Okay. So this. If you are a madam and you hire the women to service the rock starts and pro athletes, you are a shrewd business woman worthy of a Hammett-esque think piece in the Daily Beast. But if you are just a rank-and-file hooker, you are a bubblehead and the best you can hope for is a lingerie photo on Page Six.
She fought her dead fiance's parents over money? Really? That seems pretty cold.
It's no one's job to hand you a "knight in shining armor" (news flash - they don't exist) and it's certainly not up to the parents of your "knight" to give you money if he passes away.
@Sev: But, had they been married, it wouldn't have been cold? "I do" was all that separated her from his wife. She should have the money a wife would get.
You marry a person and you marry into that family. There is nothing that says his/her family owes you anything. Even if she had been his wife, his parents in no way owe her a dime.She should have been beneficiary on his life insurance policy for situations like this. And if they had divorced, should his parents give her money? No. That's between her and her husband.
I'm really sorry she lost someone she loved in such a tragic way. However, marrying a person or being engaged to someone in no way makes that person's parents resposible for her financial well-being.
@Sev: No, no, as I understand it she went after HIS money (from his will or what not) that his parents wanted to give to their remaining children. Not the money that his parents had.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: OH! Then I retract my comment of her being cold. I was under the assumption she wanted their money because they couldn't provide her with a "knight in shining armor."
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: I agreed with you until I read the quote from his mother that said "he left the money to my daughter". If he had a will, and left the money to his sister, then I have to say it was pretty hardcore of her to contest that.
@gyps808001: Unfortunately, a lot of people, especially at such a young age, don't understand how important it is to update your will. It's possible that he hadn't updated his yet. At the very least, she should be entitled to a portion of the money.
@PhDelish: No way! This story deserves to be beautifully, craftily told. I want James Ellroy to do the screenplay, Brian de Palma to direct. Rose Byrne or Rachel McAdams to star. Sandy Powell or Jacqueline Durran to do the costumes, with lots and lots of money to spend.
"Rachel Uchitel works for Tiger the minute he gets off the plane wherever he is: from dinner, to photos, to nightclubs, to drugs, to girls - whatever he wants," and "her agenda is to land big clients - not big boyfriends."
No, I believe this is called being a "mistress." See Madame de Pompadour for reference. Girl did the exact same thing for the King of France.
@MargaretMoony:La Pompadour ony became the royal procuress when her delicate health made it impossible to continue in her role as royal mistress. It was also her way of ensurng she was not ousted from the King's favour by ambitious women who found themselves in his bed.
@soeffingclassy: One way or the other, Jezebel seems to cover all areas of culture in its readership. There are a lot of interesting people I only heard about for the first time on here.
@soeffingclassy: Pompadour was far more than a mere mistress in the modern sense of the word-- she was "mistresse en titre" (sp?)--an official, titled mistress of the king of france and though a few slut-shamed her, she was generally viewed as similar in status to the Queen, indeed, more powerful than the Queen....and although England had a few women who claim close, this was considered a legitimate part of the French monarchy. This is why I love the French. And Jezebel.
I find it interesting how shocked people are that this is exists. There are many famous athletes who since this broke are making sure their tracks are covered. I have been reading baseball groupie message boards and sites for years now and this behaviour is the norm not the exception.
@LAmonkeygirl: This quote from The Departed sums it all up:
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you're not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think, "At least somebody can stand the son of a bitch." Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
@LAmonkeygirl: Along with what the others have said, athletes have fragile egos. They need a support system. Plus, a lot of players marry the Maxim or Playboy model. Life is a game, a competition and all things are trophies. The hot wife, the adorable kids, the massive house are all toys of a daily mid life crisis.
As far as her looks went, Uchitel was no runway model, but she was sexy in the slightly overprocessed way that her job demanded, with a taste for Christian Louboutin heels and a body that was, at least of late, widely believed to be surgically enhanced.
I really cannot get past that excerpt. I understand that in the arena of public opinion, Elin has been painted as the elegant, delicate Grace Kelly-type, while Rachel is the over-processed, trashy Playboy-sort, but still. Why must (almost) every article I read about her, take swipes at her physical appearance?
Her photos have been splashed across news outlets the world over and at this point, my grandparent probably know what she looks like, so why take the extra print space to slap her across the face for being "surgically-enhanced" and "no runway model"? It just seems like such a nasty way of insinuating that she is trashy without having to say so directly, and it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
@Tchotchke: It's really unnecessary and catty. As if half of the Hollywood stars they slavishly follow aren't also surgically enhanced? When it's someone they want to mock, it's totally OK to call it out, but when Ashlee Simpson gets a nose job, they publish a piece saying she got it to fix her deviated septum.
@Tchotchke: People probably think that her looks are fair game because so much of her appearance is based on deliberate choices that she made. She intends to look this way, knowing the message that it sends.
I don't know that I'd choose to spend so much time focusing on her looks if I were writing the articles, though.
@Maritsa: That's exactly what I mean. I understand that she has a specific flashy look, but how is that in any way material to her role in this mess? It was just an obvious attempt by the writer to say, "she's slutty, hell, she even looks slutty!"--as if that somehow indicates culpability on her part.
I'm getting a distinct Linda Hamilton vibe from that picture. Then again, if there were articles like that about me in every print publication in the world, I might be tempted to grab an Uzi too.
The (not-so) secret patriarchy exposed! Shame on her for being caught at giving powerful men what they pay her for! If it weren't for her, men would never cheat at all; she's taking advantage of their inability to deny their basest instincts! She's probably a feminist, too. (/snark)
I agree it's shady business, but the tut-tutting from people in the tabloid industry who need these stories to thrive is dishonest at best.
Society sets up a system in which women can succeed by selling other women or sex, then blame them when they succeed for perpetuating the system. It's a double win for the patriarchy.
bluebears promoted this comment
Edited by Mireille is German for the Bart, the. at 12/15/09 12:20 PM
Mireille is German for the Bart, the. was starred
Mireille is German for the Bart, the. was unstarred
@Penny: I don't know where to find them, but she was like holding a picture of her missing fiance (I believe) and speaking to the cameras. She looks very different.
@SarahMC: I remember seeing a documentary about women left bereaved after the Twin Towers and how some of them felt aggrieved that they had not been able to receive compensation, as they had neither been engaged nor married to the victims. As Rachel was engaged she probably was not in it. It also reminds me of a Judge Judy when a bereaved mother wanted the girlfriend her son was living with at the time of his death, to hand over his television set and VCR on the grounds they constituted his personal belongings, and therefore had greater emotional value to the mother than to the girlfriend!
As a former female ice hockey player, playing for my varsity high school hockey team.. my relation to this video is almost overwhelming.
not only do i feel connected to this girl, i was this girl. i see her as the person i used to be. a strong female on the ice, surrounded by boys but holding my own.
from the ages of 6 to 15 i played boys ice hockey. i was the only girl in the locker room, but i dressed with the boys until around high school. the years i was in the locker room i felt connected to the team. i was in on the jokes, i felt like one of them. However things became much more complicated when i was confined to a separate locker room (and if one was not available, the womens bathroom-- yes that is true.) I wasn't part of the team anymore. I was the girl who was just along for the ride.
You must understand how frustrating that is. Though i knew my teammates would have my back. a lot of the time, fending for myself was the only option. I was called a bitch, slut, cunt, anything you can think of.. that's what i was to the other team. I would get hit from behind, jabbed in the side. After awhile the only option is to fight back.
I punched many a boy in the face.. THE FACE. i even broke a stick over another ones stomach. and no matter how awful that sounds to the average person, it was the most exhilarating, liberating experience i've ever had.
Women are socialized to be subservient and docile in the presence of men. but when i was on the ice, i was acting in the exact opposite way.
i am SO sorry this is so long. i've been waiting for a post like this to share my views with all of you. I am a feminist above all, and ice hockey gave me the confidence to be a strong minded female, and for that i will forever be grateful.
(there is so much more, i could really write a novel.. but i will spare the details. sorry for the sappiness!)
@CherriSpryte: No the purpose of a gun is accelerate a projectile in a controlled and consistent manner.
What that projectile does is determined by the person who initiated the movement of the trigger.
There are many purposes for a gun as well. However like with most things, people disagree on the value of those uses, and when it's convenient for them, people sometimes ignore some uses altogether.
@brokenscope: That is not a gun's purpose, that is what a gun does. Atomic bombs smash bits of uranium together, but that is not the purpose of a nuclear weapon.
Really, please tell me of these other purposes.
.... I should probably point out that I'm up to my neck in a paper on the impact of the global arms trade on child soldiers. So I may not be as receptive to other perspectives as I ought to be at the moment.
@CherriSpryte: Actually our only present uses of fusion and fission weapons are limited because the bottom limit of their power is rather dangerous on our little blue ball. They likely will have other uses in the future.
Food Hunting and recreational shooting are the primary legitimate uses that people frequently like to ignore.
Also, isn't the global arms trade mostly SKS's, ak variants/clones, FN FAL's, CTME, various bolt actions, browning hi-powers, various soviet and Chinese surplus, and god knows how many American service rifles we pumped into various coups and proxy wars?
@brokenscope and everyone else: The global trade is mostly semi-automatics and automatics, true. And in terms of "god only knows" numbers, the acceptable number for total number of small arms and light weapons currently in use is thought to be around 500 million - which is everything from hunting rifles to shoulder-launched grenades.
The US is the biggest manufacturer and exporter of weaponry. Hands down. The pervasive gun culture we have in this country is exported worldwide, manifesting itself in the most horrific human rights abuses possible.
Hundreds of thousands of children have been abducted from their homes in Uganda, Mozambique, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Burma, and countless other places. In many cases, the deciding factor as to whether these children would be forcibly consripted into an armed group was whether they were big enough to pull the trigger on an AK and carry it.
The proliferation of small arms makes conflicts last longer and makes them more fatal. When the weaponry runs out, wars tend to stop.
If you think this is an acceptable price to pay so you can have a pretty gun hanging from your ceiling, or so you can shoot at targets for fun, then there's nothing I'm going to say that can convince you.
@brokenscope: Annual US production of small arms/light weapons is about four million units a year. While AK-47s may account for 100 million of the 500 million weapons currently in circulation, there are those pesky other 400 million to worry about - at least ten million of which are M-16s alone. That last stat is 15 years old, so what with the wars we've embarked on lately, I'm assuming that number is significantly higher.
Additionally, the massive Soviet manufacture of AKs was largely due to Cold War arms stockpiling, for which the US is at least partly responsible.
@CherriSpryte: It takes enormous leaps of logic to link an inert gun suspended from the ceiling for aesthetic purposes to the use of live firearms by child soldiers. Nice try using human rights atrocities as a red herring - Guns are bad because there are guns suspended from the ceiling for aesthetic purposes, children are killing each other with guns in certain places.
It seems blind to ignore that the wielder bears the ultimate responsibility for how an object is used.
Look these atrocities are just going to happen regardless of whether guns exist. If it isn't guns it's going to be crossbows. Not crossbows? Then blowpipes and poison darts. Eventually, violence will regress to fists and feet and people will still kill each other.
On a side note, I grew up close to a natural Orchard. My big sister and I got attacked by a big alligator that got through the fencing and into the house grounds, if dad wasn't around with the shotgun I don't think things would have turned out very well.
@CherriSpryte: I'm actually a bit surprised by the low number of M-16's there.
I'm also well aware of where most if not all of the AK-series weapons are from.
If you have the time, I'm quite curious to see stats or a breakdown of the firearms used in these conflicts.
Also for the record, I've had a long standing belief that the United States shouldn't be pouring weapons into unstable regions as a form military aide.
The guns we have given Mexico for the "war on drugs" are already biting us and them in the ass.
@brokenscope: My paper focused specifically on Uganda and Mozambique (and is on my laptop at home), so I don't have stats off the top of my head.
A majority of my arms research came from Small Arms Survey, [www.smallarmssurvey.org] , which is what Human Rights Watch cites when it comes to weaponry. There's a ton of information on that site, including individual country surveys.
@oxbridgeuniversity: The weilder doesn't bear ultimate responsibility when the person wielding the gun is a ten-year old hopped up on marijuana and gunpowder, who was kidnapped from his home and forced to fight under the threat of death.
Some atrocities are going to happen no matter what, but most eight year olds are physically incapable of killing someone with their bare hands, or even with a stick or a knife or a crossbow. They just aren't strong enough. Give the kid a gun, and he's just as deadly as any other person. Yes, some people are going to kill each other regardless. I just have a problem with it being so easy for children to do so.
@CherriSpryte: I'm fairly certain I'm not reading there data right or even finding the relevant data, but none of the weapons they show were ever mass produced in the united states.
For those who are saying fighting is allowed, that's in NHL, not high school hockey (even college/NCAA hockey doesn't allow it).
That being said, the culture in hockey even if it's a no-check league is to be more physical, if only because it's the nature of the game. Unlike soccer, you have protective gear (so hits and shoves don't really hurt), and are taught to use your body as much as you can (legally).
Because there is a lot of blocking, pushing (like when you are defending the net), lifting of sticks, etc, it can be easy sometimes to get riled up, especially if a team is particularly chippy. Even though it's not allowed, I've been antagonized to the point where I snap and retaliate. The worst I've done is take a swing (only once ever), and a couple of other times I've shoved, or even pulled someone down with me after they (illegally) hit or tripped me.
So what she's doing is a natural reaction, though the ref should have stepped in waaay before it got to that point.
@formergr: yeah if that's the case why didn't the refs interfere? i seem to recall that even in NHL games the refs are all over the fights when they happen... this one went on for 2 minutes!
that said, it's commendable that she held her own. in a contact sport like hockey, especially with male counterparts, she's gotta be able to hold her own.
@acrobatic rabbit: Some refs can be HUGE asses sometimes, and have weird power trips and their own opinions about chicks in hockey. Don't know if that was the case here, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I've had refs admonish me for cursing under my breath during a game because it's "not ladylike" (I am 30 years old, btw).
Oooh, made my blood boil-- penalize me for cursing because it's against the rules, if you want, but do NOT tell me what is and isn't ladylike. It's sexist, and none of your damn business to begin with.
12/15/09
I mean, when Dexter had HIS car accident, there wasn't NEARLY all this drama, and that was on Showtime!!
12/15/09
Same old story. Management wins. Every time.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
It's no one's job to hand you a "knight in shining armor" (news flash - they don't exist) and it's certainly not up to the parents of your "knight" to give you money if he passes away.
12/15/09
12/15/09
You marry a person and you marry into that family. There is nothing that says his/her family owes you anything. Even if she had been his wife, his parents in no way owe her a dime.She should have been beneficiary on his life insurance policy for situations like this. And if they had divorced, should his parents give her money? No. That's between her and her husband.
I'm really sorry she lost someone she loved in such a tragic way. However, marrying a person or being engaged to someone in no way makes that person's parents resposible for her financial well-being.
12/15/09
12/15/09
@all - Oops. My mistake!
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
yes, I'm horrible.
12/15/09
12/15/09
It'd be slyly, brutally awesome, I swear.
12/15/09
No, I believe this is called being a "mistress." See Madame de Pompadour for reference. Girl did the exact same thing for the King of France.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Marriage is an important part of getting ahead. It lets people know you're not a homo. A married guy seems more stable. People see the ring, they think, "At least somebody can stand the son of a bitch." Ladies see the ring, they know immediately that you must have some cash, and your cock must work.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
I really cannot get past that excerpt. I understand that in the arena of public opinion, Elin has been painted as the elegant, delicate Grace Kelly-type, while Rachel is the over-processed, trashy Playboy-sort, but still. Why must (almost) every article I read about her, take swipes at her physical appearance?
Her photos have been splashed across news outlets the world over and at this point, my grandparent probably know what she looks like, so why take the extra print space to slap her across the face for being "surgically-enhanced" and "no runway model"? It just seems like such a nasty way of insinuating that she is trashy without having to say so directly, and it leaves a foul taste in my mouth.
12/15/09
It's really just an attempt to belittle and take down a woman, who in our society is valued for her looks.
12/15/09
12/15/09
I don't know that I'd choose to spend so much time focusing on her looks if I were writing the articles, though.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
I agree it's shady business, but the tut-tutting from people in the tabloid industry who need these stories to thrive is dishonest at best.
Society sets up a system in which women can succeed by selling other women or sex, then blame them when they succeed for perpetuating the system. It's a double win for the patriarchy.
12/15/09
And not in a good way.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
[wwwimage.cbsnews.com]
12/15/09
You know, I can see totally changing the way you look after experiencing something like that. It just puts you farther away from it.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/08/09
not only do i feel connected to this girl, i was this girl. i see her as the person i used to be. a strong female on the ice, surrounded by boys but holding my own.
from the ages of 6 to 15 i played boys ice hockey. i was the only girl in the locker room, but i dressed with the boys until around high school. the years i was in the locker room i felt connected to the team. i was in on the jokes, i felt like one of them. However things became much more complicated when i was confined to a separate locker room (and if one was not available, the womens bathroom-- yes that is true.) I wasn't part of the team anymore. I was the girl who was just along for the ride.
You must understand how frustrating that is. Though i knew my teammates would have my back. a lot of the time, fending for myself was the only option. I was called a bitch, slut, cunt, anything you can think of.. that's what i was to the other team. I would get hit from behind, jabbed in the side. After awhile the only option is to fight back.
I punched many a boy in the face.. THE FACE. i even broke a stick over another ones stomach. and no matter how awful that sounds to the average person, it was the most exhilarating, liberating experience i've ever had.
Women are socialized to be subservient and docile in the presence of men. but when i was on the ice, i was acting in the exact opposite way.
i am SO sorry this is so long. i've been waiting for a post like this to share my views with all of you. I am a feminist above all, and ice hockey gave me the confidence to be a strong minded female, and for that i will forever be grateful.
(there is so much more, i could really write a novel.. but i will spare the details. sorry for the sappiness!)
12/08/09
NO. Guns are bad, regardless of who is holding them.
12/08/09
12/08/09
There are many other purposes for alcohol.
12/08/09
What that projectile does is determined by the person who initiated the movement of the trigger.
There are many purposes for a gun as well. However like with most things, people disagree on the value of those uses, and when it's convenient for them, people sometimes ignore some uses altogether.
12/08/09
Really, please tell me of these other purposes.
.... I should probably point out that I'm up to my neck in a paper on the impact of the global arms trade on child soldiers. So I may not be as receptive to other perspectives as I ought to be at the moment.
12/08/09
Food Hunting and recreational shooting are the primary legitimate uses that people frequently like to ignore.
Also, isn't the global arms trade mostly SKS's, ak variants/clones, FN FAL's, CTME, various bolt actions, browning hi-powers, various soviet and Chinese surplus, and god knows how many American service rifles we pumped into various coups and proxy wars?
12/09/09
The US is the biggest manufacturer and exporter of weaponry. Hands down. The pervasive gun culture we have in this country is exported worldwide, manifesting itself in the most horrific human rights abuses possible.
Hundreds of thousands of children have been abducted from their homes in Uganda, Mozambique, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Burma, and countless other places. In many cases, the deciding factor as to whether these children would be forcibly consripted into an armed group was whether they were big enough to pull the trigger on an AK and carry it.
The proliferation of small arms makes conflicts last longer and makes them more fatal. When the weaponry runs out, wars tend to stop.
If you think this is an acceptable price to pay so you can have a pretty gun hanging from your ceiling, or so you can shoot at targets for fun, then there's nothing I'm going to say that can convince you.
12/09/09
12/09/09
Additionally, the massive Soviet manufacture of AKs was largely due to Cold War arms stockpiling, for which the US is at least partly responsible.
12/09/09
It seems blind to ignore that the wielder bears the ultimate responsibility for how an object is used.
Look these atrocities are just going to happen regardless of whether guns exist. If it isn't guns it's going to be crossbows. Not crossbows? Then blowpipes and poison darts. Eventually, violence will regress to fists and feet and people will still kill each other.
On a side note, I grew up close to a natural Orchard. My big sister and I got attacked by a big alligator that got through the fencing and into the house grounds, if dad wasn't around with the shotgun I don't think things would have turned out very well.
12/09/09
I'm also well aware of where most if not all of the AK-series weapons are from.
If you have the time, I'm quite curious to see stats or a breakdown of the firearms used in these conflicts.
Also for the record, I've had a long standing belief that the United States shouldn't be pouring weapons into unstable regions as a form military aide.
The guns we have given Mexico for the "war on drugs" are already biting us and them in the ass.
12/09/09
A majority of my arms research came from Small Arms Survey, [www.smallarmssurvey.org] , which is what Human Rights Watch cites when it comes to weaponry. There's a ton of information on that site, including individual country surveys.
12/09/09
Some atrocities are going to happen no matter what, but most eight year olds are physically incapable of killing someone with their bare hands, or even with a stick or a knife or a crossbow. They just aren't strong enough. Give the kid a gun, and he's just as deadly as any other person. Yes, some people are going to kill each other regardless. I just have a problem with it being so easy for children to do so.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/08/09
That being said, the culture in hockey even if it's a no-check league is to be more physical, if only because it's the nature of the game. Unlike soccer, you have protective gear (so hits and shoves don't really hurt), and are taught to use your body as much as you can (legally).
Because there is a lot of blocking, pushing (like when you are defending the net), lifting of sticks, etc, it can be easy sometimes to get riled up, especially if a team is particularly chippy. Even though it's not allowed, I've been antagonized to the point where I snap and retaliate. The worst I've done is take a swing (only once ever), and a couple of other times I've shoved, or even pulled someone down with me after they (illegally) hit or tripped me.
So what she's doing is a natural reaction, though the ref should have stepped in waaay before it got to that point.
12/08/09
that said, it's commendable that she held her own. in a contact sport like hockey, especially with male counterparts, she's gotta be able to hold her own.
12/08/09
I've had refs admonish me for cursing under my breath during a game because it's "not ladylike" (I am 30 years old, btw).
Oooh, made my blood boil-- penalize me for cursing because it's against the rules, if you want, but do NOT tell me what is and isn't ladylike. It's sexist, and none of your damn business to begin with.