Tue 30 Sep 2008
Vanity Fair has a piece in its October issue looking at Maria Bartiromo and Erin Burnett (cue drooling and panting by geeky econ boys). While I’m glad there is an article about women reporters who actually know something about their subjects (rather than being Fox newsreaders), the tone of the article is rather insulting even as it tries to dispell the myth of the bitchfight. If it were two attractive men, would we have the term “money honey” (which I know Bartiromo has now claimed for the branding) or “street sweetie”? Would there EVER be an entire article discussing who is the “Queen B” and making the whole damn thing seem like a stupid high school catfight? God forbid these just happen to be two intelligent people reporting the news. Yes, all news personalities have to be attractive or they wouldn’t be on tv, but male anchors are not subjected to this kind of inane overlay to stories about them. It is perhaps acknowledged briefly that they are “distinguished” or “handsome” and the article moves on. Nobody assumes that two men are backbiting or threatened by one another - perhaps because nobody questions that there can be several prominent men reporting business whereas women have to fight for the one designated female financial reporter slot? Hmmm…
Example:
With sultry blue eyes, sharp, almost perfect features, dimples, and a lazy, bedroomy smile, Burnett not only was knowledgeable about financial issues but had a knack for translating them into plain English, and in contrast to Maria, who was more singularly focused on corporate news, Burnett was interested in broader policy issues—education, health care, how to pay for the repair of America’s crumbling infrastructure. She had a casual, breezy on-air persona. She was also a bit irreverent—and spontaneous.
Seriously, a “lazy, bedroomy smile”? Are you f-ing kidding me? The rest of that quote is fine - it talks about her style of reporting, her interests, also known as her qualifications for the job. Don’t even get me started on the photo that is half-way down the page:

Again, Burnett is a savvy woman who knows how to promote herself and she is playing off of it. But male reporters don’t have to go there, no photo shoot would even propose to have a man pose like that. She agreed to it, but why was she even asked?
Frankly, I think Bartiromo says it best in the article (and note the total LACK of cattiness):
“I think it’s a disservice to us as women and as businesspeople, by the way, to compare what you’re seeing from a handful of situations to women who are really trying to make it in business. You could look at CNBC and see women who are beautiful and smart and they’re not showing all this skin: Becky Quick, Erin Burnett, Michelle Caruso-Cabrera—[all] beautiful successful women doing great,” she says. “It’s more than prancing around the Stock Exchange with little dresses on. We’re covering business and it doesn’t matter what you look like if you don’t know your stuff. If you don’t have the goods, you will not last.”
And from Burnett at the end of the article:
“I think that when people see strong, successful women, they love to imagine that there is a rivalry,” says Burnett. “Maybe it’s because there are not as many women. And maybe, I don’t know,” she says, rolling her eyes, “it’s a male-fantasy thing.”


September 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Wright & Drezner debate the bailout package financial rescue package/measure for economic security. blogginghead.tv
September 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
bailout packageabove.September 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I agree with JG. Erin and I went to the same HS and I regularly watch her shows. The MB-EB juxtaposition doesn’t really interest me, although I admit I find the whole FBN skankiness a little humorous and sort of sad. What does it say about the financial news business when the new network tries to gain traction by having its female anchors–all size 6 or smaller and attractive–blatantly flaunt their curves? Maybe FBN doesn’t think its male viewers care about good programming. I’m a guy and I don’t watch EB because she’s beautiful, I watch her because she’s an excellent business anchor. If I want to see some skin I can go to the movies.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
JG,
Excellent post. Yet, you seem upset.
How would you describe Burnett’s smile in the picture? “Active, classroomy?”
And, perhaps some of our readers who have taken WGST 101 can deconstruct the various elements of the photo.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The real problem with the picture is that it makes EB look like an emaciated ghost. That is a terrible makeup/lighting job by VF.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Again and again, VF publishes photos of talented women that reek of sexism and paternalism. This one of EB is not so bad on that count, but this layout could have been much more flattering and human, and less cadaverous and mannered.
Maybe I just don’t get it.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Honestly, that smile looks anything but lazy and bedroomy. I agree with Ronit that the photo is badly lit, she looks scary thin, and in my opinion she looks uncomfortable. She is a beautiful woman, and that picture (1) hardly does her justice and (2) is badly staged. Are we supposed to get the feeling that we’re in her office? If so, why the glass of wine with her financial papers? Or is she at home, and she’s “relaxing” sitting like that? She looks as though she’s slipping off of the chair. A good photographer can stage a somewhat awkward pose in a way that makes the photo beautiful not distracting. This fails on all accounts. Vanity Fair generally has impressive photography; I’m disappointed.
And David, since you are apparently unaware of how this works: when you’re providing a description of an interview subject, it is generally at the time of the interview, not at the time of the separetly staged photoshoot. Bartiromo is described as wearing a navy blue suit during - her photo is a white suit clearly staged specifically. But I’ll repeat the point from above that no male reporter would EVER be described that way. An actor or model or something, sure, but never a business reporter.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
She is, in reality, beautiful - but anyone watching on TV or meeting her in person gets a sense of her wit and intelligence. This photo does not convey any of those very attractive and very human qualities. It makes her seem like a plastic mannequin with no discernible personality. In this way, it is a classic VF shoot - this is how they typically portray women. Maybe they are trying to be ironic about it, but they just come off looking dated and patriarchal.
This is closer to what she actually looks like, and helps to explain why people find her attractive:
September 30th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
1) When a professional does thing X, I generally assume that he knows exactly what he is doing. Do Ronit and JG think that photographer Martin Schoeller is incompetent? Perhaps he is (I am not fit to judge) but my default assumption would be that the photo is “staged” exactly how the photographer wanted it.
And since there were no doubt plenty of photos taken, you can be sure that the editors of VF choose this photo for a reason. What do you think that reason might be?
2) I never took WGST 101, but I had enough fun conversations with Professor Katie Kent ‘88 to be able to deconstruct this photo. JG asks:
No. First, note that 95% (?) of Burnett’s viewers/fans are men. “We” aren’t supposed to get a “feeling.” Men are. Second, men don’t want to think about Burnett at her “office.”
The vibe of the picture should be obvious. (I hesitate to spell this out lest I be accused of projection. Contrary opinions welcome!) The viewer is standing by the table. He and Burnett have just finished drinks and/or dinner. (Hence the red gown and wine glass.) The setting is a fancy restaurant or private club. (Wood-paneling. Old fashioned light switch.) The conversation centered around finance, hence the newspapers. (Including the Financial Times.)
Dinner is over. Man gets up from table. Burnett turns her hips to emphasize her wasp-waist (all those field hockey games), gown pulled snuggly around her bodice. She looks up, smiles . . .
Or maybe she is just preparing in her CNBC office for the 7 AM start of “Street Signs!”
September 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The staging of the photo looks like a bar/restaurant of the kind you’d find at a men’s club…like the NYAC, or the Harvard Club.
I agree she looks uncomfortable. She is a naturally pretty woman and they have pushed the sexy glamour look which doesn’t really suit her. And shooting from above is a typical ploy when trying to get a ‘come-hither’ look.
As far as the pursuit of the silly ‘catfight’ story line? Unfortunately, talented as these two women are, it’s still all about ‘ratings’. They know it, the network knows it, and the magazine knows it. Everyone plays along and it becomes a mutually beneficial arrangement.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
You have to look at it this way.
No matter what you think of the photo…and the article…look at how much of your attention it has grabbed.
That is what they are trying to accomplish. And in this case, I’d say they have succeeded.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Vanity Fair readers: the editors of your magazine loathe you. That is to say, they think you are a bunch of insecure, patriarchal males who cannot understand women without simple, early 20th-century archetypes to aid you.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
What makes you say that Ronit?
I’m not sure what their readership is, but given that two of us here are women, and they’ve grabbed our attention as well…
Admittedly, I used to read the magazine more regularly than I do now.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
how is JG’s point not clear, David? There’s a double standard. The photographer is making the best photo for the magazine (and maybe or maybe not did a fine job of that, but that’s irrelevant), but that best shot (and the writing of the article) is blatantly sexist and it should embarrass VF and its readers.
But it doesn’t, does it?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Example to Rory’s point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZDBYoBnFEU
September 30th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
So many things to say here. First, David I don’t ever want that kind of a glimpse into your fantasy life again. *shudder*
Second, why do you assume 95% of Burnett’s fans/viewers are men? Thanks for the totally sexist assumption that women don’t care about finance and/or can’t appreciate Burnett’s appeal. Please feel free to imagine my pose while offering an obscene gesture from my office in the Financial District in San Francisco where I am currently working in banking law with many female colleagues who also keep up with financial news. Ugh. Do you know how you sound (contrary opinions welcome, of course)?
And in response to your snotty comment above, damn right I’m upset. You have no idea how hard it is to be taken seriously in a field dominsated by often egotistical, pompous, sexist men (finance, law, banking). Even when you reach the top of your game, you are still the girl to get the coffee, make the copies, and pretty-up the conference room. It doesn’t happen all the time, but it happens enough to my colleagues and to me - and not male colleagues that are equal or junior to us - to make me damn angry.
Above you say
That is just blatantly false. You freely criticize “professionals” all the time. You hide behind crap like that when you want to shut down an argument and don’t have an appropriate comeback. The photo is not very good. Sorry. It’s just not. The screen shots that Ronit posted are far more attractive, even if you buy your little fantasy of the intent of the poorly staged photo. But all of that is beside the point I’m making that the very nature of that staging is insulting. She is a well-respected financial reporter, not a high-priced call girl with the special skill of also reading the financial papers.
I have not taken a single WGST class, nor was that a focus of my study. I do enjoy your technique of subtly casting any criticism of the photo as driven by an ideology or course of study that you openly mock. My reaction is as a regular reader of Vanity Fair who expects better. Ronit is right that they tend toward the sexist and sexualized in many of their photos (although the writing is generally quite good), but I have less criticism when movie stars and models are doing it.
Thanks to Ronit, Rory, and Anon ‘89er for their comments. At least I have faith in some people on this blog.
Oh, and Soph Mom - competing over ratings doesn’t have to be turned into a cat fight. Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, etc. were always competing over the nightly news broadcast ratings, and I never saw that EVER turned into a catfight-like competition. It was always portrayed as a gentlemanly rivalry of mutual respect, etc. Double standard cannot possibly convey the difference in those approaches.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Thanks for this post, JG. I think you’re right on target with your critique of this particular article and the media portrayal of these two women.
Where is the comparable article about Jim Cramer and Larry Kudlow, implying that their incessant sniping and backbiting might some day be worked out in a vicious, winner-take-all game of golf or squash? How about Larry Kudlow’s rackish, come-hither gaze in his bio on cnbc.com? Or Cramer’s manly, woodsman-esque goatee? And, god willing, my next Newsweek will show up with Hank Paulson inside posed coquettishly in the Dartmouth Club dining room in a pair of trim-fitting pinstripe pants, the harsh light from the wall sconce glistening off his bald pate.
But we’ll never see that staging, because for some reason, it is completely acceptable to reduce intelligent, well-informed, insightful, articulate women to the most basic caricatures of male fantasy. I’d like to know why it is that it’s perfectly acceptable for us to look at women that way, but is totally ridiculous and implausible a) to think of having men described/staged/portrayed in that way or better yet, b) to demand that women be treated otherwise.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Look, Vanity Fair’s aesthetics may or may not be to your own tastes, but that’s a lazy, bedroomy smile if ever there were one.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Here’s an interesting twist.
According to this (slightly dated) commentary, Vanity Fair has three times as many female readers as male.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
How is this not a rakish, come-hither gaze, Another ‘05 Eph?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Erin has spoken about the so-called rivalry. She says it is non-existent. Media personalities are marketed brands just like jello. The narrative serves that purpose… as does the photo shoot… and accompanying article.
Where are all the Ephs - the one who voted against debating politics on EB - and their comments on this thread? It seems like the same voices as before, no more no less. What was gained?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
JG:
I didn’t mean to offend you.
Per the ‘catfight’, and the ’staging’…I don’t like it either. It is sexist and shallow, and I find it disgusting. But it sells magazines and raises ratings. Even the women hinted that it was something that could have been purposely perpetuated by the network.
You know enough about me to realize that I might know a little bit about where they are coming from. But, geez, I certainly don’t condone it, and I fully appreciate your pointing it out.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
And just to prove that Ephblog provides equal-opportunity ogling material:
September 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
The original photo, with its overt sexiness, is a pretty ridiculous contrast to the actual quotes from Bartiromo and Burnett.
Ronit’s photo is…something else entirely.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Even the manliest supply-side economist might feel like putting on a nice dress and relaxing with a glass of wine sometimes. Nothing wrong with that.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Ronit @ 23 - LMAO, you should apologize to Ben Franklin, Erin Burnett and all EB readers. Where’s the brain bleach?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Some quick comments for JG.
I looked for data on this but couldn’t find anything. My understanding is that CNBC’s viewership is overwhelmingly male.
I am happy to criticize professionals when I know a great deal about the field in question. When the topic is something (photography in a magazine like VF), I try to be more circumspect.
I also prefer Ronit’s photos, but, then again, I am not a VF subscriber. The key is that the concept of a “poorly staged photo” is only meaningful in the context of some intent. What do you think that photographers intent was? What do you think the editors of VF intended? Heck, we all agree that Burnett is very smart. Do you think that she ended up in a fancy red gown by accident? Burnett knows very well that she is selling both smarts and sex. Not that there is anything wrong with that!
You write as if Burnett has no autonomy here. I disagree. She is very intelligent and is paid millions of dollars a year. If she objected to the “staging,” I bet that that photo never would have appeared.
I am not being clear. I really did learn a lot from conversations with Katie Kent and others. I am not mocking WGST (today). I tried to give an accurate deconstruction of the photo. This is not my “fantasy life.” This is an actual WGST-inspired explanation of what is really going on here. If you think that this is “poor staging,” you are missing the obvious intent of the VF photographer/editors and of Burnett herself.
All your points of double-standards are exactly correct. Our society (including VF and its subscribers) treat the competition between Bartiromo and Burnett very differently than that between two male anchors. I am not defending those double standards. I am pointing out the the photo is not an example of “poor staging.” It is an example of those double standards. On this I hope we can agree.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
I dearly like my fantasies, but none of these are one of them.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Sexism is alive and well. As is racism. If we didn’t know it before this election, we surely do now.
And again, my comment was to try and point out the motives behind the article, not condone it.
I cannot believe I was so misunderstood, and by a woman I so respect. Damn, sometimes I absolutely hate blogging.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
And lest I be even FURTHER misunderstood…I am a big fan of Burnett’s. I think she is really talented.
When I saw her on “Meet The Press”, I came away struck by the contrast in her and… ahem…’another woman’ who has been so recently in the press.
And I think she looks slightly uncomfortable in the photo, because she was probably getting an idea (from the staging) where they might be going with the article.
In the end, though, she will have the last laugh… and make us all proud. I think she probably knows that. And any woman who succeeds in that cutthroat business, and keeps the lightheartedness that Burnett seems to have, has my utmost admiration and support.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Actually David, what I have been trying to say apparently not very clearly is that even assuming the lens that you (probably accurately) described, I don’t think it is a good photo. The lighting is unflattering and the pose looks uncomfortable. I get the red dress, the expression, etc. One would have to be an idiot to not get the blatantly obvious appeal to particular stereotypes. But again, it could have been done in a more subtle manner that gives you those cues without smacking you over the head with it. It could have been done in a way that makes Burnett look comfortable in that role instead of being forced into it.
Additionally, I stated above that Burnett trades on her sexuality and that is her choice. However, the point still stands that no male reporter would ever even be put into the circumstance of having to choose whether or not it was beneficial to his career to be in a somewhat degrading photo shoot in a respect magazine.
And now I’m going to go read the paper and have a glass of red wine in a wood-paneled lounge at my hotel (seriously) but I will be in a much more comfortable pose and probably will not change into a red dress.
PS - Soph Mom you did not offend me, and I am sorry if it came off that I was upset at you. I do know where you’re coming from with this stuff, and appreciate where you were going with your comment. I think my outrage at the situation generally might have bled over into my response to you, my apologies.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
JG -
Thank you for this posting.
The one thing I don’t understand is why EB goes so far in trading on her sexuality (since at some point that undermines her professionalism and distracts from her intelligence/content — the line probably differs for each beholder). I talked this over with several women in their 50s who have spent decades struggling to gain and hold their places, and this unsettled them as well. We started to dismiss it as EB being part of a more “exhibitionistic” generation than ours post-college, but then one after the other brought up examples of women we know who seemed to us to have blatantly traded on their sexuality, especially in their younger years. We had lots of different thoughts about that, the consequences, and our reactions.
Anyway, enjoy your well-deserved nightcap, JG. I hope you’ll continue posting.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Thanks JG.
Cheers…clinking my glass with you while making a toast…’that ’sexism’ and ‘racism’ and all the disgusting double standards that exist because of both of these ugly realities, are somehow made less powerful by bringing them out into the open as you have done here.’
Nuts: Per your comment @21:
Interesting isn’t it? 11:11, make a wish yourself. :-)
September 30th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Larry, SophMom -
Some thoughts on the comments (above)
” one after the other brought up examples of women we know who seemed to us to have blatantly traded on their sexuality, especially in their younger years. We had lots of different thoughts about that, the consequences, and our reactions.”
And certainly an on-going topic for artistic reactions.
The demi-monde was ‘out in the open’ contemporaneously in the late 19th century works of Degas, Forain, and Toulouse-Lautrec.
Earlier, Verdi had a harder time with the censor of Venice when he premiered ‘La Traviata’ based on the book and play by Dumas fils at La Finice in 1852 (I just saw a terrific production at Portland Opera this weekend) but it went on to great success and was, a few years ago, voted Italy’s favorite opera.
While I am most certainly not excusing double standards as a trade -off for artistic inspiration or any other reason for that matter, at least at that time there was some practicality and reward in the use of youth and beauty to rise in a much more class-determined society than ours today.
The real-life model for Violetta died at age 26. Not as happy and ending as “Pretty Woman”.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but as someone fairly in-touch with the financial media, I thought her appearance on “Meet the Press” was pretty poor. She basically regurtitated everything already known on the subject, much like Liesman did on that same show. It was substantially more interesting to hear Hank Paulson speak on the subject than it was either CNBC personality, and this has nothing to do with her gender.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:45 am
It appears that some of us are taking this subject seriously. Why?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:44 am
Because, Frank, even if there’s a positive benefit to Burnett and Bartiromo for working within this framework, it has real manifestations and real consequences in the workplace for JG, SophMom, myself, and other women Ephs.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:21 am
Toughen up, shrug it off - it is pure folly and not worthy of your effort, all obvious to anyone about whose opinion you ought to care.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:38 am
And it would be fantastic if moxie and up-by-the-bootstraps determination and optimism was all it took. But I think that all of the women and some of the men who’ve posted on this thread could provide several blog inches of examples where that was not the case.
I also think that when you speak or work from a position of privilege, it’s much easier to attribute others’ difficulty as a lack of personal fortitude or overindulgence of opinions about which they should not care rather than to examine the reasons why that difficulty and discontent might be occurring in the first place.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
Frank,
I can somewhat understand your advice of ’shrugging it off’, but it’s just not that simple. What angers some of us, is Burnett having been put in a certain position to begin with. One where she is ‘damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t’.
Already there are several comments on this thread that are critical of her, indicating that she has sold out a bit, given in. I can assure you that if she had taken the reverse tactic of ‘refusing’ to be staged a certain way then she’d quickly be labeled a ‘b**ch…a tough, demanding broad…a diva. Why do you think so many women in Hollywood are classified that way?
My guess is, Burnett has a pretty good handle on it. She probably plays along to an extent, and shrugs off the rest of it. But I bet she could relate some instances of blatant sexism that would make your skin crawl . And it just shouldn’t be that way.
And racism is similar. Even in it’s weakest manifestations it puts the victim ‘in a spot’. Look at the double standards Obama faces. If he reacts too strongly, he’s seen as having a chip on his shoulder…too nice, and he’s seen as weak. But I better stop here…before I get chastized for ‘going political’…
October 1st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Quit tilting at windmills. There always will be an over-supply of morons in this world. Your efforts can’t make a dent in their numbers. Won’t doing something else make you happier (and incidentally more productive)? Give a hug to your kids and, given the passage of time, maybe your grandkids.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Frank–I would contend that there may be an over-supply of morons, but there are plenty of folks posting on and reading this thread who are in no way cognitively challenged and think that sexism (or racism or ageism or any of the other isms) or either not a problem or one so big that it’s not worth doing anything about.
I fail to see how ignoring behaviors and outlooks that have tangible effects on my career trajectory and opportunities over my lifespan make me happier or more productive. Maybe instead of hugging my kids (which I don’t have now and may or may not choose to have in the future) I could teach them to think critically about their environment and question attitudes and behaviors that work to their and others’ detriment?
October 1st, 2008 at 11:04 am
#42
Hear, hear.
Some toughing it out is always good, but ignoring the problems won’t end them.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Frank,
I am generally a quite happy person - and passionate about trying to reduce the number of “morons” in the world. The problem with ignoring them is that you can’t ignore your boss. The working world does not allow you to treat the people with power over your future like the schoolyard bully who will just go away.
And if I ever get to the point where I believe that I am merely tilting at windmills, I’ll give up and go home, because why bother living if you can’t make an impact? I don’t assume ill intent from most people in these circumstances until such ill intent is shown, making it that much more important to find a way to call someone on the behavior in a respectful manner before it gets too bad. Many people don’t realize they are being offensive (myself included), especially if it is culturally ingrained and subtle. This doesn’t exclude all behavior, obviously, but it is the lens I try to use to start with, because nobody likes to be pointed at in a crowded room shouting “sexist” or “racist.” But after trying more private means, damn right I’m going to do that.
I have too much self respect to sit back and take it, and I would never want this to happen to anyone else. I was in an office where I was sexually harassed (clearly and obviously quid pro quo type), and I didn’t speak up in time. He did it to someone else. Never again will I let that happen. So instead of going home and hugging the kids I don’t have, I’m going to speak up for my potential future children and other people’s children and grandchildren and my friends and neighbors so that they can face one less moron in the world.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
JG and Another ‘05 -
It would be wonderful if there were a way for you to share some of your experiences with current undergraduates. In the coming gloomy days, I think many young graduates will be too frightened and insecure to fight (and then, overwhelmed, may hurt themselves badly by rushing into ill-considered action). It’s one thing to “call” peers on something on a relatively protected college campus and another to deal with people who are older and far more powerful, and to whom one is subordinate. To my shame, I’ve sometimes gone along with watching women and others be made fun of or belittled. I could take some lessons and encouragement from you as well.
Keep up the good fight.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Larry,
As well as not going along with “watching women belittled”, we could all be a little less quick to assign guilt to those who might appear to be “trading on their sexuality”.
I think it’s often impossible to deduce the circumstances of a given situation.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Soph Mom,
“I think it’s often impossible to deduce the circumstances of a given situation”.
Hear, Hear!
Or the motivation!
That was my too-obscure message in my comment on the demi-monde and the opportunities for personal and social advancement.
Liking the method or not as an observer is quite a different vantage point than the person’s actually facing and dealing with the challenge.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Well said, Dick.
I kind of figured that was what you meant, but not having the depth of your cultural references is indeed my handicap!
TERTTLFY
October 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I believe that I for one know when I have commenced windmill tilting and consequently shall leave this subject.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Soph Mom -
We see it differently, I guess, but I wasn’t “quick” to come to my reaction and implicit question. I am dated, from the time when women who wanted to be taken seriously professionally were much less “out there” sexually (and men should have been but, alas, often weren’t and frequently hit up on/harassed/and or mocked the female pioneers to a degree that it is amazing for me to remember now, but unfortunately still hasn’t ended but is more private and behind-closed-doors/on-the-anonymous blogs/under-the-table now). As I tried to indicate, I know reactions vary from viewer to viewer. I happen to find it painful to watch the “balance” she’s made; after going back and forth thinking about it, I no longer watch her show because the situation makes me cringe. I was not at all surprised by the VF photo, and I found it very painful to look at.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Finally, a blog that gets at the really important thing in Erin’s picture:
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/ny/good-questions/good-questions-similar-green-chair-065076