Meghan vs. Pamela and the double standard of authenticity
Or: The strange politics of women's likeability, and why visible effort is treated as social sin
I have always had a soft spot for a good cooking show. Give me a lush, well-tended vegetable garden in the countryside, a barn kitchen stacked with the freshest ingredients, sunlight streaming across wooden counters, beautiful visuals and I’m hooked. I can’t help myself, I am obsessed. So it should come as no surprise that I would enjoy the comfort shows offered by both Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Pamela Anderson. Both centered around womanhood, food, seasonality, care and simple pleasures. They bring to love how we show love in the details, and the quiet art of adding a little more effort and joy in our everyday practices.
It fascinates me however, how differently the world has received these two women who, on the surface, are doing something remarkably similar. Meghan Markle’s With Love, Meghan and Pamela Anderson’s recent forays into cooking, gardening, and homemaking both orbiting around the same gravitational pull: the pursuit of beauty, pleasure, intention, and care in life. Both shows feature cute kitchens, big tables, barns, lush gardens, interesting guests and seasonal practices. Both invite us into worlds where pleasure can be crafted in simple things and presence. Where it can be found in fresh herbs, sharing recipes, handwritten notes, a new way of drying salad leaves, or the arrangement of table flowers.
And yet, the public conversation around them could not be more different. Pamela is hailed as reborn, authentic, finally living a life “true to herself.” Meghan, meanwhile, is derided as over curated, narcissistic, desperate - her show dismissed as a glossy exercise in self-indulgence.
Why does the same act; the love of cooking, gardening, setting tables, frolicking through “female” activities or hosting with intention - inspire warmth for one woman and vitriol for another?
The truth about “authenticity”
Authenticity is one of those words that gets thrown around like confetti. In theory we all want it and appreciate it, in reality, it has become another thing we only appreciate in certain limited expressions.
Pamela’s cooking show and garden projects are celebrated because they are framed as acceptable authenticity: the sex symbol turned gardener, the icon turned homemaker, the bombshell turned nurturer of soil and self. Her story reads as good transformation. The kind we can/are allowed to appreciate.
Meghan, however, is granted no such arc. Her attempts to build a lifestyle rooted in the things that bring her joy and hosting are read as performance, not sincere. Critics call her efforts “repressed,” “boring,” or “thirsty.” The labor of arranging flowers or curating a meal is seen not as simple care in what she makes but as proof of calculation. For Meghan, effort is interpreted as artifice. Her as a try-hard. As an earthy girlie and foodie - who frankly likes both women for their unique ways of sharing what they love and their approaches to life in general, I find this really interesting.
The different ways they are received by society, tells us less about the actual shows and more about the cultural contracts imposed on women. We say we want women to be authentic, but only in ways that fit familiar narratives or transformations. Pamela fits the “return home” archetype: she has paid her dues in spectacle, gotten older and wiser and is now rewarded with grace. Meghan, by contrast, though seeking to reclaim her own personhood and narrative - is trapped in the shadow of the monarchy (where most of the hate she receives started from), where every gesture is parsed for signs of fault, rebellion, privilege, or hypocrisy. The woman can do so much wrong and so little right.
Our hate for a woman visibly being seen trying
Yes, both women are trying something new, but one of them is visibly seen trying to do a whole lot of pleasing too. But what’s so wrong with being “a try-hard” if it is for the things you genuinely care to excel in? What is actually wrong with caring about how a table is set, or how ingredients are chosen, the perfect curve of handwritten notes, or learning enough about your guest to create something they will most likely appreciate?
We live in an age allergic to visible effort or the wrong kind of sincerity and obsession. Even worse, from the wrong kind of person, because an overachieving (preferably male) athlete or chef is awarded for their extraordinary visible effort. For “female” pursuits of excellence - irony with a flare of detached effort is the dominant posture. The cool girl approach. Eager earnestness is often ridiculed as cringe in these pursuits. And yet, what could be more human - more needed even - than insisting on taking care, personal joy, and crafting in a world that commodifies and corrodes them? Wouldn’t that be a welcomed thing, in a world yearning for more intention and nourishing substance in what or who we spend our time on?
When Meghan arranges her hydrangeas or whisks up a seasonal quiche, sprinkles edible flowers on anything than can tolerate it, critics find it inauthentic. When Pamela plants basil in her garden, bare faced and in a messy bun, critics call it refreshing. But in both cases, the women are practicing their own kind of devotion: to craft, to small joys, to personal passions and intentional living. The only difference is how the public has learned to read one approach as sincere and another as contrived. Cringe.
Cringe, I am finding, is simply effort and/or unconcealed vulnerability that makes someone else uncomfortable to witness. To be cringe-worthy is to risk being earnest in a culture that punishes the ‘wrong’ kind of vulnerability too.
Meghan the over-thinker, Pamela the drifter
Here is what I find interesting as a people lover: Meghan seems to have always been a perfectionist, and (if I can attempt a little astrology infusion here) her Leo Sun and Libra Moon could illuminate why. She is drawn to leadership and though growing up as a shy girl, visibility - hence her love for teaching and the spotlight, but she is also deeply invested in social harmony and being liked. To belonging as someone who has had to navigate being biracial and not always feeling like she fit in. You can also see the teacher’s-pet tendencies, the way she listens closely to others yet sometimes loops conversation back to herself. Yes, she is not the smoothest operator, not naturally effortless. At times, she gives off the vibe of a slightly nerdy girl who transformed into a beautiful swan but never shed her awkward edges. Yet, I thought we loved that? Her perfectionism is not just habit - it is baked into how she processes the world, how she has learned to survive, striving to balance personal expression with social approval.
This is not the easiest way to exist as a woman in a scrutinizing world, especially as person who has taken on a title that brings even more duty/expectation to her existence. All of this can make her seem calculated, even exhausting, to some. But is it truly that offensive? Trying to be liked? To want to be seen positively? To polish your presence in the hope of belonging safely? Is it really a crime?
The truth is, many women carry that same internal pressure, but unlike Meghan, most of us hide it. Heck, the French have made an entire industry and culture out of it - the art of making great effort without ever looking like you could even care to. She, however, cannot hide it or at least not as well as we would like her to. Her efforts spill into the open like ink from practiced calligraphy - visible, deliberate, and unvarnished. Perhaps that is why others can’t help but dislike her, or even hate her. She shows us what many of us, women particularly, spend our lives perfecting at concealing.
This is why I have a slight inkling that much of the hate she faces comes from fellow women. Women who see their own vulnerabilities mirrored in every overthought move she makes. We lash out to create disdain and distance. We do this instead of turning inward, instead of cultivating compassion for the parts of ourselves so strongly triggered. Triggered by a woman who has publicly surrendered to the unforgiving pursuit of perfection and pleasing.
I imagine that if she were to ‘let loose’ - maybe open an OnlyFans, nothing too raunchy but just unexpected enough, get high with Snoop Dogg like Martha Stewart, or slur her words on live TV - people would probably celebrate her fall from grace with relief. Finally, Meghan would be “fun.”But that is not who she is. She is an over-thinker, a detail-keeper, someone whose Leo need to shine and Libra need for approval have shaped her since childhood. And yes, even if it appears ‘unsexy’ to some, it is still a display of authenticity - even if not the kind people crave or would openly cheer for in a women. And we know this because had she done the same exact thing but perhaps been a man, even a gay man, the reception would have been totally different.
Pamela, by contrast, has always seemed to drift, go passionately where life and opportunity took or pulled her. This, her Cancer Sun and Aries Moon could explain. Life carried her, sometimes like a leaf in the wind, sometimes consumed by other people’s desires and projections. Her nurturing Cancer nature is balanced by the bold, independent energy of Aries, giving her both sensitivity and a daring and rebellion approach to life. She played the role of sex symbol until it burned her. Yet even at the height of spectacle, she remained a simple, shy, grounded country girl at heart: family oriented, advocating with tenderness for veganism, even when it was still fringe, tending to animals, and quietly valuing roots and belonging.
Her later transformation - the bare face, the floral dresses, the messy Substack entries where she admits her vulnerabilities - reads as a homecoming. She is becoming more herself by making less of an effort in areas she never truly cared about (makeup, performance, expectations) while deepening effort in what she does care about (her loved ones, her garden, her home, her words). Because we have already seen her at her most exposed, her vulnerability feels relatable, her imperfections welcomed and human.
Both women are pursuing (key word) their own authenticity. Meghan’s authenticity is rooted in perfectionism, control, and visible effort, shaped by a Leo desire to shine and a Libra need for social harmony. Pamela’s authenticity is vulnerability, boldness, being in flow even with flaws, and self-reclamation. It is reflecting Cancer’s emotional grounding and Aries’ fearless independence and bravery, to sometimes just let the chips fall where they may. And yet the public rewards one and punishes the other. But as I always say - what we do to others, says more about us then it does them.
In my own hostess era and transformation
Perhaps I feel protective of Meghan’s project because I, too, am in my hostess era - a full-circle moment for someone who spent years unlearning the African woman compulsion to over-accommodate, to hold space and center others as a way of feeling safe, good and valued in the world. Now, freed from the need to over-give in pursuit of belonging or worthiness, I can revisit all the little ways I used to show up for others, but do so in ways that feel true, sovereign, joyful, and authentic to me.
I’m not sure where Meghan is on her path, though at times she offers glimpses - little clues for curious guesses. Still, I can relate. I can empathize, and appreciate her human effort. Even if I don’t fully understand the deeper reasons behind everything she does, I can see that she is trying. And in all honesty, that is all any of us are doing: trying to shape and define ourselves - trying to find belonging in our shared world, one imperfect gesture/transformation at a time.
What I do know is that I can relate to Meghan’s love for a well-curated hosting experience. I am the friend at gatherings fussing over snacks, delighting in the right candles and wildflowers on the table, a menu that nourishes everyone. Someone happily spending afternoons in small street shops choosing colorful envelopes for letters that no one “needs” but that I hope they enjoy and feel appreciated by. I am a sucker for intentional cooking (more in line with Pamela’s plant-based approach than Meghan’s). Guilty of putting edible flowers as finishing joyful touches to food. I do care about how things are made, presented, and sourced, and take joy in sharing them with others. I relate to Pamela’s desire to resist societal demands that feel meaningless to her - her commitment to reducing cruelty, her devotion to radical self-acceptance. I admire her love for countryside living while remaining connected to the larger, louder world, and her graceful embrace of both life’s victories and lessons.
I am also the person who has worked hard to live in harmony with my own imperfections - inviting them into the fold of love rather than treating them as tolerated outsiders. Sometimes I reread a Substack post and notice errors, despite my effort. Yet I am no longer the person that then scolds myself internally for them. Instead, I take on the childlike, joyful laughter I relate to in Pamela’s personality: “Oh boy, look at all these silly errors I made!” I correct what needs correcting and contentedly move on. While I remain someone who still cares deeply, I have also learned to care more intentionally: making people I love feel seen and considered when hosting them - yes. Finding a tiny stain on a crisp white linen top after leaving the house - no (perhaps slightly annoyed but it will pass, so no biggie).
Basically, it is all a beautiful and human balancing act. Especially in a world that dictates what is fashionable to care about, when and how much. Forcing us to measure ourselves by others’ loud applause, with step-by-step instructions on how to show it in ways that guarantee approval rather than disdain.
In such a world, isn’t it refreshing to center your own values? To honor what you genuinely care about and how much, how you care, and how you share that care - regardless of who loves or who hates you for it? At the welcomed risk of sounding “cringe,” isn’t that a personal revolution in itself? A soft rebellion, worthy of celebration even if no one shows up to your feast?
Practicing collective grace over shaming
So here is where I land: Change and transformation - in directions that feel true to us, or even just the bravery to explore the same thing differently - should not be a social crime. Being seen making an effort should not be a social crime. Feeling pleased with yourself for crafting a beautiful table, mastering the art of baking bread, writing a thoughtful and pretty letter, tending a seasonal garden, or cooking a well-loved meal - these are not trivialities. Especially in a world that delights in hating and judging women for being more than what we’ve collectively decided they “should” be (sometimes in the name of “feminism”?). No, I see these as acts of joyous rebellion, becoming, connection to self and other, attention, and personal devotion.
While Pamela is applauded for these efforts and Meghan is mocked, both offer glimpses of what it means to pursue personal realization under the public gaze. Efforts in living intentionally, in risking care and showing up unmasked and vulnerable - even while randomly sporting a tied cashmere sweater around the neck - even while making too many self-deprecating jokes or using the word “sweet” a million times. They remind us to resist the nihilism of not trying, or of hiding our attempts at creation, transformation and becoming.
If living a cringe-free life means never risking earnestness, then I don’t want it. I want the cringe: the carefully folded napkin, the wax-sealed, personally stamped letter, the soup simmered for hours because someone once mentioned loving it. I want to embrace visible effort, care, and love - unapologetically and unironically. Granted - for the things I have chosen to care about.
If our pursuit of authenticity is merely the pursuit of applause or approval from others, is it really worth the effort? For me, seeking authenticity is about freeing ourselves from expectations, from ways of living and showing up that don’t feel true to us. It is about connecting to the things we truly nerd about, obsess over to the smallest detail, and find our own value in. And if we can share that joy with those who might also appreciate it, then that is a great bonus but not the sole goal.
I believe authenticity to be a practice in embracing more of ourselves, even the parts we feel are less “sexy” or “admirable” to others. Not only so we can have a chance at living more dignified, joyful, and fulfilling lives, but also so we can offer others the same grace in their own imperfect pursuit of personal authenticity.
So, dear reader, I hope life finds you blooming in the homemade flowerpot you inhabit, turning toward the sky you are drawn to. Truly. May loving grace watch over you in every step of your unfolding and becoming.
