juin 02, 2004
in the eye
as i read the freebie newspaper on the train this morning, i stumbled across an article proclaiming that the world's most beautiful women (of all time) had been shortlisted, and here was the definitive group: grace kelly, audrey hepburn, cate blanchett, angelina jolie, grace kelly and liv tyler.
while at least three of those women would have made my own personal shortlist--of the most beautiful actresses of all time, i am absolutely outraged that someone has felt the need to actually sit down and quantify the beauty of women, ALL women, using such a small representative pool.
of course, i probably shouldn't be terribly surprised--the judging panel was a committee of 'fashion and beauty experts,' people who make a living exploiting the sartorial and self-esteem-related weaknesses of others. these are the people who tell you that you as a woman are sub par if you have cellulite or last season's clothes--and then make money off you. of COURSE they're going to ignore the beautiful girl in seattle, or the knockout in manila, because these are not the women who will be inadvertant poster children for high end goods. 'fashion and beauty experts' don't want you to believe that the secret to glowing skin is actually the oatmeal in your pantry, or that a ten dollar tee shirt from the gap is as flattering as a seventy dollar one from dior. they want you to buy the $100-an-ounce face cream that the stars use. they want you to think that if you shell that out, you too will be as luminous and lovely as cate and liv. that you'll realize that you're SUPPOSED to be as lovely and luminous as cate and liv, and that if you aren't, you're a failed example of humanity.
fuck that.
beauty is not in face creams, beauty's not even necessarily in your face. or your body; it's certainly not in your clothes. beauty is about so much more than what can be quantified with a cursory glance or even careful topical examination. beauty is in the ring of the laugh and the tenderness of the touch, beauty is found in the shoulder to cry on and the arms to hold with and the warmth of the smile and the sentiment behind the statements.
and yes, i do think the ladies they've shortlisted are lovely and luminous to look at. but i think there are many, many, many other women in the world who are equally luminous and lovely, but who were not considered for such an honor because they lack notariety, or because their feet are 'too big' or their breasts 'too small.'
and that makes me furious, because it's rankings and listings like this that result in television shows like 'the swan' and terrifying collagen lips--convincing women that they have to look a certain way to be beautiful and inspiring them to disfigure themselves to get there. it's a tragedy, really, because we mere mortals are just as beautiful as the stars. because we're complicated, and unique, and real.
In my tiniest voice, I do have to add that Cate Blanchett is super freaking cool and I want to meet her for, I don't know, tea or, or...a beer! or something. I bet she wears a tee shirt from the Gap on her day off.
Posted by: Fulbiscuit at juin 2, 2004 10:34 AMthis rant is not directed at the women they've shortlisted! those ladies rock my face. i'm objecting to the media's need to quantify us.
Posted by: shivery at juin 2, 2004 10:37 AMpete hates cate blanchett with a passion, I think she's so beautiful and talented (not to mention her accent abilities).
Don't you find that the beauty of some grows the more you get to know them and for others it drops drastically the minute they open their mouths? Amazing how some people who are the physical ideal (I'm not qualifying that, you know what I mean -- air quotes) can actually appear ugly because of their personalities.
I would also like to add that we should all hate the people on the short list because these are the women who make it impossible for other women to buy pants that fit.
Posted by: jen at juin 2, 2004 11:20 AMremember:
If we stop listening to the fashion experts, the terrorists win.
Think about that the next time you look to yourself and not others for self-esteem. The party is right. The government is just and the people are represented.
This comment brought to you by OmniGlobalMonopoCorp.
Amen.
Posted by: roos at juin 2, 2004 11:23 AMAlso, all those women are white. White white white.
Posted by: Brenda at juin 2, 2004 01:19 PMJen: women aren't the only ones that have trouble buying pants... I'd be ok if i was tall (or average) or much, much fatter. short & skinny is apparently not common enough to make pants for.
Posted by: Josh at juin 2, 2004 04:44 PMbut you can get skinny tall trousers hemmed... it's harder to adjust for a gap in the back of the waistband due to trousers not curving in when we do. Although men's pants may have their own issues, which I am now curious about. Also, men's clothing tends to be more expensive. If only our trousers fit, Louisiana wouldn't have to make up crazy laws about not showing yer skivvies.
Sorry Shiv for hijacking this. Also I'm feeling a sudden need for creme de la mer. I blame the media.
Posted by: jen at juin 2, 2004 11:09 PMI was reading that list and I completely agree with you. Plus, I'm really pissed off they left Katherine Hepburn off the list of the most beautiful actresses of all time.
Posted by: Dani at juin 3, 2004 12:35 AMwell, true, you can hem some things, but sometimes there are pants you can't or don't want to.
anyway, men's clothes are more expensive? maybe they expect us to buy less. There's certainly less variety... pants & shorts vs pants, shorts, skirts, dresses and the varying lengths of all of them. Seems odd that they'd price based on the stereotype that women buy more clothing... any other ideas why?
shiv, i couldn't agree with you more. i'm not fighting their selections, but the notion is twisted. some people like it, though - that's what i can't stand.
Posted by: kate at juin 3, 2004 03:41 AMshows like 'extreme makeover' and 'the swan' freak me out something major.
i'm still shaking my head in disbelief.
I agree with you completely, Miss Shivola.
Even so, I would have expected to see Helen of Troy in that list, or Cleopatra.
I mean, we're talking launching of a thousand ships here, we're talking years of war.
To slip the epithet 'of all time' onto a list which is composed entirely of celebrities from one century is just pure arrogance.
Evidence be damned.