Prejudice in the Press

I don't read People myself, because I find it stupid and shallow and pointless and irritating. But many people do read it; moreover, it is very popular in some sizable portions of society, and it serves a role in setting and maintaining cultural standards.

By making a "top 100" list that is almost all celebrities, almost all rich, and almost all white, it implies that those categories of people are more important and more beautiful than other categories -- or even that you have to be those thigns in order to be beautiful. When other people read the magazine, they pick up those ideas, which on a social level can be very destructive. That qualifies as a problem in my book.

The editors can apply whatever standards they want to their list, and other people can say "Golly gee whiz, what a bunch of racist, classist, shallow-minded jerks." By challenging such examples of discrimination when they emerge, we can 1) show that not everyone in society considers that kind of behavior acceptable, and 2) encourage people to think about what is really going on.

What is "beauty" anyway? Are there different kinds of beauty? Do different standards of beauty apply to different types of people? How important is beauty, and why?

For example, I think that different ethnic types can all be beautiful, but they are beautiful in different ways. I happen to think that freckles are beautiful, but I like them best on milk-pale skin where they really show up. There's a certain velvety look to black skin, and a kind of gold-dusted tone that shows up in some Asians, that are gorgeous. And then there is the beauty of texture: the heavy silk of Asian hair, the springy wool of African, the loose curls of European, the fine floss of Scandinavian. Thick full lips that invite kissing; thin lips that curve like a bow into smiles. Faces round like the moon, or heart-shaped, or high and strong as mountains. There are beauties in every land, but to me they are beautiful in different ways.

Money doesn't make people beautiful. Fame doesn't either. In a shallow society, though, it is easier for beautiful people to become wealthy and/or famous; societies reward what they value.

I am primarily attracted to people by personality. An aesthetically appealing package is nice, but frankly, I can scratch that itch by watching people on the street or looking at pictures. Personality is more important, because it's the channel through which love flows.

>> It's not surprising - and frankly, these days few of our "celebrities" have any real talent at all, besides good looks. <<

I think that's true. Also, appearance is considered important even for situations where it is not necessary, such as singers.

>> Our entire society has chosen looks over substance.<<

I agree.

>> You'll notice there are no "Top 100 most talented actors" list or "Top 100 most talented musicians" list being made.<<

I'm pretty sure that I have come across such lists for musicians a time or two, and authors. People argue over who belongs on such a list, so there are different variations.