ultimately, Ariana Grande would probably be in total agreement that she is not just sex but has other talents as well that she wants to be recognized for. But that it is also her right to be sexy and talented in other ways without being judged by other women as automatically untalented because she posed in some lingerie - as though, sexual/looks-based gifts are the bottom of the barrel, first-rung-on-the-ladder for achieving "success," and if you have the ability to go "above" that to "real" skills that are worth "respect" then you should flat-out move-on from and reject your sexuality because it's now "beneath you."

You can be sexy and smart. You can just be sexy. You can just be smart. It's not another woman's place to snark at someone else for being one of these combinations over the other just because that's not what they're focusing on for themselves. By making them the target here rather than trying to understand each other and focus their attack on the societal ideas that promote one "ideal" over another, all she's doing is perpetuating the very idea that she probably wants to fight against: that anyone has the right to tell women the exact set of behaviors and talents they must possess in order to garner respect.

Kellydancer
09-14-2014, 11:05 AM
Personally, I don't think she's untalented because she posed in lingerie. I think she's untalented in singing when I heard her sing on television. I don't know about her acting, I was specifically talking about her singing which no I didn't find good.

Optimist
09-14-2014, 11:42 AM
And lololol at stay-at-home moms who hate on strippers and other hot bitches who work -- do they not realize that while while a sahm and a sex worker are both acting out the patriarchal role for women, only the sex worker has full agency in the situation? Strippers, prostitutes, VS models and other businesswomen are earning their own way, but they get called naive and exploited ... by women who work for free at the mercy of a man who can fire/divorce her whenever he wants. Because that is what it boils down to.

If a woman wants to raise kids on a man's dime, whatever, she should float her own boat. But it's illogical when some of them act like they're more liberated than a woman who provides for herself independently.

YES! I hear you!

kaninchen
09-14-2014, 12:20 PM
Well. I was a stay at home mother. Now am a stay at home wife. I'm not fat. I'm not lazy. I am a cam girl/old lady whichever you prefer. I am not in a sugar daddy situation. I don't judge anyone for choosing to stay home, work, or whatever. I don't care if a lady chooses to be a school teacher or a stripper. Each woman's choice is HER OWN and for any of us to judge her for any said choice is just sickening to me. You judge her for being at home 24/7, she judges you for getting naked for cash...why?? Who's business is it? We should be backing each other in whatever we choose to do, not breaking each other down and nitpicking each other to death or over analyzing each other's behavior. The whole thing makes me fucking sad. smh.

To repeat, I have nothing but respect for housewives, like I would any other woman. They're not hurting me by living their life, so who am I to judge them for it? The only thing I object to is the hypocrisy when they diss sex workers, especially when they do so in the name of feminism-- but obviously you don't do that since you cam and post here, after all! :)

Well. That, and I do think it's ridiculous that they're technically working for free, but it's definitely not something I'd blame on women, but rather on sexism. In my opinion that's just another example of women's work not being seen as worthy of paid compensation, similar to the recent thread on professional sports cheerleading.


It's not another woman's place to snark at someone else for being one of these combinations over the other just because that's not what they're focusing on for themselves. By making them the target here rather than trying to understand each other and focus their attack on the societal ideas that promote one "ideal" over another, all she's doing is perpetuating the very idea that she probably wants to fight against: that anyone has the right to tell women the exact set of behaviors and talents they must possess in order to garner respect.

Perfectly said and I completely agree. That was one of the things that first struck me about Bialik's complaint. She acknowledged the patriarchy's role in creating the very gendered sex sells advertising model, but then immediately jumped to tearing down Grande for it. Women don't need anymore criticism on their choices, their jobs, or their bodies (whether they're too "sexy" or too "fat"). In the end it all amounts to trivial policing that keeps us away from important stuff like our money, freedom, and happiness.

slowpoke
09-14-2014, 12:52 PM
Who is Mayim Bialik and why does anyone care what her opinion is?

kaninchen
09-14-2014, 02:13 PM
^ This former child star/present neuroscientist who criticized a singer for posing in lingerie on a billboard. No one cares about her opinion for who she is, but she dissed ladies for being overly sexual. I don't think strippers, camgirls, and escorts are going to take that too lightly!

Jay12
09-14-2014, 08:05 PM
Who is Mayim Bialik and why does anyone care what her opinion is?

She plays "Amy" on "The Big Bang Theory".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW7LGjXa2mY


She's the one with the glasses who dresses up with the old lady's clothes.


If you're somewhat of a skeptic, 1:51 will make you laugh.

Kellydancer
09-14-2014, 10:58 PM
I've never seen that show but I know it's popular. Mayim has seemed to do a lot though and not having the option of relying on beauty like most actresses.

Naida
09-15-2014, 07:15 PM
I fail to see what being an Orthodox Jew has to do with wanting to shield her kids from sex everywhere... I'm far from what you seem to consider "religious folk" and also a proponent of being open with kids instead of telling them "birds and bees" style deflections... But I would not want to be answering my 3 year olds questions about sex because they saw a billboard. Kids that young should be worrying about building forts and sand castles, not sex.


Humans are sexual being from the moment they're born until they die. It's unrealistic to shelter kids from sexuality. In other words, it's important for parent to explain sex and sexuality to their children as soon as possible: there are many age appropiate ways to do so, and when in doubt said parent can ask a professional.

It's actually sickening seeing people (especially religious people) sheltering their kids away from sexuality.

I just had to chime back in with two points-

1) Jay is right. Humans ARE sexual beings from birth. I mean, come on, even infants with enough coordination to do so would masturbate half the freaking day if parents didn't go out of their way to prevent that from happening. We are one of the few species that actually derives pleasure from sexual activity because our survival as a species DEPENDS on our WANTING to fuck and be fucked. Of course this is going to be an intrinsic part of our lives from birth to death.
In light of this, it only makes sense that children will express interest/curiosity about sex basically from the moment they can talk. If they don't see it on a billboard, I can almost guarantee it will happen some other way. That may just be innocent curiosity about what those things in mommy's shirt are, or (let's use an extreme and outdated example) they find daddy's porno rag and want to know why the man's thing goes in the lady's thing. The interest in sex for children is a fact of life; what matters is how that curiosity is handled and what sexual opinions WE impart to them.

Which brings me to...

2) Why the fuck are WE sexualizing everything? How can we expect our sons to view women with respect, rather than as sex objects, if we slut-shame? Wouldn't it make more sense to just ignore them or, if the kid asks about the girl in the advert, just brush it with a "she's a model; that means she poses for pictures for a living, like the way mommy/daddy does XYZ for a living"? Why are we teaching our kids that Victoria's Secret ads are sexy and therefor naughty instead of brushing them off as JUST ads for underwear? They're surrounded by sex because we, as role models, MAKE it all sex, sex, sex.
Hell, a child family member has seen pole dancing and knows that I used to do it. She likes watching videos of competitive/athletic dancers with me, and she doesn't see anything naughty or inappropriate about it. She sees exactly what I and the rest of my family have told her about it AS SHE ASKED QUESTIONS: it's just another fun way to dance and the girls wear skimpy clothes so their skin can hold on to the pole. As far as I'm aware, she has zero concept of what stripping is or that there is any overlap between stripping and pole dancing. We don't specifically hide it from her; it's just never come up around her in a way that led to questions. After the research done on the approach of open education and personally being raised in a "be indifferent until they ask, then be honest and logical" way, my family and I firmly believe that we're taking the right approach with her because she's still asking questions and even reminding us when we contradict ourselves. (An example is the idea that underwear are UNDERwear and therefor private; if I accidentally sit with my legs a little too far apart, she'll remind me to sit correctly. On the contrary, she doesn't bat an eyelash at dancers in music videos and will remind anyone with something negative to say that "they're JUST dancing!")

/rant

eagle2
09-15-2014, 07:35 PM
Btw I saw this Ariana Grande a few weeks ago on AGT and had to turn the channel because she not only couldn't sing, but she was dressed as a cat. I like my singers to actually SING. Adele would never dress like this, and for all her faults neither would Amy Winehouse if she was living. Why? because they can SING.



How an artist dresses has nothing to do with his or her ability to sing. There are plenty of very talented female artists that don't always dress modestly. Beyonce, Shakira, and Christina Aguilera, just to name a few.

I doubt Roman gladiators exposed this much skin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES8SezkV8w

Kellydancer
09-15-2014, 07:52 PM
How an artist dresses has nothing to do with his or her ability to sing. There are plenty of very talented female artists that don't always dress modestly. Beyonce, Shakira, and Christina Aguilera, just to name a few.

I doubt Roman gladiators exposed this much skin:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pES8SezkV8w

But many "singers" only have their looks and nothing else. Most of the singers today really can't sing, they are helped by technology. I don't remember singers from years ago dressing this way. Tiffany and Debbie Gibson were popular when I was a teen but neither dressed like Britney. Sure, both ended up posing nude but that's when they were much older. Today's music is all about the looks which is sad. Not that long ago the Motown women singers of the 60's dressed classy, not like today's singers and they weren't wearing cat ears.

Cheo_D
09-15-2014, 08:42 PM
But many "singers" only have their looks and nothing else.Well, that's not very different that what has been the case for performers (singers, actresses) for most of the Mass Media age -- you have your "talent beyond dispute" types, you have your "if it weren't for the tits and ass she'd be nowhere" types, and you have various degrees in between. It's just that in the latest generations it has been more viable to do the latter extreme for singers.

Selina M
09-15-2014, 09:18 PM
I realize that we are sexual from birth. I have watched my friends infant sons light up at pretty girls. But that doesn't mean that they need to be actively thinking about it and concerning themselves with sex at that young of an age. Honestly, I blame that for all the teenage pregnancies and why sex ed has to start earlier and earlier.
I'm not shaming sex at all, but I am sick of seeing it EVERYWHERE all the time.

Jay12
09-15-2014, 11:56 PM
I realize that we are sexual from birth. I have watched my friends infant sons light up at pretty girls. But that doesn't mean that they need to be actively thinking about it and concerning themselves with sex at that young of an age. Honestly, I blame that for all the teenage pregnancies and why sex ed has to start earlier and earlier.
I'm not shaming sex at all, but I am sick of seeing it EVERYWHERE all the time.

Blame high teen pregnancy rates on lack of sexual education, not on over-sexualization of the media.

Kellydancer
09-16-2014, 12:16 AM
Well, that's not very different that what has been the case for performers (singers, actresses) for most of the Mass Media age -- you have your "talent beyond dispute" types, you have your "if it weren't for the tits and ass she'd be nowhere" types, and you have various degrees in between. It's just that in the latest generations it has been more viable to do the latter extreme for singers.

It's just that today it's all about the looks. While there are exceptions, most of the singers today wouldn't be where they are if they were overweight or unattractive. Aretha Franklin would likely not be a household name if she was a younger singer today.

Sophia_Starina
09-16-2014, 12:42 PM
38997

Uhm...

Naida
09-16-2014, 03:40 PM
I realize that we are sexual from birth. I have watched my friends infant sons light up at pretty girls. But that doesn't mean that they need to be actively thinking about it and concerning themselves with sex at that young of an age. Honestly, I blame that for all the teenage pregnancies and why sex ed has to start earlier and earlier.
I'm not shaming sex at all, but I am sick of seeing it EVERYWHERE all the time.

If you're tired of seeing it, then why are you -- as an aware adult with at least some degree of control over her thoughts -- choosing to view it in a sexual way? When I see a VS ad, I don't see "skinny little sluts brainwashing women into being skanks for horny men." (Legit quote, I shit you not.) I see an advertisement trying to sell me overpriced, overpadded, undersized bras and shoddy quality thongs. Of course I can't deny that it's sexualized advertising; "sexy" is half the store's gimmick and logos. But I can choose to see and treat it for what it really is under all those buzzwords- nothing more than an ad.

The thing is, kids are going to think about sex. Whether that's momentary curiosity or a toddler who can't keep his hands out of his pants, that's never going to change. What does change and therefor does matter is HOW they think about it- and WE are the ones causing that thought pattern. When we freak out about it, when we try to avoid it, when we act like it's a no no, we are turning it into the forbidden fruit. It makes kids think about it more because we have turned it into a mystery to solve or mischief to get into. When we take the opposite route and bluntly answer with the truth, it goes one of two ways- they'll lose interest after a couple of Q/A's, IF they don't lose interest the very second you use your "an adult is saying something serious" voice.


Blame high teen pregnancy rates on lack of sexual education, not on over-sexualization of the media.

A million times this! A dear friend of mine was so sheltered from sex at home (and definitely didn't get permission to participate in even my school's scare tactic abstinence only sex ed) that, when she got pregnant in middle school, she had no idea what condoms or birth control were or even that you could get pregnant from sex. For all this over-sexualized media she was constantly exposed to, she was remarkably uncertain even of what sex itself was until her teenage boyfriend "explained it" (teenage boys always have the most informative explanations, too- "You stick your dick in and move in and out until you cum. Why? Cause it feels good. Oh, and she's supposed to suck it too, but I'm NEVER gonna put my mouth on her cooter. That's gross.") to her because he wanted to have it.

Now that "A-plus" sex ed has been around long enough to collect data, it's been shown repeatedly that our trying to "protect innocent children" is HURTING THEM. It's the kids who ARE exposed to and talking about sex with trustworthy adults that are making the smart decisions like waiting to have sex, using condoms and/or birth control, having STI screening or other sexual wellness checkups, and becoming sexually well adjusted adults.

eagle2
09-16-2014, 04:10 PM
It's just that today it's all about the looks. While there are exceptions, most of the singers today wouldn't be where they are if they were overweight or unattractive. Aretha Franklin would likely not be a household name if she was a younger singer today.

Aretha Franklin was pretty good looking in the 1960's. She wasn't always an obese 70 year old woman.

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/47/C357423695DFC66DF6E4D4E568759_h400_w501_m2_bblack_ q99_p99_cMBAGFESd.jpg

Kellydancer
09-16-2014, 04:37 PM
But the thing is when one thinks of her they don't think sexy, at least not now. The fact is she can sing, unlike many of today's singers.

A few years ago I went with my sister in law to get a bridesmaid's dress and a dress for the flower girl. I was horrified to see bray and thong panty sets for little girls. Teen girls I get but pre-pre teens is sexualizing little gits and it is is sick. We don't do this to little boys why do we allow it for little girls. How many male singers do we see on stage wearing skimpy outfits? not many, not even the boy bands.

Cheo_D
09-26-2014, 07:06 PM
Blame high teen pregnancy rates on lack of sexual education, not on over-sexualization of the media. True. But, also, teen pregnancy and birth rates in the USA (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html#.VCYWgBbLKSo) have been diminishing over the latest generation. According to the HHS Office of Adolescent Health, "In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 26.6 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2013", and, "between 1990 and 2010, the teen pregnancy rate declined by 51 percent—from 116.9 to 57.4 pregnancies per 1,000 teen girls".

So unless someone has been cooking the books over 4 different presidencies, things are getting better on that aspect, in spite of the very real matter of high sexualization of portrayals and styles. The report does mention that however "the U.S. teen birth rate is higher than that of many other developed countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom" which is probably directly related to the issues of sex education.

Djoser
09-26-2014, 08:35 PM
In my opinion that's just another example of women's work not being seen as worthy of paid compensation, similar to the recent thread on professional sports cheerleading.

It would be very interesting to see what a woman with your power of observation, analytical and verbal ability would have to say in that thread.

Djoser
09-26-2014, 08:47 PM
The thing is, kids are going to think about sex. Whether that's momentary curiosity or a toddler who can't keep his hands out of his pants, that's never going to change. What does change and therefor does matter is HOW they think about it- and WE are the ones causing that thought pattern. When we freak out about it, when we try to avoid it, when we act like it's a no no, we are turning it into the forbidden fruit. It makes kids think about it more because we have turned it into a mystery to solve or mischief to get into.

Haha when I was about 12 I asked my mom what either 'Nana' by Emile Zola was about, or maybe the novel by Colette right next to it on the bookshelf. Whichever it was, she said 'That's not for someone your age to read.' Naturally, the minute she left the house, I read both of them, and all the other books nearby that looked like they might be naughty. Rather disappointing, but good literature...

The_Adict
09-27-2014, 02:28 PM
God forbid you have to have a conversation with your kids! Like it or not, this is the world we live in, and they're going to be exposed to shit one way or another.

Not just a discussion but an open dialogue that allows children to express their thoughts and feelings on issues at hand.

No problem with Mayim expressing her views and seems like a bright individual but I don't necessarily see her point. Sounds like she's asking why does she need to explain these to her children as though it's a hassle. Could be wrong.

Nocturnelle
09-27-2014, 02:35 PM
Mayim is also an anti-vaxxer. Any opinion she has on... anything.. is null and void to me.

Aurora_Sunset
09-28-2014, 01:03 PM
What amuses me more when I really think about it is her character in her main role: Amy on The Big Bang Theory. Sure, she's the "smart, geeky girl" of the group, but over time, her character has pretty much diminished to being a constant joke about how she's actually a sexually-frustrated, geeky girl who wishes she was more feminine and popular and is just all about desperately trying to attain that status and is "secretly" (but not-so-secretly) boy-crazy. I wonder how she feels about that being the image of a "smart" woman she's putting out there on TV on a very popular television program...? It would seem to me that she'd have an issue with her "smart girl" character portraying the idea that no girl is ever truly content just being smart, but that all girls "clearly" still desire, deep-down to be popular and loved by boys.

But I guess if she's profiting off a stereotypical portrayal of women, it's all ok... ::)

Airrrie2
09-29-2014, 11:53 AM
Sorry but I agree with her (and I'm NOT a fat cow). I am tired of all these trashy "celebs" like this "singer". I'm tired of watching some show and having some bimbo singing who is obviously about the look, not the talent. This trend is disgusting. If she saw a a billboard of this person in lingerie it is tacky. If I had a daughter I'd rather she grew up like Mayim (who has a Ph.D in a scientific field)than this airhead bimbo with little talent.

Btw I saw this Ariana Grande a few weeks ago on AGT and had to turn the channel because she not only couldn't sing, but she was dressed as a cat. I like my singers to actually SING. Adele would never dress like this, and for all her faults neither would Amy Winehouse if she was living. Why? because they can SING.

Also, strippers being against this trend doesn't mean one is opposed to sex. However, this trend of making everything sexual everything has lead to the crap we have today. 20 years ago it wasn't as bad and back then strippers could make money from just dancing and often just dancing in bikinis. Men today don't pay for that because they can see it everywhere.

I couldn't agree more. I cringe when I see some of the most influential women in music doing, saying and dressing as they do. Would entertainers like beyonce lose even an ounce of her upper stratosphere status if she wasn't wearing a leotard? The millions of little girls all over the world who idolize her see her as a complete package. I wish she would listen to Aretha Franklin. It's not shaming, it's about r-e-s-p-e-c-t.

This has little to do with being a "cow" or jealous. I believe it has to do with sexualizing women and conditioning the impressionable.