That.

To be plain, even ugly but talented and recognized for it. Isn't that a bigger blessing than to be beautiful talented and recognized for it?
I wonder
Because in a patriarchy placing so much emphasis on looks, (pleasing the palate of the greedy male gaze), where an interview for a woman is also a surreptitious or open faced view, wouldn't a beautiful woman always remain unsure whether it was her talent that was recognized or were some allowances made for her beauty?
I am an admirer of beauty. Its personal power aesthetic functionality. But not if beauty becomes even one of the railings of the stairway to professional success. That.
Takes away from the credibility of talent. Always.
Because from childhood we're exposed to success stories with such additional qualifiers.
Case of Martina Navratilova, and Chris Every Lloyd. About the latter, women would swooon and sigh, "Not only is she a brilliant tennis player, but she's beautiful!"
Navratilova who I adore, would be grudgingly acknowledged as a good player and then dismissed. As if a woman who didn't bother to look nice deserved to go off the radar.
Funny because Chris Evert  Lloyd was actually only moderately good looking. But then as a professional tennis champion allowances had to be made. That. Allowances again.
So are we making excuses for the quality of performance too, for a pretty woman?
Like we are making concessions for the quality of her appearance if she's successful in her chosen profession?
Just wanted to put my Tuesday thoughts on the table.