This article is much linked to on Facebook and has gotten, as you might imagine, thousands of negative comments:
I can’t decide if it’s serious or not.
Arguments For It Being A Joke:
Samantha Brick, if that’s who this is, is not an UGLY woman, but she’s hardly a knockout. I routinely meet women who’re more beautiful than this. And they don’t seem to be shunned by other women.
The article is written from the perspective of such amazing arrogance that it reads like an Onion article.
I have trouble believing an intelligent adult would write something so obviously idiotic and then be surprised people would react negatively.
Arguments Against It Being A Joke:
It’s not in a humor newspaper and it didn’t run on April 1.
A joke article would play up the oblivious arrogance angle more. In parts, this column sort of suggests Ms. Brick suffers from paranoia.
They did in fact run a followup column in which she complains about people sending her nasty mail. Her reaction is that the reason people did this is that she’s stunningly beautiful.
Trolling on the part of the paper and writer? I’ve never read it but I got the impression that the Daily Mail is not exactly a highbrow paper that takes the high road.
This woman likes to write ‘controversial’ articles. She’s kind of a troll. Other articles by her are,
*I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work… and so does ANY woman with any sense
*Would YOU let your husband dress you? Samantha does and says she’s never looked better *This life: Samantha Brick on why prenups show you really care
*My husband says he’ll divorce me if I get fat
*I can ménage, thank you: The career girl who gave it all up to become a housewife in rural France
*How could a well-educated TV executive let her addiction to psychics cost her £25,000 and ruin her marriage?
That list is copy and pasted from Fark comments. I opened the links from home, but can’t from work. I can’t link to the specific post from work either. I will link to the fark comments page that I pulled the list from, though.
After reading this article I think the author believes the majority of women do not like her because of her looks. However, in reality I think many probably do not like her because of her personality and she is misinterpreting their disdain. She obviously has no problem going on and on about how attractive she is and this is not an endearing quality in anyone.
I have several female friends who are much more attractive then I am and I certainly do not hate them for it. I even let them speak to my husband as much as they want.
I’m guessing paper views her as useful troll for publicity, while she believes at least some of it.
She does say she’s no Elle Macpherson, but doesnt seem to consider that her personality might have something to do with some of the reactions she gets. Those women who act in a over-sexualised way towards men out of habit or whatever.
I don’t know, Otara and Bleach. I mean, it is** possible** she believes she is so beautiful that women hate her and that she truly just doesn’t understand that her personality is off putting. But I would bet the rent that she is just old fashioned trolling. The other articles she writes pretty much seals it for me.
I mean, already, she has written an article about the other article.
I work with a woman like this. She doesn’t understand that nobody is “threatened by” her “beauty” (she’s attractive, but more a 7 than a 10), we can’t stand her because her personality is repellant in all ways, including the fact that she would say something like “all the women here are threatened by me because I’m attractive.”
I actually do hope that she is just trolling. If she is not trolling and believes what she has written in the article she must be delusional. I just skimmed the second article that you posted Nzinga and I did not see that she even addressed the issue that it may be her personality, not looks, that people do not like. She says the following in the second article “As far as I can see, the criticism falls into two camps: those who judge me for daring to mention my attractiveness and those who wish to attack my appearance, calling me ugly — well, that’s a polite way of putting it. And it’s the latter camp who are harder to brush off.”
After reading that I looked through comments from the original article and many people expressed that her looks may have nothing to do with women disliking her, but apparently she does not see it that way.
The most detestable thing about her is that she *lets *people pay for her shit. It shows how much of a user she is. No self-respecting person would allow the bartender not to charge them for a night of drinking. What the fuck?
Of course, I’ve never been pretty enough to get any of the things she claims to have handed ot her. I spent years being just one of the boys. Maybe it feels different if people buy you drinks all the time, I dunno. But it *sounds *manipulative as fuck from the perspective of an uggo like me. I wouldn’t want to spend time around her with this attitude, no matter WHAT she looked like.
Now, that’s just hater talk. Sorry. I hate the term ‘hater’ as much as the next guy, but you left me no other option.
Listen. You all are driving me crazy. The woman is a TROLL. Bleach, the reason the second article doesn’t show the woman understanding that her personality is the issue is because the woman is a lying TROLL.
I get free things from men all the time and it’s been a long time since I was 22. Men like to give things to women. I don’t get in line at Starbucks thinking I hope some man announces I’ll get that for you and swipes his card after I order, but it happens. I think it’s sweet.
