Description reinforced stereotypical images
Regarding Jim Schlosser's article on developer Roy Carroll (Sept.10), I'm struggling to ascertain the correlation between his description of Carroll as "handsome, tanned, blue-eyed" and the term "successful." Did the writer intend to imply that these features in any way contribute to Carroll's success as a developer?
Study after study has demonstrated that statements like this only serve to subliminally reinforce stereotypical images of what is attractive, successful and desirable or preferred in today's society. I sincerely hope the writer's comments don't make it back to Donald Cogsville, another developer who is considering investing in Greensboro. Cogsville hardly fits the blue-eyed, tanned profile, yet I suspect he is no less "successful."
Further, should Cogsville choose to invest in Greensboro, his dollars will be no less welcomed by the local economy, regardless of his physical attributes.
Tamera Ziglar
Greensboro
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Speaking for those of us of the "tall, green-eyed, ugly, opinionated, senile, grumpy and yet somehow successful in spite of it all" persuasion I can only make one comment.
Have we really become so hyper-sensitive as to be offended by a physical description in an article to the point of writing an lte in response to one sentence in it?
If so I thank God I'm not a tall, green-eyed, ugly, opinionated, senile, grumpy and probably unsuccesful columnist.
Posted on October 4, 2006 7:15 AM
Don't remember the article but unless it said that Carroll's success was directly linked to his good looks, I think Tamera Ziglar may be even a bigger nitpicker than I.
Posted on October 4, 2006 9:53 AM
I agree, Nit. The letter writer obviously has never experienced a real problem, bless her heart.
Posted on October 4, 2006 11:16 AM
"blue-eyed, tanned"
Tamera is just jealous she wasn't the one Tiger Woods chose to marry.
Posted on October 4, 2006 11:47 AM
I agree with Tamera. Carroll should have been described as pale, ugly, and brown-eyed.
Posted on October 4, 2006 11:58 AM
Those tanned developers are a nasty lot, all right. One of them stopped by my house last summer and wanted to develop my tiny 12 acres, I told him to come back when he had lost some of his color and looked less successful.
Posted on October 4, 2006 12:30 PM
I wonder how Tamera would describe herself?
This kind of underwear waste argument makes my blood boil. Is there something wrong with being both handsome and successful, or is the mention of both just too much for some to bare?
Posted on October 4, 2006 2:13 PM
As a businessman I never discriminate. As long as the client's money is green I don't care what color they are or what they look like.
Posted on October 4, 2006 6:04 PM
Trust me Dan, we all figured as such. Hope you caught the Bill Moyers special on how Abramoff bilked the American Indians out of millions.
Posted on October 4, 2006 10:43 PM