I have a bone to pick with the media. You see, I've had enough of the constant lady comparisons and not-so-subtle bashing. When it's used snarkily, I'm not as bothered by the stories, photos, slide shows, etc., that seem to pit lady against lady.
I just cannot believe that in these final months of 2011 women are still being compared, criticized and just plain judged for their appearance. Allow me to state my case.
this on The Daily Beast recently. Clothing is not the only thing repeated in this slideshow. The comment "not enough dresses to wear" is used in almost every comparison.
I suppose it's possible the person(s) behind this catty piece thought that since these people are famous/rich, they shouldn't be caught dead wearing the same thing more than once. I say just the opposite. We mere mortals wear the same item many times (I prefer not to part with clothing/bags/shoes unless they are worn out, torn or stained). And when you see these lovely ladies wearing the same outfit more than once, it doesn't come off as cheap. It shows they have enough style to slightly vary the outfit. It's not like they picked out something they spotted on a mannequin and only wore it that way. Also, these outfits are mostly good. Why would these ladies of means want to throw them out.
Speaking of Tina Brown's projects... I have to say I am disappointed with her Newsweek. Have you seen these covers?
do it like this.
As for the picture of Hillary Clinton... It's not an awful picture, but when you talk about how she's "shattering glass ceilings," but show her from an unflattering angle, it's like we are once again left to talk about her pear shape and aging face. Who wants to talk about what she's doing when this magazine hardly gives an impression that the article is seriously focused on her appearance? They don't give their cover men that kind of treatment (unless they're celebrities posing in character). They shouldn't do the same to women.
If you think this kind of treatment is exclusive to the so-called "liberal" media, you're wrong.
I spotted this on Fox News's website. An entire slide show of famous ladies, their ages and an implied gasp at how well some have aged while others have not.
First of all, let me say it is totally unfair to compare any lady of any age to Christie Brinkley.
Second, I think they could have taken this whole thing a step further by explaining the diet, exercise and skin care regimes (as well as what injectables and surgeries they've had) to give women an accurate idea of what aging can be.
If anyone ever puts a picture of myself next to a famous gal and wants to point out all of our differences (good and bad), they better be prepared for a junk shot.
I understand that my Friday feature might make this whole post seem ironic. However, I try to point out the good in these famous people when I can. If I don't like someone, I make that pretty clear (we don't have to like everyone - really). What I do is point out a bad moment. Besides the oh-so-important page clicks, what good do these slide shows and magazine covers do to women? They're not allowed to be more like us? They're not allowed the privilege of some airbrushing? They're not allowed to age?
I don't get it. I don't like it. Most of all, I'm glad I don't have to be held to the high standards of the people (like me) who get to sit around in their yoga pants and go, "Oh. My. God. (Insert celebrity name) looks awful! Let's make sure everyone sees that!"
Maybe I should reconsider everything I'm doing. Or maybe I'm getting soft in my old age. Or maybe the heat has finally gotten to me. Check back in December.