Shonda Rhimes and the Victims of Luxury

I admit that when the opening sentence for a Zora article reads, “It might sound petty,” most likely nothing good will come of it.  To continue reading further promises inevitable pain, misery, chagrin and raised eyebrows. If I choose to persevere beyond, all ensuing incredulousness is my own to shoulder.

Still, I blog, so I read past the warning signs.

The legendary writer-producer-showrunner Shonda Rhimes…

Now that is a big warning #2.

I’m diving into the underbelly of grievance and entitlement.

Do I persist?

Of course I do. Catharsis is good for the soul, but better for the blog.

…it was a small snub from an executive over a $154 Disneyland day pass that was the last straw.

There is nothing small about this self-righteous devourer of energy and displeasure.

Hobnob

 

And now, the crux of the matter.

The invariable narrative which reveals the void of ungratefulness that subsumes the celebrity ballers who ooze out our television screens.

Rhimes was entitled to two Disneyland passes as a perk of her employment. She had asked for an additional pass for her sister, who wanted to take her children and their nanny to the park for a day while Rhimes was working:

After some unwanted back-and-forth — “We never do this,” she was told more than once — Rhimes was issued an additional pass. But when her daughters arrived in Anaheim, only one of the passes worked. Rhimes lobbed a call to a high-ranking executive at the company. Surely, he would get this sorted.
Instead, the exec allegedly replied, “Don’t you have enough?”
Rhimes was beside herself. She thanked him for his time, then hung up and called her lawyer: Figure out a way to get her over to Netflix, or she’d find new representatives.

And this is how we tread into that apocryphally dubious wasteland characteristic of this demographic niche of over-compensated psychic drains composed of entertainment and sports figurines.

Rhimes’ “tale of unwant” was relayed to an entertainment reporter in a fawning article lauding the Strong Black Trailblazing Grossly Wealthy Powerful Woman archetype. I wish I could add the opportunistic “body positive” as well, but Rhimes admirably took care of that on her own and still managed to turn it into a source of gripe.

How do they do it?

They make millions of dollars pushing their hyper-stylized, vapid “entertainment” filler that contributes little to the enrichment of society (and I’m including sports ballers in this equation) down our throat and whine about their spiritual and racial hardships more than many people living on a fraction of their income have the gall to do.

How do they do it?

Indrani Sen continues.

So why the fuss over an amusement park ticket that Rhimes could have easily afforded? It was far more than a meaningless tantrum. Despite her well-earned exalted status at ABC, the microaggression that Rhimes experienced showed her exactly where she stood in the company she had helped revive. That’s vital information.

Microaggression?

This is the worst addendum to the crybaby culture’s semantic kit ever.  If one is capable of parsing a concept like “aggression” down to indescribably small units of measure. who is to stop this inexorable descent into infinite variations of butthurt?  The whining can theoretically never cease.

True empowerment is one’s immunity to “microaggressions,” at any income bracket.

But as Rhimes and her cohort, the Victims of Luxury, have demonstrated, wealth is not nearly as empowering as is victimhood in 2021.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments