“If she were not a great beauty…”
“Because of her great beauty…”
“She is very beautiful…”
“If Carrie weren’t so beautiful, this never would have come up,” he said. “Carrie is totally beautiful. And her answer, because of that, took on more importance. Unfortunately, that’s the way the press works. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”
The above quotes are from Donald Trump, the owner of the Miss Universe and Miss USA organization, and primary defender of Miss California USA Carrie Prejean. Three weeks ago she answered a question at the Miss USA pageant regarding Gay Marriage and a firestorm ensued. The content of her answer was fair – she notes that in the United States, people may choose same-sex marriage or traditional (“opposite”) marriage – but for her, she believes in one man, one woman.
Mr. Trump and Miss Prejean noted President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and many – many – other people in high profile positions share Miss Prejean’s interpretation of what defines, or constitutes, marriage. Including her fellow Californians.
I believe the Federal Government (since I actually believe in limited government) should not interfere in legal contracts between two adults – per the 10th Amendment, and its enumeration of state sovereignty. I also believe only a church has the authority, to determine what is Holy Matrimony – not the government. Which differentiates me from Miss Prejean, as she does not appear to support Civil Unions – and I absolutely do. If it is a civil ceremony – then it is a civil marriage, just like the millions of others who have chosen to get married at the local courthouse or by a justice of the peace. On the Right & Left of the marriage debate – there is a battle about semantics and rhetoric surrounding civil ceremonies, not about Holy Matrimony. Once they get their stories straight (ha ha) then I will revisit the issue politically.
For this column, I want to focus on beautiful women. In this instance, let us ask why a beautiful woman – like Carrie Prejean - found herself at the center of a national debate. Judge Number 8, Perez Hilton, called her a “stupid bitch” in a vlog just after the pageant concluded and Miss North Carolina was crowned Miss USA. Hilton went on to hurl other invectives, none of which I will repeat. He may support Gay Marriage but he is not a spokesman for the cause, and his tactics are not representative. I do not believe his attack on Miss Prejean has anything to do with her answer regarding Gay Marriage. That is an excuse.
He’s an angry, ugly-on-the-inside person. Since he’s famous – you can just google him. If you want to read what a person with an ugly soul sounds like, look him up. I refuse to link to his website. Here’s what you will find, should you seek him out: If there is a beautiful, demure, successful woman with fame – chances are, he has written something foul about her. It amazes me he doesn’t choose green for his text color, because he makes it all too clear that he is blistering green with envy of beautiful, feminine, talented, and succesful women.
Unsurprisingly, there are no Feminists defending Miss Prejean. They have looked the other way as photographs of her were released without consent to the media, some of which were photoshopped or were outtakes. As this very beautiful young woman was tossed into a firestorm, they looked the other way. So what if she is being sexually exploited. Feminists care about killing unborn children far more than they care about exploitation. Let’s be honest, semi-nude photos of this young woman are not being circulated for some noble purpose. It was to tear her down. Now, male radio hosts (as I heard this morning driving my teenage daughter to school) are making jokes about her breasts — and so are supposedly “conservative” writers, like this one from the recently launched Parcbench. Not every model has her nudes taken by Steven Meisel or Mario Testino. The human body is a beautiful creation and for millenia we have appreciated nude paintings and sculptures as art. Technology has unfortunately corrupted our culture, forcing models to accept the consequences when they choose to participate in semi-nude or nude photoshoots.
For years, I have watched as the feminist movement pretended to care about women. From Gloria Steinem, Patricia Ireland and Margaret Sanger to Kate Michelman and their pro-abortion advocacy to Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth. They are contempuous of beautiful, feminine, intelligent and successful women. For a time, I read Naomi Wolf with some interest… she is charismatic, has an Ivy League education, was aesthetically beautiful and talked about the oversexualization of girls at too young an age… things I have been interested in all my life. Somewhere along the way, she fell victim to the Leftist ideals of feminism, never realizing how the vaguely masculine Patricia Irelands of the world are all too happy to kill the spirit of a beautiful woman. Modern feminism, with the glaring exception of Camille Paglia, is about hating men and stamping out their seed. It is about hate. They can wrap it up in “anti-Patriarch” ribbons and bows, but that does not make it so.
Naomi Wolf predictably blames men for her lot. She bought the whole lie – hook, line, and sinker. Wolf points fingers at men in general, at her college professor, and Republicans. But rather than be angry – I paid close attention. I listened. I observed as she was forced to remain on the fringes of the Left punditicracy, a victim of her own aesthetic appeal. She duped herself.
She was never acceptable to the Hillary crowd. Once it was Al Gore’s turn to run for President - Tipper Gore never saw her as a threat. She viewed Wolf as a nice, Liberal gal who supported her husband Al for president. Why the disparity?
Because Hillary is a dyed in the wool member of the ugly tribe. And Tipper is as feminine in her fifties as she was in her 20s. Beauty and femininity are not about political ideology… and before I go further, let’s have some brutal honesty:
As a woman, I know this column will earn a lot of hate mail. I am defending aesthetically beautiful women against their jealous detractors. Women who believe because they are thin, attractive, or wealthy, or married, or because they helm an anti-man/pro-abortion think tank, or are Governor of a pro-life/pro-gun state such as Alaska that they are superior to a beautiful woman are mistaken. Being thin, attractive, and/or sexually available does not inspire the word “beautiful.”
Our culture makes many assumptions about beautiful girls and women. Some wars are not meant to be waged, yet women do this to each other every day.
A symmetric face, dewy skin, full lips, and a decent metabolism is not a choice. Nor is it a personal and individual attack on ugly people. It is genetic. It is possible to be a spectacular looking woman and be a good person. What constitutes beauty differs from person to person. Simple beauty, exotic beauty, classic beauty, and timeless beauty all exist. Many of these beautiful women also possess above average intellect. Strong work ethic. They maintain high moral standards. And are lovers, mothers, friends, sisters, daughters, aunts, nieces, wives that happen to be wonderful beings as well.
Aphrodite. Nefertiti. Helen of Troy. Cleopatra. Botticelli’s beauties. Titian’s startlingly self-possessed and sexually aware Venus of Urbino. Iconic women with iconic faces. Their lives were rich and enduring. Helen, wife of Menelaus, and lover to Paris… thousands of years later her face, “the face that launched one thousand ships” continues to fascinate and bewitch us.
Beauty comes from the content of our character as well. Think of the woman you know with the laugh or smile that warms up a room. Or the woman with a smile that casts incandescent light on every face around her. Remember the mom at soccer, cross country or football? The lovely mommy toting snacks and drinks, who effortlessly generates a positive energy - boosting team spirit. She is not Halle Berry or Cindy Crawford but she is just as beautiful.
Beautiful women have enemies. I am simply asking you to take a gander beyond the looking glass. If you are one of those petty, jealous folks… go ahead and queue up the “send email” screen. Because you are ugly. Through and through. Yep, I said it. I don’t like ugly people. Read: Ugly on the inside. Which, with rare exception translates right onto your face. In hardness. And I don’t like you. Neither does any normal, morally centered being.
Being a bitch with a borderline-anorexic body does not make you beautiful. It does not make you “better” than a truly beautiful woman, no matter her size. It makes you superficial and clueless at best. Making “thin” a goal, when it does not also include a healthy lifestyle and a healthy soul — well, then you don’t understand the physics of beauty either.
Obviously, all aesthetically beautiful people are not angels. I understand. But after thousands of years of literature trashing the beautiful… that is well-trodden ground. From the time Akenhaten and Nefertiti’s successors began wiping their names from the temples at El Amarna and beyond… beautiful women were easy targets. Heck, women of any stripe are easy targets. Beautiful or not.
From the moment DaVinci finished the Mona Lisa, some folks felt compelled to ask what was so special about her. How many times have you heard someone say they just don’t get it? Not the smile. Not the aesthetics.
Here is the answer: DaVinci found her beautiful. Or fascinating. Or captivating. It is all beautiful – and he gave us this iconic image, he shared a piece of her magic with us. Her beauty was simple. If you don’t get it – that does not translate automatically to “the Mona Lisa is not beautiful.” It means you do not get it. Either you are wrong, or DaVinci was wrong. Unless your priceless painted canvases are hanging the Louvre, you are not the ‘decider’ with regard to 16th Century beauty.
Beauty is more than in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is none of your damn business. DaVinci found his model beautiful. And that is good enough for me. We are fascinated by this iconic face – because her smile remains as enchanting in the 21st century as it was in the 16th.
The centuries have turned into milennia since the love story of Marc Antony and his Cleopatra – a woman who conquered not only Antony, but Julius Caesar before him, was immortalized. Reknowned Egyptian Archaeologist Zahi Hawass announced recently beneath an ancient temple to Osiris and Isis, about 30 km from Alexandria, there appear to be undisturbed burial chambers. Artifacts and clues abound… the questions we all yearn to have answered: are they truly buried together? was their love all consuming? was Cleopatra as beautiful as we imagine or hope?
Or, was she simply a charismatic and manipulative ruler who possessed a strangely hypnotic voice and sexual power, with just a hint of deviancy? The implication being Marc Antony did not love her, nor find her beautiful – he was only about hot sex and accumulating power. He could not possibly have been in love. And, even if she were beautiful, she was just as desperate for power as he was and never loved him.
Whatever their truth may have been – it is possible they were beautiful, in love, and any other combination of qualities. The fascination with their relationship survives for two reasons, and you are in one camp or the other. You believe in love and beauty, or you hope they were filthy and ugly people hellbent on world domination.
Throughout history, beautiful women who happen to be successful or intelligent or morally upright tend to get the axe. Particularly if they partner with a wealthy, powerful man. That is what earns the ire. Anne Boleyn, a beauty in her day, has been plagued by rumors of a sixth finger. People have called her a witch. Phillippa Gregory’s The Other Boleyn Girl is a prime example. Shoddy research and a hidden agenda equals one thing: destroy Anne. To write a novel, with barely concealed jealousy of a woman who has been dead for five hundred years is a bit much. To believe Gregory - we must agree that Henry VIII preferred Anne Boleyn’s slutty sister Mary over Anne. Anne Boleyn was a self-possessed, smart, a capable tactician, and a beauty who not only loved King Henry – but challenged him to be a man of his word, she was unafraid of him or his power. She made him better. He made her better.
My primary criticism of Ms. Gregory’s work, and many others, is the assertion that Anne was raped by King Henry VIII. Why imply such a thing? For literary enrichment? No. To accomplish two things: paint Anne as deserving of rape. And to paint Henry as a rapist – depicting a powerful, passionate man as an animal. Why again? Because, if Anne loved King Henry – and he loved her… then his break with the Vatican (and the spark that ignited the Reformation) was due in no small part to beauty, love, passion, and intangibles most simply can not grasp. King Henry VIII was not sitting around looking for a way to stick it to Rome.
How many times have you heard someone say Jane Seymour was King Henry’s greatest love? Why do people persist with this? He threw off his beliefs not because Martin Luther was such hot shit – his writings were simply a vehicle of justification - but for Anne Boleyn – and love, passion, and the urgency that is sometimes created when two people are consumed by their desire for each other. Anne Boleyn was his impetus. Jane Seymour was a lovely weekend at the beach – Anne Boleyn was a lifetime at Castel Gandolfo. (naughty reference intended) To be clear, I am not discussing theology here – just the simple mechanics of beauty and its role in our lives. This “power couple” is reviled only by those who hate to see a beautiful woman and a powerful, wealthy man find happiness.
Other examples abound, with great thanks to technology.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a beautiful woman today, was victimized through female genital mutilation. Simply because she is a woman. Once she became a politician, and associated herself with Theo Van Gogh, the gloves came off. Where are the feminists defending her? She poses a triple threat to their ugliness. Ali possesses aesthetic beauty, personal grace and intellectual gravitas. Where are the women on the right defending her? Ah, well – they will certainly show up for the pictures at AEI - but most folks in the Conservative movement leave discussion of Female Genital Mutilation, and anything to do with Africa, to us “Compassionate Conservatives” a. k. a. RINOs. With the exception of Former FLOTUS Laura Bush who put MalariaNoMore on the map years ago. (Sorry Mr. Kutcher.)
Mary Magdalene spent hundreds of years characterized as a prostitute. Unclean. A whore. Millions of “believers” never asked aloud a simple question: if Jesus Christ revered this woman, what are the chances I should as well?
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy… a spectacularly beautiful and accomplished woman. Multi-lingual (how many Americans speak more than one language, let alone three or four?) Karl Lagerfeld summed the state of things up nicely to Maureen Orth of
Vanity Fair last year, ”She’’s imaginiative, clever, educated. She knows how to behave. She speaks many languages. It must be an embarassment for the wives of other heads of state to see this beautiful creature who can wear anything and speak like that.”
Designer Jean Paul Gaultier says this: “She’s clever, super well educated, and very focused. She is like the heroine of a book or a movie.”
Let us ponder for a moment: Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. She once graced the cover of more than 250 magazines across the globe, during the height of her career as a supermodel. She was romantically linked to Eric Clapton and Mick Jagger and many other famous, wealthy men. They were, and remain, her peers. As she built her post-modeling career with two solo albums, she met and married the President of France. A Socialist. With regard to their whirlwind romance and marriage, Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth captured an intimate moment thus:
Bruni beckons me from across the room to meet her husband. “Bonjour, Maureen,” he says with a big smile. “Is she helping you?,” I ask. Bruni puts her arm around the president, pulling him in to kiss his cheek, and nuzzle his face with her nose. Beaming, Sarkozy tells me, “I am happy like nev-air.”
For all the ridiculous comparisons made, no matter how many times Liberals say Michelle Obama is more elegant than Carla Bruni-Sarkozy… it will never be true. Michelle Obama knows this, and it is cruel to compare her to Carla Bruni. With beauty comes responsibility – and ugly-on-the-inside people should be called on the carpet. Wearing couture does not make you beautiful. Mrs. Obama is an attractive, athletic, and above-average lady. But a multi-lingual French-Italian supermodel she is not.
The examples go on, and on, and on. Angelina Jolie is beautiful. Her features are symmetric, voluptuous, evocative and ethereal. She will always, always be more beautiful than Jennifer Aniston. Miss Jolie, mother of six, is a human rights advocate. She puts her money where her mouth is. She donates a significant portion of her income to humanitarian relief. She does relief work without cameras. She is remarkably well-read. She is the first non-college graduate to be a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. She is poised, even in the face of a daily onslaught against her. Many will accuse her and Brad Pitt, a beautiful and wealthy man, of having an affair while he was married to Aniston. First, that is none of our business. And second, Aniston made it clear she preferred being thin and having no children. Every interview with Brad Pitt regarding family said he wanted lots of kids. Seems to me they both got what they wanted. And much like Michelle Obama, Aniston knows that no matter how thin she is – she will never be the iconic, mysterious beauty that is Angelina Jolie.
Meghan McCain, another beautiful girl, was ripped for being “too plus-sized” by conservative Talk Radio guru Laura Ingraham. Laura, like many vaguely masculine women, pretended it was satire. But if you listen to her and her diatribes on women for any period of time… unfortunately, she – like many people – equates beauty with diminished intellectual capacity. Ms. Ingraham has a long list of her own wonderful accomplishments. I am sure she is beautiful to her adopted child. Every mom is beautiful to her children, and because of that – I expected more from Ms. Ingraham. In the world of politics, the sisterhood should accept new members every chance we get. Miss McCain is young, energized and finding her way. She should not be punished for her beauty. If you have an ideological disagreement, fine. But discussing the size of her body is off limits. As I said earlier, being thin is not the be-all, end-all. Not to mention, I am pretty certain that Ingraham and McCain are not dating the same types of men.
Finally… I recognize not all beautiful women come from the traditional camp. Sarah Jessica Parker, of Sex and the City fame, has been called horse-face and many other horrible things. But she too is a beautiful woman. She is self-possessed, articulate, talented, and lucky enough to connect with millions of women who want love. Real love. The all-consuming, wash over me, can’t live without it love. Her personal style – on screen and off – has inspired women to wait for their own Mr. Big.
For hundreds, even thousands of years, beautiful women have been held to impossible standards. Average women have too. But alone in the dark, in the comfort of our beds…next to our beloved, or alone in the quiet – real beauty can not be seen. In the darkness we are all the same. Beauty emanates from within.
—Media Lizzy
MUST READ: Dr. Melissa Clouthier on The Perils of Being a Beautiful Woman: Feminism’s Ugly Legacy
Worth a watch: The Human Face
[...] w/respect to Carrie Prejean: Feminists care about killing unborn children far more than they care about exploitation. Posted by Dan Collins @ 10:18 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Gay Gene [Dan [...]
[...] by Aunt B. “Not that I bothered to read any feminist blogs or talk to any actual feminists; instead I just made some shit up, because I know my readers and listeners won’t know any [...]
Wow! Great stuff, Lizzy. Ugliness…..on the inside destroys beauty.
ok, of course Miss California is pretty, she’s a beauty queen after all, right? She wouldn’t have been on stage at all if she wasn’t beautiful. So, the whole idea that she is taking heat for the things she said about gay marriage because she is beautiful doesn’t hold water. Her answer made people angry because it was made in CA where gay marriage is a hot button issue and that is all.
I really enjoyed this article. Even though it was mainly about beauty, you very adequately addressed the real issues of gay marriage.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, I must say I am struggling to find any beauty in Meghan McCain. She is aligning herself with the Perez Hiltons of this world, and she seems to care more about her own self publicity than any real cause. I hope she will change, but right now she just seems like another self absorbed liberal. Its a shame when you consider she’s the daughter of an influencial Republican. She is in the position to do some real good for the party if she would only get her head on straight and her moral compass headed in the right direction.
An excellent post and I particularly liked what you said about Anne Boleyn. The awful rumours about her sixth finger, huge mole on her neck, three breasts etc. were used to justify killing her, to discredit her and to make people think that she was a witch who bewitched and cursed Henry. In my opinion Anne was Henry’s true love and his equal. He pursued her with so much passion and for so long (7 years before their marriage) and bombarded her with love letters, yet he hated to write letters. I think he didn’t have chance to go off Jane, she died too soon, and he appreciated her for providing him with a son. Yes, he probably loved her but not with the passion he felt for Anne.
Sorry to rant, but like you I hate the way that history has maligned this poor woman!
You’ve got it right on the agenda of the ‘feminists’. They hate men more than they ‘love’ women. At one point I pondered if it was merely a competition thing – the butchy ones are competing for the feminine beauties with men and resent losing most to actual men (not women who act like men). But it appears that they really just hate men as an ideology. And they then hate women who love men instead of being attracted to other women.
Increasingly the leadership of the ‘feminists’ are really just angry butch lesbians who want an All Female universe which men cannot participate in. It’s behind the abortion debate as well. Not really about ‘choice’ as much is it about being able to tell a man ’screw you’ and cut them out of the decision (even if the man is the husband/father/fiance). The debate has become about putting all the power with women and taking all power away from men. As if that is some kind of logic that All women are good and All men are bad. (When a woman makes a decision which impacts a man, should men file a lawsuit to object too?) Addressing generic historic inequalities is one thing but basically attempting to replace men entirely is practically a form of insanity.
And the entire leftist spectrum has eventually evolved into one never-ending list of politically correct Sacraments which have to be observed: abortion, unionization, minority oppression, gay marriage, global warming, meat is murder, etc, etc. This just further muddies any logic which might have been there at the start of feminism.
When women are powerful (and most beautiful), they are active voices in whatever subject, field or issue they know about or can speak to. When the rest of the listening world can predict what is going to come out of the mouth of the next ‘feminist’, then feminism has become a stereotype and a hackneyed argument which has devolved to shtick. And people stop listening and start just opposing it reflexively because they already know whats coming.
[...] You should read this. [...]
I think this article was very interesting and addressed some pressing issues. Also, I absolutely agree with your comparison of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie: you are absoutely correct in saying that all things considered, Jennifer will never be as beautiful as Angelina.
I think you dropped the ball, however, with your comparison of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Michelle Obama. To say “For all the ridiculous comparisons made, no matter how many times Liberals say Michelle Obama is more elegant than Carla Bruni-Sarkozy… it will never be true. Michelle Obama knows this, and it is cruel to compare her to Carla Bruni.”…. definitely not a fair statement.
Obviously Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is much more aesthetically beautiful, she was a supermodel. But what you fail to acknowledge are the circumstances that make Michelle Obama so glaringly elegant in the public eye. She is a black American woman who surmounted the odds and left her middle-class Chicago neighborhood only to graduate from ivy league schools and land high-paying jobs. Holistically, she is a success; great family, great friends, great job, great spouse, great intellect, and good looks. She is the portrait of success, independence, tenacity, and an inspiration for black people world-wide. And most importantly, she became the armature for a family that is the embodiment of the fun, wit, support, and intelligence we could find only in the fictitious Cosby family. Michelle Obama created something neither black nor white Americans believed to be completely possible.
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy can’t say that. She was fortunate to win the genetic lottery which endowed her with great looks and great amounts of inheritance. She may have had that je ne sais quoi that made her sexy and marketable, but besides that I wouldn’t say she’s done anything unprecedented. She is a beautiful model with a good head on her shoulders and a rich, powerful man behind her. She is multi-lingual due to her heritage, not some insatiable interest in world languages. She is also a philanderer.
So I beg to differ, Lizzy. Mrs. Obama may not wear a Von Furstenberg frock as well as Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, but she sure as hell wins the title of Mrs. self-made, well-educated, AND elegant.
You were the one who said “Wearing couture does not make you beautiful.” umm….could you please tell me why you think Carla is much more so beautiful that Michelle? …Oh besides the fact that she wears couture and looks pretty good in it…
[...] I wrote Beautiful, Successful and Hated. Little did I know that Obama’s hope-n-chngey fans would resort to rape fantasies. I [...]
[...] lots of room for sparks to fly. For a real taste of what Lizzy’s all about, check out her beautifully written piece about Carrie Prejean. Finally, she’s easier on the eyes than a month’s supply of [...]
[...] It’s what’s for dinner. Recently, I wrote Beautiful, Successful and Hated. Little did I know that Obama’s hope-n-changey fans would resort to rape fantasies. I have [...]
Sweet blog. I never know what I am going to come across next. I think you should do more posting as you have some pretty intelligent stuff to say.
I’ll be watching you .
[...] Beautiful, Successful and Hated [...]
What beautiful (no pun intended) writing.
I am not the world’s greatest writer – but I am one helluva reader. And I know beautiful writing when I find it.
How I’ve never seen your blog, and how a post like this draws only 14 comments, is a mystery.
You are too good for the Internet.
Thought-provoking, masterfully crafted, lyrical … beautiful.
Re: Your homage to Prejean.
If I was enamored by a mouthful of porcelain caps, a chest of silicon, a skin tone via a tanning booth, etc…I would buy an expensive mannequin. Less maintainence and the same intellectual capacity. This is not a judgment on her beauty, I see beauty as encompassing the entire person, and Carrie is not beautiful to me.
Your defense and interpetation of beauty is a sad commentary on conservative values. Like the words of wingnuttery, superficiality and lack of substance are the order of the day. As to your catty dismissal of Mrs Clinton as a “member of the ugly tribe”, she is of more interest to me as a person and a woman than all the nitwit beauties parading in bikinis while chanting hate speech about others.
To some extent I agree with you. Her defense of Carrie Prejean seemed to have missed the point entirely. Her answer to that question was a poor one. It was a separatist statement. It was poorly worded and insulting. That is not Miss USA material. Miss USA unites, she doesn’t divide.
Now that is out of the way, I’m glad that they are asking difficult questions to these women. Otherwise it would solidify the concept that drives feminists to hate the pagents.
BTW, as a Bisexual, I would do Mrs. Clinton before Ann Coulter any day.
Also, describe good moral standards, please.
Oh, to say that liberal feminists care more about killing babies (an incredible insult, thanks for taking the high ground) than protecting a woman who knowingly took nude photos is ridiculous. I, as a peer-proclaimed feminist, believe that nude is normal. As a matter of fact it is part of my career. If I find it on the internet (which I have) sweet! Nude photos only create icons in today’s age. There is nothing to protect that woman from. She’s just playing victim. She broke the rules and now she’s pulling at every straw available. That’s ugly.
[...] Posts Playboy Writer Guy Cimbalo Shares Top 10 Republican Women He'd like to RapeBeautiful, Successful and Hated About Media LizzyFirst Lady Michelle Obama doll?ContactPlayboy, Rape and Grim Fairy Tales The Female [...]
I can relate to this article. It isn’t that I’m stunningly beautiful. By most standards I’m average, and more “cute” than pretty. But growing up, I was always skinny, possibly unnaturally so but not by intention. And though I know my friends loved it, that never stopped them from “teasing” me about my wait.
They were open about their jealousy and treated it as a joke, but they, more often than not, came across as mean spirited.
I’m a Christian an often take on a variation of the name Esther when leaving comments as a reminder to myself that even God found something wonderful in a beautiful woman and that beauty alone can be something to praise rather than embarrassed by.
Thank you.
this writing was just plain silly. prejean took heat for her comments on gay marriage, not because she is beautiful. The majority of beautiful women are success because of their beauty–not in spite of it. no on would give them the time of day otherwise.
[...] I wrote Beautiful, Successful and Hated. Little did I know that Obama’s hope-n-changey fans would resort to rape fantasies. I have [...]
[...] of the human body can be iconic. As I noted recently in my column <em><a href=”http://medializzy.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/beautiful-successful-and-hated/”>Beautiful, Successful and Hated</a></em>: <blockquote>Our culture makes many assumptions [...]
The issue with Prejean wasn’t that people were jealous, it was that her answer was stilted and awkward and she just didn’t sound very intelligent. I mean, besides the fact that some people just didn’t agree. People have disagreements all the time. Especially with controversial subjects. The bottom line is, you aren’t allowed to say “Well, you’re just jealous” when someone disagrees with what you say. Perez Hilton, however, really is a horrible man who needs to shut his mouth. But so should Trump. He is a stupid man with a head only for business. He is and always has been shallow and objectifying when it comes to women. I understand what you mean about “feminists ” but please, I’m a feminist and I’m nothing like that. You mean specific feminists from specific time who were in the limelight for a certain amount of time. You really need to specify that these are specific feminists of whom you have read specific works and then accurately cite your sources. Finally, for the most part, when it comes to beauty, the media and the rest of the world takes it pretty easy on beautiful people. The thing is, it’s really hard to hear older men who don’t understand society remark on how lovely an exceptionally unexceptional young woman is.