Human rights? Whatever, check out her outfit!

[OreoRosies86]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/10/a-lawyer-named-amal-clooney-gave-a-powerful-speech-at-u-n-some-only-saw-her-baby-bump/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.ec7a2b53caaa

"It was a day after International Women’s Day, and a renowned female lawyer was giving a powerful speech addressing one of the world’s most pressing humanitarian threats.

But a number of headlines seemed to focus elsewhere: her baby bump. And her daffodil-yellow dress and matching coat. Oh, and in case anyone forgot, she’s married to Hollywood movie star George Clooney.

The tabloid Mirror published the headline, “Amal Clooney is a vision in yellow as she shows off hint of baby bump in chic dress.” Entertainment Tonight went with, “Amal Clooney Stuns in Yellow While Delivering Passionate Speech at the United Nations.”

The day before the speech, Motto, Time Inc.’s website aimed at younger women, displayed the headline “Amal Clooney Shows Off Her Baby Bump at the United Nations,” publishing an article written by People magazine, which began:

Amal Clooney was all business on International Women’s Day. The mom-to-be (who also happens to be married to George Clooney) stepped out outside the United Nations headquarters in New York City on Wednesday, showing off her baby bump in a dark gray pencil skirt and matching cropped blazer..."

Thank jeebus for the thousands of people who read headlines like this and aren't having it!

 

[redwood66]

I consider the source for who had the irrelevant headlines, E!, Mirror, Entertainment Tonight. I don't know much about Motto from Time but it says its geared toward younger women. Is it an entertainment type mag? There are people who read these things and that is what kind of "news" they want. The readership might wane if they put too much "meat" in their stories.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I think the issue (for me) is not "Oh well, they have to keep it light or the younger demographic won't follow" and more "The younger demographic deserves better."

It's such a slap in the face. The human rights stuff is cute, but she's Mrs. George Clooney at the end of the day. It happened when Priscilla Chan married Mark Zuckerberg and everyone was like "She married a billionaire, why is he making her go to work?"

 

[redwood66]

I think the issue (for me) is not "Oh well, they have to keep it light or the younger demographic won't follow" and more "The younger demographic deserves better."

It's such a slap in the face. The human rights stuff is cute, but she's Mrs. George Clooney at the end of the day. It happened when Priscilla Chan married Mark Zuckerberg and everyone was like "She married a billionaire, why is he making her go to work?"

Of course they do and they will only get it if they demand it. Articles like this may help. Call out crap when it is crap.

Edit - I expect the same ire when the message is from a conservative also.

 

[Snowdrop13]

This will only get worse when she is not only Mrs George Clooney but "mother of twins" and dares to have a hair out of place or put on any weight!

 

[VRBeauty]

Playing Devil's advocate here... if she weren't "Mrs. George Clooney" - and yes, if the entertainment oriented press hadn't focused on her dress and pregnancy - her speech, and the event, probably wouldn't have received any news coverage at all. Amal has been a human rights advocate for many years, but I'm the first to admit that prior to her engagement to George Clooney, I had no idea who she was.

 

[AGBF]

Playing Devil's advocate here... if she weren't "Mrs. George Clooney" - and yes, if the entertainment oriented press hadn't focused on her dress and pregnancy - her speech, and the event, probably wouldn't have received any news coverage at all. Amal has been a human rights advocate for many years, but I'm the first to admit that prior to her engagement to George Clooney, I had no idea who she was.

I think your point is excellent, but I also think that printing stories like the ones cited above should be illegal.

Just kidding. I believe in free speech and freedom of the press. But if I wanted to censor anything, I would put articles like that on my list of things to censor along with hate speech in all its forms and yellow journalism.

Deb

 

[OreoRosies86]

Playing Devil's advocate here... if she weren't "Mrs. George Clooney" - and yes, if the entertainment oriented press hadn't focused on her dress and pregnancy - her speech, and the event, probably wouldn't have received any news coverage at all. Amal has been a human rights advocate for many years, but I'm the first to admit that prior to her engagement to George Clooney, I had no idea who she was.

I'm not saying this directed towards you, but that's so sad. These are the women our young women should be looking to, and the media paints her as a Human Rights Lawyer Barbie.

 

[Rhea]

OMG! She's having a baby. That's so cute. I'm, like, over the moon, and stuff.


Ah, Amal, she's defended some pretty sketchy people in the past. Not that that means the focus should be on her societal status re: marriage and kids.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I understand the perceived moral outrage over this - yes, human rights is an important topic, and I'm sure her speech was compelling. But there are lots of 'perspectives' from which a person can be highlighted in 'the news': what they do, what they say/tweet, what they wear, where they live, who they're married to, what they eat (e.g. Trump's well done steak and Alecia Silverstone who pre-chewed her baby's food ), etc.

Just like a photograph can be taken of a ring from the east/west view, another photo can also be taken from the top down, in direct and indirect sunlight, etc. They all make the ring appear different - have more fire, show the gallery detail, etc. - but they are all still the exact same ring - just from different perspectives. If one of the pictures is fuzzy or shows more tint in the diamond, it doesn't make the overall ring any less appreciable.

Like VRBeauty, had Amal not married GC, I'd have no idea who she was either (e.g. household name recognition-wise). Not because I don't care about human rights, or didn't think/know there were people who support human rights, but because there are how many billions of people on this planet? And of those billions of people, how many are lawyers? I know they exist - in this country and others - and some of those attorneys do 'good' while others 'chase ambulances'. We generally 'know' this; it doesn't mean that we must commit every one of their names to memory, or cannot/should not see those same individuals highlighted in the news from different perspectives when they are covered.

 

[msop04]

...there are lots of 'perspectives' from which a person can be highlighted...

Just like a photograph can be taken of a ring from the east/west view, another photo can also be taken from the top down, in direct and indirect sunlight, etc. They all make the ring appear different - have more fire, show the gallery detail, etc. - but they are all still the exact same ring - just from different perspectives ... If one of the pictures is fuzzy or shows more tint in the diamond, it doesn't make the overall ring any less appreciable.

...it doesn't mean that we must commit every one of their names to memory, or cannot/should not see those same individuals highlighted in the news from different perspectives ...

Excellent point, JoCo!

People aren't one-dimensional, and they shouldn't need to be portrayed as such... Although it would probably cause even more outrage, once Amal has her baby(ies?), I'm willing to bet she'll consider motherhood one of her greatest achievements/experiences -- which is perfectly fine.