Lohan stitched up by patriarchal virgin worship

thatmosis says:

07:06am | 22/07/10

My answer to this adulation opf a law breaker is, if it upset you so much you do the time for her. She broke the law, not once but several times and even though she is an “A” lister the law is still the law and therefore she should pay the penalty. Ive no worries about that, what I do worry about is that others that have done the same have gotten away without jail time.

T.Chong says:

07:35am | 22/07/10

Sam: What a load of bullocks.!!!!!!
Silly spoiled brat drink / drug drives repeatedly, caught repeatedly, breaks court imposed sanctions / conditions repeatedly,  and its all a patriarchal conspiracy ?
Any one who isnt a “celebrity “would have been locked up sooner, for longer than Lohan.
Cry me a river Sam, or is this a deliberate spike article ?
Hope Punch would never sink to that .

biff says:

07:39am | 22/07/10

Do we need to know what Paris, Britney, Lindsay et al are up to? Why can’t we focus on more worthwhile people.

Col says:

07:59am | 22/07/10

Lilo missed 7 court ordered rehab whatevers, she tampered with her alcohol bracelet twice because she had been drinking and she didn’t want the court to know . If she had come back from the Cannes Film Festival like she was supposed to she probably wouldn’t be in this position.
Lost passport, yeah right. And that photo of her walking into court the other day if that wasn’t pure Hollywood diva with all the confetti raining down around her.
Remember this has been going on since 2007 she has been drinking and driving or drugging and driving and just keeps getting caught, when do you say enough is enough! At the first or 4th death?
As for comparing her to the likes of Robert Downey Jr, he did his time end of story he’s back working and living his life free of drugs and alcohol.
Lilo needs to dry out so maybe this is the boot in the backside she needs.

Gabrielle says:

08:04am | 22/07/10

Let’s see if you can follow this rehab plan, Sam. Step 1: Review the picture above and then reassess your comments on Lohan’s said ‘attractiveness’. Step 2: Review the courts records and see the many non-celebrities with DUI convictions, regardless of their beauty. Step 3: Go speak to a family who has lost a child in an accident caused by an unrepentant drunk/drugged driver.

Seano says:

08:11am | 22/07/10

I don’t have sympathy for drink drivers male or female. Maybe not the crime of the century but drink drivers kill innocent people and ruin lives through selfish stupidity. She deserves everything she gets.

Paul Whitfield says:

08:14am | 22/07/10

Do I think you are reaching too far? Not half. Imagine if she was plain, if she wasn’t famous, if she didn’t have cash, just imagine that….she might have done time for the first drugs offense like many Americans do.

Now imagine if she was poor and black or hispanic, if you want to get worked up over unnecessary persecution of minorities in the U.S. penal system I might suggest they are more deserving than the admittedly desperate plight of the rich, irresponsible actress subset.

As for your male examples. Downey Jr spent two terms in gaol, and you know why, because he missed court ordered drug testing in 1997 (four months in Los Angeles County) and then because he missed another drug test in 1999 (three years sentence of which he served one in year in Corcoran). Sutherland did 48 days on his second charge of DUI. Kind of seems they got the same treatment.

But you know what is worst of all. Is that you care about this. You are feeding the beast just as much as all those taking glee in her arrest. Ignore it and it will go away. Really, it will.

BK says:

08:21am | 22/07/10

The patriarchy are the ones who want to protect women from all criticism. Those who feel unable to discuss the consequences of women’s actions, because it might undermine her right to make choices. Those who tip-toe around women’s self-esteem. Those who want to protect women, not treat them like mature adults.

PaulB says:

08:54am | 22/07/10

I’m just plain sick of the money and attention showered on celebrities of music, movie, sports etc. and the media that portrays their antics as News while ignoring the people and issues that actually make a difference to our lives.  Celebrity gossip is ultimately little more than a great distraction from other more pressing issues (as our useless media well knows), but has no relevance to pretty much all of us.

Beagle says:

09:18am | 22/07/10

I replayed the “tape” and when I zoomed in at sentencing, I saw that poor little Lindsay was giving the judge the finger.. And written on her fingernail I saw FU neatly painted.
Poor Lindsay, It’s OK to take as many drugs as you want, drink as much as you want, party around the world and make millions of dollars, because you are Lindsay. The rest of us have rules and must live in society, but you are special and the rules don’t apply.
By the way, you look great in orange. no doubt you’ll be wearing in much more into the future.

MJ says:

09:28am | 22/07/10

I think you’re sniffing the wrong lead there, Sam.

There’s definitely a media fascination with the crashing and burning of starlets, yes. But in this case I think people are just mostly glad that she isn’t getting preferential treatment, that nobody is above the law.

Anyone who behaves the way she does should be punished by the law. It’s nothing about taming them or bringing them to heel.

Besides that, I’m sure many people couldn’t care less about her. Other than maybe pity that she’s thrown everything away.

Richard says:

09:53am | 22/07/10

Where are you Zeta? I’m waiting…

Peter says:

10:18am | 22/07/10

Absolute nonsense of an article.. People are jailed for these types of things on a daily basis.. To put it down to Partriachal viginal worship is just plain silly.. She dodges her court imposed responsiblities, walks into court with @#$% YOU painted on her nails displaying utter contempt, and to you its got something to do with her virginity.. Go figure..

Lazy Jesus says:

10:25am | 22/07/10

Am I happy to see a multiple time convicted offender finally get jailed after being given chance after chance with non custodial sentences ? You bet I am, some people just do not learn and often require a harsher punishment to get the message their behaviour is not accepted by the community. This is simply another case.

Does it make a difference if she is famous or not? Nope, not at all. You reap what you sow and no one is above the law. I’d laugh at anyone that made decisions stupid enough to put themselves in the same situation.

Jenni says:

10:45am | 22/07/10

Oh puh-lease! Where do I even *start* with your grossly innaccurate article?

How about - Lohan drove under the influence of both alcohol and drugs on MANY occassions, and it was only through pure luck that she did not seriously injure or kill somebody, Then, when she was brought to task on that, she publicly flouted the very minor punishment handed down to her - rehab and random testing - over and over until the judge had no choice but to try and show her how serious her offences were by sending her to jail for what will eventually be less than two weeks. You call this harsh?

Robert Downey Jnr, by comparison, spent four MONTHS in jail, which included very publicly working on a road crew. Sutherland spent 48 days in jail for his offences. Slater did 59 days. All of this is public information, readily available through a very quick internet search, so where do you come up with the notion that these guys got off easy compared to Lohan?

The fact that Downey pulled himself out of the gutter and has gone on to resurrect his career and his personal life is a credit to him and the friends and family who gave him a good slapping over his behaviour and helped him climb back up. Sutherland still has issues, yes (and Slater seems to have disappeared from public eye, so who knows what he is up to).

While the public may love Downy now, at the time of his jail time, I seem to recall exactly the same kind of backlash from the media and people in general. Perhaps you just have a short memory?

Jail - even 14 days of it - could turn out to be the best thing to ever happen to Lohan. It *could* make her wake up to the fact that she cannot skate along in life behaving however she pleases - and endangering other people in the process - without consequence. Whether she resurrects her career is up to how she learns from the experience of the past year or so.

Nicole says:

11:27am | 22/07/10

I too think she deserves everything she gets. She broke the law on several occasions, had multiple warnings and it was made very clear to her what the consequences would be. But I think what Sam is saying (and I totally agree) is how some people take great pleasure and relish in the misery and suffering she’s feeling. As I’ve said, she deserves what she gets, she’s a very silly young girl, but I’m taking no pleasure in it. I think it’s really very sad and hope that she learns a valuable lesson out of this. Hopefully she can then ‘move forward’.

DC says:

12:18pm | 22/07/10

You are kidding me aren’t you?

If she wasn’t a “star” she would have been thrown in jail each time she broke the law.

How many chances should she get?

She has gotten it far easier than the average person would have.

I have no sympathy for her - not because she’s a “star” but because of something called “personal responsibility”.

JH says:

12:53pm | 22/07/10

Sam, with the phrase “misogynistic subtext”, you have capitulated and joined the crass community of vacant talking heads.  I expect a higher standard and at least some originality of thought and content in your writing.  Your grade 11 English teacher agrees with me.  She actually rolled her eyes!  You know you can do better - step up.

Macca says:

12:54pm | 22/07/10

Whilst I can see some legitimacy in the premise behing Sam’s post, I’m not buying it.

As much as we Western Society (Most Societies?) value the humble Virgin model for young women, we value our sense of justice a lot higher. In fact, unlike the former, which only spontaneously enters our mind during the odd controversial Advertisement or Teen Film, we exercise the later on a daily basis. Think the weekend footy, failed job interviews and being tailgated whilst driving.

The reason we collectively cheer at Lohan’s sentance is not because she is a spoilt brat living in the microcosm of Hollywood, but because she has broken the law on several occasions, and subsequently failed to adhere to court orders designed to remedy her illegal behaviour.

Lohan’s behaviour in response to justice was disrespectful, stupid and generally disgraceful. The collective cheer is not because she is a moronic b****, its because her behaviour and attitudes flew in the face of the very thing we all trust to maintain our society

Hamish says:

01:08pm | 22/07/10

The patriarchy has nothing to do with coverage of Lindsay Lohan. It’s the fundamental desire women have to chop down other women more attractive and famous than them, that has driven this coverage. It’s everywhere in female-dominated media. For instance, NW or Famous will have one of three basic headlines:
Star(s) without makeup (they’re actually not that pretty, they’re skanks).
Star(s) - usually Jessica Simpson - in fat nightmare (sure you may be obese, but Jessica Simpson has put, like, 5 kilos).
Star(s) gets dumped, gets arrested, is being cheated on, etc (sure they’re prettier and richer than you, but something bad just happened to them so cheer up).

Susan says:

01:12pm | 22/07/10

Oh, go away. Your male examples of uneven treatment predate ubiquitous internet, before news sites had a need to find *something* to talk about all the time, while the Hilton/Lohan ones exist in the era of gossip web sites and social networking that is constantly on the lookout for things to talk about.

A comparable male example is Charlie Sheen and the domestic violence incident over Christmas, which lead to a lot of media attention and glee at his downfall. I’d suggest the only difference between hysteria/glee over that and the Lohan case is that he took legal advice to make the process as short and painless as possible by doing plea deals and so on. In contrast, Lohan showed near contempt for the court, didn’t make a couple of (relatively minor) sacrifices to ensure she met the court requirements of eduation classes etc and generally gave the story legs.

The other difference with all your male examples is that I’m aware of recent actual acting and other entertainment work done by Sutherland, Downey Jr, and your more recent Brand, LeBouf and the like. Hilton and Lohan haven’t done any serious work in years, and truly meet the definition of ‘famous for the sake of being famous’.

BM says:

01:36pm | 22/07/10

Sam - she did the crime now she has to do the time. Start, finish, end of story.

DD Ball says:

02:10pm | 22/07/10

So long as they were of age, I don’t care who she has sex with. So long as it was legal, I don’t care what she consumes. However, she has broken the law, and that wasn’t because she was having sex, or consuming legal things. I think it appalling that a star might have legal avenues of avoiding the justice system because they are famous.

Tails says:

03:40pm | 22/07/10

I doubt anyone could ever accuse Christian Slater of being a troubled artist. Unless of course by troubled you mean he’s ‘not very good at being an’.

Amy says:

07:38pm | 22/07/10

I don’t know what’s more insulting.  That you think she was treated poorly because she is female and bi-sexual or that you think your audience can’t google.  Firearms charges for rappers constantly end in ‘troubled artist’ labels with no serious consequences?  You might want to mention that to Lil Wayne who is currently serving a 12 month prison sentence (at Rikers no less) for oh hey!  Check it out!  Firearms possession.  Doesn’t exactly scream compassion for a poor old troubled artist…

Meanwhile, the concept that meddling with “devices designed to fling sharp bits of metal into human bodies” is significantly worse than driving a two tonne metal object while intoxicated and high no less than twice, is your biggest mistake.  What part of this clear violation of the law and endangerment to the public does not require swift and harsh penalty?  She was given several opportunities to serve her sentence as rehab time and failed to do so, and had plenty of warnings of the consequences of not doing so.

pavlo says:

11:16pm | 22/07/10

“It’s the patriarchal desire to see a wanton woman tamed.”
Ha ha, what a joke. Are you for real man? Been indoctrinated by reading too much of Germaine or Gloria’s tripe have you?
Have you considered that maybe it’s our collective desire to see a “celebrity” who thinks they are above the law actually having to face time behind bars – like any other citizen must if they repeatedly flout the law with impunity?