Charlie Rose

worldwatcher  04/01/2011 04:58 PM Report

Linda Wells: "beautiful people are more successful in life"?

Oh, puh-leeeze. She's just trying to promote fashion and/or cosmetics and/or fashion magazines. Talk about a vanity interview... -- a real fluff piece...!

Well, WHOSE STANDARDS OF "BEAUTY"?

Remember when you had to be white, blonde, tall, and extra skinny -- but with big boobs too -- to be considered *truly* "beautiful"? -- oh, and ideally between 17 and 28 years-old: the white Hollywood "universal" standard. And that's still considered the quintessential epitome of "universal [Hollywood] beauty".

Within the past 10-15 years even Black and Latino women have been progressively dying their hair blonde and -- á la Michael Jackson to one degree or another -- lightening their skin (or having it lightened by magazine cover air-brushing or studio lights) -- especially in the music industry, where the industry doesn't take/sign anyone *new*, especially women, over 27 years old, *regardless of talent*. Even Oprah has been steadily lightened on magazine covers and by studio lighting and camera settings over the years since she started. In the meantime, white women bake at the pool/beach to get darker (some as dark as *brown* skin ppeople), they want full lips, they get their hair partially or fully braided (á la Bo Derek, but they call it "*French*" braids), some get butt shapers/implants, etc. -- and now white guys, increasingly in their dating interests, are running for Asian female eyes as the epitome of "exotic" (gee, that concept or ideal has sure changed from more than about 10-15 years ago).

And how many of the legendary, great black women singers fit the Hollywood standard of "beauty".

-------------------------------------------------------------

And, WHOSE STANDARDS OF "SUCCESS"?

These comments by Linda Wells -- also unchallenged by Charlie Rose -- were even more intellectually nauseating than Amy Chua or David Brooks on the idea of personal "success" and what constitutes it: not only money, conspicuous materialism, and a high public profile (preferably celebrity), but now "LOOKS"!! (Sorry, David, you're no Tom Cruise -- one of the main white Hollywood images.) I guess that no matter how "smart" your kids are -- or how much you overbearingly terrorize them into "success", they had better be "beautiful" or they will still be limited, huh?

Well, how many of those women on the covers of fashion magazines have actually ever *DONE* anything *practical* to actually try to help bring about social or global justice? -- and I'm not talking about those empty beauty pageant style phrases about, "I play the flute and, oh, and, uh, I'm for peace..." -- but they're still not winning anything if their boobs and asses don't score high when the young women on high heels turn around in the swimsuit -- now bikini -- competition.

Look at the women and men of historical achievement (in any realm besides modeling, the fashion industry, or movies) and see how many of them were "beautiful" -- 'goddesses' or 'Adonises' -- by Hollywood and white fashion magazine standards.

Common, Charlie: let's stop with these vanity/fluff interviews -- especially where you never challenge those guests' superficial and idiotic notions.

JohnGelles  04/01/2011 08:31 AM Report

I say you have to hand it to Charlie Rose to take on a topic that deserves the time he gives it -- but you, yourself, would not have thought to recognize it.

Sy Newhouse and Linda Wells are known in the world of media -- but not known to us as likely candidates for our attention -- as the world is doing a make-over more astounding than was done for a movie like Avatar.

Journalism discovers BEAUTY -- and competes with pure lies -- to attract its audience. Linda Wells did it -- and I, who did not know Allure existed, listened to the video on this page, and liked it. (By the way, CR shows run better than any other over my DSL connection.)

Beauty of face and figure, of hair and skin and scent, and the allure of femininity that has no equal in the lives of many men, is certainly not new.

..... It is the basis for the persistence of the human race as much as eating and competing -- from birth to death, and way beyond a final hour -- via pictures and sculpted copies of beauties before our time.

Linda (same name as my wife -- means "beautiful" in Spanish) Wells, wreaked of charm as well as beauty -- as she explained what her work is about.

I confess to being brain-washed in favor of good looks when they are possible -- and are not destructive of good taste and good conduct in the course of our existence.

One day at the funeral of one of our tennis playing friends, I was talking to a very good looking player, who is also admired by others for his behavior and character.

..... He had a great color for a fair skinned man: tan -- but not over-done.

I had the same color -- self-administered from a bottle of sun screen which I tinted tan myself -- to tone down its bright white.

I said to him I liked his tan. He said he got it from his wife's Almay sun screen. I said, I use tinted sun screen -- but mix it myself -- it's far cheaper that way.

So I'm not exactly a stranger to the cosmetics industry. And I am a devoted subscriber to the New Yorker -- where beauty never sleeps if it has a chance to shine.

Linda remarks in the interview that the influence of beauty can be unfair to most of us. It confers advantage that may not be earned. I have a cure for that:

..... I would have no objection to an annual evaluation, voluntarily sought by every person, of his or her beauty score.

,,,,, ,,,,, One to ten -- with no negative numbers. Based on your score, you would receive check for a calculated sum of money. That sum would be $100,000 divided by you score -- and reduced by $10,000.

I think that gives you $90,000 if you are a one, and nothing if you are a ten. In the middle you get $40,000.

I'm open to a better calculation. But I do not vote for the status quo -- where Cary Grant and Jimmy Durante were created equal.

Sure, they were equal. Equal in many things -- most of them unseen.

But so many of us wanted to be as handsome as Grant -- it would have done no harm to get $90,000 a year for not being that lucky (or handsome, if you like). We might have used the money to learn to Tango or better see the ball.

What ball? Tennis. Do I have to give you all the answers?