I kid about it a lot in this space, but apparently this very very brief former A+ list mostly movie actress who now does really no acting makes close to six figures a month attending charity events full time.
While I usually think charity should be done out of the kindness of ones heart, I can kind of understand this. If this is basically her full time job, and her being involved with or appearing at an event brings in several times more money than what she is being paid, or raises significantly more money than it would without her attending, then it's somewhat justifiable. I'm sure it costs her a pretty penny to be "Sharon Stone" the former film goddess. She's no spring chicken, so I'm sure it costs a small fortune for all of the " maintenance " to keep up her appearance, plus hair & makeup (which in Hollywood can cost several thousand per event), gowns, transportation, assistants, care for the children while she's away, etc.
See no harm in this. It's probably not for the most altruistic reasons but charity's happening and no bad is coming of it so power to her, I say. And kind of amazed at her brilliance at keeping the money train moving.
There's nothing wrong with this. She's a full-time fundraiser now. She is well-liked in Hollywood and brings other big names and high rollers to these events who donate. This is a very real and very legitimate thing that many people do (it's common among socialites). If she can't act anymore, at least she's dedicating her energy to charities and not desperately trying to stay relevant in an industry that she can't play in anymore. She should be paid if she's bringing in a lot of money.
And it's still better than getting "paid" using tax-payers money... Like those western/European royal families do (WTF is their deal anyways, and how much of their "wealth" is public money).
Still, I'd personally feel bad about taking a salary from a charity (but I won't judge people who do because technically I've worked for non-profits and intergovernmental organisations—although I get why people think it should be different if you're a celebrity in entertainment as the "face" of charity versus a non-celeb who works for a charity as their 9-to-5).
She does a lot of work for YALA young leaders which is a group designed to bring together 16-35 year old Muslims and Jews to learn about creating peace in the middle east and North Africa. It's very legit.
I agree. But she was also married to a gazillionaire for a while up in San Francisco so she might have some money drizzling in from him - I think they have kids together. I don´t think she is hurtin´...
But either way, good for Sharon. And she looks amazing.
Sharon Stone had a major stroke in the early 2000's and had to learn how to speak all over again. That took a few years, so naturally she wasn't a film star after the stroke. She feels lucky to have survived, and sharing her story is meaningful to many stroke victims and their caregivers.
She should teach a class.....lol
ReplyDeleteWhen she stops bring in the money, they will stop bringing her in. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteWhile I usually think charity should be done out of the kindness of ones heart, I can kind of understand this. If this is basically her full time job, and her being involved with or appearing at an event brings in several times more money than what she is being paid, or raises significantly more money than it would without her attending, then it's somewhat justifiable. I'm sure it costs her a pretty penny to be "Sharon Stone" the former film goddess. She's no spring chicken, so I'm sure it costs a small fortune for all of the " maintenance " to keep up her appearance, plus hair & makeup (which in Hollywood can cost several thousand per event), gowns, transportation, assistants, care for the children while she's away, etc.
ReplyDeleteSee no harm in this. It's probably not for the most altruistic reasons but charity's happening and no bad is coming of it so power to her, I say. And kind of amazed at her brilliance at keeping the money train moving.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with this. She's a full-time fundraiser now. She is well-liked in Hollywood and brings other big names and high rollers to these events who donate. This is a very real and very legitimate thing that many people do (it's common among socialites). If she can't act anymore, at least she's dedicating her energy to charities and not desperately trying to stay relevant in an industry that she can't play in anymore. She should be paid if she's bringing in a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's still better than getting "paid" using tax-payers money... Like those western/European royal families do (WTF is their deal anyways, and how much of their "wealth" is public money).
ReplyDeleteStill, I'd personally feel bad about taking a salary from a charity (but I won't judge people who do because technically I've worked for non-profits and intergovernmental organisations—although I get why people think it should be different if you're a celebrity in entertainment as the "face" of charity versus a non-celeb who works for a charity as their 9-to-5).
Except the 'charity events' arent what you think they are.
ReplyDeleteWhat are they? A little money for charity and women for pay? Curious...
ReplyDeleteShe looks fucking fantastic
ReplyDeleteShe does a lot of work for YALA young leaders which is a group designed to bring together 16-35 year old Muslims and Jews to learn about creating peace in the middle east and North Africa. It's very legit.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But she was also married to a gazillionaire for a while up in San Francisco so she might have some money drizzling in from him - I think they have kids together. I don´t think she is hurtin´...
ReplyDeleteBut either way, good for Sharon. And she looks amazing.
Sharon Stone had a major stroke in the early 2000's and had to learn how to speak all over again. That took a few years, so naturally she wasn't a film star after the stroke. She feels lucky to have survived, and sharing her story is meaningful to many stroke victims and their caregivers.
ReplyDelete