Turn for the network this atrocious photo of Barbra Streisand, that not much about her already poor, when make-up, disheveled and sweating seems the Epiphany remained around two months too.
The comments I read ranged from "Of course the trick works wonders" (yes, that is true) to "But what is ugly," "What a monster," "How old" and so on.
But there was also some said that Streisand is still a beautiful woman, and who, deo gratias, this was a simple concept: this lady has started from nothing and he won all the Grammy Oscar Emmy's sold a lot of discs, is a woman who is not beautiful, at least, I as I said, I do not find it, but it has a crazy charm and always had great success with men, is one that has become what it is irrespective of his nose, which did not need to rebuild because he had something more than the pricey little face. He has, talent.
Never mind if it is bad?
Why the yardstick for evaluating women must always be the beautiful and the ugly? The box and its contents. The surface and not the substance. No matter how good you are, how much brain you have, you are very nice. And that leaves me more incredulos is that they are the same women's magazines, women themselves, to think so. A monthly magazine that we read at home, a newspaper quite seriously, which is pursuing initiatives in favor of women, then interview the Minister and writes that are "beautiful" by adding immediately after that to love, I am only that, they studied, are prepared, competent ... but then you've spoken to do with their appearance? And when they are not beautiful, they are "elegant" aesthetic quality of always speaking. It is not the same when it's half a man.
Take notice: when a politician is in play, things are different. Maybe it is a handsome man becomes a reference to her beauty, but if not, will not start the race to invent non-existent aesthetic qualities, and physical appearance takes a backseat. We will focus on political skills. (What then perhaps these qualities are magnified policies is another matter). Instead, if we speak of a woman must always give the sop on the superficial level, and say, unfounded not really a process, via: without understanding that even if it is, that person is a politician, not a dancer in the Gaza Strip. It should not be beautiful, must be competent. Not defends himself by saying that "unfounded, is a beautiful woman," but reiterated that the standards by which to be judged have nothing to do with this topic. I mean, to me personally, for example, Rosy Bindi does not seem so bad, but the point is not that. The point is that it can also be a frog with glasses, does not matter, and should not be judged for that. You know
Rohrwacher Alba, I bet. What was it "Pope Joan" and "The man who will", to name two that I have seen, and in many other films, like "My Brother is an Only Child," "What I want more," "I Am Love." Lei
Here, I read an interview, a little 'time ago, where the journalist described it as beautiful. But she is not beautiful, man, not really. You can say that is nice, but not beautiful. It is ugly, indeed. But the point is not that.
The point is that this is the best young Italian actress. The point is that this is a great talent. The point is that this is more than beautiful: it is a girl who can afford to be ugly. And praise must say this, do not pull out non-existent skills.
Perhaps we should understand that this is a real compliment, being a person with so many personal qualities that they can afford to be ugly. We should understand that we women first. As a gift for tomorrow.
0 comments:
Post a Comment