Let's start by thinking of all the cheap pickup lines you chicks have ever had directed at you, used in your presence, and (to really tick you gals off) the ones you wish that particular guy (or girl, because things have changed) would have directed at YOU rather than someone else, because you'd have jumped for it the way those hungry fish in your fishtank at home jump when you feed them after forgetting to for a day or so. (It happens.)
Now, think of the way guys and other women look at you when you wear (a.) something really nice, or (b.) wear something you chose with the specific intent of reminding one certain guy or EVERY GUY IN SIGHT that yes, you ARE a woman. (Okay. If you're doing it for the latter, this post doesn't apply. Scratch that one off... and by the way, more power to you, milady. The Id of every man who crosses your path thanks you.) Yes, each and every one of those straight guys wants nothing more than to use you like he's King Leonidas and you're Xerxes' pride. (Sorry. '300' came on cable last month - finally got a chance to see it. The Daria fans in the midst will understand when I say, 'Mmmmmm. Oracle girls. The Priestesses at DELPHI are hopefully that... limber.')
The ladies who see you dressed like that? Back when I was in college, I remember noticing the phomenoma I coined 'the Cone of Silence.' Watch when a VERY beautiful woman goes past or through a moderately-sized crowd: you'll immediately notice a defined 'cone of silence that seems to radiate out and behind her, followed immediately by a second field of sound. The first wave is that of the guys struck momentarily by their hormones drawing power off from all other systems, and the other women seeing an immedite threat arrive in the vicinity. ('Territoriality, thy name is woman.' ) Then, the wave of sound begins... the sound of the women cutting her down.
Don't believe me? Go to a college campus (or in the general vicinity) on a weekend and find out for yourself.
But I digress. Ladies - go back over all of this and if that hasn't annoyed you enough, then let be get out the 'coach gun' - the double-barreled slam that assures a 98% probability of ticking ANY woman off.
1.) No, he (you KNOW who I'm talking about) does NOT want to spend time with you, take a walk with you, come over to your place, or see you naked... because he's just not into you.
2.) You ARE just like a sister to him. End of story. Life goes on.
Now that the lasses are suitably ticked off, it's time for the Dems to get theirs.
Four words.
Rush Limbaugh was right.
Now, what do these two things have to do with one another? Well, in the traditional convoluted, ice-slickened and fog-filled road I usually lay out through the mountainside to get to the point, I also toss in March of next year -2009. That's the first full month the U.S. will stop broadcasting analog TV signals and EVERYBODY has to go digital.
Well, there are going to be a LOT of pissed-off people out there, once we get forced to 'experience the wonder and the quality of high-definition digital TV. Reason? Because even the most physically perfect and attractive among us will be subject to greater scrutiny in the new age of television... and because makeup can only do so much.
A few years back, a woman named Marny Steiner filed a court case against The Weather Channel on the basis of age discrimination, claiming that she was given the bum's rush because she was in her forties and they wanted to get rid of her in order to increase the ratings by putting more attractive women on the screen. Rush did a broadcast where he basically said 'So? They're right!'
Hate to agree with old Rush (did he get that name for the way he feels after gobbling down some of those ill-gotten drugs? You decide!) but let's be honest - the name of the game is RATINGS. (How else can you describe 'When Weather Changed History'? GOD! Memo to The Weather Channel! You want ratings? FINE! Here's how you do it! One - Get a couple of meterologists with gravitas and put them on the air. Two - Stop trying to be the Discovery Channel - with the exception of 'Storm Stories', your programming SUCKS! Three - GET RID OF JIM CANTORE! He's a walking punchline! Four - Hire back Hillary Andrews! yes, she was kind of ditzy and she dissed Cantore, but we watched her because (a.) we had NO FRAKKIN' IDEA what she would do next (see 'Howard Stern' in the 'How to keep them tuned in' manual) and (b.) lots of people thought that she was attractive. THIS is a point you should keep in mind. It'll be important later, and it WILL be on the final. Five - SHUT THE FRAK UP about how the female meterologists dress on-air! If Alexandra Steele wants to wear sheer blouses and thin sweaters, and it appears as if the tempature in the studio is -39 degrees every time she's on screen... this means us guys are watching. We like pretty girls. (Again, refer to the Hillary Andrews point if reference to Alexandra.) SIX. FOCUS ON THE WEATHER - don't try to make it exciting - unless it's very bad weather, the very subject isn't exciting... and then, it's all too exciting.
A happy day for me? If The Weathe Channel filched the tagline of Fox News - and then followed the spirit of it.
'We Report - You Decide.'
Again - back on subject. When you watch The Weather Channel, you NOW watch for 'Weather on the 8's' and the occasional cute weatherperson (Note to Eboni Deon. Slap your hairstylist and go find another one. Please. Hurry.) . By its very definition, that means you're paying attention to the looks. That's okay, if you're honest about it.
That's the problem with all of this - what ties it all together, and why trouble lies ahead.
Television, by its very nature, is about presenting the very best visual images in order to draw our attention. (Yes, really. If you're all about 'deeper meaning' and 'character development' - read a book. Not that television doesn't have the capacity to have this, or that it doesn't happen - but BELIEVE ME when I say that it's a secondary concern.) There's a reason why the terms 'Hollywood Homely' and 'Hollywood nerd' exist - because the grand majority of us COULD NOT be on a television program - or only as secondary characters, in recurring roles or as Bad Guys. Yes. Really. This is true. Hey - I KNOW that I'm ugly enough to scare starving pit bulls off the back of a meat truck. I actually scared the hell out of two stray dogs late one night, when I was returning from doing laundry. Long story.
Anyway. Digital TV is REALLY going to raise havoc in the entertainment and news industries, as only the VERY attractive will be immune to the equally humanizing effect that high-def will have on the on-air talent: it shows off every physical flaw.
So now, ladies - you're going to have to fall back on what we guys have had to deal with since time began: the world of self-delusion. Just kidding.
You get it worse. You won't even have the fantaasy of believing that, as a TV star, you're somehow MORE than other women, better, prettier, more alluring. High-Def will take that away - amd make you all that you are now, because as I mentioned earlier - makeup can only do so much.
Now, think that over for a minute.
Remember I said earlier that a good idea was to hire back Hillary Andrews and let Alexandra Steele wear what she wants, because (in a nutshell) people think they're attractive?
That's the rub, folks. If we think you're attractive, regardless of what High-def does or is capable of exposing, we'll still watch. If we like you because of what you do on screen, we'll watch. If you've made yourself someone who we enjoy on the air - we'll watch, regardless of what you look like or how High-Def reveals your flaws.
And, to you ladies in the real world - the same thing applies. If you're someone who we want to have in our lives, we will make an effort to keep you there, regardless of what you look like.
Here endeth the rant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I might be missing the point, but the fact is that there are two things that every being at every job is judged at -- "input" or "output". You have to be good at both to keep a job; if you're bad at one or the other (or both), you lose your job.
input: knowing the social graces, dressing right, navigating the bureaucracy
output: actually creating surplus-value, as Marx would put it
Given that, a person with a great body who is competent at her job is going to get the job over someone who is plain looking and marginally more competent -- particularly if that job requires you to be a public presence where appearance is important.
The only exception is with people who are very, very good at what they do, whose output skills more than make up for their lack of input skills. However, with weather, there isn't much of a chance to show your broad knowledge of meterological facts. Generally, you just read the stuff off the teleprompter, or in the case of local weather, make sweeping gestures against a blue screen. And if that's something anyone can do, they're going to choose the most attractive person to do it. Period.
Even pretty women who have incompetence-level output skills will get fired, attractiveness or no attractiveness. Katie Couric is America's Cute Pixie, but the CBS News under her anchorship has just been horrible, and everyone knows it. The job of a news anchor is to possess gravitas, and Couric just doesn't have it. Worse, she tends to be aloof and superior in the CBS News Division, bringing a bevy of assistants, bottle-washers and whatnot whose job it is to attend to Ms. Couric. I don't see her lasting much longer, beauty or no beauty.
So can you succeed if you're not good looking? Sure. There are tons of input skills beyond appearance. However, as I think Mark Twain said, beauty requires no excuses.
Post a Comment