That’s the premise of this really really really sexist piece in AdWeek:
Arianna Huffington’s metamorphosis from start-up diva to media mogul is only the latest in a series of audacious transformations, all of which rest on a crucial, if overlooked, constant: she is a sex symbol.
Yes, you read that right. Sex symbol.
Legendarily coiffed, she’s as fond of girlish ruffles and racy black lace as she is of pantsuits—and is not above flaunting her yoga-toned limbs. All this at 60. But more interesting is the vintage of her wiles, which call to mind a courtesan’s techniques. Her allure resides in her effusiveness and intense focus. It’s present in her insatiable appetite for self-promotion—a hunger that includes lending her voice (and name) to a hot-to-trot cartoon bear on The Cleveland Show. Above all, it flows from her ability to make anyone feel fascinating.
These are the tricks of old media, best showcased over a long lunch. It’s notable, then, that it’s in the tech-driven world of new media—defined by its youth, its maleness, and its terminal lack of sexiness—that it achieves its most striking results.
Askmen.com describes her as “gloriously seductive.” She’s called herself “a regular cyberslut.” YouTube yields a smitten Time journalist asking whether she’d rather date Al Franken or Bill Maher. “This either or thing is so old media,” she coos at her interviewer, who giggles like a Belieber.
Arianna is notably anti-feminist, and hasn’t spent much time trying to help other women. But damn, Adweek, this is pretty unwarranted. How about profiling that sex symbol Michael Wolff?
Adweek’s viewpoint is just more of the same: If a woman succeeds, it must be due to you-know-what. The only mystery is why they had a female columnist deliver the message, and why she agreed.
I’m no fan of Arianna since she cashed in the work of her site’s unpaid bloggers and seems to go whichever way the political winds blow at the moment. But there’s no question about the fact that she’s smart, driven, and knows how to get ahead.
Using sex appeal is fine, but not as the all-purpose explanation of why women succeed.
You can’t argue with their sources, though. Askmen.com is the best of the best.
What men do they ask, pray tell?
Clearly, Donald Trump is a sex symbol.
Also, “new media is defined by its maleness and lack of sexiness”? Does the author really think women don’t have a large presence on Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites? Or maybe their presence doesn’t count because any woman who uses any technology ever is clearly only doing it to be a sex symbol.
Maybe her Greek background makes her exotic. (That never worked for me.)
I always thought of her as a bit of an odd duck. She was married to a closeted gay right-wing Republican, whom she dumped after he lost an election for U.S senator, yes? And then reinvented herself as a left-winger? She’s unique, I’ll give her that.
I read HuffPost every once in a while, and I don’t know much about Arianna, so I am curious: why do you say she’s anti-feminist? I googled Arianna + feminism and didn’t find much.
HuffPost claims to be liberal and progressive but uses linkbait strategies trade objectifying photos of women’s bodies for hits.
to trade* sorry
HuffPost also has a history of bias against trans people, fat people, and other groups it’s not yet “cool” to support.
The ones on Judd Apatow’s Gmail contacts list?
HuffPost isn’t anti-feminist so much as non-feminist/pro-EBITDA. In this way it is the same as 99% of the western world.
It is cool though that the biggest political site out there was started by a woman who obviously got where she is out of personal ambition and ability, not by being a “sex symbol.” A quick browse back to the NY Times article on the new bloggers (Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, et. al) shows there’s some truth to the “youth and male” thing.
@Tony
If you haven’t yet, you should read “The New Old Boys Club” by Jill.
Archived: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/03/28/the-new-old-boys-club/
Sort of answers your question?
j/k
If you Google Ariana Huffington + anti-feminist, though, you get this.
The author is a person with agency; there’s no reason to believe she doesn’t hold the opinions the opinions she expressed.Better is probably to ask why she holds the beliefs she expressed.