Gwyneth Paltrow, who loves juice cleanses and is responsible for bringing the term “conscious uncoupling” to the mainstream, is no stranger to insults. The skinny, rich, blonde Hollywood star gets plenty of flak for her lifestyle brand GOOP, where she sells eco-friendly nail polish and monogrammable reclaimed-wood skateboards while sharing stories from her fabulous life and namedropping her celebrity pals.
Paltrow’s tone deafness at trying to come across “accessible” to her largely female fanbase is ripe for criticism, and it has become a touchstone of the way that many stars fail at appearing relatable to us regular folks. But there’s one word in particular that keeps coming up in criticisms of Paltrow and others like her that deserves a closer look: “smug.”
Keep reading »
“She just needs to be quiet. She’s a movie star. If she were confident in her acting, she wouldn’t be trying to be Martha Stewart.”
Martha Stewart waltzed right past the side-eye and straight up dissed Gwyneth Paltrow in the new issue of Net-A-Porter’s Porter magazine, according to Page Six. Stewart has long turned up her nose at actresses-turned-lifestyle experts, but she seems to reserve particular ire for Paltrow and her website/newsletter GOOP. Keep reading »
Uh oh, Shailene Woodley and Alicia Silverstone, we’ve got another contender for the celeb with the weirdest hippie-dippie ideas! Shailene Woodley’s vagina may be thriving on all that Vitamin-D and Alicia Silverstone’s got kiss-feeding down, but is their water as evolved as Gwyneth Paltrow’s? Doubt it! In the latest issue of GOOP, Gwyneth writes:
I am fascinated by the growing science behind the energy of consciousness and its effects on matter. I have long had Dr. [Masaru] Emoto’s coffee table book on how negativity changes the structure of water, how the molecules behave differently depending on the words or music being expressed around it.
Keep reading »
“The Internet also allows us the opportunity to project outward our hatred, our jealousy. It’s culturally acceptable to be an anonymous commenter. It’s culturally acceptable to say, ‘I’m just going to take all of my internal pain and externalize it anonymously.’ … It has nothing to do with me. They have an internal object, and they’re putting it on me. I kind of look at it as, ‘Wow this is an interesting social experiment.’ You’re talking about a blind stranger having feelings about you. It can only be projection. …
You come across [online comments] about yourself and about your friends, and it’s a very dehumanizing thing. It’s almost like how, in war, you go through this bloody, dehumanizing thing, and then something is defined out of it. My hope is, as we get out of it, we’ll reach the next level of conscience.”
While I have my own complicated feelings about internet commenters, and certainly have no love in my heart for trolls who drop by just to stir the pot or call people names or spout racist/sexist/homophobic bullshit, I think Gwyneth Paltrow makes three big mistakes in this interview with re/code. First, she lumps all anonymous commenters together, as if they’re one hive mind that is, naturally, beneath her. Secondly, she shows no understanding of the very legitimate reasons why people might choose to comment anonymously beyond just wanting the freedom to “project” their internal pain onto her. And third, she equates negative comments online to a bloody, dehumanizing war. Bad idea, Goopy. Anonymous commenters? Have at her if you’d like… [re/code] Keep reading »