Close

Give Me A Hug, Famous Celebrity!

This happened at a party I attended recently. I was curious as to how someone else would handle the situation.

The backstory is this. I live in an area known for a specific industry that involves a large number of celebrities. Many of them have large houses in the area and they tend to have families that live there with them.

I was at a small party thrown by a friend (we are considered “millennials” and frequently stay in and have small events at each others’ homes) when I encountered someone I’d never met at one of these small parties before. She and I were chatting and I learned that she worked for a local nanny agency. These agencies work by having a group of nannies on staff, and when you call them they send out one of their contractors to babysit instead of hiring the local teens. It’s short-term only, and you generally can’t request a specific person. Sitters frequently know who they will be sitting for in advance for safety purposes, but often they won’t be informed of who they’re seeing if it’s a celebrity that’s called. This protects the clients’ privacy and prevents unwanted visitors in the form of those obnoxious individuals who have been known to show up, unannounced and uninvited, on the doorsteps of the rich and famous for pictures and autographs.

As this woman and I were talking, she mentioned that she’d never babysit for a local celeb we will call J again. I asked her why. Her words, exactly, were “because she’s a b—h.”

Upon further questioning, I learned why this woman had come to the conclusion she had.

She had been called one night to do an emergency sitting job for someone who’s original sitter had cancelled at the last minute. She raced over to a specific celeb-filled neighborhood and arrived at J’s house. She was unaware of who it was she would be babysitting for, but she knew it would be a celeb. When she arrived, it was none other than her favorite singer, J.

Now, this is not her first babysitting gig for a celebrity. She had apparently babysat for several other celebrities without incident, which is why she was chosen for this job. Therefore, she should have known better.

She asked J for a hug. Apparently J gave her an awkward side hug, left a note with the important numbers, and booked it out of there very quickly.

And that, apparently, is why J is a b—h.

I was floored. So, a stranger didn’t want to give this woman a hug, and somehow she’s a horrible person? For various reasons, I don’t like hugging people I don’t know well. I’d prefer a handshake. I found an excuse to talk to someone else at the party and escaped this woman. At the end of the party, I successfully avoided hugging her.

She’s been talking to our mutual friends. I didn’t want to hug her either. Apparently that makes me a b—h too!!  0111-16

People are not stupid and as she tells her version of the story, it only makes her look bad in many people’s eyes.   Asking the client to give you a hug is unprofessional. Because it was an emergency job, J the celebrity singer was probably late to the event she needed to be at and to expect her to disengage from that “business mode” to give the hired babysitter a hug was the height of entitlement.    If J were smart, she’d call the agency and report the lack of professionalism and request that this woman not babysit for her again.

Had you had a closer relationship with this woman I’d have suggested you say something to her but seeing as you had just met her, I think your beandipping and avoiding her thereafter was a fine solution to the dilemma.

Jimmy Kimmel’s Annual Halloween Exploitation of Children

I’m sure by now most people know about the famous talk show host who sends out a challenge every year for parents to record telling their children that they ate the children’s Halloween candy. This is done as a prank for fun. It seems kind of mean to me, but I will say it also shows that there are some truly gracious children out there, too. Some of the kids actually express forgiveness and love toward their parents, despite losing all the candy they worked so hard to acquire. 1106-14

This is an annual challenge by late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel to film your kids after telling them, “I TOLD MY KIDS I ATE ALL THEIR HALLOWEEN CANDY”.    I decided to not embed sample videos into this post in keeping with this site’s firm position against exploitation of children.

It’s a challenge just to watch these videos.   What we witness are parents deliberately lying to their children telling them a falsehood that all their candy that the child has accumulated through trick or treating has been consumed by one or both parents while the child slept and there is none left.   The reactions of the children are predictable and in the case of the younger children they respond as if the world has crashed on them.   At that age, a pile of candy is a rare treasure and a beloved parent has unjustly taken it all.  Jimmy Kimmel himself understands this, “You know, for kids, Halloween candy is a sacred thing.  For a lot of them it’s the first time they ever earn anything.”   The collection of videos records reactions of  shock, disbelief, anger, tears, screaming, tantrums, despair, rage at parents, declarations of hatred, threats of physical violence, loss, grief all displayed on unpretentious little faces.   There are rare examples of sad but gracious understanding by a few children but what harm is done when that precious quality is tested and exploited for a joke?  The audience finds these displays to be quite laughable.  In a 2013 montage, one little boy understands the moral depravity of the joke played on him when he cries, “Well, that wasn’t very kind.”    What parent does this?

Most of these children are pre-schoolers who lack the cognitive maturity to recognize the potential of a prank being played on them or to reason why a hungry parent didn’t eat a peanut butter sandwich or to handle this kind of news well.   This annual tradition is nothing more than an exploitation of vulnerable and gullible little children for the entertainment of adults.

For the chance of a youtube video to be featured on The Jimmy Kimmel Show after Halloween, pranking parents are willing to teach their children a host of undesirable truths that have the potential for negative consequences over time.   Truths such as…1) Mom and Dad will lie to you to get an emotional rise that they will film and disseminate to a worldwide audience.   2)  Mom and Dad will not respect your ownership of private property.   3) Mom and Dad will manipulate your emotions to amuse themselves.  4)  Parents cannot be trusted.   5) Blameshifting.   A surprising number of parents excuse their choice to prank the child by blameshifting to Jimmy Kimmel for “making” them pull this prank.   6)  Undermines the value of a sincere apology if Mom or Dad are willing to “apologize” for something that never really happened.   6)  Jerking people’s chains resulting in an emotional reaction is great fun!

If we were to reverse the roles, many parents would find this type of behavior by a child to be disrespectful and troubling.  It is therefore an abuse of the power inherent to being a parent to put one’s children through emotional hoops for the sake of a laugh or to become entertainment fodder for strangers.   Would we find it amusing if those same children, upon becoming adults caring for their aged parents, played a prank on mentally challenged senior citizens that manipulated emotions for the entertainment of others?   As a society we consider that abusive but for some odd reason, children are fair game.

EtiquetteHell has been consistent over the years that minor aged children should never be exploited on television and social media to provide entertainment for a audience that now can easily span around the globe.   Minor aged children lack the maturity to understand the consequences of losing their right to privacy and are therefore dependent on adults to protect them until they reach an age where they can make informed choices as to how they will be depicted.  It’s obvious that there are parents who have no qualms about exploiting their children if it means a moment of fame.

Just stop, Jimmy.

Should the ESPN Reporter Have Been Fired?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3042761/Maybe-missing-teeth-job-Glamorous-ESPN-reporter-suspended-atrocious-verbal-attack-parking-lot-attendant-caught-camera.html

I just wonder if it would be possible to cover this story as it’s quite interesting to see the etiquette issues associated with this, how to handle a frustrating situation in a respectful many, how the behaviour your display outside your job can affect your employment, etc. Just might be worth a discussion as I think it’s a fascinating case of “You need to behave in private in a way that you wouldn’t be embarrassed about it was splashed across the front page of the newspaper”.

Discuss away!

Apologize Joan

Celebrity Joan Rivers crossed the line into crassness with a joke comparing her living in her daughter’s guest bedroom to those experienced by the three women kidnapped and held captive fora decade. Rivers and her daughter were discussing their reality show Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show when she complained about her living arrangements, saying, “Those women in the basement in Cleveland had more space.” Read more HERE.

The three kidnapped and captive women did not seek their fate, did not ask for the media attention that ensued and certainly should expect that people not exploit their horror for the sake of a joke.

Apologize Joan.

The Celebrity Guest

I am wondering if fellow EHellions could help with a sticky situation. Soon my dear friend is to become Godmother to my daughter, and I am currently planning the details. This friend happens to be a well-known Minister (as in politically). She is also the daughter of an internationally-renowned author. I have known these two for years and while humble and gracious, you can never go anywhere without people accosting them about work, particularly in the Minister’s case, of course, people always want to have a go about politics. I am afraid my family and friends might be no different and I would love for the Godmother and her mum to enjoy the day as a day off from public duties. Is it ever okay to attach a polite note to an invitation requesting that these two be allowed a day to enjoy the occasion and to refrain from work issues? (The two will be instantly recognizable by the invitees.) This smacks of bossing people around and censoring what they can and can’t say (and not trusting my friends) but I see them regularly and it is wearing to discuss the same books and political issues EVERY single time you go out. I want them to relax, not be on the spot. If this IS ever ok, how would you word it? I have the best of intentions here, but please let me know if I am being overbearing. And no, I cannot trust my family. They are likely to weigh in on sensitive political topics and it would be embarrassing…but they are kind-hearted and if I approach it diplomatically they might behave! 0921-13

Part of being  a public figure is that you are constantly “on” when out in public.  With the benefits of celebrity status comes the downside of losing privacy.  It was this recognition of the costs of being a public figure that fueled my decisions over the past 12 years to decline some very lucrative offers that would have made me far more recognizable but at a cost to my family’s privacy.   I’m quite happy in my modest niche!

That said, I suspect your friends are quite adept at dodging questions they prefer to not answer.   Public figures learn to bean dip early on.   And while your intent to shield them is honorable, you cannot play conversation cop for everyone by crassly laying down the rules of communication in the invitations.    Your best option is to speak privately with the relatives and friends most likely to annoy your celebrity guests with discussions of issues that have no relevance whatsoever to the theme of the party and request that they choose another occasion to have those politically charged discussions.   And then you act as conversational gatekeeper at the party and steer any conversations away from talk of politics.