Yes, I think we may, for ugly reasons, prefer the fall of women to the fall of men, though I think Paris Hilton does not fit neatly into that dynamic. In her case she is rich and talentless first and a woman second. The audience wants to see someone who has been so insulated and so elevated brought down to a base level of humanity. This is the very formula her TV show is predicated on. The gender issue is incidental (or at least ancillary) to that; look at the attention her brother recently got for a similar DUI. I didn't even know she HAD a brother before that story.

But mostly I'm just glad you used the word "schadenfreude".

Make ourselves feel sorry? I don't see that. Now if you said, "make ourselves feel superior..." I'd buy it. From the tabloids we take cruel pleasure in seeing the extraordinarily fortunate pay what we perceive is their karma debt.

"There but for the grace of God (and a few million bucks) go I."

That's my theory, anyway.

I am relating this as entirely second-hand information.

My wife's theory is that women prefer to tear each other down because they can't bear to see a 'sister' get ahead of themselves. Her (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is her own experience in the workforce (she's a gynaecologist) where her male bosses are generally reasonable and supportive, whereas her female bosses have, without exception, criticise her every move and never miss an opporunity to give her a hard time. This from a woman who IMO is about the sweetest person you could ever work with. Have you ever seen live crabs in a basket or tank? She says its exactly like that. All the women trying to get ahead of each other, and if thats not possible, to at least make sure the competition doesnt make any progress.

Because, in human nature, isn't watching someone who seemingly has their shit together fail half the fun?

Owen Wilson and Keifer Sutherland are big, but they don't even come close to the stardom of Brittney or Paris. Some could argue that it's because they've chosen not to. And neither have banked the $100+ million that Brittney has either.

And there are plenty more female stars around these days to provide such stories.

It seems pretty obvious that if 70% of your readership are women, and they prefer to read gossip about women, then you're going to publish more gossip about women. Isn't that what these magazines were created for in the first place? I rarely see the Economist, Atlantic or Smithsonian make any mention of such affairs.

And I think it's important to note that, while some stars may stake their claim to fame on being bad, most rose to the lofty heights they fell from due to media praise.

And the only story that sells more than a fall from grace is one of redemption.

Of being handed everything in life cost free, instantly, and then fucking it up world class. Paris Hilton? What did Paris Hilton ever do but shoot out of her mom's vagina? Brittney? Groomed for celebrity sans talent since age 9?

But donchya talk smack about my Amy. I just want to scoop up that crazy crackrat and hug her until all her problems are gone.

For one thing, there is very little funny about watching failing guys. The world is interested how men succeed, and loosers better go away in silence. Typical successes of women look somewhat accidental - the biggest envy from the public is top marriage. Surely enough, fellow women are interested how to get happy, into money or into a great marriage, even if they feel these things are less controllable. Watching model women fail is a kind of consolation (and still a potential lesson) for just as beautiful but less lucky ladies.

and nothing about these few isolated incidents cited indicates that sexism is the reason Britney, Paris, and Amy allegedly got more coverage for their breakdowns than Kiefer, Heath, or Owen. "Why we seem to be more attracted to watching women self-destruct than we are to watching men" isn't the "real question" at all, at least not until you've done some real statistical analysis as to the full glut of media coverage for all celebrity missteps. Just off the top of my head, I can come up with lots of examples of men getting wall-to-wall coverage too ... Heath Ledger already did! What about O.J., Mel Gibson, Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, and on and on? Catherine Price's sexism argument may in fact be the case, but her reasoning is shoddy logic. Sexism, as with any form of discrimination, certainly exists and has real consequences, but it's not always the explanation. But I guess if it's all you look for, then it's all you'll find.

The behaviors against Clinton are sexist, but the animus is actually due to the dynamic of the men trying to defend the object of their irrational love.

The irrational love I'm referring to are the "man crushes" that white men (and some other people) develop on Obama. "Man crushes" are asexual love affairs that develop when one man, like a 12-year-old girl, idolizes another man. Joel Stein at the LA Times describes what is, essentially, his feelings of being in love with Obama (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,3418234.column). The cognitive behaviors of "man crushes" are every bit the same as the cognitive behaviors of other crushes, right down to there being a projection of imagined nobility and unsubstantiated idealizations onto the object of one's love. I.e. one begins projecting ideal traits onto the object of one's crush, without justification. These "crush" behaviors, and others, are typical of Obama fans.

Hillary is threatening the object of many mens' (and womens') irrational crushes on Obama. For all extents and purposes, these individuals feel irrational love for Obama, and they are compelled to attack and hate Clinton, feeling her competition with Obama in the way one feels about someone who might attack our lover.

White men, especially, seem prone to Obama man-crushes. Chris Matthews described feeling a thrill run up his leg when Obama spoke (remember, this is not explicitly sexual, tho). Jimmy Carter called Obama's speechmaking "titillating"). What Joel Stein describes, explicitly, are feelings of love. Robert Cohen's Op-Ed pieces about Obama increasingly read like simple, sweet love letters written into editorials that only vaguely resemble rational reasoning. I have a sneaking feeling that Rush Limbaugh has a secret man crush on Obama. If you go to his website, he has Obama political porn all over it, including clips of people fainting at Obama rallies.

There is no real cure or persuasion. Remember Bobby Sherman, David Cassidy and their crowds of adoring 12-year-olds? Those are what these Obamified men and women are, under the surface. They are in LOOVE.