In the Vanity Fair article "Who is Wall Streets Queen B.?" by Suzanna Andrews (Nov. 2008), two of the most successful female wall-street journalists, in a rivalry that the media wont stop buzzing about, are compared throughout a several page spread.
The article explores both of their career histories, credentials, current positions, social and media influence, and pulls quotes from interviews with the stars and their colleges. The awesome content and background helps paint a picture of the successful careers that two hard-working, wall-street slaying women built for themselves, and their growing competition with each other.
While it does give good information, it does something else too. The article points out the constant sexualization of, and made-up rivalries between, successful women in the media. It takes bold stances against the way women are portrayed and talked about, and points out legitimate examples in media for credibility. I am thankful that Suzanna Andrews went this direction with her article, and took a stand for women in a magazine as influential as Vanity Fair, but I still see flaws in it.
I loved the article, and the writer and the two women are fabulous, but media in general still has a long way to go. This article is a good example of media trying to close the gender gap, but still needing a little help. Here is what I still see wrong with the article, and media in general:
1. While the article points out that media constantly compares women and puts them against each other, or groups them together, it still manages to compare the two women the entire time! It compared them to each other, and to other famous people, calling them a "young (insert famous name)" Why are women constantly compared, put against each other and made to look like they are in competitions with each other? Why cant there be a plethora of successful women out there, paving their own way, proud of the other successful women in the industry and competing respectfully through business? Media needs to get away from portraying women in this light. It is so negative!
2. You have to read through 28 of the 32 paragraphs to finally understand that the two women are, in fact, NOT in a constant rivalry and do not hate each other. While I understand that the article needs to catch the reader in the beginning, and make the reader engaged, it should address much sooner (probably in the middle somewhere after appropriate career introductions, comparisons and differences) that the ladies don't hate each other at all. Then you can finish the article with both of their individual accomplishments, and future goals. The reader, unfortunately, has it in the back of their mind the entire time that they are comparing the two. That is what the article is about and how it is structured, and while that may not seem like a big deal, the implications are huge! This is how a ton of media is when talking about successful women, and after seeing it so many times and constantly comparing women, eventually it becomes a social norm and is done in the workplace, and in our lives. We should end this cycle! If the question of rivalry was cleared up much sooner, the reader (ME) could enjoy the rest of the article much more by celebrating these two women for their individual accomplishments.
3. I can not believe how many times I saw these two women described by their clothing! THIS DRIVES ME INSANE. Okay, yes, if I am a successful professional and in our interview you notice that I am wearing a Gucci suit, please comment on it, whoever you are. I promise you, I did not spend the money getting a Gucci suit, nor wear my best suit to your interview, for you to not notice that I am in a Gucci suit, or at the very least, that I look like a perfectly pinstriped corporate queen.
Also, I understand giving a visual description of a person, including but not limited to: skin, eye and hair color, body shape or size, facial features, overall look, accessories, outfit, or whatever the writer thinks is important for the reader to know. What I don't understand is when a writer is looking for a description of a successful professional woman and the only thing they think is important is what they are wearing. Find new things to describe women! If a man walked in to a meeting you wouldn't look at what he is wearing first. You would look at how he walked in, what he had with him, what his demeanor or expression said about him, and then you would check out his physical attractiveness and what he was wearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment