There appears to be an unwritten rule of women’s magazine journalism that states no matter how staggeringly, jaw-splittingly, super-humanly attractive a female interviewee is there must be at least one conversation between subject and journalist about the subject’s (imaginary) flaws. Britney Spears has been quoted saying she hates her feet. The June issue of Glamour quotes cover-star Beyonce complaining about the size of her ears.
It might seem like a harmless effort to ‘humanise’ these beauties, but it smacks of something meaner and more insidious. First, it says that no matter how beautiful and desireable a woman is there is still something wrong with her. Second, it reinforces the notion that women are ultimately defined by their phsyical traits rather than their talents. You don’t read interviews with male celebrities whinging about their toes or ears, so why should this nonsense be a staple of writing about women?
February 17th, 2010
2 Comments at "Writing Women—The ‘Ugly’ Clause"
[...] Agendered » Blog Archive » Writing Women – The ‘Ugly’ Clause [...]
I wonder who the journalist was and how experienced they are. I often find that hacks or very young writers ask these questions because, as this article suggests, they’re trying to humanise their subject, or because they have a vague awareness of feminism and are wary of possible outcry.
Comment Now!