Posted in Random Musings
Gawker Says Own It (Vanity Fair Part 2)
The Vanity Fair article by Vanessa Grigoriadis appears to have struck a good size nerve. People on Twitter, the people interviewed, the writer, bloggers. It has bored a hole into our heads and left us bleeding out. I am not going to lie, the article’s content made me mad. Like I said in the last blog I was every bit as mad at the fact it was poorly written. I stand by that and today Vanessa Grigoriadis confirmed it for me when she was quoted in Gawker.com, “I was trying to poke a little fun at the quest for power on it.” If that was her intent then she failed even worse than I thought. Her article was an unfocused mess. There, I am done with what amounts to a petulant and trite piece of writing.
Now, I have new fish to fry (poor fish are always getting fried). Has Doree Shafrir of Gawker.com lost her mind? She accuses the women of exploiting their sexuality to get ahead and then crying foul when it works. This boggles my mind. Really it does, I have retyped this sentence five times trying to think of something to say that doesn’t involve a long line of swear words.
Apparently, Doree Shafri thinks these ladies deserve another smack down because they took a photo that highlighted their attractiveness. She accuses them of exploiting their looks to get ahead. She ignores their arguments on why the article angered them and says they should, “Accept that you have a will to power that is based partly on your ability to exploit your sexuality.”
Really, where the hell did she get this gem? How dare she suggest they owe their success to looking good as opposed to their accomplishments. What does she base this on? Shit on a stick. The original article is about Twitter, one of the least visual of the social media outlets.
It infuriates me this picture is an issue. It was a freaking Vanity Fair photo shoot. Looking good does not preclude you from being an intelligent successful women. Should they have worn beat up gym socks? Maybe their hair should have been a frightful mess. Bags on the heads, perhaps?
Doree Shafri attempts to defend the original article by jumping to conclusions that I see no evidence of. It’s all slight of hand nastiness. She tells the women they should “own it”. Well, then she needs to own the fact she used a fantasy argument to defend a crap article at the expense of six women who didn’t deserve it. I need to go listen to Flight of the Conchords, I need a jolt of happiness.
>First thing I want to say: I just had this "women/attractiveness/use it or not" conversation yesterday with somebody. Being attractive has nothing to do with talent. You can be attractive. You can be talented. You can be both. You can be neither. They don't go hand in hand, and one doesn't outshine the other. She makes a lame argument.Second thing: Flight of the Conchords rock. I can't watch Leggy Blond on youtube without smiling. Then again, it has to do with an attractive woman, and obviously attractive women are the root of all evil.That, and my inexplicable crush on poor, hapless Murry.
>Eww sounds like someone is upset she's ugly. Well I didn’t see how she looks but she sounds ugly… lol. If someone happens to be good looking and posts a photo of themselves, we can't be upset and say that theyre trying to get by on their looks. Good looking people have just as much right to post photos of themselves as bad looking people do. And she is discriminating based on looks.