This Brick person. Has the world (and specifically this bit of it) gone completely barking mad?

[ReactionaryFish]

So some silly attention-seeker writes some daft article which endorses a whole load of unpleasant misogynist attitudes about valuing women purely on the basis of their looks.
And MN responds to this by .... about 30 000 threads endorsing precisely the same attitudes by attacking this woman for her looks.
Not very bright, is it?

Brick person? Who? Someone made of bricks, or like Lego? Is it something on TV (don't have one, feeling very unworldly all the sudden.)

No, the DM set her up for a bitching and the world responded as reqiured

Does anyone think she might have a point that if the man wrote the article he wouldnt have received such a response?

She has no point, it is not about her looks, which are neither here nor there, it is about her horrible egotistical competitive stinking excuse ridden attitude and her agreement to accept gifts from men and flirting to get ahead.

I do agree though that all the comments and posts attacking her looks just give her some kind of justification for her spurious claims. Don't tell her she's hated because she has a false sense of beauty and she is in fact ugly. Tell her she's hated as she is a total twat idiot.

And no I think any man writing it would have got the same reaction as his attitude of superiority and vanity would come shining through.

Well
I haven't read the article
I have no idea who the woman who wrote it is
Not what she looks like as I haven't clicked the links took some willpower
And I am foxed as to why there are 30 trillion threads about it on MN and it's all very annoying.

Interesting. I almost wish I could find a similar article written by a man too compare... It's just very hard to imagine. I think he would have got laughed at for sure, but I'm not sure if so much venom would have come his way...

Don't get my wrong she is a deluded twit, but that one point in her article was a thinking point....

And TBH I do think that if someone says everyone hates them because they're so gorgeous, and they aren't, it's going to be pointed out, isn;t it

As that is just annoying.

Not that I know whether she is gorgeous or not
As I don't know who she is
And I haven't clicked.

Beautiful people don't usually go around saying they are beautiful though, they don't need to.

starwisher Here you are

"And TBH I do think that if someone says everyone hates them because they're so gorgeous, and they aren't, it's going to be pointed out, isn;t it"
Is it?
Wouldn't it be slightly more intelligent to ignore her, rather than endorsing the set of values that lead her to write the silly trash in the first place?

(Still clueless, but I think rather glad that I am!)

Quite right, Kritiq. All you're missing is one of the less edifying spectacles MN has produced over the last few weeks.

Why start another thread about it, then?

Widowwadman I love that article!

This thread is about the wholly disproportionate and deeply unpleasant reaction to the article, which I think is worthy of comment. The article itself is the sort of crap the DM has more or less cornered the market in, nothing remarkable in it at all; it is the outpouring of bile it has provoked that interests (and rather distresses) me.

There has been at least one other thread today looking in some depth at the Daily Mail's role in this, and reviling the bile, as it were. It was really interesting.

Well I totally agree with your argument OP but you are contributing to the madness somewhat by starting another thread about the subject

I agree with the thread in feminism about this subject - the person who commissioned that article was a fucking genius if his stated aim was to have women gang up on each other and look like pricks. If you sympathise with the woman who wrote the article you are a vain twat, if you slag her off you are a bitchy twat. It's as if the Daily Mail said 'what can we print which will get loads of people frothing on a slow news bank holiday week, and get our online edition read by record breaking amounts of people'.

I read trash sleb crap and comment about it on here all the time, so who am I to talk, but bloody hell the cynicism of this whole thing has made me a bit sick, tbh.

Sorry, but that Tim Dowling article made me spit my wine (never believed anyone ever actually did that).
'Is it any wonder that Piers Morgan moved to the US?' Arf.

Absolutely shattered atm, so only skim read this, but The Guardian has written about how the Daily Mail has, in effect, thrown Samantha Brick to the wolves May be of interest to some of you.

don't know why i even clicked on this thread as i'm soooooo bored with this crap already, but since it's in FWR i thought it was worth the risk and it was, for this quote from the guardian article:

"More recently I decided to grow a beard, just to blend in with "normal" men. It helps a little, but there are only so many parts of a face a beard can cover. You can't grow hair on soulful, beseeching eyes, for example."

IMO the samantha brick article is a pile of poo, however the reaction to it is testament to the fact that women are still valued, in the main, on their looks. so she has to be shot down in flames because if you were to accept her premise you'd be accepting that she's better than you (if you're a woman). whereas, a man (of equivalent attractiveness) writing the same article wouldn't attract the same level of scorn from other men because that is not how men are valued and so they just wouldn't care as much.

I think if her husband had written a similar article people would have attacked him in the same way tbh.

No, they wouldn't have McFluffster. He may have had a few comments here and there, but I doubt it would have blown up to these proportions.

skrumle is spot on. the reason people are getting so exercised about this, and posting at length about how she's not that pretty, how their DH doesn't fancy her etc etc is because they subscribe to the notion that there is a female hierarchy based on looks and they are outraged at and threatened by the woman's presumption in placing herself higher up it than they think she "deserves" to be.
It's all very undignified.

They write what people read and lots of people have had a lot of fun over it. She writes that she thinks she looks better than we all know she is in terms of looks so it's all very funny. No one is obliged to read it.

Of course she has the freedom of the press to say she is better looking than she is (and yes of course there is a hierarchy of looks for men and women - she has a rather fat ugly older French divorced husband with facial hair so has ended up with someone around the same level of looks as do most people). You get two gorgeous people together, two mediocre, two ugly - you just have to go down a highstreet to see that is so. Sometimes there are exceptions but they are quite rare and usually other factors are involved like man or women is rich etc.