Fame has always been a tightrope walk, but for women, the balancing act of being true to oneself and performing for the world has been particularly unstable. Paris Hilton was at the center of the unstable situation that the early 2000s period amplified, and with her presence, she was changing the very nature of a celebrity one more time.
It was a cultural event when Paris Hilton changed from the high-pitched “baby voice” socialite to the woman who spoke in her own voice in front of Congress. That light, soft voice, for years, was not only a trademark—it was a performance, a barrier that separated her from her true self and gave the world the character it wanted. As she revealed in her documentary, it was not even her voice. Getting rid of the mask and speaking in her own, lower voice was not just a change of tone; it was an act of self-denial and rebellion. It was her way of saying, “This is my true self.”
Her makeover wasn’t unique—it was a reflection of a larger cultural moment. The advent of reality television and the dawn of social media brought about a technique of shamelessness, in which embracing what in the past would have been embarrassing became a technique of empowerment. Hilton’s “dumb blonde heiress” act was so believable that numerous people confused it for reality, when it was actually her means of playing the game. Critics also noted the irony: feigning indifference to what others think often amounts to another performance, a facade for the underlying terror of perpetual judgment. In her own way, Hilton accessed that shared wish to be unbothered.
Authenticity is still tricky, though. When Hilton finally dropped the facade and spoke openly about her actual life—which included painful trauma—she was met with respect as well as distrust. Others commended her for being “finally real,” but still others questioned whether this was another reinvention. What is true is that women in the public eye never get to be viewed in their multifaceted fullness. They are pigeonholed into stereotypes—party girl, victim, survivor—when in fact they can be all of these at the same time. Hilton’s journey illustrates just how hard it is to escape those boxes and the amount of bravery it requires to attempt.
The 2000s were really a tough time for women in the entertainment industry. Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Janet Jackson, and several others were constantly criticized in the media, had their privacy invaded, and were publicly humiliated. The media created them just to tear them down, sometimes using misogynistic ways. She was also at the receiving end of the media, thrown out as nothing more than a “dumb blonde,” while she secretly controlled her image behind the scenes.
However, the change of the period was with the culture. If she and others had not spoken up—telling of suffering, mental illness, and the cost of fame—the public would not have reacted as it did. Social media gave celebrities the power to share their stories, and the MeToo movement forced society to question its treatment of women in the spotlight. The comeback of Hilton with more control and dignity than ever before is an indication of that change in culture.
In our times, “authenticity” is required and analyzed. Celebrities should be real, but still, everything they do is somehow interpreted from a performance perspective. Hilton’s path—from manufactured persona to a woman reclaiming her voice—demonstrates that authenticity isn’t about sharing all the details or acting like one doesn’t care. It’s about requiring that you define yourself, even if the world is hell-bent on defining you first.
The story is still being pieced together. The standards for how women are treated in the celebrity world have changed, yet the pressure is still there. What Hilton’s path tells us is that being genuine, although extremely powerful, is still a gamble. An individual may gain the respect of others, yet at the same time receive negative comments. The most daring action is probably to keep being your true self every time the world tries to change your narrative.