Well, you knew that was coming. You can’t give a little girl a “boy’s” haircut, let her wear pants and play with swords without the world exploding, possibly ending and definitely having a shit fit. Now, I’ve taken note of little Shiloh Jolie-Pitt’s endearing tomboy tendencies for a while now. I think they’re wonderful. Which, of course, means there is something pathologically wrong with her upbringing, possibly evil and definitely worth consulting a panel of stylists over.
Now I’d be angry (and, truth be told, I am angry), if this all didn’t feel a bit calculated. I mean, I don’t honestly think the editors of “Life & Style” think Brad and Angelina are turning Shiloh into a boy. But it sure does make a good headline. And it sure stirs up controversy. And it sure adds to the bottom line. Well fuck that noise. I am not linking the “article,” if you can call it that. But if you must know it calls her haircut “shockingly short” and that it pushes the boundaries into “cross-dresser territory” and even quotes an “expert,” again if can call him that, from Focus on the Family.
Whatever. People who really do feel this way make me mad, obviously, but sad for them as well. Their lives are so limited, their definitions so rigid. Life is wonderful because of its variation and possibilities and freedom. If a little girl wants to cut her hair short, run around in cargo pants and avoid ruffles like the plague, what is it to you? What is so threatening or scary or wrong with letting children just be themselves? Big sister Zahara wears plenty of dresses and frills and traditionally “girlie” clothes. So, clearly, it’s not some sinister plot to reassign the gender of all the Jolie-Pitt clan (though, truth be told, Brad in a dress has its virtues). If more people let their children express themselves freely – wear what they wanted, pursue what they wanted, be who they wanted, love who they wanted – this crazy world of ours would be a much happier, healthier place.
Again, I say, whatever. And get a life, people. Because life really is way too short to sweat the small stuff. And a haircut, that’s not even small – that’s minuscule. Plus, Shiloh’s is adorable. So suck it, “Life & Style.” Hard.
25 comments:
Yeah, I saw this cover yesterday while I stood in the checkout line at the grocery store. Just the stupidest thing ever. I didn't even bother leafing through it while I waited.
Methinks the world is changing, a lot. And some folks are sooooo freaked by that they are fighting a no-holes-barred battle to keep the future from happening. Hence nonsense like this article.
I have no interest in the Jolie-Pitt clan, but I, obviously, support your views whole-heartedly on this issue. Not many people look, dress, and act in such prescribed ways anymore, which might be part of what's bringing on the backlash against poor little Shiloh.
Hoo-Rah!
Finally! The answer to why I'm gay! My mother always kept my hair short! And to the Focus on the Family "expert" all I have to say is....Holy S___!
SInce when was that "just a boy's haircut?
I grew with girls in my school most of whom had similarly short haircuts. It was in another country, and it was awhile ago, but still: makes you wonder about the tyranny of gender manipulation that the media are attempting these days. Most women had short haircut in the 60's and 70's. Who are these crazy arbiters of so "appropriate" hairdos?!@#$%^&*
This is silly... does this mean that all the women who let their boys's hair grow are all making them into girls? Seriously people are so narrowminded!
I applaud Brad and Angelina for the freedom from rigid stereotypes and socially constructed rules with which they seem to be raising their children, and if it scares some folks...f'em!
Also congrats on your big win...well deserved!
I agree with you 100%. When I first heard the "complaints" from the right wing, I was shocked. Do those people have nothing better to do than to sit there and harass celebrities on how they dress their kids?! Get a life!
Live and let live, I always say. Like you said, that would make the world such a happier place! :)
I was angry enough to fire off letters to the editors in charge over at Life & Style (a magazine I never buy anyway).
First off tabloids shouldn't stoop so low as to put children on their covers to sell issues anyway-it's the parents that are the celebrities so whatever b.s. stories they want to dole out about Brad and Angelina, I could care less.
Second, Shiloh is a 3 year old child-since when does a magazine feel the need to interfere in how someone else parents their children or the "effect" that wearing "boys" clothing and having short hair may have on Shiloh's future?
At least many of the tabloids in Europe still use strategically placed black bars over the face of children when they appear on covers with their parents.
Yes, Brad and Angelina in an effort to curb the inevitable paparazzi chase to be the first to get photos of their children let People magazine put Shiloh on their cover, but that was a preventative measure... that the tabloids are now stooping to these new lows and using children to sell copy rankles me.
I can't imagine that these so-called experts would like it very much if someone analyzed how they are raising their own children, they should get off their moral high horses and stick to raising their own families and not going after everyone elses.
I say just leave Shiloh alone!
yea, i agree with above me person,
just curious is it okay to take a famous kid pic
without asking?
what if she says in the future she doesn't know
what was going on cus she was three years old,
and never wanted be on the magazine cover?
it's funny, but her hair cut reminds me something,
when a kidnap was suddenly increased some moms
like to cut girls hair to make them look ugly,or boyish? it sound stupid but it happened.
by the way shiloh looks very cute whatever the hair cut.
Hmm, well, I guess this begs the question, "it is harming to a child to be the subject of tabloid sniping directed at her celebrity parents?" Experts, please do enlighten?
I think she looks cute. Wish I'd been dressed in those clothes & had that haircut!
No one is worried of the thousends and thousends of "normal" (ie noncelebrity) little girls who have their hair cut short because its handy and tidy and they HATE brushing hair. And about clothing, children know what they want, from very little. And to be so priviledged, she does have the opportunity to actually choose what she wants. Some girls love dresses, some hate them even as babies.
Besides, if she´d be forced to dress like that, she´d end up a girly girl with huge dresses the minute she´s old enough to fight back.
Leave Shiloh alone! for f**k sake!
so tired of jolie boring as hell and pathetic actress......
stop the buzz with this troll
Hey, Life & Style? I had that haircut when I was her age because my hair tangles easily and my mom got tired of me screaming every time she combed it. I wasn't allowed to have long hair until I could care for it myself. I frequently wore what you seem to consider boyish clothes because they were better for running around and playing in. (Also because my parents were frugal and put me in my brother's perfectly good hand-me-downs. Jeans and corduroys are just pants, and t-shirts are t-shirts, when you're three.)
I'm fine, thanks.
I saw a little boy in the grocery store a while back who had a fur tail hanging out underneath his jacket and he was pretending to be a puppy.
If those parents aren't careful, that boy will grow up to be a poodle!
notice how the headline only "blames" the mother.
It's disgusting that they would put a CHILD on the cover and report on her "questionable" style. To put a child in that place is abusive. Now she's fair game for the media-tauning that happens to the allegedly "fat" actresses. So being fat or tom boyish are the big horrors they need to dig at. It just another way to write about Brangelina, a subject that sells magazines. But to critique their young child? Criminal.
I think we all should write letters to these a-holes. What total pricks.
I showed my daughter a photo of my great-grandfather from the 19th century. The photo shows a toddler with long curly hair wearing (what was at the time) a traditional sleeping gown. My daughter insisted he was a she. This leads me to assume Life & Style is being published by 7-year olds or faux-adults with 7-year old minds.
There are 2 blogs that I follow that are about gender variant kids. I think that it's great that Shiloh is being allowed to exist in her most authentic form. The social construction of what gender looks like is changing, and I think it's fantastic.
http://labelsareforjars.wordpress.com/
http://www.acceptingdad.com/
There's also an interesting NY Times article that comes to mind ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/fashion/08cross.html?_r=1
guess what, when I was younger my mom put me in a dress but I choose pants - now, I don't wear skirts or dresses. Usually the converse is true!
When I was four, I decided that I was going to be the only girl in the family with long hair and proceeded to chop off all of my three-year-old sister's hair. She had short hair for quite a while. Shiloh does have older siblings, who I have a feeling are probably just as expressive as she is, soooooo, maybe it was a haircut adventure gone wrong? Either way, she's three and just beginning to explore her own autonomy. Let the kid wear some damn pants for christ's sake.
While I absolutely LOVE long hair on women, it's no big deal for a young girl to wear a short haircut. This article is nonsense. My one daughter had gorgeous long curls, but it clearly was a major pain for her, so off it went. To you "older" gals who choose long hair, THANKS!!! LOL
Post a Comment