samantha brick article responce

Reads: 481  | Likes: 0  | Shelves: 0  | Comments: 2

More Details
Status: Finished  |  Genre: Humor  |  House: Booksie Classic
in responce to samantha brick controversial article entitled "why women hate me for being beautiful"

Submitted: January 24, 2014

A A A | A A A

Submitted: January 24, 2014



Dear Samantha Brick,

I’d just like to start off by firstly congratulating you. You are well on your way to reaching your conceited goal of becoming the most famous critic of female beauty in modernity, no thanks to twitter, Facebook and the general media-sphere. With your article entitled; “there are downsides to looking this pretty” or as I would have better but put it: “downsides to looking so naive” you’ve sky rocketed your earlier trifling… shall we call it ‘career’ the rocket fully fuelled by your ego, the third most abundant source of energy on earth after hydrogen and of course the infinite energy packed in the emissions of the bodies of hormonal teenage girls at a Justin Beiber concert. I can honestly say I had never heard of you until I saw some of the things Frankie Boyle tweeted about you in the aftermath of the article, first impressions and all. I couldn’t really read the article with an unbiased view after that.

This leads me to my first point. In a way I understand and applaud you for your confidence, something many woman struggle with in our ever judgmental society. But were I fail to agree, actually totally disagree with you is when you say; “Women hate me for being beautiful” you failed to mention in your already less than modest article that you are this omnipotent telepathic? As well as this:” tall, slim blonde”. How is it that you know you’re seen as a threat to all your female acquatences? I know you must be busy what with all the: ”flights to new york” “parties” you have to go to and your collection of “flowers” and “bottles of champagne” given to you by complete and utter strangers that I presume you still haven’t got around to counting up yet. But In the midst of your understandably busy lifestyle, have you ever stopped and took a moment to think that maybe it’s not your looks these woman supposedly all hate you for, but instead the arrogant persona you very clearly uphold. It didn’t come too much of a shock to me when I looked up the word narcissistic in the dictionary and underneath it in big bright bold letters was your name Samantha…

Another thing in your article that angered me is your use of the word; “sisterhood” looking as if you are trying to promote some kind of message to encourage unity amongst women and for them to: “stop judging” you. There’s nothing wrong with ending an article on a positive note in fact I think that’s a great thing, but don’t you think it sounds just a tad, and I mean only a tad contradictory. Seeing as throughout your article you’re doing nothing but tell women that if they meet you, you will already have the preordained assumption (or in your head, have come to the scientifically proven conclusion) that they are; “insecure” merely down to your brow beating presence. Times like this I feel a #Hypocrite is more than appropriate.

In addition to you not only just generalising all woman it’s men you also seem to be labelling as being cheats. you say “partners dared to talk to me” and call the wives of these men” jealous” as if you know the only reason these men talk to you Is because the one thing on their minds is committing the criminal act of infidelity, and they want you! To be the accomplice in their masterminded plan…if you know what I mean.

In retrospect to my previous point, perhaps your apparent content with your appearance and satisfaction with your life is geared towards some level of misdirection. It’s the excessive! boastfulness about your article that leads me to speculate that you’ve done all of this to hide the polar opposite truth that you’re really just terribly insecure.  It’s not all your fault, the daily mail is often criticized for throwing their female writers to the wolves, but there is a level of sycophancy on your part. You wrote an article you knew fit the exact specifications of what the daily mail would describe as ‘a juicy story’ you made it, and they ate it up, with attention being on the top of the menu.

I don’t want to leave you thinking I’ve only picked out negative points in your article because I haven’t, actually upon re-reading it I came to appreciate the brilliance of it. The creativity that went into capturing, on paper, such an article that can provoke anger, shock, disgust, humour and suicidal thoughts all at once to those who do indulge in the pleasure of reading it must have been immense! The creative adult is the child who survived, that’s what I say. I mean you did confuse child with spoilt attention seeking brat, but still…

And finally Mrs’s Brick ‘While I’m no Jeremy clarckson’ my letter to you is arrogant, sarcastic and well a bit ill-mannered but then again you’re no “Elle macpherson” so none of us are really in the position to judge each other here. I do however hope you take some time to reflect on what I’ve said, rethink your ideologies and no longer allow yourself to be a puppet of the daily mail.


 Yours Faithfully,

 Rafaela Culi


© Copyright 2018 Culi Rafaela . All rights reserved.

Add Your Comments: