[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sohana Farhin/ SHEC
Celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Oprah, Salma Hayek, Megan Fox, the clan of Kardashians, Jared Leto and Beyonce, have claimed to use detox diets to lose weight. The most popular celebrity detox diet is known as the Master Cleanse.
The Master Cleanse was created by Stanley Bourroughs, a man arrested for practicing medicine without a proper license. The detox diet promises to “cleanse the body of toxins and obliterate cravings for juices, alcohol, tobacco and junk food.” The diet plan consists of drinking a glass of salt water in the morning, 6-10 glasses of a concoction consisting of water, lemon juice, maple syrup and cayenne pepper throughout the day and drinking a laxative tea at night for 10 days. For these 10 days, you do not consume any solid foods.
First and foremost, what does it mean to detox your body? “De-tox” literally means eliminating toxins — harmful agents that are found in the environment, including mercury and bisphenol A. Detoxification is a natural process that occurs in your body in which organs such as your liver, your kidneys, your lungs, or your skin excrete toxins to eliminate them from your body. Despite being “based on a natural bodily process,” there is no scientific evidence that proves that certain detox diets actually help the organs in our body in the process of detoxification. Detox is becoming a buzzword widely used by celebrities, and it is essentially a sales pitch with no evidence-based research to back it up.
At the end of the day, losing weight can be attributed to creating a calorie deficit, which means burning more calories in a day than you are eating. Celebrities have used the Master Cleanse to lose weight, but the reason they are losing weight is not because the concoctions they drink throughout the day have magical detoxifying properties, but rather because of the large calorie deficit that these diets promote. Although you will consume very few calories while on a “detox” diet, you will be deprived of macro and micronutrients, vitamins and minerals that your body needs to function optimally. This will stress your body, with particularly intense effects on the digestive tract, and may have negative long-term health effects. Additionally, it can lead to a cycle of dieting followed by binging. This process, popularly referred to as “yo-yo dieting,” can lead to weight gain as well as physical and mental health complications. Ultimately, it is advisable to always consult a healthcare professional to make dietary restrictions that will work for you and your health long-term.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
Increasingly referred to as the Internet’s new boyfriend, Oscar Isaac succeeds many of the most well beloved male stars before him. He joins the ranks of the magnificent Idris Elba, the gentleman of the decade Tom Hiddleston and perhaps the fairest of them all, Benedict Cumberbatch, whose ascent to fame was fuelled by his breakout role as everyone’s favourite sociopathic detective Sherlock Holmes.
Most of us were introduced to Oscar Isaac through his own lucrative role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens. The publicity from Isaac’s involvement with Star Wars has, in turn, shed light on some of his other talents. An old YouTube video titled “The Measure of Things,” published circa 2010, shows he can sing and play the guitar, maybe even well enough to give John Mayer a run for his money. Anyone who has seen the iconic dance scene in Alex Garland’s Ex Machina knows exactly how well he can “tear up the dance floor.”
He even took an adorable Star Wars themed picture with the charming child actor Jacob Tremblay of Room fame. And as a champion of bringing more representation to Hollywood films, it seems safe to say that Oscar Isaac is, for all intents and purposes, flawless. Or so the media would have us believe.
Celebrity crushes are not a new concept. We are all familiar with the trope of the shameless teenager who tapes posters of stars to their bedroom wall, and I’ll even admit that, to a certain extent, I embody the trope myself: there’s nothing quite like waking up every morning to Dane DeHaan’s smiling, autographed face in all its perfection.
However, as long as we can recognize and distance ourselves from society’s unrealistic expectations of the human ideal, then fangirling about someone every now and then is relatively harmless.
Nowadays, if you’re obsessed with someone or something, it’s become common to refer to yourself as their “trash.” But while there has been a great deal of talk about reclaiming the word “trash” for modern use, we cannot simply disregard its classist and racist historical context in regards to the less privileged, or the way it suggests our guilty pleasures demean us. Oscar Isaac may be the Internet’s new boyfriend, but that does not make all of us “Oscar Isaac’s trash.”
Feeding into our celebrity crushes allows us to temporarily evade the aspects of relationships that make them so painfully real: the possible rejection, the doubts of self-worth, the disappointment when others let us down and most of all, the heartbreak. We shouldn’t feel ashamed to fantasize about the celebrities we love, but we should be able to do so without compromising our own integrity. Let’s leave the trash talk where it belongs.
Photo Credits: Nathaniel Goldberg, Mario Testino
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
With the Oscars fast approaching, we are closing in on the one-year anniversary of Patricia Arquette’s controversial comments on wage equality for women when she won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. For the uninitiated, Arquette basically made the mistake of sounding like she was unaware of what intersectionality meant. As you can imagine, the Internet tore her apart, tweet by tweet, thinkpiece by thinkpiece. While the discussion that spurred from this snafu was mostly beneficial, it also brought up the question of why we were so critical of the actress.
Patricia Arquette was a relatively unknown actress prior to her Boyhood fame, and not particularly associated with the feminist movement. Yet the Internet was quick to tear her down for being anti-intersectional. Overnight she lost a lot of favour with the public, but was this justified? Nowadays, celebrities have to select their words carefully, even in overwhelming moments such as when you win the most prestigious award in your industry. There is no room for human error. Just ask Meryl Streep, who recently made headlines when she responded “we’re all Africans, really” to a question about her ability to judge films about a culture that she didn’t have a lot of experience with. In her full response you can tell she meant well, but undoubtedly made a mistake. Not even one of the most adored actresses in America could rebound from that.
With one slip of the tongue, these actresses joined a list of “problematic faves,” which includes mainstay staples such as Chris Brown and Kanye West. They become guilty pleasures, and we feel the need to justify why we like them and their work.
The issue here isn’t whether the celebrity’s comments that make you go, “Uh oh,” are valid or not, but rather why we expect them to be consistently politically correct. Some make the argument that celebrities wield an influence over the public and are seen as role models, which in turn means they should be held to this high standard, but frankly that’s not their job. An actor’s job is to make great movies. A singer’s job is to entertain the masses with their music. They are not politicians or people well-versed in all social issues. They should not be expected to be shining examples of political correctness and social advocacy.
https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/697199554807099394?lang=en
When Kanye West tweets, “BILL COSBY INNOCENT” we don’t need to tear him down and boycott his music. We don’t need to feel bad listening to The Life of Pablo. He’s an imperfect person, but so is pretty much everyone else, and you are friends with a fair share of these imperfect people in your daily life.
Don’t get me wrong, it’d be nice if they were, but it’s almost impossible. The A-lister who has come the closest is Beyoncé, and that feat is as much a product of her character as it is her management team. Even in a progressive institution such as McMaster, it’s easy to find someone who unintentionally said something stupid.
[Celebrities] should not be expected to be shining examples of political correctness and social advocacy.
There is a purpose and place to be politely critical, and the thinkpieces that arise from poorly worded statements are important in highlighting the subtle ways oppression operates in our society. Making a meme or sending out a mean tweet, however, is not the right thing to do. Think of it this way: if your friend made a problematic comment, you wouldn’t put them on blast on social media.
In the world of celebrities, we often forget that they’re real imperfect people. Just because they’re famous and successful doesn’t mean we can be assholes when they say something that can be interpreted as offensive. While the impact of problematic comments is undeniable, the intent behind them is what determines whether we write a polite thinkpiece about it as opposed to boycotting their work. It seems silly that in the twenty-first century, there is still a need for articles where the take home message is to be nice, but seriously, just be nice.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
A few weeks ago, I woke up to the deaths of two people who were dear to my heart. In the span of four days, actor Alan Rickman and rock icon David Bowie both passed away from their battles with cancer.
I was inexplicably upset. For several days, I found myself unable to shake off this feeling of unease. I watched any video that showed up on my newsfeed involving Professor Snape, the beloved and painfully misunderstood character played by Alan Rickman in the Harry Potter series. I put on all of the David Bowie records I had in my library on repeat, remembering the times my father and I would spend afternoons listening together on my bedroom floor. Grieving for these icons was a harrowing ordeal. At the same time, my distress was very confusing to me; why was I grieving for people I’d never even met?
In my father’s youth, his favourite artist was David Bowie. Considered one of the most influential musicians of our time, Bowie produced hits and entertained fans for over six decades. He transcended what it meant to be a star; not only did he influence music, but his gender-bending alter-egos also impacted art, fashion and the global LGBTQ+ community. When my father immigrated to Canada in his teens, he barely knew any English. Yet, it did not take him long to fall for Bowie’s infectious and innovative tunes. In fact, he told me he initially learned much of his English through singing along to many of Bowie’s songs. Through his years as a fan, he accumulated dozens of vinyl records that I now have the pleasure of inheriting. I remember few weekends in my childhood where we wouldn’t spend an hour or two listening to David Bowie, in silence and in each other’s company.
When I became a little older, some of the first novels I read were from the Harry Potter series. Like millions around the world, I became captivated. I was entranced by the complexity of the plot and the depth of all the characters. Although I dressed up as Hermoine for many Halloweens, my favourite character had always been Professor Snape. Unlike other “bad guys” I was accustomed to at the time, Snape taught me that things in life are never as black and white as they may seem. There is a vast grey area where tortured souls and tough decisions reside, a place where the line between villain and hero is hazy and unclear. Oftentimes, we fall so in love with characters in novels that the actor who portrays them in film inevitably falls short. Alan Rickman was an exception. He embodied everything that Snape was and, through his unassailable talent, made the character his own.
With the death of a popular public figure, such as the deaths of Alan Rickman and David Bowie, comes a strange and perplexing sense of grief. It’s an unusual feeling that accompanies the news that someone you sort of knew yet never really met is gone. It may seem petty to grieve the death of a celebrity. With everything else going on in your life and in the world around you, it seems unreasonable for such an inconsequential event to trigger even an ounce of feeling. But, whether it is a celebrity or the barista who served you at Starbucks every morning, there is no accurate way to react to death, especially the death of someone you never really knew. It will be confusing and elusive, but that does not make your sadness any less valid.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By: Anthony Manrique
The recent news surrounding Kim Kardashian’s naked photo shoot for Paper Magazine stirred up a huge buzz on the Internet. Apparently the media is so obsessed with her butt that Kim made history by “breaking the internet.” Various media outlets glorified her butt in a way that almost seems like sexual fetishism. It doesn’t make sense that the media is spending so much time talking about a person’s butt for the sole reason of it being big.
Does it even matter? All I know is that it’s just another publicity stunt.
I remember back when Miley Cyrus stirred up controversy during the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards with her antics like twerking and playing with a foam finger. At the time, she did manage to get a lot of attention for her actions, mostly criticizing her for doing such inappropriate acts on stage. A year later, she returned to the 2014 VMAs and yet again turned heads on stage when she sent a homeless young man to accept her award, in order to raise awareness for youth homelessness.
Surprisingly, she received a lot of praise from the press and the audience, with Miley looking like she did it out of sympathy for the poor guy. It seemed like everyone forgot about the events from the previous year, and that this was a chance for Miley to redeem herself. All I could feel back then was sorry for the homeless teen, because it looked like he just used up his fifteen minutes of fame.
Miley trying to highlight a good cause at the VMAs was a personal excuse to receive praise and attention from everyone who once thought of her as scandalous, and the homeless teen was just a tool to help her achieve this goal. Later on, Miley’s homeless VMA date was sentenced to six months in jail for violating probation. As for Miley, well, she’s still in L.A. doing whatever she’s supposed to be doing.
While she definitely did raise awareness for homeless youth, the way she went about it seemed more of a publicity stunt than an actual commitment. It was similar to the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos people made to seek attention and “raise awareness,” instead of actually donating.
For quite some time now, I’ve noticed that the media and its audience are unaware of the attention they are giving to publicity stunts that are utterly irrelevant and pretentious. Trying to understand why and what makes them interesting puzzles me. It never made sense how even the most meager of things, such as a picture of someone’s butt or using a good cause to save face, can be newsworthy.
The only celebrities who are worthy of attention are the ones that take an active role on issues that are particularly relevant. Leonardo DiCaprio and Emma Watson are some of the few celebrities who deserve praise for what they’re doing, especially for their respective stances on climate change and feminism.
No self-respecting celebrity would do a publicity stunt to gain more fame or respect. If our society keeps paying attention to celebrities who “gain fame by being famous,” what will become of those who actually deserve it?
Photo Credit: Christopher Polk
By: Imaiya Ravichandran
I, and I’m sure many of you as well (at least, I hope), visit Youtube at least once a day. Whether it is to watch the latest viral video, or to indulge in the obligatory daily dose of cute kitten videos, over one billion unique users fall victim to the endless abyss of funny, intriguing, and flat out weird content conveniently catalogued on this website. Standing alongside giant television and movie conglomerates, it is somewhat surprising that this start-up, rooted in humble beginnings above a Japanese restaurant in California, managed to become one of the world’s primary sources of entertainment. Of course, this incredible feat can be attributed to the accessibility and flexibility of the Internet, which most people prefer to the rigidity of TV and movie schedules. However, now that TV and movies are becoming increasingly available online, what else can explain Youtube’s continued success? Perhaps the answer lies in the modern “Youtube celebrity” whose content provides an inimitable degree of intimacy with its viewers.
There are several reasons why one would favour the approachable, flawed Youtuber instead of the inhumanly attractive celebrity. Though I shamelessly admire George Clooney in all his pepper-hair glory on screen, or hysterically shriek at the TV whenever Queen Bey performs, I am aware that these personalities are performing for legions of devoted fans. There is no true sense of connection between them and myself, although I often trick myself into believing otherwise (in a superficial sense…I’m not a stalker, guys). However, when interacting with a Youtube celebrity, this buffer is all but completely eradicated. Their content is so personal and genuine that you lose sight of the other hundreds of thousands of subscribers who are also closely bonding with the Youtuber in question. The reverence once felt towards the distant celebrity is now replaced with a new type of admiration, one that is summed up by the phrase: “they’re just like us!”
But they’re not just like us. In addition to surprisingly hefty salaries, Youtube celebrities possess a type of clout that many would argue is more powerful than that of their Hollywood celebrity counterparts. It stems from their uniquely close relationship with their viewers. While their following may not be as large as a traditional celebrity’s, the reach that they do have is much more influential. We put Youtubers on a pedestal, trusting them as we would a dear friend.
And so, it was understandably appalling for many Youtube audiences when news broke in March 2014 that two beloved British Youtubers, Tom Milsom and Alex Day, had been accused of sexual misconduct with multiple viewers.
In Milsom’s case, Tumblr user Olga accused him of emotionally and sexually abusing her throughout the course of their relationship; at the time of their courtship, she was only 15 and he was 21. Day’s accusers, eight in total, provided various accounts of sordid experiences with the popular vlogger, with the two most harrowing being of him coercing women to sleep with him – by definition, him engaging in rape. Milsom and Day were the second and third artists signed to the Youtube-centric record label DFTBA to be accused of some sort of sexual misconduct. Only a month earlier, former label-mate Mike Lombardo was sentenced to five years in jail for possession of child pornography.
I had been subscribed to Alex Day, or “nerimon” as he is known on Youtube, since I was 13 years old. As a staunch feminist, to hear of him and his friend’s atrocious behavior was certainly infuriating and disgusting, but first and foremost it was disappointing. It was profoundly different than if an elusive, unattainable celebrity had committed a crime. Here was a figure that I had looked up to, who I had laughed with, whose struggles and triumphs it felt like I had shared in. I was not alone in my attachment to Alex, nor in the blow that followed when my trust in him was breached. The allegations against Alex originated as blog posts on Tumblr. The diary-esque nature of the posts lent themselves to a cathartic release of his victims’ frustrations and disturbing tales of how they too had once admired Alex, only to have him use his position of power in an unmistakably inappropriate fashion.
The scandal elicited an impassioned response from the Youtube community. Response videos spread like wildfire, DFTBA swiftly dropped Day and Milsom from their roster, and a general call was made for increased discourse about the rampant presence of sexual abuse, sexism, and abuses of power in the Youtube community. The trope of an authoritative figure manipulating a less powerful victim is deeply embedded within the mores of the entertainment industry. However, it is especially pernicious in the Youtube context because it is a space in which large masses of potential victims feel safe with and close to their potential manipulators.
A small number of critics suggest that audience members guard themselves more warily against famous Youtubers. To always remember that there is a computer screen separating you and that charming British vlogger, and that you can never know anything more than what is depicted in a mere three minute long video. But I resent this suggestion. It goes without saying that it is important to be safe on the internet. It is equally important (and obvious) that one should not blindly trust a celebrity. However, to encourage barriers and distance between viewers and Youtubers would be to erode the very essence of openness upon which the Youtube community is built. If we teach viewers to not grow attached to a Youtuber, should they also not wear short skirts when walking along a street? Or have a drink before going out? Hopefully, you can understand the preposterous nature of these recommendations. They unjustly shift the onus from the Youtubers, who should be cognizant of their powerful positions and not exploit them, to the audience.
I bring all this up because recently, another Youtuber named Sam Pepper has come under fire for sexual misconduct, which he brazenly displays in multiple of his videos. Moreover, after a seven-month hiatus, Alex Day returned to Youtube with a video entitled “The Past”, in which he embarks on a half-hour tangent detailing a slew of feeble excuses “defending” his past conduct. I’m comforted that a sizeable portion of comments express contempt towards both Sam and Alex’s actions, adjudicating that sexual abuse and its perpetrators have no place in the Youtube community. However, the remaining reactions form a considerably large group who claim solidarity with the ostracized Youtubers. They suggest that “Youtube give them a second chance.” I wonder why these people feel this way. Most do not dispute the accuracy of the allegations against the Youtubers, nor do they challenge the severity of their crimes. Rather, they harken back to videos of the past, ones that depict their fallen heroes in all their charming, charismatic glory. And then, I realize that they too are victims, in some sense, of the intoxicating Youtube celebrity.
It was an ordinary Sunday night. I was sitting on my couch with a warm cup of tea in one hand, and the television remote in the other. After minutes of aimless channel surfing, I finally settled on the latest episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians. I watched for a while as the Kardashian clan sat over lunch, discussing how they were to celebrate Bruce Jenner’s upcoming birthday. It was then that I was interrupted by a thought.
Why do I care?
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
By no means is it my intention to discriminate against the Kardashian family, or any other “celebrity” for that matter. It has undoubtedly taken a lot of hard work and dedication for such individuals to achieve the success they have today. However, the recognition these famous people obtain is misdirected.
These “celebrities” have become so privileged that every minute detail of their lives is publicized. What about other unknown individuals that have done great things for the world? Do they not deserve the same recognition, if not more?
It is uncommon for one to know of Paul Ehrlich, the founder of chemotherapy, or Victoria Soto, the young teacher who risked her life to save her students from a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But thanks to TLC, anyone could tell you what Honey Boo Boo had for lunch yesterday.
This idea of what is important in society demonstrates nothing but corruption in the world today. We live in the most technologically advanced era in all of human history. With the simple click of a mouse, a message could be sent across the entire world.
Yet, rather than using this power for good, it is instead exercised as a way to gossip over which famous woman has the best boob job. There is currently so much potential for the world. However, in order to operate to the best of our ability, we must first reconsider what we value most in society.
Instead of focusing on the lives of the rich and alluring, more appreciation should be given to the ordinary individuals who do extraordinary things. The term “celebrity” should be reserved for those who dedicate their lives to others, such as police officers, teachers, doctors, and firemen. Human beings such as this work to better the world, as well as pose as significant role models for the youth of today. By shifting the focus of society onto those who truly deserve it, the world would become a more beautiful place, and not just on a physical level.
Though I’m not a fan of his work or the messy celebrity circle jerk that goes on during the Golden Globes, the empty mouthed criticism that has marred Woody Allen’s lifetime achievement award is undeserved. Don’t get me wrong. The allegations of sexual assault on a minor, particularly his adopted daughter, are a very real concern and warrant the utmost admonishment and scrupulous attention. But what is at stake here is not Woody or his combined experiences or his personal failings, but art itself.
Let me step back. Art is a product of humanity’s ingenuity. It is the combination of thought, sound, love, breath creating life, life creating breath.
What is more is that good artists, as Oscar Wilde said, exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are. I believe this stands true for Woody Allen. Although his life is important and the minutiae of his experiences are worthy of scrutiny in both good and bad lenses, his personal background does not comprise the whole of his being. This is especially true in his art. He is not fantastic because he is a New Yorker. He does not resonate with me because he has seen some of the places I’ve seen. Nor is he a bad person because he may have voted for Bush, though it would certainly make his judgement questionable (if alleged sexual assault wasn't a big enough indicator).
Neither the personal bad nor good ruin one another. They are isolated compartments. He, and the art he creates, is worthy of merit because despite it all, despite his vulnerabilities, his possible evils, and his warped idiosyncrasies, he kept on living, kept on feeling, kept on directing.
This does not excuse his alleged act of molestation nor does it make it right. Nor, too, does the fact that there is a celebration of the possible perpetrator instead of the victim - the one who was really hurt - go unnoticed. Rather receiving this award is a testament that he was able to transform the pain of his life into beauty through his work. Rather than be a resultant process of his problems, rather than allow them to dictate his lifestyle, he moved beyond his darkness.
With lights, camera, and action, he achieved greatness even if he himself wasn’t, and isn't, great.
Photo c/o ThomasThomas on Flickr.
