Fiona Bruce has no problem with "lookism"
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
BBC's Fiona Bruce: 'If you look like the back end of a bus, you won't get the job' - Telegraph.
That's big of her. I would have no problem if there was suddenly a demand for tall, overweight, middle-aged TV presenters either. Unfortunately, it's harder to get the people who really need to accept "lookism" with a good grace to do so. Those are the ones who - unlike Ms. Bruce - have radio faces.Their complaints remind me of the silent movie stars with ugly voices whose careers ended with the advent of the "talkies."
Why do people (even the usually sound-thinking Mrs P) get upset about TV presenters being selected for their looks? Why spend a fortune designing a TV show to be visually-appealing; from the sets through the lighting to the attractive fonts for the opening titles, only to spoil it by featuring an unattractive presenter front and centre? TV is a visual medium. It's for looking at. Naturally, audiences favour presenters from whom they do not need to avert their gaze. TV cameras also add apparent weight, which is why so many "attractive" presenters so disappoint when viewed without an intervening lens.
Why does all this only apply to female presenters, you may snort? Any unfairness there, I am afraid, is entirely the fault of women. They have less developed aesthetic standards when it comes to the opposite sex. Such are the rewards of a TV career, however, that any male presenter will give off the attractive aura of the chap of whom, in Ms. Austen's immortal words;
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.
Are men to blame for such discrimination on the part of women? Is not such an attitude just as "unfair" as (and much less charming than) the male preference for a pretty face?
Antiques Roadshow was a tired, tedious programme well past its sell-by date. It was leavened only by an occasional laugh at a grasping punter pretending not to care how much his bric-a-brac was worth. Since Ms. Bruce took over, it has (at least in parts) become gripping entertainment and once more has an audience outside the old folks' homes. Good for her.
Yes takes your breath away don't it..If I ever see Tom Paine as my Husbands divorce lawyer I am moving to California. :)
Posted by: Fay Levoir | Saturday, August 29, 2009 at 06:15 AM
The courts, in particular, should assume that every individual will support him or herself at the level their own talent (not that of their ex-spouse) will sustain. Having enjoyed a standard of living beyond one's own capability to earn for a period should be seen as a benefit, not a precedent. I would argue that the value of that benefit should also be taken into account in any settlement.
I think that anyone sitting across the table from you in negitations would have to have all their wits about them and should expect to be given no quarter.
The above statement is all well and good if the two people have had equal opportunity to develop their talents, but often a wife has opted to work to support her husband in his further education instead of pursuing her own, thus affecting her ability to support herself at a later stage in her life.
I cannot believe that you actually said that last sentence above, she says shaking her head.
Posted by: JMB | Friday, August 28, 2009 at 05:35 PM
That assumption is precisely what I addressed when I wrote
"... rooted in a view of woman's place in the world, which in every other respect modern women now (rightly) reject. ..."
Paul McCartney is the extreme example everyone can agree to, but there is a continuum here. At one end, is the old-fashioned home maker who (if s/he has freely chosen such a role, having been asked to do so) deserves compensation for any provable losses incurred. At the other is the obvious predator.
Along that continuum, the courts should be taking a more graduated, sophisticated, modern view - not just ripping off the wealthy spouse (be it Madonna, McCartney or just the local car dealer who has worked decades to build up a business) for the benefit of the other. The courts, in particular, should assume that every individual will support him or herself at the level their own talent (not that of their ex-spouse) will sustain. Having enjoyed a standard of living beyond one's own capability to earn for a period should be seen as a benefit, not a precedent. I would argue that the value of that benefit should also be taken into account in any settlement.
Many divorced spouses are just "entitlement bunnies" like all the others in Western society who believe that those who can produce wealth are morally obliged to give the proceeds to those who can't (or won't). There is no such obligation, and the belief that there is is profoundly - and destructively - immoral.
Posted by: Tom | Friday, August 28, 2009 at 08:52 AM
True JMB he did switch it all to the Mcartneys on the second reply having said
"Yet though their productive contribution is not always as asymmetrical as in the case of Paul McCartney and his ex, it is not often obviously greater." in the first. which is a slap in the face to all wives.
Posted by: Fay Levoir | Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Well it seems to me that you Sir, are talking of oranges and apples. The case of the wife that Ms Levoir and I envisioned in our reply is one who has made it possible for her husband to attend to his business affairs by taking complete responsibility for family affairs and taking care of the home and children, often by sacrificing her own career. Should she be divorced and the marital assets divided her non monetary contributions should be considered every bit as valuable as his and in most jurisdictions that is indeed the case nowadays.
Now in cases similar to the breakup of Heather Mills and Paul McCartney, I think you would find that everyone is in agreement with your point of view. Plus I think that most would think why the heck did he not draw up a prenuptual agreement which would have taken care of the whole thing.
I must say that this discussion has veered far from the topic of the original post but then that is the nature of the comment section and often its strength. Tocca a te. LOL
Posted by: JMB | Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 03:42 PM
Good Reply Sir.
Far more thoughtful and rational than the one to Moggs,in my humble and probably slightly emotive opinion.
Posted by: Fay Levoir | Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 08:15 AM
It should of course go without saying that where there is a proven case that a spouse contributed or forwent something of financial value to the marriage (or where there are children to be jointly supported) there should be compensation from the other spouse.
However, what exactly did Heather Mills forego in order to be worth the £20 million she got from Paul McCartney? For the brief period of her marriage she lived higher than her own earnings could ever have sustained. What did any of Rod Stewart's wives do to justify their awards? What domestic services did they provide that could not have been bought by the hour for a fraction of the price the courts awarded?
You use the emotive "What price can be put on [list of priceless things]" ploy, but I am not the one putting a price on them. You are. I am simply observing that, in cases like Mills -vs- McCartney, the price is (a) outrageously high and (b) rooted in a view of woman's place in the world, which in every other respect modern women now (rightly) reject.
Your next emotional gambit is to accuse me of disliking women. Not at all. I like some women and dislike others. How ridiculous would it be to like or dislike half of humankind at once? In truth (like you) I know less than one basis point of the world's women and probably (I really hadn't thought about it until you accused me) like more of them than I dislike.
However, I despise free-loaders and parasites of either sex. Had Heather Mills had the talent and the wealth, and Paul McCartney been the talentless, idle, averagely well-off one getting £20 million for naff all, then I would dislike him (as would you, probably). So who is being prejudiced here?
Love and trust cannot be "contracted for". The law can only deal with more mundane things. If one party to a marriage that ends can demonstrate the contribution of value to the other's assets (or the suffering of loss from their own) then of course that should be (in the absence of some other contract between them) be accounted for. The lost love and trust simply cannot be.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Most of the kulaks were innocent too, JMB. I am making two points at once here (one of which is how stupid the Marxian analysis was, because my joke analysis is every bit as logical). I can't agree with you about Ms Levoir's comment though, which I shall deal with separately.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 10:19 PM
I hope you are feeling suitably chastised on your reply to Miss Moggs by Miss Levoir with whom I totally agree re the worth of a wife's contributions to a marriage which do indeed have a value that few husbands could actually afford were they obliged to pay.
Now as an "old lady" and having worked for most of my married life I want to know what happened to the two husbands who were supposed to have showered me with unearned wealth and departed leaving me with in such a position of power. Luckily I am quite satisfied with the status quo. :)
Posted by: JMB | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 09:14 PM
"Judging by the daily antics in the divorce courts however, it's hard to accept that Austen's predatory view of the gentler sex has no contemporary resonance in the West. In the pleas of modern divorcing wives, I see little of the strong, free women you portray"
The women you will see in the divorce courts are unable to act as strong free woman having most likely to have given up a career to raise a family and support a husband in a contract of love and trust between two equals that did not provide a salary for her.
Once in court she is then left to fight her corner in anyway possible to ensure a living for herself and her offspring.
At the same time extracting some revenge on a Husband who like many men worship at the temple of capital gain.
"If a new Marx sought to analyse society in terms of class struggle today, he might conclude that elderly females are the oppressors. They represent a profound concentration of mostly unearned wealth, often outliving not one but several husbands, all of whom are put through Austen's wealth-wringer. Yet though their productive contribution is not always as asymmetrical as in the case of Paul McCartney and his ex, it is not often obviously greater."
Here you show a shocking dislike for woman.
Unearned wealth? How does that work? No one actually ever managed to put a sum of money on what a wife would earn if she demanded a salary.
What price support and love?
How much for the buck stops here on all child related issues? Quoting for a nanny would not wash now would it?
Having been the wife of a high-flyer myself I can attest the input can often be merely financial even before one reaches the divorce courts.
Posted by: Fay Levoir | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Lookism? Is there such a thing as F-offism?
Posted by: jameshigham | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 02:45 PM
As a father of two daughters, I would like to accept your dismissal of Jane Austen's view as outdated. Certainly, I have advised them to take full advantage of the Married Womens' Property Act to stay financially independent, whatever other life choices they may make!
Judging by the daily antics in the divorce courts however, it's hard to accept that Austen's predatory view of the gentler sex has no contemporary resonance in the West. In the pleas of modern divorcing wives, I see little of the strong, free women you portray.
If a new Marx sought to analyse society in terms of class struggle today, he might conclude that elderly females are the oppressors. They represent a profound concentration of mostly unearned wealth, often outliving not one but several husbands, all of whom are put through Austen's wealth-wringer. Yet though their productive contribution is not always as asymmetrical as in the case of Paul McCartney and his ex, it is not often obviously greater.
I am not suggesting a repeat of the bloodshed of the 20th Century, but with old ladies cast in the role of kulaks this time. Nonetheless, in male/female relations, as Lenin famously said of all relations, "Who? Whom?" is the only question.
Posted by: Tom | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 01:09 PM
Well its hard to judge on this being un-back end of bus like (or at least I like to think not)
But I am often complimented on my wit and Humour and so on.
Yeah, you are right, it’s just a line :)
I think as a younger woman looks were very important but as I have got older and more saggy, I have realised they are not that important after all.
Although Mr L is a nice piece of eye candy :)
Posted by: Fay Levoir | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 12:43 PM
"They have less developed aesthetic standards when it comes to the opposite sex"!
"They" do, do they? Ha!!
Don't you mean something more like "Women we are less concerned with superficialities"?
And boy oh boy you (collectively) should be grateful. When was the last time I ever heard a guy say "She has a really interesting personality" or She is so smart" or "she makes me laugh she is so witty"?
That would be not yet would it? Women often say stuff like that but I don't think guys do if you are honest do you?
Ok so women do like buns of steel on a guy as a nice extra...^_^
I wouldn't mind but I was agreeing with the basic thrust of your argument up to that comment.
Almost like it is calculated to press buttons... /me raises an eyebrow
As for Jane's "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife."
It is a witticism reflecting the social mores of the time. Not a dating rule. A time I might add where it was difficult for a woman to own property in her own right and where inheritance was primarily to the male and she was pretty dependant on males.
So bright women like Jane were boxed in.
These days, as far as women are concerned, in the West looks are a real nice to have, but the important things are intelligence, personality, wit and yes confidence and success.
Posted by: Moggsy | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 08:08 AM
While I do thank you for the compliment that women are less superficial than men in the area of preferring intelligence, charm and personality over looks in their TV presenters/personalities, there are certainly some I would like to see replaced on North American screens since they are past their best by date.
However I think the bottom line is what do they have to say? If they are simply reading the news by all means let's have the ones who are easier on the eyes. If they are putting their own stamp on the program or it is their own vision/idea then let's go with them, regardless of appearance. However I thought these days the makeup artists could perform miracles and make anyone acceptable.
I haven't watched Antiques Roadshow for quite a long time, since as you say, it had become exceedingly dull and tedious. But now I am intrigued and will have to check out this new person who seems to have breathed new life into it.
Posted by: JMB | Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 01:18 AM
How dare you even suggest such things happen. Ms Harman has stopped all that hasn't she? You'll be saying next that small companies/employers don't like employing young women who may 'fall' pregnant and heap financial problems on the companies involved. NEVER! There are laws you know to stop people thinking like this. Where will it all lead? Racism may return! BNP may increase votes. We'd best ban them quickly or the people may get their say in the country and that would never do.
Posted by: Lord Lindley | Tuesday, August 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM