Nico Lang's Fallacies

I recently read this blog http://www.wbez.org/blogs/nico-lang/2013-05/what-hating-gwyneth-paltrow-says-about-us-106954
and it troubled me.
"Troubled" being too much of a strong word. But still. It seems that this blogger has quite a following, and that's great for her/him. Also, I very much agree with the spirit f the piece and the points it's trying to make. However they're largely based on what seems to be (to me) a series of fallacies, that - and I care about this especially since I agree with the points per se - end up weakening the points significantly.
The main thesis is that since Star Magazine published a list of most hated famous people, and since females are higher on said list despite having done the same deeds or even morally/legally better than their male counterparts, society as a whole tends to punish women more.
I don't disagree with that point. I do disagree however with the arguments used to implement it.
First, I'm not sure that taking Star's most-hated rankings as an accurate poll of contemporary society as a whole is reliable.
Even assuming that said list is based on polls and not on media powerhouses' "trending" efforts (which since given most gossip magazines' PR implications wouldn't be a crazy assumption, and though it might not concoct a list out of thin air, it could certainly tweak it a bit), there is no documentation as to "who" has been participating in providing data. Most polls, to meet satisfactory standards of accuracy in representing a society as a whole, cover several "groups", with differences in gender, income, interests, education, background, ethnic background, occupation, belief-system, place of residency and so on.
Can we assume this is what Star did? Probably not, as most of these "rankings" have mostly a speculative/entertainment value and come from magazine readers or people "profiled" to be potential magazine readers, who are asked to participate so they can be more directly involved (and therefore invested) in the magazine. So it's probably logical to assume that the views expressed  in the ranking reflect the opinions of Star's readers, mostly.
(Wider and more scientifically-conducted) Polls show that the majority of gossip magazines readers (and the majority of the participants in their polls) are women(for Stars is about a 4:1 ratio) of low to above average education and low to above average income. That's the average, though, which means women of high education and income are included.
That a lot of men historically don't like successful women is, sadly, clear enough. Though I like the encouraging signs that, in recent history, have been gearing toward hopefully putting a stop to nonsense like that.
Is this that I'm writing an attempt at undermining a successful woman?
Well, firstly I don't know that Nico Lang is a woman, because Nico, in my country, is a name or nickname used equally for both genders. Secondly, my issues with the piece stem from the use of double-standards and (more or less voluntarily, let's assumed less because my first instinct is always to read malice, but I'm working on that because it speaks to my own insecurities, and I'm trying to work on those too) skewed perspectives to paint a picture that seemingly proves a point, and can convince others in such sense, but really doesn't.
So to use this article to prove that society as a whole tends to regard women more harshly, in light of the arguments above, misguided and misguiding. The real question the poll raises is why women (especially the more educated and successful) seem prone to punishing other women. And that is, again, assuming that the list itself is not influenced by PR agendas and is in fact reflective of the magazine readers' opinions.

This can be ascribed to a different interpretation of the given data.
There are however also some fallacies that are the author's own doing.
For example, the question is asked "why is Kirsten Stewart frowned upon or ridiculed for always looking unhappy, while Sean Penn won two Oscar doing just that" (I'm paraphrasing).
Again, I don't disagree with the point that society seems to expect young girls to be happy and carefree and naive, and ostracizes them if they show any pensive, analytical, disillusioned sides, and that's fucked up (to that point I could also add, though, that just like a young woman trying to escape her naive sex object role, so an older man who tries to escape the reliable, stoic good provider role and is carefree, naive, trusting, overly positive is seen as a failure or something to be cast aside).
That said, I do disagree though with example the author uses, because it's a completely inaccurate parallel: Sean Penn didn't win two Oscars because he looks surly, he won them because he proved to be an excellent, versatile, intense actor. Also, he won one of those two Oscars for Milk: we can see him smiling openly from the poster for that film. And he was nominated for "My name is Sam", where he portraid the inner (and outer) life of a functioning adult with a mental disability, and an endearing sweetness and naivete about him. Kristen Stewart, on the other hand, isn't criticized because she looks so disaffected, but because in a largely popular series she seemed to only be able to (or only be asked to) provide that one side of her personality, paired with not memorable performances in an overall pretty artistically ridiculous piece. This is the real "grievance", the cracks at her surly persona stem from that and, I believe, are to be considered more humoristic in nature than actually critical.

Also, she asks why Chris Brown, who is by all means a criminal and in my opinion should no be allowed to walk free let alone have a public profile and lean into being some twisted role model, is significantly less hated, placing only at #20.
Well. Again, this list is based on a gossip magazine. Gossip magazines in essence are based partially on voyeurism and largely on fantasizing: readers feel a connection to the "stars", they can develop opinions about their private lives, have an emotional reaction, "share a space" -if you will- where there is a direct link with people that would otherwise have completely different lifestyles and would move in different microcosmoses. Plus the allure of fame and money, the drama of lives lived in the public eye, emotions being blown up by cameras and all that goes with it sort of create a modern version of the old Greek Theatre, where the people can partecipate in some archetypal figure's misfortunes and achieve catharsis. I mean, I don't think we're quite there, but I get that is feeds a certain "need" in people.
My point is that this magazines are not approached like news, but like entertainment. There is a disconnect from reality, partially because of this fantasy-related "organ" they stimulate, partially because of the sensationalistic and overly dramatic tones and visual presentation that goes with it.
The very own concept of a "most hated" list, based on no real knowledge of the people in it btu rather on the "dramatized" and simplistic version these magazines offer, is not based on rationality, but rather a conduit for irrational emotions and imperatives.
It wouldn't surprise me if they very same people that voted on this, when taken into a different contest (i.e. an interview on the street for the New York Times or whatever established news outlet, in their real life), when informed of the reality of the facts (a man savagely beat his girlfriend, then bragged about it overtly showing no sings of regret but in fact advocating for young men and women that to be a real man you have to have no consideration for a woman's feelings, body, safety, dignity and fucking existence) and then asked an opinion, would not reply "oh, yeah, that's kinda bad, but have you seen Gwyneth Paltrow? Now, that's a serious threat to our society and morals".

To wrap it up: Nico lang, I don't know you and that saddens me because you seem to have a genuine interest and drive toward educating people to be overall less unabashed douches and learn that equality and understanding are probably a couple of the very few things that might save us as a society from self-destruction. But if I could object to your arguments supporting that thesis -and I believe I share a lot of what you seem to believe in- how can you effectively inform and stimulate people who don't?
When Schopenhauer wrote "The Art of being Right" (or however that got translated in English, something along those line), he proved that everyone can win an argument using the right fallacies.
But I believe we are at a point in history where winning arguments isn't enough -and in fact that we got here because winning arguments became more important than finding the truth, however seemingly unpleasant. And try and back up the truth with fallacious arguments actually makes the truth vulnerable to attacks from those who don't care about it and just care about making a point and crushing their "opponent".
And there's too much of a need for healthy, genuine, resonating truth to allow that to happen.