Not Spitzer’s Girl

–Jessica Winck

 

I’m annoyed with the media’s new fixation on Kristen, the woman whose services New York Governor Eliot Spitzer used and got caught paying for. It’s hard to call this fixation “coverage.” Nothing new has happened except the discovery of her MySpace page, a pretty static piece of information: it hasn’t been altered since she was identified as a prostitute, and we should doubt that it was constructed with the expectation of being identified at some point with a very public name.

The presentation of the information found on her MySpace page is interesting in itself. On CNN, a headline related to the scandal reads, “Spitzer’s escort: ‘I love who I am.’” Why write the headline as if this is Kristen’s response to the attention and judgment she has received because of the scandal, and not a quote pulled from her MySpace page? (We do not even know if her statement is directly in reference to being a prostitute.) Read after the scandal, her statement reveals what we already believe to be true about Kristen: she is a defiant slut, acting in that bold, shameless way that is the only way we ever see prostitutes act. Read before the scandal, the statement reveals a confident woman who has a reason to love herself and who, despite any failings or personal disappointments, does not have unreasonable judgment against herself–unlike many if not most women her age. And the media cannot have that.

The appearance of defiance and shamelessness is extended (if not hinged on) the pictures she posted on her MySpace page. The two most commonly shown as “Kristen” on news sites include her in a bikini, leaning forward with her elbows on her knees. She wears sunglasses and appears to be on a boat. Easily this picture satisfies assumptions viewers have about her as a prostitute: she shamelessly shows her skin out in the open, and her sunglasses, convenient happenstance for media, might act to show her secretive intentions.
The other photo that most often appears on news sites shows a Kristen in profile, holding her fingers in a peace sign. Black nails, brown hair on her bare shoulder and down her back, a provocative look we do that, in our self-aware ways, shows we know someone is looking. Compared to the pictures NOT chosen to represent “Kristen,” these two photos are definitely the sexiest of the bunch. In other photos, Kristen puts her head down on a table in a mock sleeping pose, another looks like a senior picture (black and white dramatic close-up), another of her looking goofy with her hair in her face, and another one with even more peace signs.

No more crazy than the pictures we take of ourselves with camera phones, change dramatically to black and white or sepia, and use for online representation. Look what happens when this woman experiences increased public attention: people view these couple photos chosen by a slut-shaming media and believe all the pieces are coming together–the realization of their assumptions in “reality.”

But can it get any more ridiculous than the assumption that Kristen will capitalize off the scandal? MSNBC headlines read, “Fame of call girl in Spitzer case grows. Vote: Should Ashley A. Dupre grab her 15 minutes?”

Gratitude and many thanks for the new audience? How do we know, and why are we voting on it? Given that she has said nothing to media except the self-conscious, “I just don’t want to be thought of as a monster,” and that the media has lifted her whole MySpace page for use in their news pieces in order to gauge the potential reaction “this woman” (as we know her on MySpace) has to the scandal to which she is central, we need to withdraw our judgment along with our fanatical interest in “The Woman Behind Spitzer’s Fall.”

With at least eight other known events where Spitzer paid for sex, why fixate on Kristen? Why duplicate her MySpace page over and over, combing it for revealing details? And why call her HIS (”Eliot Spitzer’s Kristen”) as if, once her one-time services are paid for, she belongs to him forever and can only be seen as having been HAD by him?

My concern is that the attention on Kristen gives Spitzer way too much respect. Do we imagine that Kristen recognized the Senator and felt privileged to be at his service? Do we imagine that anyone “like her” would have to jump at this chance to cheaply promote herself (the singer and artist) within the confines provided to her by a media that loves to bash “sluts”?

People who knew Spitzer or knew of him have been bemoaning his “fall” day and night all over the news. To be tied to a prostitute forever! Sure, it’s not good for your reputation. Spitzer is done. He mourns “what might have been.”
Kristen, a twenty-two year old artist, still has her whole life ahead of her. After watching the focus on Kristen growing sharper and sharper, it’s hard to feel badly for Spitzer anymore–not that I can’t see the damage done to his career, not that I can’t imagine what must be going on inside his home with his family. But he can’t do much to reconcile all this, and he probably won’t ever save his political identity.

Kristen, on the other hand, might have had her future career and public image ruined because of this negative attention. It might just be too bad that she, rather, will always be tied to him.