Just read the Samantha Brick article, as I should have done
when it first emerged, and am pleased that it engendered such a response, because
it is a pile of claptrap. But I’m confused by the reactions. Why does this
woman reduce everything to her good looks? It’s an awful piece of journalism,
and the way in which she feels that her beauty is the entire reason for the
attentions she receives makes me incredibly sad.
She speaks about how women constantly socially reject and professionally block her because of their insecurity and jealousy over her looks. The things I find myself becoming jealous about, when it
comes to my boyfriend, are that other women may be more suitable for him
personality-wise. I would also get jealous if someone younger than me was
getting a promotion ahead of me (although I know how unrealistic that is, especially in present circumstances). These do of course all speak of huge insecurity issues. But Brick does not allow herself to indulge in
any alternatives to the idea that her beauty is the threat to other women.
I don’t know about the constant attention from men she talks about. It strikes
me that that is not a ‘beauty’ thing, or not as directly as it seems: it is
that she is confident, wears bright colours, wears well-fitting clothes, and is
generally well-turned out. If I had to live in heels and make-up to get free
bottles of champagne, well, look at me not bothering. I like dressing like a lumberjack half the time because I know I'm a beautiful woman and I don't need any external parties pointing it out to me.
It’s simple to get people’s attention in this way, and just as easy to
defer it. Brick has made a career of it and it is her ‘On’ setting. That’s
perfectly fair for a journalist and media personality. The only reason people
should have for hating her, I would suggest, is that she is too dense to see
past her own exterior.
Keep trying, feminism, but I think Brick would count herself
out of the movement for fear other women wouldn’t want her in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment