It’s admirable you want to volunteer, but the problem with this attitude is that almost all of the people who have it are completely inflexible when it comes to their schedule. They want to come in at the time they want to come in, even if the volunteer organization doesn’t need help then. When told this, they get confused, thinking “I want to help with anything” is the same as “I want to help with something you need help with.” What the organization needs is something you can’t offer, so they say no.
Beyond that, many people’s schedules are allow for such infrequent volunteering that it often is easier just to give it to a paid staff member or look for someone who wants to treat volunteering as their job. Especially if the volunteering task requires specialized training.
She should take the gig only if it will be theraputic for her to help others that way. The fact that she is a celebrity in no way obligates her to put her private life on display.
Hrrm…on re-read, I think I read the OP with a bit too much bias in mind. I think because of the description of the sort of starlet being discussed, I automatically pictured her “advocacy” of the cause as your typical PR-stunt tearfests, for which I have no use whatsoever. I suppose it’s just possible that our hypothetical celeb could actually use her role to intelligently inform others about the disease, in which case I’d have to withdraw (that half of) my objection.
I voted “decline”, but I miss a third option: declining the chair doesn’t mean that she’s not honoring her sister, or declining the charity. It means that this particular way of helping the charity is not suited for her; Kat should talk openly with a understanding, responsible (and silent) person in charge from the charity (not one of those pushy types), and think of other ways for her to raise awareness and/or money for the charity.
A special DVD with one of her famous movies, the proceeds of which go to the charity, would also be a service to the fans.
And Kat needs to tell her manager that she’ll move into weightier roles not by her private work, but by accepting and seeking out more challenging roles (maybe by starting with indie productions for little salary, but with big acting opportunities).
Kat has the right to her boundaries and need not give a reason to turn down the charity. Frankly, her manager’s attitude that she should do it as a means of being taken seriously as an actress is as disgusting as her parents’ behavior.
No one owes the world their every thought and feeling. I think she should decline and because it will likely leak I think that she should release Broomstick’s press release/tweet.
And I know this is hypothetical, meaning there’s no aftermath. As a nobody working nowhere, sometimes I get asked to do jobs I hate or am uncomfortable with. Personally I’ve found that when I have the option to say ‘no’ and do, I regret it later. Some people say these jobs are tests, to see how people can grow by leaving their comfort zone. Its like being asked to say something about someone at a funeral. You’re first instinct is ‘Hell no. This hurts Way too much.’ But if you do say no, months & years later you start to think about what you would have said…what you could have said…now that the opportunity is gone. The public can go to Hell with entitled expectations. This is about her, her sister, and a disease. And possibly other peoples sisters how may have it now or may be cured later. If she’s packing grief, this could be a way to express it, to release it and to grow from it.
And if a beats a disease she hates about the head and neck with a rail-road spiked baseball bat, so much the better.
I suspect that’s YOUR first instinct. It’s not mine. It’s not that I like funerals, but I don’t mind attending them or find speaking at them that onerous. I think far too many people project their own feelings on to others.
I am getting tired of the societal meme that says grief must be expressed in public somehow, that one must deliberately work at a “grieving process” of some sort. Yes, that works for some people. It does not work for all.
Frankly, I would find it MORE distressing to spend a year engaged in work that constantly dredges up the grief I have at the loss of a loved one - and really, I don’t see how this chairman post can avoid doing that - than I would to keep such grief largely private. I don’t “grow” from constantly massaging the grief I feel at the loss of a sister, of friends, of grandparents, my mother… I don’t keep it a secret but really, that LAST thing I, personally, want to do is share it publically with people on a daily basis. Or even a weekly or monthly one.
Yes, if she’s “packing grief” (whatever the hell THAT means) it MIGHT help her to do this work. It also might, depending on her own personal reactions, make it worse by forcing her to constantly revisit and re-tell the story of her sister’s death. I really wish people would grasp that not everyone’s reaction to the loss of a loved one is the same and that really is perfectly OK. It’s just as right, and can be just as healthy, to keep the feelings private, shared only with those closest to you, as it is to share them with anyone and everyone. Nor does everyone benefit by a constant revisiting, a constant “working”, and dragging it out over the years.
So Kat should make the decision that works best for her. And if she wants to keep it all to herself that is her choice and it should be respected, regardless of whether or not she’s a celebrity.
While I don’t believe she owes any living person this gig, the unaddressed question is whether her sister would have urged her to do it. That’s what would decide me. If her sister was sufficiently private that she would have blanched at the thought, then no. If her sister was a big supporter of charities and actively helping others, then Kat really ought to sign on for the gig – something she can do for her sister.
I don’t know who that is. But I recall pretending to listen to something one of the RhymerSisters was saying about a sick child a few weeks back and why some reality TV show person needed to be beaten to deathh with a stick, so possibly that was involved.
Lynn’s been dead for over a decade. She hasn’t the capacity to care either way.
I don’t see why. Can you explain this to me?
Kat reasonably fears a loss of privacy and reliving of sorrow if she does this. She is already doing good by the charity, and her ability to be a compelling spokeswoman are surely not unique. Why should the unfathomable interests of a dead woman be relevant?
Yes. Lynn is dead. So this is a very public way for Kat to honor her sister and express her gratitude. Kat will experience that. Not Lynn, Kat. It’s also been long enough that it should be possible to deal with the grief.
So my answer is: Take the gig to honor Lynn, express gratitude, and possibly deal with residual grief. Use it do deal with the privacy issues. It’s only one year and you will get a lot of benefit from expressing that gratitude.
The fans got entertainment for their money, they aren’t awed anything more. If you talk about your sister to get better parts, you’ll just feel guilty. You’ve already donated money to help other people, and will probably continue to do so. Don’t do it for any of those reasons and don’t do it to make your friend and your manager happy. Either it’s time to handle your privacy issues and honor your wonderful sister, or it’s not. And if it’s not time now, after ten years, when will it be time?
It’s one thing to express gratitude to ones fans. It’s quite another to think that one owes them for ones career. To me, the “owe” part is done. She provided a product and they consumed it, compensating her directly or indirectly. Yes, it’s in her best interests to not alienate her audience. But I don’t see how being the chair of this committee is necessary to keeping on their good side. She should just tell them, “Sorry, but I can’t do this.” and leave it at that.
You assume she will get benefit from that. Undoubtedly some people would. Others would just feel it reopens old wounds. This gets back to there is more than on right way to grieve.
I wouldn’t mind so much if you expressed this as “you MIGHT get a lot of benefit” but you don’t - you insist it WILL benefit Kat. You can’t know that about anyone except yourself.
Have you considered… never?
Why must grief be public?
I can only speak for myself here, but the loss of my sister will NEVER cease to hurt on some level. There is a hole in my universe her size and shape. Now, I don’t obsess about it, most of them time I don’t even think about it, but that “residual grief” will NEVER go away because the only thing that will fill that hole is her… and she’s not coming back. Airing it in public will do nothing to ease it at this point, nothing. If anything, if I was chairman of a charity that dealt with what killed it her, it would force me to relive that loss every single day I got up to go to work. I really can not fathom any positive coming out of that. It would, as I said, re-open an old wound. There’s a scar on my heart, and like all scars it’s permanent. It’s healed as much as it will heal, and poking at it won’t make things and better and might make them worse.
Now, I also realize, having seen others grieve, that not everyone responds that way. For some people, constant memorializing does seem to help them. More power to them, bless 'em. They need to do what works for them. But what works for them does not work for me. For me, parading my grief in public feels rather like undressing before an audience - I am not comfortable with emotional public nudity. I can do it on a message board because of the veneer of anonymity that exists, but it would be enormously painful for me to take such a position in a charity. I can only hope that no one ever tries to pressure me into such a situation.
On another death-related note - I sat by my mother and held her hand as she died. I found it oddly comforting in one sense (enormously painful in another). It would have pained me greatly to be denied that chance to hold her in her last moments. One of my sisters, however, could not bring herself to do that - simply could not, emotionally, face her mother’s last few weeks, much less her last few moments. You know what? Both reactions are perfectly normal and OK. I don’t criticize her or find fault with her. She is who she is, and that’s how she is. She supported us in so many other ways - housework, grocery shopping, errands, paperwork - that it was clear she was doing all she could, and it was of great help to us directly dealing with mom to be relieved of other chores. The one time mother asked to see her she went in and dealt with it, but none of the rest of us felt it would be right to pressure her to do something that so obviously stressed her out and caused her pain. I think mom picked up on it, too - she’d ask how that sister was doing once in awhile, but never requested her presence again.
Grief is like that - some people feel better public, some private. Some feel better DOING SOMETHING!!! Others want to be left alone to remember quietly. It’s all equally valid.
Thus - it’s not what the fans want, it’s not what her dead sister would want, or her manager, or anyone else wants - it’s about what’s best for KAT. And if for her “best” is private grief and not a public role in a charity that’s what should happen.
I don’t get this stuff about “privacy issues.” What privacy issues? You seem to feel that it’s somehow a bad thing to want certain parts of one’s life to be private. Can you explain that further please?
Myself, I’m a very private person. I don’t like to share my feelings or my personal life with others, except when and how I choose to do so. Celebrity-hood is my worst nightmare. I do not feel that that aspect of my personality is a problem; it’s just what I’m like. I manage to have a happy life and good relationships anyway.
