Vanity "Hey, That's Unfair!": Movie Star Renee Zellweger Complains That People Care About Movie Stars' Looks
(Becky Thatcher, call your office!)
I saw a tweet:
@VanityFair
Renée Zellweger has had it with a society that values women's "beauty over contribution"
I can sympathize with Zellweger. It can't be fun to have the public putting on a ginormous Internet forum about your face.
However, this -- from VF, quoting a Hollywood Reporter interview with Zellweger -- is just silly:
"Why are we talking about how women look?" she continued. "Why do we value beauty over contribution? We don't seem to value beauty over contribution for men. It's simply not a conversation."
VF chimes in, all PC (and "shit, we'd better be nice or we'll never get another interview with that publicist's six other movie star clients"):
In other words, the actual work women are doing should be what makes people talk.
As I tweeted back to VF:
@amyalkon
.@VanityFair If you are a female physicist or the lady doing our brain surgery, we don't care whether you're hot. Movie star? Might matter!
And another tweet I sent:
@amyalkon
If everybody peeked into the science of sex difs, instead of pretending they don't exist, they'd at least understand.
On the science of sex differences from my book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck":
Evolutionary psychologists David Buss and David Schmitt explain that men and women have some "conflicting strategies" in dating, sex, and relationships. These seem to have emerged from our differing physiologies and the ensuing differences in what sex can end up costing us. As I wrote in a column:A cave man could do a cave lady behind a bush and just walk away, no child support, no nothing, and still pass on his genes. Consequently, men evolved to have this extremely unsentimental sexuality: getting aroused at the mere sight of a nubile woman. Since women can get pregnant from a single sex act, and since there were few suckier places to be a single mother than 1.8 million years ago on the African savannah, women evolved to care a lot less about a man's looks than his ability and willing- ness to provide. Although we now have reliable birth control, our genes are extraordinarily slow learners, so these competing sexual strategies remain. As my friend Walter Moore put it, "A guy was complaining to me that women are only attracted to wealthy men. I said, 'That's so unfair, because we don't expect them to be wealthy; all we ask is that they look like models.' "
They did kind of do away with character parts for women, which used to be a staple. The funny old or awkward looking woman who is the sidekick to the ingenue lead. Juliet's nurse, most G&S alto roles...
TV still does that, there are lots of shows that center around a hot character or couple but have goofy-looking supporting roles. Orange is the New Black, The Office, Parks and Recreation, etc.
NicoleK at August 27, 2016 10:58 AM
"1.8 million years ago on the African savannah, women evolved to care a lot less about a man's looks than his ability and willing- ness to provide."
There must be more to it. A lot of our African descendent women bed down with the opposite of someone who has the ability and willingness to provide.
I've always liked Zellwegger, but I would never consult her Facebook page for advice.
Canvasback at August 27, 2016 10:59 AM
For both male and female actors, good looks are important. Is it "unfair"--no, movies portray a fantasy world full of people we wish we could be. A really good actor who is ugly can make a good living as a "character actor" (look it up) but rarely is the star. There are exceptions. Daniel Craig looks like a street hooligan. Not handsome--got to be James Bond. Bette Midler is quite unattractive but has so much personality that she has been a big star. Actually Renee Zellweger falls into this category as far as my eyes go, so her complaint is quite ironic.
Craig Loehle at August 27, 2016 11:03 AM
Bette can sing. Having an extra talent takes you further
NicoleK at August 27, 2016 11:45 AM
So why is George Cluny a big time star, and I'm not?
Being a guy, it can't possibly have anything to do with looks.
Right? I'm not missing anything, am I?
Jeff Guinn at August 27, 2016 2:42 PM
Right, that's why women are blowing off that Rob Cruise / Tom Lowe guy to get to Gilbert Gottfried.
Plenty of studies have shown that being a good-looking guy in the workplace means promotions, higher salaries, and a warmer reception from strangers.
Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2016 3:10 PM
Aren't there rumors about Rene Zellweger's recently revamped looks that she had some heavy duty plastic surgery done?
Why is she capitulating to the demand for actresses to be attractive, but at the same time denouncing them?
Patrick at August 27, 2016 3:43 PM
Why is she capitulating to the demand for actresses to be attractive, but at the same time denouncing them?
Buyers remorse. Had her trip under the knife gone well and led to more roles she never would have brought it up
lujlp at August 27, 2016 5:23 PM
She shoulda auditioned for ghostbusters
NicoleK at August 27, 2016 8:06 PM
"There must be more to it. A lot of our African descendent women bed down with the opposite of someone who has the ability and willingness to provide."
Come on… You know that the baby daddy is merely a proxy for Uncle Sam. And time we observe today is meaningless to evolutionary science.
Radwaste at August 28, 2016 10:12 AM
Women value a man's ability to provide and protect. One good proxy of that is wealth no doubt about it. If that wasn't true Donald Trump wouldn't have been able to bang supermodels.
Another is social status.
The third is looks. To claim that looks don't matter at all for a man is silly. Looks are another primal proxy for a man's ability to provide and protect a woman. Who do you think would be able to more effectively hunt down a boar, or keep a mountain lion at bay? A fat blob, a skinny bitch boy, or someone who looks like he came off of the cover Men's Health? Who would be most likely to produce healthy offspring?
If a man is attractive and isn't completely socially retarded he'll get laid by quality talent no problem. This is especially true for women 18-22. Most college women don't have to worry about paying the bills because of daddy and uncle sugar. Which ironically means that when a woman is at her hottest she'll be most likely care about a man's wealth the least, and his looks and social status the most.
I don't think this is unfair to men. I think it's unfair to women. Men have pathways to dating success while woman have only one.
Mike Hunter at August 28, 2016 4:58 PM
Zellweger always had heavily hooded eyes and likely got blepharoplasty as they dropped with age. This lid shape can eventually obscure your vision. My dad needs it, and someday I might too.
I know celebs often cite medical excuses for getting work done ("Deviated septum!"), but I think it's a real possibility with her. Go back to Empire Records in the mid 90s and you can see it already.
Insufficient Poison at August 28, 2016 10:18 PM
Nice of you to make that last remark, Mike, but personally I believe that women do have more than one path. That is, I suspect that BOTH men and women would rather be able to meet and slowly learn about each other on a relaxed, casual level - as they were able to do while they were still in school - BEFORE doing any dating. Sometimes, this can happen at the workplace, peacefully enough. (Many say that this is one of the most common ways to find a spouse these days.)
In such situations, women who take care of their bodies well enough but who were not born with pretty faces stand a better chance than before. Of course, so do many women who make a good deal of money. Sure, they have to watch out for cold-blooded golddiggers, but so do men.
lenona at August 30, 2016 6:28 AM
Leave a comment