Samantha Brick, thanks to Twitter, Facebook and the media, has become the most famous critic of female beauty in modernity. Not because she is a promoter of female rights as human rights. Nor has she enhanced our understanding of gender differences and social constructs. She has not become a martyr for the modern woman in an act of liberation. No. She wrote an article which has so far received 154000 “likes” proclaiming the hard life she leads solely due to her looks. “There are downsides to looking this pretty”, perhaps, and there are downside to being so naïve.
Of course, it is impossible to ignore the outside influences that have caused Brick’s physical confidence and emotional confusion. The hand that paints the portrait of otherworldly beauty; the tongue that wags when she breezes on by; the eyes that are entirely captivated when she walks past in the street. Brick may the subject of actively wooing men, but her passivity in this whole experience is her own fault. The voyeurs, not the voyeurised, are partially to blame for her current state – but her acceptance of this objectification and ignorance to what men truly view her as is ultimately the problem. “Beautiful” is not as much of a compliment as Brick would like to believe.
When trying to understand the generous and charming reactions of men around her, Brick’s questioning has always yielded the same answer: “the donors of these gifts have always said the same thing: my pleasing appearance and pretty smile made their day”. Her very tone and language betray more than this romanticised response. The platonic language of “pleasing” looks and “pretty” expression do little to hide the true motive of these onlookers: judging her solely on aesthetics, the men make the social, financial and romantic effort to capitalise and take possession of the sex object they see before them.
Even Brick’s own French husband, 10 years her senior, reportedly take great pride in the other men vocalising their attraction to her. This becomes much more about his ownership over her as object of desire, rather than her physical beauty being a positive attribute for her. His peers can admire her and even voice their attractions to her, but her husband is the one exerting ownership over her. Just as he and the other men know, he is the only one with a claim over her enshrined in marriage and her feminine looks become his masculine possession. He wears her like a glimmering wedding ring, for all to admire and complement but only his to own.
She ends on a desperate plea, hoping that when women realise the horrors of being beautiful “Perhaps then the sisterhood will finally stop judging me so harshly on what I look like, and instead accept me for who I am”. Perhaps Samantha Brick should stop letting men dictate her image to the sisterhood, and instead work against these male powers, reject the favourable advances of men and express herself to society as a person, not a shallow portrait of conventional “beauty”.
Women don’t hate you because you’re beautiful – women hate you because that’s all you present yourself to be.
read her other articles, she’s just a ****.
Comment edited by moderator.
She’s not even that fit…
I feel she’s failed to realise that women hate her, not because she’s beautiful, but because she’s self-absorbed and shallow.
her article isn’t caused by misogyny or voyeurism. its caused by the fact she is a complete knob.
Maube women hate her because she claims to be beautiful even though she is average looking at best?
After reading this article I was hoping this Samantha woman would be really pretty and perhaps just really niave, however I’ve just googled her and if all this treatment she gets from men is simply because of her looks I hope she looks better off camera or I’m calling her bluff! And I mean that in the least mean way possible
If your response to an article about the negative influence of gender stereotypes, problems of masculine possession and our culture of treating women’s worth as dependant on beauty is “She’s not even that good looking” you’re missing the point.
While I found Samantha Brick’s article completely atrocious and insulting to women on multiple levels I think your criticism has also missed the mark a bit. It isint Samantha’s fault that men see her as a sex object, its men’s fault. A man is allowed to wear whatever he wants and act in any manner he desires without women reducing him to a sex object, why then should women not be able to do the same?
Does a woman have to give up the satisfaction of being attractive in order to be taken seriously and can she not make an effort without it being all that defines her? Thus, when you argue that “The voyeurs, not the voyeurised, are partially to blame for her current state – but her acceptance of this objectification and ignorance to what men truly view her as is ultimately the problem. ” I would disagree with you completely as I think men are completely to blame and that is the bud of the problem. While it is undoubtedly naive (and no doubt born from her overwhelmingly large ego) that Brick thinks they admire her as beautiful rather than because they see her as a sex object, the fact that she hasn’t sucumbed to what you present to be the inevitable reality that men reduce women who make an effort into sex objects as a shortsighted and frankly a disheartening argument.
Similarly in the paragraph were you talk about her husband, it is not her fault that her husband has “ownership over her as object of desire, rather than her physical beauty being a positive attribute for her.” its both his and men in general’s fault.
We don’t need to accept that men reduce us to sex objects, rather men should take a step back and realign their perceptions so that we can live in a more equal society were both a man and a woman can be attractive to the opposite sex and still taken seriously.
Consequently, I think any hard hitting criticism of Samantha should not be based on the fact that men want to have sex with her rather than admire her beauty but instead be based a) on her superficiality in thinking that other women don’t like her because she is attractive when it clearly has more to do with her off putting character and b) the fact that her life is hard at all considering the extreme hardships women are facing all around the world even in this modern day. The fact that men don’t find her beautiful and see her as a sex object is while naive, not her biggest down fall or even her fault at all and thus (while I don’t think you intended it to be) a chauvinistic criticism.
What a thoroughly deluded, odious cretin she is.
Hi “Ronald McDonald”,
I have never replied to any comment on any article I have ever written, however I feel you deserve a reply – not simply because of how long your comment is, but because of how wrong your comment is.
You see, it isn’t Ms Brick’s fault that men see her as a sex object. She is a “conventionally attractive” woman still in the throws of youth. She is a sex object; that’s an issue we cannot solve overnight. It worries me that this is the case, but the only way to overcome this is to counter it.
The issue is that what she does with it. She, quite simply, lets it define her. She accepts these gifts and the treatment she suffers. If she has reached in life where she feels the need to write a lengthy features on her life that makes no reference to anything non-physical when discussing herself and life (other than the occasional glint of melancholy)then she is doing something terribly wrong. She does nothing but promote her own image as a sex object. She does not work against, does not move beyond that and has it seems used it to her own gain.
You’ve mentioned that men are to blame for this. I’d ask you, given the way she presents herself to the world today, how you can possibly believe that. We’ve moved on past the early stages of feminism and you have to accept that women have some responsibility for their own image. We no longer live in a world when you can blame men for everything. If we did live in this 20th century gender dystopia, I very much doubt a man such as myself would have written the above article.
Even Wollstonecraft in the first feminism text, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman”, was in dismay at the images other women cultivated for themselves at the expense of the wider gender. I’m not entirely sure how we’ve moved from the rational 18th century to this more one-sided view you seem to believe in, but I can safely say this kind of narrow-mindedness does no good. I would argue, in the most optimistic way I can hoping for a more equal future, that female rights can never advance unless there is an acceptance of blame, however unintentional the harm was before the realisation.
I’d finally like to suggest you wouldn’t be condemning this as “chauvinistic criticism” if this was published under a female name. Stating the facts of the situation isn’t sexist, it’s the only way we’ll make it past them – recognition, not reactionary condemnation.
Regards,
Nicholas Dunn-McAfee.
Ronald Mcdonald, please learn to spell and punctuate before you criticise this brilliantly written article.
HAHAHA the writer literally smashed nails into the coffin of your outdated argument. In fact to not criticise Brick suggests you think this woman is acceptable or helpful to gender equalities. A bit of a joke really…
Ali: you are completely right, regardless of how she looks (and I know that’s difficult because it seems easy to criticize her for being so conceited) the article has some validity
Ronald Mcdonald: we are being led astray by the issue of blame here. Strategically, it is necessary for both men and women to fight against such objectification, and we should not accept flattery or gifts as compensation for inequality and condescension, for they are all constitutive of the same system. Nicholas’s attempt to diminish male responsibility on this point tells us how strongly he feels about fighting such a system. But you are wrong to attribute the view to him that consciousness of repressive social systems, particularly the consciousness that they are inevitable (‘natural’/’divine’), is sufficient to reconcile oneself with them – see the last paragraph in particular. You refer to ‘men in general’ being the problem – in what sense, as the result of natural inclination, conspiracy, individual failures repeated en masse, social constructions? If the first or last (which I would hold to) then one cannot simply point to individuals’ or groups’ failings. Unequal social arrangements are perpetuated by the substantial, if limited, benefits and ideological delusions they provide to both parties – and so men are not ‘completely to blame’. If it were ‘men’ and not historically constituted, actually-existing men that were to blame, or if you shut down the space for female resistance, there would be no hope.
Bringing out the Wollstonecraft, Nick. This just got serious.
She looks like a pig.
Leave her alone men, buy me champagne instead.
A small request? Next time you want to link to the Daily Mail, try using a redirection service like http://dailyveil.co.uk
The Daily Mail gets money from click-throughs and page views, and I’d rather not encourage them.
@JPaper –
This is exactly what I thought. Going on the ethos “No such thing as bad publicity”, if we take a look at how this has been blown up, how many shares it’s had. Haters or lovers, doesn’t make a difference: Brick got what she wanted.
While we argue over gender politics, she’s walking away having made her money, from something that probably took her about 5 minutes to write.
women who use their looks to their advantage openly for everyone to see get dislike by those who don’t- and i dont mean don’t have them, i mean don’t use them. i’d dislike her if i saw her flirting with the boss to get ahead, and i feel i’m not terrible looking. this is why women dislike her. i read in another article, that interviewed ppl who knew her, and they said her looks were of no concern to them.
To follow JPaper’s point, I’m pretty sure this is simply a publicity stunt by Brick. She’s probably received a big bonus for all the extra revenue her article has brought in.
She’s not fit at all!
And she has written a SECOND article…….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2124782/Samantha-Brick-says-backlash-bile-yesterdays-Daily-Mail-proves-shes-right.html
“Women don’t hate you because you’re beautiful – women hate you because that’s all you present yourself to be.” Brilliantly said.
I HATE Her! Shes such a biathc whyy she is so prettty?!
A better response: http://guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/04/samantha-brick-hated-good-looks?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article
What a wonderful thought-provoking response to her article. Her argument is flawed deeply through misinterpreting the reason of as to why “women hate me”. What she lacks for in “good looks” she makes up for in arrogance, not even considering the reason for the contempt towards her as her own attitude. The title of the article “There are downsides to looking this pretty” contradicts her own argument. By defining and presenting herself as “this pretty” she is judging herself, which subsequently encourages others (men and women) to judge her. It is not an issue of as to how different genders respond to her aesthetics, it is a comparison of the reaction to her personality and her looks separately. She herself states “throughout my adult life, I’ve regularly had bottles of bubbly or wine sent to my restaurant table by men I don’t know”, the key words being “men I don’t know”. She contrasts the strangers reaction to her with “not one girlfriend has ever asked me to be her bridesmaid”. This shows two separate reactions, one is a reaction to her looks from a stranger, the other is a reaction to her personality by someone who knows her. This suggests that the bitterness towards her, is only shown when someone actually knows her, therefore, it could be that the only reason she receives a good reactions is because it is from a stranger who is unaware of her personality. The contempt towards her is only from “friends”, the people (regardless of gender) who know her character and personality. Thus, it is pivotal to identify that the “hate” towards her is only demonstrated from someone who has experienced her personality closely, for example “a girl friend” who has never asked her to be a bridesmaid, as opposed to receiving gifts from “men I don’t know” who subsequently, are strangers to her personality. She should consider that her arrogant, conceited and superficial personality is likely to be the source of the contempt towards her, which she demonstrated in her article aptly.
Thank you for such a wonderful article, as a prospective student who has just gained an offer from York, this website is becoming a strong incentive for me to firmly accept my place here.
H x
Heh, the sycophancy in the comments section is hilarious. I’m not one for conspiracies myself but I’d certainly be interested to see if a solitary email address was responsible for the slew of over-the-top praise.
Also, it’s “throes” not “throws” of youth. Good thing you don’t study English eh old bean.
^ If anything the writer has recieved almost no praise. Not that an opinions piece asks for any. A couple of people have agreed with the wording, but I think most people generally only commenting in praise because of the strong feelings they have for Samantha Brick. It has generated debate and by spouting a conspiracy theory about the comments you’re actually just making yourself look a little pathetic and closing down debate.
Does anyone else think that “Suspicions” is also “Ronald Mcdonald” because her argument went t*** up? Or “Third Year” and “J” that is currently trolling all the Comment articles?
“Suspicion”,
If you are considering my response to be a part of “the slew of over-the-top praise”, I would urge you to reconsider: My response did indeed praise the writing, as I felt his article was extremely articulate and concisely put, (something which has only been further demonstrated through the contrast of your irrelevant comment with his well structured argument).
H.
Ah “H”, I’m slightly regretting my Daily Mail style moniker now. I should have called myself “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. I’ll happily admit that I have no affiliation to either “J” or the enigmatic “Third Year”. It is, however, fairly funny that my own suggestion of multiple comments from the same individual was called “pathetic”, but the same accusations aimed at me are apparently well received. You bunch of sillies.
H: the idea that Vision is somehow the catalyst for your growing love affair with York is hilarious, and completely unbelievable. I think I’m entirely justified in smelling a rat, although clearly the swathes of down-thumbs disagree. Ho-hum.
I’m certainly not happy with you impugning my articulacy however.
I’d be sorely disappointed if you really thought I was so unstructured that I lent some greater authority to what is essentially a paint-by-numbers rendition of every article on this topic in every major news outlet in the UK. I shall have to use bigger words in future.
“Suspicion”,
I don’t really see how my appreciation for the writing at Vision is “hilarious”.. honestly the only thing I am finding humorous is your narrow-minded attitude.
I am planning to study a degree at York mainly based on writing, which subsequently means that an appreciation of the University’s student publication is not only appropriate but presumingly encouraged.
Evidently you are unaware that it is possible to simply appreciate good writing. Unfortunately for you, I feel no-one has appreciated your arrogant, rude and “unstructured” (as you said yourself) comments in the same manner.
H.