ruth curry
"I think she is on the cover, and in pictures inside the story, because she is writing about her superior desirability to the men whom she might potentially partner with. And I think that in order to make that possible, she and the Atlantic need to show that she's attractive. And she is. If there were no pictures of her, that would be the question on most people's minds: what does she look like? That, in and of itself, tells you a lot. Bolick can convey socially-relevant information about the relative desirability of the men she's talking about in the article, with words. She can write about education and ambition and drive and money and whatever else, and that says enough to make the point. But Bolick's desirability can't be meaningfully conveyed without showing what she looks like. For all the talk of the declining fortunes of men relative to women, and how women are gaining the upper hand in the romantic and sexual marketplace, women's desirability continues to be largely determined by their physical appearance. I wish Bolick's accomplishments were enough to convey her desirability, but the cold calculus her editors performed in putting her on the cover says otherwise." »

This might be the most important thing I’ve read in a while.

via Life Aquatic, maura.

Reblogged 1 month ago from lifeaquatic (Originally from maura)
36 notes
Tagged: feminism, looks, .
Source: The Atlantic
  1. apartinthemidstof said: “… no panacea, no perfect one-size-fits-all frame. Bolick’s… asking the right questions, can we have both autonomy and intimacy in a loving relationship?” apartinthemidstof.com/c…
  2. helpfuldiagrams said: I read Jami’s post you linked to here and it spoke to me in sad ways. From the sounds of it she’s living relatively close to me in N.O. You need to come visit! -Kate
  3. ruthcurry reblogged this from lifeaquatic
  4. lifeaquatic reblogged this from maura
  5. runjuliet reblogged this from maura
  6. maura posted this