ONTD

7:30 pm - 02/17/2013

'Rihanna is the new Diana': Provocative claim by feminist writer Camille Paglia



A leading feminist writer has claimed that Rihanna is the new Princess Diana in a highly controversial article which argues the pair share a ‘ravishingly seductive flirtation’ with the press.

Camille Paglia, an American author and lecturer, said the late Diana and the 24-year-old Bajan superstar were both adept at using every photo opportunity to convey ‘allure, defiance or revenge.’

She argues that the messages are drawn from the pair’s turbulent romantic life, then targets their respective partners Prince Charles and Chris Brown.

Writing in The Sunday Times magazine, Paglia added that both women were victims of a ‘festering romantic triangle and had transformed themselves from ' sensitive, wounded, but appealingly bubbly and good-natured provincial girls' into living sculptures for the lens.

She said: 'Not since Diana rocketed from a shy, plump kindergarten aide to a lean, mean fashion machine has there been such a ravishingly seductive flirtation with the world press.'

Ms Paglia, who has in past essays accused Taylor Swift and Katy Perry of killing feminism with their 'insipid, bleached-out personas', compared an iconic 'stage-managed' image of a lonely Diana at the Taj Mahal after the breakdown of her marriage with a shot of Rihanna on her balcony in Barbados, in turmoil over her relationship with Chris Brown.


MoreCollapse )

1 2
Page 10 of 11
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] >>
la_petite_singe 18th-Feb-2013 03:39 am (UTC)
lizlemonohbrother.gif

I love how her comments are simultaneously "wow, I never thought this could happen to me!" and also "you're jealous" and "extraordinaRIHbehavior." It's like she's not sure what type of hard to try. I don't hate her, but she's exasperating.
georgie_georgie 18th-Feb-2013 03:44 am (UTC)
someone wants attention.
ludmi_83 18th-Feb-2013 03:52 am (UTC)
Noooo and fuck off w/e who wrote this
ohwutevernvm 18th-Feb-2013 03:54 am (UTC)
umm
gabzillaz 18th-Feb-2013 03:55 am (UTC)
No
saltonmycuts 18th-Feb-2013 03:58 am (UTC)
First Lil mama as left eye now this. Lmao this world is too crazy. i can't handle 2013 too many laughs.
runnerlevelred 18th-Feb-2013 04:22 am (UTC)
Sitting alone in front of the Taj Mahal without your spouse sends a much stronger symbolic message than being in a bikini on a balcony on vacation without your on again/off again boyfriend. Apples and oranges, Paglia.
prophecypro 18th-Feb-2013 05:52 am (UTC)
Crap article.

In order to be Princess Diana you have to be the face of social activism and utilize your celebrity. You could make a better argument that Angelina Jolie was that. Rhianna dont care about anything other than pushing controversy for attention.
fashionbb 18th-Feb-2013 05:54 am (UTC)
Look at that comment that Rih wrote...her and Chris are SO ALIKE and social media has shown me that!


BUT seriously, WTF at this dumbass cover. Rihanna is a damn entertainer, not fuckin royalty.
faz1988 18th-Feb-2013 06:04 am (UTC)
Hahaha Diana was a mess during her latter years, but her main drive was almost always altruism of some sort. Rihanna's is shock value and attention.
beachwee 18th-Feb-2013 06:30 am (UTC)
right...
bananasnrum 18th-Feb-2013 06:35 am (UTC)
why do we compare anyone to anyone. cripes.
juanbomb 18th-Feb-2013 06:37 am (UTC)
lmao so many pressed people here. And they're quick to scream Britney!! Diana held her head high at all times, even when the entire world seemed to be against her and her decisions, Britney completely lost it, that's what this article is talking about, Rihanna seems, for lack of a better word, unapologetic about everything she does, she makes no excuses and looks at the press straight on the eyes, pretty much like Diana did. The piece doesn't focus only on the amount of media attention they get, it focus on how they handle it, of course Diana was much, MUCH more famous than Rihanna.
juicybrisket 18th-Feb-2013 07:20 am (UTC)
lolololololol



no.
hisjulliet 18th-Feb-2013 08:16 am (UTC)
LMAO
Page 10 of 11
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] >>
This page was loaded May 21st 2013, 5:03 pm GMT.