Why in the world is there a contest for the most attractive female journalist? The contest alone could be fodder for a feminist writer to tackle.
But here’s one possible explanation to the OP …
Since women are judged so much by their looks, those who aren’t blessed with beauty have lived their lives enduring an endless variety of slights, insults, missed opportunities, etc. Through this experience they’ve become acutely aware of the social cost of being less attractive as well as the unfairness of being judged for one’s looks instead of one’s talents and effort.
It would seem natural to me that this experience would lead one to seek to change a system that was hurtful and unjust, and since we’re referring to journalists, this would find expression through the investigation and exposing of the issue through their writing and reporting.
Just as I wouldn’t expect a rich man to be the best person to talk about the experience of being poor, I wouldn’t expect a beautiful woman to be the most likely champion of feminist causes. That doesn’t mean that those people can’t be found. But it would explain the trend that the OP thinks they discovered. People directly experiencing injustice and unfairness are more likely the ones to be talking about it.
While I hesitate to even respond to the OP’s goofy ideas (my wife is a hardcore feminist and hot as hell, thanks), I’ll just point out that Amanda Hess writes about lots of things.
As an actual unattractive female, I wish people would stop calling not-cover-model women “unattractive.” Call them “plain” or “not quite stunning but cute” or something. Fuck, let us have SOMETHING to ourselves.
Same with calling size 8 women “fat.” I am fat. I win. Those girls do not get to play!
I don’t think that’s entirely fair. The OP might not be expressed too tactfully, but I don’t see why it is so sexist to point out the fact that more attractive women probably suffer less discrimination, and are therefore less likely to write about being discriminated against.
Of course there are always going to be counter-examples to such a nebulous postulation.
The thing is, it’s often not explicitly sexist in that situation, it’s looks-ist or discrimination against people who don’t fit the mold. I actually think a lot of the anti-gay vitriol isn’t directed so much against what they do in their bedrooms, but rather against the idea of bull-dyke lesbians and stereotypical effete gay men.
That’s where a lot of the anti-feminist anger comes from- they don’t play ball within the social norms for how women are supposed to behave and dress, not because the vast majority of people are that intellectually opposed to equality.
Hey, kstarnes - Osiris might be on to something. Post your picture in the nudes thread so we can judge if you’re hot enough that we need to care about your opinions on feminine beauty.
Yeah. Debates about birth control are not about looks. The glass ceiling isn’t about looks. Roles for women in the military isn’t about looks. Hiring practices regarding maternity leave is not about looks. Whether or not a female politician is qualified/voteable is not about looks (at its core).
If you have a shallow existence and don’t think too hard about discrimination and inequality then perhaps most discrimination is about looks, for you. But for real people doing things in the real world, who are over 18, it’s not.
What I believe even sven was trying to say (I didn’t say “very little”, she did) is that if a woman is being discriminated against, it’s because she is a woman not because she is a woman who looks like whatever. If people are talking about gender discrimination they are not talking about how pretty girls get more free drinks than ugly girls. They are talking about all women versus all men.
I don’t doubt people discriminate based on looks. That is one way people discriminate. But to be surprised that “very little discrimination is about looks” means that you think most discrimination is, and I am saying that no, it’s not. And giving examples of what most women face as discrimination that is not based on their looks.
I use the term “most” as a rebuttal to the disbelief of the term “very little.” I don’t see how using “very little” as the opposite of “very little” would have been the correct term.
Society believes that the only value a woman has is in her looks. The discrimination comes into play at this point, satirized earlier in the thread for the male gender:
And that pretty much sums up the relation between beauty and discrimination in regards to women. You can just leave the “on feminine beauty” part out of the sentence for maximum understanding. After all, it doesn’t matter how good a job she does or how intelligent she is, the first thing out of society’s mouth is, “so, is she hot or not?” and if she’s not, she’s disregarded. Female beauty as a measure of personal worth is one of the kernels at the base of female discrimination.
My brother is a big case of this. During last french presidential elections, his main complaint toward the ecology party canditate was that she was ugly: Eva Joly - Wikipedia whereas he was finding the canditate for the right wing party, the one he votes for, fuckable: Marine Le Pen - Wikipedia
This is satire and not my actual view.
