Why I Am Tired of Insecurity Traps

December 2, 2015  |  

A while ago, a Facebook friend was the first to warn me about engaging in articles, which directly or indirectly call for you to comment on the attractiveness of a woman.

You know the type of pieces I am talking about. The ones with headlines that read, “this woman thinks she was fired for being too hot” or “This woman thinks she can’t keep a man because she is too beautiful.”

Or even this archived article by the Daily Mail UK, which told us that a White woman with blonde hair and blue eyes named Florence Colgate is the most beautiful face in Britain, because of science.

More specifically, the paper reports:

“A woman’s face is said to be most attractive when the space between her pupils is just under half the width of her face from ear to ear. Florence scores a 44 per cent ratio. Experts also believe the relative distance between eyes and mouth should be just over a third of the measurement from hairline to chin. Florence’s ratio is 32.8 per cent.

Singer Shania Twain and actresses Liz Hurley and Jessica Alba are ranked among perfectly formed celebrities. Samantha Brick, who caused an international debate after proclaiming women hate her because she is beautiful, is not.”

According to the paper, the findings are based on the proportional beauty theory, which suggest that a woman is at her most beautiful when almost perfectly symmetrical.


Carmen Lefèvre’s, from the University of St Andrews perception laboratory in the School of Psychology, said beauty is strongly linked to symmetry. ‘Florence has all the classic signs of beauty,’ she added. ‘She has large eyes, high cheekbones, full lips and a fair complexion. Symmetry appears to be a very important cue to attractiveness.”

So there take that, ugly wenches.

The article itself is from three years ago. However it is making the rounds again on social media for some undisclosed reason.

But even though it is ancient news now, these type of articles are a pretty common occurrence in our news cycle. And the debate always centers around the same question: is she really that pretty or nah?

Of course the “nah” here is pretty complex.

In addition to the long and brutal debate over the validity of the proportional beauty theory, which will likely center around pointing out all of the poor girl’s alleged flaws as proof that she ain’t all that, there will also be the debate pointing out the obvious racism of it all.

As the scientist reminds us, even if any of our brown faces scored a solid 33 percent ratio on this chart that measures the distance between the mouth and the chin, we of the melanin tribes will scientifically never be able to measure up to the definition of “classic beauty” because we lack a fair complexion.

So there, take that again you ugly wenches.

I am not going to sit here and attempt to dissect everything which is wrong with this theory and article. For every scientific study that argues beauty is a product of symmetry and fair complexions, there will be another study that tells us that beauty is more centered around confidence and how a person carries him or herself. 

But what I want to point out that however way we choose to engage this particular article or the other ones just like it, the end results will be the same: to make us feel inferior and competitive.

You heard of thirst traps, well these articles are like insecurity traps. We will not only tear ourselves down for not measuring up in these traps, but we will tear the object of insecurity down for being so damn perfect and unattainable.

And most times it will be done for someone else’s agenda. And most times, that agenda centers around profit.

Because really what is the value in doing a story about a White woman being declared by science as the most beautiful woman in all of the land? Other than generating ad revenue from click-bait?


Trending on MadameNoire

Comment Disclaimer: Comments that contain profane or derogatory language, video links or exceed 200 words will require approval by a moderator before appearing in the comment section. XOXO-MN