HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

Apparently, whilst I was punishing myself on the train yesterday by reading Fifty Shades of Grey, Daily Mail blogger, Samantha Brick was causing a bit of a shit-storm with her blog ‘There are downsides to looking this pretty': Why women hate me for being beautiful.

Samantha writes:

On a recent flight to New York, I was delighted when a stewardess came over and gave me a bottle of champagne.

‘This is from the captain — he wants to welcome you on board and hopes you have a great flight today,’ she explained.

You’re probably thinking ‘what a lovely surprise’. But while it was lovely, it wasn’t a surprise. At least, not for me.

Throughout my adult life, I’ve regularly had bottles of bubbly or wine sent to my restaurant table by men I don’t know. Once, a well-dressed chap bought my train ticket when I was standing behind him in the queue, while there was another occasion when a charming gentleman paid my fare as I stepped out of a cab in Paris.

Another time, as I was walking through London’s Portobello Road market, I was tapped on the shoulder and presented with a beautiful bunch of flowers. Even bar tenders frequently shoo my credit card away when I try to settle my bill.

And whenever I’ve asked what I’ve done to deserve such treatment, the donors of these gifts have always said the same thing: my pleasing appearance and pretty smile made their day.

I think all of the above claims are fine actually, (if true, she writes for the Daily Mail after all) she’s a moderately good-looking woman, with a decent figure and blonde hair, men probably do like looking at her.

I think the issue for many people started at this point:

While I’m no Elle Macpherson, I’m tall, slim, blonde and, so I’m often told, a good-looking woman. I know how lucky I am. But there are downsides to being pretty — the main one being that other women hate me for no other reason than my lovely looks.

You see to me, I don’t think she’s wrong, women do often hate other women for no other reason than perhaps they’re prettier than them. The problem she has is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and when you boldly make claims about how beautiful you are, you probably need to have the goods to back it up with.

Frankly, because of her claim of being undeniably beautiful and pretty of face, I and others have been forced to look at her with a far more critical eye, than we probably would have under normal circumstances. Unfortunately for her, when we examine her photographs and compare them with her assertions, she comes off as being a tad delusional.

It seems to me that the women who are universally considered to be beautiful are the likes of Beyonce Knowles, Jennifer Lopez, Sophia Loren (in her heyday) Charlize Theron, Penelope Cruz, Michelle Williams (the white one), Carrie Underwood (I don’t have to like her music to acknowledge her natural beauty), Tyra Banks, (yeah, yeah, I know she was a model, but men love her shape and face), and Kristin Kreuk. Objectively speaking, if I was to see Samantha Brick on the street, she wouldn’t register, because to me, she is moderately attractive at best, nothing special, and not that visually appealing (but then I’m not a bloke).

The fact is though, I understand the broader point that Samantha is making. It seems to me that she’s talking about women-on-women hate. She’s worded it badly, used crap examples and extolled herself as a raving beauty, when in reality, she isn’t (in my opinion of course). And we as a people tend to like a show of humility in others anyway, so her boasting and hyperbolic narcissism was never going to go down well with the masses. (Which begs the question, is this what she’s like in real life, in which case, that might be one of the reasons she’s getting hate from other women.)

I’ve often discussed here at KKB about the sheer lack of sisterhood there is out there. You see it in shows like America’s Next Top Model, Big Brother, American Idol, and X-factor. You go on celebrity forums and the people who are most harshly judged and critiqued are the female celebs. Even fictional females are mocked and lambasted at a much greater rate than their male counterparts. Look at Bella Swan, for instance (yay, topical!), the fans of the Twilight franchise go mad for a blood-sucking, angsty vampire, yet slag off the fairly normal, if a little moody human girl. And I wont even go into the way Kristen Stewart herself is constantly criticised by other women.

I’m sure that it hasn’t passed anybody’s notice that on all the talent shows, it’s usually the girls who get voted out first, regardless of talent sometimes. Why is this?

This year on the UK version of Xfactor, a big deal was made of the fact that Little Mix, an all-girl band won the show for the first time in the programme’s history. This is because all-girl bands usually get voted out within the first two weeks of the show. The reason they won in my opinion, was because their mentor urged for girls to pick up the phone and vote for them, a call to arms, if you like.

Samantha Brick may have been a little misguided in her approach (OK, she probably just wanted some free publicity, hence the shock-jock tactics), but she is right in a broad sense. Some women do automatically dislike other women for no good reason, and see them as competition, rather than embracing them. I’ve been lamenting this fact for years. Samantha Brick may not be all that it says on the tin, looks-wise but for me, that’s quite besides the point. Whether or not I think she’s pretty is neither here nor there, because ultimately, I think she’s right.

What do you guys think? Is she a narcissistic, attention seeking twat who needs a good slap, or does she have a point?

Incidentally, which famous women do you consider to be beautiful? (Hey, I never said I wasn’t shallow!)

UPDATED TO ADD:

Samantha Brick has responded to yesterday’s backlash. According to her, she’s been proven right because of all the hate she’s been getting. Apparently even her close friends have been slagging her off behind her back on Facebook.

She writes:

I’ve had malicious mail from everyone from Swedish crime writers to bored housewives asking me what planet I’m on for daring to write such a feature. This was all from strangers. But far worse came from those I had considered friends. When I logged on to Facebook, I found a group of them had torn me to shreds. Some were asking: ‘What the hell does Sam think she’s on?’  Others I haven’t seen since college had crawled out of the woodwork to criticise me for ‘always being like that’ — and even for having a ‘girly voice’.

While I’ve been shocked and hurt by the global condemnation, I have just this to say: my detractors have simply proved my point. Their level of anger only underlines that no one in this world is more reviled than a pretty woman.

Samantha, if even your close friends, and the people who know you best aren’t being supportive, may I suggest that either they were never really your friends or the problem might lie with you? Just a thought…

37 Comments »

  • As you said, I agree that she might have said it all wrong but in a nutshell she has a point. Okay she made me rolls my eyes with all her getting stuff for free examples but yes women tend to be that way. It’s sad that we have to admit this but we seem to be the jealous sex.

    Is she attention seeking? Could be, I don’t know her so it wouldn’t be right to judge but it is definitely what she will get with this.

    And for a woman I find beautiful: hands down – Salma Hayak.

    ReplyReply

  • Oh I meant to add Salma Hayak to that list Susi! She’s beautiful!

    ReplyReply

  • The epitome of beauty for me is Hallie Berry And Elizabeth Taylor in her day.

    There is nothing special about this woman, she looks like millions of other blondes. Don’t know if she’s blowing smoke out her ass, but I see nothing special to make other women snarky.

    Admittedly, I am female though. ;-)

    ReplyReply

  • Totally forgot Halle Berry, yes beautiful and womanly.

    I just read an article which put another slant on things for me, perhaps The Daily Mail let her write this article because they know that she’s not the beauty she believes she is, hence all the photographs of her quite frankly not looking her best. They are trolls of the worst sort, knowing that she would be so pilloried by the public. They really are the worst paper ever.

    ReplyReply


  • Rebecca
    April 4
    1:39 pm

    I think buried at the heart of her essay is a kernel of an idea that’s worth discussing, how contemporary Western culture encourages women to attack and belittle each other. But her approach is bass-ackwards and so sensationalistic that it doesn’t contribute much substantive on the topic. I think Lindy West @ Jezebel may be on to something when she says:

    “The Daily Mail is a large-scale professional troll, and this article is troll-bait of the highest order — a master stroke of carefully orchestrated misogyny. [...] It begs women to go all mean-girl on her (every woman I spoke to succumbed to the temptation immediately), gives men a pass to comment on the relative value and fuckability of her body, and encourages both sexes to eviscerate, body-shame, and judge Brick with impunity because her ideas are so repellant.”

    ReplyReply

  • I think she’s full of crap. Attractive people are liked and treated well by both sexes. Maybe women are snubbing her because she’s very flirtatious with men. That would explain the “perks” she’s getting. Although if men were giving me free stuff, I’d wonder if they thought I was a hooker.

    Or maybe she’s one of those super friendly, vivacious people, chatty with everyone, and men simply respond to it better. Either way, I don’t believe it’s all about looks.

    ReplyReply

  • Hi Rebecca, I read that Jezebel article, and although I tend to agree with everything the columnist wrote, especially with regards to the Daily Mail setting her up, any time you make such an outlandish statement about your physical appearance, there will be people who will have an opinion on it. A lot of women are bitchy and jealous by nature, so this was never going to pan out any other way. Some might say that she’s as culpable for the shit storm as The Daily Mail.

    I’m astounded that even her close friends are slagging her off. This calls into question either her judgement, or her actual character. She could just be hated because she’s a total douchebag. I’m always suspicious of women who can’t make or keep female friends.

    ReplyReply


  • Jeannie S.
    April 4
    3:02 pm

    I think it is more of a self-confidence issue. If you THINK you are beautiful, you project it. Good genes help too lol. I think it was a very good article, and it made me stop and think – which is why it was so good! I would think of her as a pretty woman, with a nice figure, etc. But with all she said about herself, I am now being critical and checking out her hair, cheekbones, etc. a lot more closely than normal.

    I think Zooey Deshanel is beautiful – and seems like a very fun person too. I love her new show too. She is so adorkable!

    ReplyReply


  • Beverly
    April 4
    4:07 pm

    All you have to do is click on her byline there to see that ALL of her articles are just trollbait. They’re going for hits for their advertisers, that’s all. And they get it.

    Personally, I think people (including women) dislike her for her self-centered personality more than her assumed amazing good looks. People who constantly talk about themselves aren’t well liked.

    ReplyReply

  • To me, she comes off as pretty narcissistic and arrogant in that article. And I would guess it’s those traits that put women off, more than her looks.

    But *someone* was not a friend to her: The DM, her husband, her RL friends … whoever let her publish that article, or told her it was a good idea. The old saying, “with friends like that, who needs enemies” comes to mind.

    I don’t want to pile on, but it was not a good article. It’s a topic I suppose is worth discussing in some contexts, but not the way she’s presented it.

    ReplyReply


  • Jeannie S.
    April 4
    4:43 pm

    Just to clarify – I meant the article you wrote, Karen, not Samantha’s. I haven’t even read that one. You’re article made me think about what she said in a different light.

    ReplyReply

  • I think Beverly nailed it:

    People who constantly talk about themselves aren’t well liked.

    And Jessica, I agree with you–who could have thought that publishing such narcissistic crap would reap the author anything but scorn?

    Then again, I guess it’s the same kind of love and support that sends people who can’t string two notes together, to audition for talent shows.

    ReplyReply

  • I think she wrote a troll article to get a reaction out of readers: the reaction that she wanted and actually ended up getting. It’s all an act by another phoney. She may have had a point, a point that she arguably proved by manipulation of the readership; but it loses all credibility precisely because of the obvious manipulation of the readership and her very predictable conclusion that the reactions she got proved her point.

    Mireya

    ReplyReply

  • Everybody else put it all so well!

    I do think women are hyper-critical as a group but I also think it’s because we’re hyper-criticized by society (often starting with our own families defining the pretty one or the smart one).

    And I am not a pretty woman (short, beach-ball round and moderately unattractive) but men treat me wonderfully when I put a happy personality out there. Or when I show cleavage.

    I would love to see greater discussion about women’s treatment of other women but that certainly wasn’t the way to do it.

    ReplyReply

  • Jessica summed it up in a nutshell for me. The woman is okay looking. She’s definitely not unattractive, but she’s not drop dead gorgeous, either. She’s just cute.

    However, the arrogance in her post? THAT would push me away. Eesh.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 4
    9:36 pm

    Ah, this hit a nerve. I’ve worked with a woman for almost two years now who I felt bad for when we first met because she was shunned by her female colleauges.

    That lasted about three months. She’s a man manipulator to the nth degree. She knows it, they know it, but the blonde hair, smile and big boobage has given her perks even after she should have been fired ten years ago. Other women in the plant like her now because she is not a threat to their incomes and hard work.

    As for Samantha Brick? I hope she’s not a young chicky. If so, somebody wore that face before she got it. (yeah, I’m cute but bitter. LOL)

    ReplyReply

  • I think she needs a good slap. I say that with the disclaimer that I’m a *huge* proponent of complimenting strangers when they look like they need it. My most frequent “victims” are grocery store cashiers. Want to get a tired-looking lady through her shift? Tell her she has awesome skin (but mean it!).

    ReplyReply


  • Tabitha
    April 5
    5:26 am

    While she does have a minor point, she still came across as arrogant. Frankly, you just don’t go around saying you’re beautiful(unless I guess you really want to be hated). That’s how she sounded like. My Mom used to say to not praise yourself in front of others, but let others praise you.

    Another thing, I just don’t think it’s just the looks. I’m a very, very average looking person. I’m short, petite, and my nose is crooked but I get treated well and I highly doubt that’s due to my looks! It’s your personality, how you treat others and your character. I hope she realizes that. Now she thinks she’s made a point, I just think she still doesn’t get it.

    ReplyReply

  • Karen, you need to take the Samantha Brick vs. Derek Zoolander quiz. Sadly, I found out I watched Zoolander too many times because I aced the quiz before reading the article.

    ReplyReply


  • JoanneF
    April 5
    8:50 pm

    I just watched an online video of this woman. She definitely ain’t all that. I guess I’d describe her as “average pretty,” which also equates to “pretty average.” She was seated and looked rather slim, so perhaps she has Salma Hayek’s body hidden under there and I just couldn’t see it?

    I didn’t read all the articles, but does she ever mention the ages of her gentlemen admirers? I ask this because, when I was younger, I used to always get this kind of weird attention from old men. Since I don’t ride the train or eat alone in restaurants, they didn’t pick up my tabs, but I’d always be singled out by the geriatric set regarding my “beauty,” even when in a group of other women. I attributed this to my “old-fashioned” face. I had short, curly, hair, bow lips, very fair skin, and a round face, which – if you watch many silent or early talkie movies – was considered the bees knees back in the day. Unfortunately, I had those looks 50 years later when lean, athletic, and tanned were the ideal. Guys my own age didn’t find my old-fashioned, cherubic features to be all that alluring unfortunately.

    My guess is that she may be getting this attention from men that most women really don’t want attention from or usually discourage, and chalking it all up to her inflated opinion of her own attractiveness.

    ReplyReply

  • Kate Winslet and Catherine Zeta Jones, to me are perfect looking women. They are very attractive.

    Samantha Brick is okay looking but far from drop dead gorgeous.

    ReplyReply

  • ” Frankly, you just don’t go around saying you’re beautiful(unless I guess you really want to be hated).”

    This comment stands out to me and it’s why her article has merit. If not absolute douchery at its finest, the article has a point. Having a good self-esteem toes a fine line to conceited. (This woman, total conceit) But then I think about all the times I gave someone a compliment or someone complimented me, and the first thing out of my mouth or theirs is along the lines of “Oh, not really. This is why and this is why.” Saying thank you isn’t conceited. Saying, I know, is. But it’s not often I hear or say thank you.

    Maybe the true question is self-confidence seen as conceit? Where’s the line?

    ReplyReply

  • Sofia, we are so much worse in England, all people with self confidence are perceived as being arrogant, we seem to love those who react to a compliment by waving it off and denying the compliment itself.

    I do wonder if there would have been as much of an outcry if Samantha’s column had been written by a man?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 8
    4:00 pm

    I think there is a big difference between self-confidence and arrogance. I feel true self-confidence doesn’t include being a braggart. You are so happy in your own skin you don’t need to flaunt real or imagined talents/gifts to others.

    And, Karen, I do believe the same outcry would have occurred if Samantha was a man. There’s a lot of asshat maleness out there and we poke fun at the “I’m all that” attitude regularly when reading about this or that knob.

    ReplyReply

  • I came across your blog in the midst of doing some research (Googling) on self-esteem and self-image. That’s neither here nor there, just thought you’d like to know you’re fairly Google-able for related search terms.

    My actual point is, for anyone who’s still bothering to read this: the insistence that she’s not pretty is weird. On one hand you reasonably comment on the messages of her article, but you can’t seem to avoid needing to put down her looks.

    The comments here seem to reflect that. There seems to be this almost desperate need for people to reassure themselves that the rest of the world, and probably Samatha Brick herself, knows that they think she’s not pretty.

    I’ve summed my opinion up here: http://www.exsequorto.net/word/?p=124

    I wonder why this is? Why do you people care so much?

    ReplyReply

  • I wonder why this is? Why do you people care so much?

    Probably for the same reason you just wrote a War and Peace commentary on a blog you know nothing about. You obviously have no understanding of human nature or else, you wouldn’t ask such a ridiculous question.

    ReplyReply

  • A War and Peace commentary?

    I’m unsure what you mean… I didn’t write my blog post as a response to yours, I wrote that back in 6 April in response to the news articles. In the same way you did, I assume?

    I happened to come across your blog doing reading into an article I’m writing, quite separate from my website. Sorry, I should have made that clearer, I assumed you’d see the date on my blog.

    So why did I write my blog post? Mostly because the reaction to Samantha Brick was amusing and interesting.

    That doesn’t really explain why people insist on letting the world know they think Samantha Brick isn’t pretty. What made you take that route? Everyone seems to have taken it very personally.

    So what is it about human nature which brought on this particular aspect of online anger?

    ReplyReply

  • That doesn’t really explain why people insist on letting the world know they think Samantha Brick isn’t pretty.

    I think you’re being rather obtuse.

    The woman stood up publicly and declared that she was beautiful, by that very action, she’s ensured that we scrutinise her looks in a way that we never would have normally. Surely you understand that aspect of human behaviour? Or maybe not, it seems…

    By the way, I didn’t read your blog, I was referring to the fact that you felt the need to post a long comment on my blog. You commenting on my/our commentary is rather amusing considering your apparent viewpoint. I think that surely deserves a big fat “Bitch please!”

    ReplyReply

  • You thought that post was long? How many paragraphs do you consider to be an average post? I admit I sacrifice brevity to communicate my point, but I’m genuinely surprised you’d think five paragraphs, two of them single-sentence, is all that long. This post will be longer as I’m addressing your points.

    It’s all right if you didn’t read my blog, although I encourage you to do so. However my post is enough.

    I’m not sure what you meant by ‘feel the need’? I’m not driven by a compulsion, I thought it’d be interesting. Do you not want differing viewpoints on your blog?

    My comment is not about the way Samantha Brick looks, simply about the way people react, including you. I think that’s reasonable in a discourse, wouldn’t you?

    I think you’ve misunderstood my point… You’re right in that Samantha Brick posted her positive opinion of her looks. However, the main message of her article is not so much her looks as the way people react to beauty. Samantha Brick has written a lot worse and is quite plainly not an old school feminist(!), however none of her previous material generated this much outright anger.

    The tone of the responses to her opinion is hysterical bordering on desperation. Almost every poster has rushed to let the world know their negative opinion of Samantha Brick’s looks. Surely you can see that this is an unusual phenomenon?

    If it was the odd few people doing this, that would be understandable. However the strength, tone and volume of responses has been nothing short of strange and incredible. This is something deeper than merely increased scrutiny. Why do you care?

    ReplyReply

  • Mactabilis, I think what Karen meant is this:

    Smanatha Brick wrote and published what she did to get a reaction, and she got it for two reasons: she’s not all that and…she really is not all that, so bragging about what she is will rile folks.

    Second, it’s really old and banal news, why comment on this post after two weeks?

    Third, did anyone here really say Brick is not pretty? or did they state in so many words that she’s, once again, not all that?

    And finally, when someone shows up somewhere with some passive aggressive BS, we at KKB don’t usually take it kindly. To whit:

    “On one hand you reasonably comment on the messages of her article, but you can’t seem to avoid needing to put down her looks.”

    So, in small words: Brick’s point was predicated on her extraordinary beauty. Since she’s not really that beautiful, the conversation naturally turned to what she is: vane.

    ReplyReply

  • AztecLady,

    From what I’ve read of Samantha Brick’s articles, she does seem to believe she’s quite good looking. She may have been searching for a reaction, but the belief is there throughout most of her work. That article is not, by far, the most offensive.

    And this brings me to the point again: why are folks riled so much about this? Why didn’t they react with such desperate and populist anger to her previous articles?

    Why comment? Well, because it’s fun, but I saw this blog post and randomly thought I’d post a comment.

    The ‘not pretty’ were my words, and I meant them in the same way as ‘not all that’. As in, she’s ‘all right’, not pretty.

    I’m sorry you read my post as passive aggressive. I’ll readily put my hand up to writing in a way to cause a response, but I don’t do passive aggressive much. I’m usually just aggressive.

    My comment still stands. On one hand a the main post and the comments after do address the main point in Samantha Brick’s article. On the other hand there’s this continuing thread of needing to put down her looks, over and over. This is reflected on comments all over the Internet and in real life too, this strange need to just let her know she’s not as good looking as she thinks.

    Why? Why this visceral reaction to this particular article?

    Another point–she would be vain even if others considered her beautiful. She certainly sounds vain in that she has a high opinion of her worth and looks. But she’s also honest about it.

    I read her article and it didn’t send me into the same angry headspace. If it weren’t for the popularity and the comments on it, I wouldn’t have found it all that interesting. So why did other people?

    Why should we ‘correct’ her on her vanity, anyway? It seems to be working all right for her. Is everyone really that insecure?

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 20
    4:34 am

    Mactibilis

    If you were actually a follower of Karen’s blog you’d have known straight off this post was not a bash. When it comes to a bash, Karen doesn’t mince words, she goes for the takedown.

    In this case she sided with Samantha Brick’s point, but not the execution in print. Then she asked for our opinions, and…we gave them. Honestly. Mine were based on thirty-eight years in the work force at various jobs. I’ve met Samantha-with less/more “pleasing” looks-hundreds of times. And though I really question all the spontaneous monetary type “gifts” Samantha brags about, I’ve seen a lesser equivelant in the workplace, but those are not from total strangers, whereas what she claims, is. Really? Really?

    I like to study people and what I’ve found with women, like Samantha purports herself to be, work their asses off at drawing the attention of every swinging dick in the room. (Blunt, but this is Karen’s blog and she can ban me if she likes.) As a woman, you can be friends with this type, but watch your back. She will leave skidmarks on your prone body as she races over you at the mere smell of testosterone and the chance to garner the real attention she so desperately needs. Yes, NEEDS. It’s kind of an illness/addiction, in my humble opinion.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m chuckling over here. THIS was NOT a visceral reaction for KKB blog post. NOT at all. And that’s coming from a long time lover of the blog.

    Mactibilis, this reactions here are generally… “meh…” as in quite a few of just don’t care that much.

    You want to see visceral here?

    Do a search for the posts about pedophiles, rape, authors acting like idiots and reviews.

    This doesn’t even move the meter for a KKB post. It might seem that way to somebody who isn’t familiar with the blog, but this isn’t even mild. It’s…milquetoast.

    ReplyReply

  • An interesting discussion… to address things backwards:

    Shiloh, I meant the reaction all over the Internet and the real world, not just in this small corner of it. It was by far a visceral reaction even for the raw online environment. If you read my own blog post about it, I found forums where people threaten Samantha Brick with sexual assault because she dares to think she’s good looking.

    However, that’s only part of what I meant. Even the more polite reactions to her article, such as on here, have that strangely desperate and slightly hysterical quality to them. Almost as if people are tripping up just to register their view of Samantha Brick’s looks.

    Anon 76, A bash is a bash, even if it doesn’t compare to other bashes.

    I’m not criticising the honesty of the posts, I do believe everyone meant what they said. Under cover of online anonymity, who isn’t honest? I know I am.

    I’m a little confused when you say you’ve met Samantha, but I think you mean you’ve met people like Samantha Brick. I do find some of the examples she gave in that article a little dubious, myself. The flowers one, for example. People don’t tend to do that sort of thing.

    Anyway I appreciate the fact that you commented on her message instead of hoarsely shouting your opinion of her looks into the Internet void. Heh. I shouldn’t think Karen would delete your post, controversy is popularity online, isn’t it?

    I’ve met one or two women who are a little like that, but I now work in a field where expertise, education and skill is more prized. An unit of mostly women who more or less get along.

    Of course, the men do this sort of thing too… they just aren’t beaten up over it.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 21
    4:37 am

    Mactabilis, my sentence about “meeting Samantha” was a play on words. This is, after all, a blog that focuses on the writing industry a lot. If my meaning wasn’t clear then it was “my bad” for expressing myself in a way that confused a reader/readers.

    As to men not getting beat up for the same sort of thing? I disagree. If a man had written that same article and the details of the provided “gifts” were changed accordingly, sure he’d get slammed. Especially if the accompanying photos were equivalent to Samantha Brick’s and the article reeked of vanity in the same measure.

    Do I believe most of the outrage would seem to come from women? Of course. We really are more verbal than our male counterparts. A guy would just want to walk up and “rearrange his face.”

    Take Charlie Sheen, for instance. Or Rob Lowe. Better yet, how about Dennis Rodman? Or Pamela Anderson’s ex (can’t even remember his name at the moment.) Or Axl Rose. It was a given that because of their professions and stardom they’d get many perks from the opposite sex. But their vanity spewed out for all the world to see makes them targets for comment. And scrutiny. “You ain’t all that, dude.”

    ReplyReply


  • Anon 76
    April 21
    4:50 am

    By the way, Shiloh, (if you are still following this topic) we have a mutual friend in Akron. Actually, she’s my BFF. I’ve meant to tell you that forever but always forget because I get wrapped up in Karen’s topics.

    ReplyReply

  • Maybe he would get slammed… but I have my doubts. Charlie Sheen is a good example. He’s an arrogant, self-absorbed and vain man, however he’s looked upon as a sort of legend for his views and lifestyle. Yes people do pour scorn on him… but certainly not in the same way people have reacted to Samantha Brick. And Charlie Sheen is reasonable looking, but I wouldn’t call him handsome. That’s just me though.

    Those men certainly ain’t all that… but people are fairly indulgent of them. A woman dares to have the same arrogance and people see her as a freak and line up to ‘correct’ her. This is reflected in this thread and more keenly all over the Internet.

    I’m careful to follow current affairs, especially on the Internet (a small part of my job and professional expertise). I’ve still not seen the outpouring of anger on this scale compared to anything similar… the feeling I get is that “Samantha Brick does not DESERVE to see herself as beautiful”. Or at least, to broadcast this opinion.

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment