Comments on: Newsflash: Young, Beautiful Women Are Successful in Hollywood

By: Unattractive Women Have Zero Chance In Hollywood… » OnMedea

Unattractive Women Have Zero Chance In Hollywood… » OnMedea — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:16:00 +0000

[...] Being fairly new to L.A., I was shocked to learn that the new crop of budding female screenwriters (those under 30) are freakin’ hot. And, of the females out there writing (and there are millions), the hot ones seem to be the only ones getting meetings. [...]

By: rednrowdy

rednrowdy — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:31:47 +0000

@sarah.of.a.lesser.god:And “ugly” but would the Times have featured four women writers who are “schlubby”? And if so, would they then be in the Arts section because they wouldn’t be attractive enough for the Style section? The whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.

thank you.

@aspiringexpatriate: the larger point is that where are the articles and interviews about groups of young women screenwriters in hollywood who don’t look like maxim cover models..or better yet, articles that don’t constantly refer to their looks? why is it that if you are a woman and you are in this business of show, regardless if you are in front or behind the camera, why should your legs, your curves, what you eat and whatever else be fodder for the interview itself ? it’s ridiculous, sexist, ultimately bad journalism.

By: aspiringexpatriate

aspiringexpatriate — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:39:20 +0000

Hey look, an article about the group not in the NYTimes which doesn’t focus on their looks… at all.

http://www.thestar.com/article/496379

By: sarah.of.a.lesser.god

sarah.of.a.lesser.god — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:36:36 +0000

@aspiringexpatriate: The writers sound perfectly fine, but I just hate that what could be a substantive article about WHY these women feel the need to group together is barely touched on and their looks and people’s comments on their looks are repeatedly thrown at us. And “ugly” but would the Times have featured four women writers who are “schlubby”? And if so, would they then be in the Arts section because they wouldn’t be attractive enough for the Style section? The whole thing just rubs me the wrong way.

By: aspiringexpatriate

aspiringexpatriate — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:31:31 +0000

@rednrowdy: I don’t have a good or anywhere near scientific example of what men look like, but for the past ten or twenty years, maybe even since the 80s, most of the men who make the decisions are fairly attractive. Ugly people are hard pressed in any aspect of Hollywood. Now, attractive is of course, a relative scale… And more often than not, the few schlubby types are writers, but they’re not ugly and schlubby, just, schlubby.

By: aspiringexpatriate

aspiringexpatriate — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:28:53 +0000

Ms. Scafaria asked anyway: “They want to know what’s an average workday like for you, so I’m going to ask, what’s a non-average workday like for you?”

Ms. Cody replied, “I cried four times today.”

Ms. Scafaria said, “You’re very tough, but you’re very emotional.”

Ms. Cody paused, looking out at the crowd, and said, “We should be drunk for this.”

These writers seem awesome. (And the Village Idiot is a fun pub, though I really only go after Groundlings shows.)

And, I don’t enjoy assuming things, but the way the style is in the first two paragraphs and then barely hinted at or even attacked later on makes me think that was an editor’s call. “Hey, this is in the style section, make it read like a style article.” “But it should be in arts!” “Well tough, it’s style.”

By: rednrowdy

rednrowdy — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:28:33 +0000

@sarah.of.a.lesser.god: right on the money.

yet more proof that even if women write and produce and direct the stories, they MUST be jessica alba clones. the men who make the decisions can look anyway they want to look, but the women must. be. hot. no other type of woman is allowed.

gag me.

By: Lysergic Asset

Lysergic Asset — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:31:08 +0000

Wow… just wow.

We’ve SO not come a long way, baby.

By: amanda/notmandy

amanda/notmandy — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:56:54 +0000

Ugh, I hate that phrase the thinking man’s [insert woman here]. Insulting to all ladies involved in the bullshit comparison.

By: anna

anna — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:12:46 +0000

@Sarah– sorry, that wasn’t supposed to “sound” as snarky as it does…..It seems that today’s NYT Style section is further proof that failed logic is the name of the game for them……