To be angry at Colleen McCullough's obituary

[drudgetrudy]

"Plain of feature and certainly overweight"-for a respected novelist and neuroscientist-Grrr!

It's thinking her appearance is so important that's the problem, saucy. Comes right at the start before her other amazing accomplishments, like it's more important. The fact that it's an unkind appraisal makes it stand out even more.

SaucyJack-It is the way in which women are judged primarily by their appearance that is annoying.
It is not customary for the first comments in a man's obituary to be disparaging remarks about his appearance (despite his ugly face/fat arse/weedy physique he was an intelligent novelist/physicist/politician).
It would rightly be regarded as rude and derogatory.

I'm single and have been for a long time. This awful way of thinking about women kind of makes me feel like half a person, I'm not a reflection of any man.

Yes I get that trudy, but I also think that all the while we respond to those sort of comments by acting as though the worst thing you can say about a woman is that she was ugly it just makes it worse, not better.

Mentioning Churchill was a bit of a rubbish example IMO. He was famously fat and ugly and has been described as such many times over. Difference is, no one cares because he's a bloke.

SaucyJack, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an actual obituary of Churchill that led on him being fat and ugly.

I don't think, hand on heart, that anyone of any gender would really like the first line of their obituary to be that they were plain and fat.
Some people may care less than others, agreed.
Sadly this is much more likely to happen to a woman.

I know it's not the point of this thread AT ALL, but she looked like an absolutely lovely woman!

I hope that there have been so many complaints that the author of the obit will think twice before he (was it a he? does a bear sh1t in the woods) does it again.

Nevertheless? Nevertheless? WTF?

How attractive we are to men, how well we cook, who we're married to = measure of success as a woman.
Must remember that, funny cos I thought we were all equal now and I was deluded for banging on about page 3.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I'm sure I've read anither article this morning saying she wrote the obituary herself?

I will see if I can track it down and post a link...

scampering back to say I made a mistake I did think she had been quoted in the obituary but it appears not.

Either way its a sad indictment, and sickening really, that women, regardless of what they achieve, will be judged on looks first.

SaucyJack, I don't object to what was said about her appearance, which is a subjective opinion anyway. I object to the fact that they are leading the obit with it! Like it matters what she looked like more than her actual accomplishments. And as others have said, not what would be done for a famous man's obit as it would rightly be considered rude and unnecessary.

Apparently the author of the obit is now dead himself. Murcdoch is I believe, to blame. It was one of his publications that allowed this to be printed.

www.theguardian.com/books/australia-books-blog/2015/jan/30/myozobituary-colleen-mccullough-fans-mock-the-australians-churlish-obit

this article made me laugh. Loving the self-obits on twitter.

Lol at "despite being a small minded, insular twerp he found employment writing obituaries for a rag"

Erm... as far as I know Colleen McCullough made a point of mentioning her appearance and the fact that she was never short of a shag (not quite a quote but remembered from one of her rare interviews many years ago). It was a lifelong spur to achieve and be happy, an unintended consequence of her father's casual cruelty.

The author of the obit does mention that, about 10 words after the much quoted 'nastiness'.

Another one of those "quiet news day, let's take something out of context and make a fuss" articles.

Good to know that OP read the article properly before getting all tissy fitty... concatenating McCullough with another woman's obit further down the piece certainly added to the credibility of this thread!

I did read the full obit and remained unimpressed.
I did not personally mention the other woman's obit but someone else did just to illustrate the criteria by which women are often judged.
That "nevertheless" was inexcusable IMO.
Do not agree that my initial post is "hissy fitty".

well, that's your take.

That wasn't to you drudge. i completely agree.

when i was younger i used to apologise for being small before other people could tease me about it. It was an apology for something i shouldn't have felt badly about. My mentioning it did NOT mean that I wanted people to see me as short (above all else, or even at all).

I consider it very undermining to other women when things like this are written.
TBH I personally care less as I get older-but as a young woman this would say to me that I could achieve in my particular field but would still be mainly defined by my appearance.
Very undermining to the confidence of anyone going on TV, lecturing etc. in the course of their work.

But you didn't read it correctly OP. Or if you did your first post was truly ambiguous! That was my point.

You were angry because a "novelist and neuroscientist" was called plain and fat. Well she wasn't, and if you meant the two separate women, they weren't. Different comments for each woman.

Tissy fitty because you posted in as inaccurate and lazy manner as the obit you were complaining about!

Oh well! My reading of it was different than yours then.

OK... but, now I am more interested - did you mean McCullough was both novelist and neuroscientist?

Or was it annoyed typing and you did mean to refer to both her and the neuroscientist referred to further down one of the articles?