I’ve had a stack of Entertainment Weekly magazines from my subscription piled up on my coffee table for months, not having had much time to get to all of them. I finally started picking through them and read the January 20, 2012 issue that featured Libby Gelman-Waxner’s article “Girl Talk” in it. If you don’t feel like reading the erratic. rambly article, I’ll quote it in here.
As the mother of a teenage girl, I’m always searching for responsible female role models, especially because my daughter Jennifer is currently obsessed with Zooey Deschanel, the hipster goddess star of the hit series New Girl who also has a website called HelloGiggles, where she posts videos of herself singing while strumming a ukulele and wearing a tiara. As a parent, I’m concerned, because while Zooey is unbelievably charming and talented, she’s always revving up to flounce or twirl or collapse into an adorkable heap and ruffle her bangs, or to pout and whimper until someone hugs her and buys her a pony. Even Zooey’s name is curlicued and whimsical, as if she lives in an enchanted village where she can French-braid the manes of her pink plastic unicorns named Miranda July and Callista Gingrich.
Basically Gelman-Waxner chastises Zooey Deschanel for being uber girly-girl while she’s talking to her daughter about having “responsible female role models” and praises the likes of Lisbeth Salander from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. A fictional character.
I’ve tried to nudge Jennifer toward someone I consider a true heroine: Lisbeth Salander, the magnetic goth nerd from The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Lisbeth embodies the three most essential aspects of modern womanhood, because she can hack any database, she takes satisfyingly violent revenge against male criminals, and she has sex with Daniel Craig.
Wait, so that’s her three reasons for being a “responsible female role model”!? Because Lisbeth has sex with Daniel Craig!? So… not only are you pushing your teenage daughter to be more like a fictional character (who apparently has sex with an actual person), you want her to have hacking skills and be hungry for revenge. Yep, that’s responsible.
Rooney is one of those great new young actresses like Olivia Wilde and Zoë Saldana, whom I call the daughters of Gwyneth, because they’re high-cheekboned and often from good families, but they’re still sometimes willing to appear tastefully topless.
And… tastefully going topless is apparently one of her aspirations for her daughter. Forgoing the fact that the structure of that sentence doesn’t even flow. Going from high-cheekbone looks to good families, to appearing nude.
As Lisbeth, Rooney makes her multiple tattoos, her scary piercings, and her jet-black mohawk look fiercely elegant, although at one point, when she goes undercover in a blond wig, I could feel every woman in the audience become Rooney’s mom and murmur, ”See how pretty you are, when you make an effort?” I also kept picturing just what Lisbeth might do to Zooey with that ukulele.
Okay Ms Gelman-Waxner.
You don’t even make sense at this point. You make even less sense at this point. Do you realize how idiotic you sound? You’re contradicting your own point of this article and reverting backwards to the stereotypical idea of “girly-girl” pretty, which you so easily attacked Zooey for in the beginning.
As for Daniel, well, he’s playing Mikael Blomkvist, a crusading lefty journalist, and in the Dragon Tattoo book it was a little hard buying that every woman had the hots for Mikael; it would be like swooning over Keith Olbermann as a rock god. But with Daniel everything makes perfect sense, especially because he’s wearing a wardrobe of cardigans, perfectly knotted scarves, tight waistcoats, and an even tighter black overcoat, so he’s like Harry Potter on the prowl. He also did something else that made me completely helpless: He wore reading glasses, which on a dreamy guy like Daniel are the male equivalent of a nurse’s uniform or a schoolgirl kilt.
What?!? So now you’re delving even further into the other spectrum of your point by ogling this man like a piece of meat, equating him wearing reading glasses to a nurse or schoolgirl outfit? Give me a break! How you’re trying to purvey yourself is confusing Ms Gelman-Waxner. What exactly is your point and stance in this piece? You’re pushing your daughter to have more strong “responsible” female role models and yet you come across as a lusty, desperate housewife (who you also chastise in your article), hungry for a hot man.
Wouldn’t the “responsible” thing to do be to encourage your teenage daughter to be herself, whoever she may want to be as long as she’s not doing anything criminal, which she would be if Gelman-Waxner wants her daughter to be more like a revenge-seeking hacker. Being responsible has nothing to do with how girly or tough you are.
No wonder she wants her daughter to have a responsible female role model. Based on how Gelman-Waxner comes across in this “article”, she’s clearly not getting that from her mother.