DIYD,DIYD

[firecat]

I don't particularly approve of most cosmetic surgery*, so I think it's a move in the right direction if Hollywood directors and casting people are starting to prefer to cast actresses who haven't had it.

But this article sure brings home the "defined by your appearance; damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation that most women find themselves in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/fashion/25natural.html


*which is different from disapproving of people for choosing to get it.

Comments

[flarenut]

It's even worse than that, I think. In another 5-10 years the plastic surgeons will have gotten more subtle, and then they'll tell all the women who got parts for being "natural" (i.e. merely blessed by genetics and hours a day of hard work at the gym) that they're too old and lumpy. They'll bring in a new generation of surgically-enhanced starlets, who can be ditched for being unnatural in another 5-10 years, and so forth.

And of course whichever thing you did or didn't do to get a part, it is, as you say, the woman's "fault".

[aquaeri]

Oh, it's a textbook case of the classism/sexism issues around appearance, particularly female appearance. Thanks, I guess, for bringing it to my attention.

[eggcrack]

That article was just sad to read. Not very surprising, but all them more sad.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, this is just sad.