Billionaire Heiresses
I often read Forbes picture slide shows (whenever they pop up as links from my gmail.)
Today I read, “In Pictures: The 20 Most Intriguing Billionaire Heiresses”, which you can find at the website:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/15/billionaires-mittal-hariri-biz-cx_1115heiresses_slide_2.html?partner=email
What I thought was interested is the definition of success, what makes these women some of the “most intriguing” women in the world.
Analyzing the women chosen, these are the characteristics they have in common:
1. Wealth-they are all worth at least a billion.
2. Social capital-they all have connections to important, famous people.
3. None of them are billionaires in their own right, they’re all “billionaire heiresses,” meaning that perhaps they couldn’t be billionaires on their own or that it’s only their connections that make them worth talking about. As soon as I realized this, I was a bit less fond of this article-the women being celebrated are successful as heiresses, and if one is not going to be an heiress, where does that leave them?
4. They’re all well-educated-they’ve been able to go to great universities and have access to everything society seems to offer.
5. They’re all talented-for example, two of them are competing to be on the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team. What makes this interesting, is that their talents seem largely to have been made possible by their wealth and connections, for example, those that are businesswomen, actresses, etc.
6. All of them are important by worldly definitions-it’s all about popularity, what everyone else thinks of them on a grand scale.
This is the type of “photo essay” I typically read, but as soon as I started analyzing it, I realized that it devalues me as a person. It leaves no place for any women that was not born into wealth or do not have an unlimited supply of opportunities and resources, or will never become famous and are not interested in doing so.
I think I forget when I look at these things to look at the documentary side of the world, the things that give voice to the voiceless, exalt the everyday, and find transcendence through tribulation. (For examples of docs of the type I'm talking about, see a writeup by a professor I've taken several classes from about what he sees as the objectives of docs as a worthwhile medium-- http://fitforthekingdom.byu.edu/?page=about&piece=depth ). If I want to elevate myself to what I'm worth, I can't seek for "reflections"/examples in Forbes picture slides--I should instead look at real people around me, real stories, real triumphs, real failures, and thus find real hope.
Today I read, “In Pictures: The 20 Most Intriguing Billionaire Heiresses”, which you can find at the website:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/15/billionaires-mittal-hariri-biz-cx_1115heiresses_slide_2.html?partner=email
What I thought was interested is the definition of success, what makes these women some of the “most intriguing” women in the world.
Analyzing the women chosen, these are the characteristics they have in common:
1. Wealth-they are all worth at least a billion.
2. Social capital-they all have connections to important, famous people.
3. None of them are billionaires in their own right, they’re all “billionaire heiresses,” meaning that perhaps they couldn’t be billionaires on their own or that it’s only their connections that make them worth talking about. As soon as I realized this, I was a bit less fond of this article-the women being celebrated are successful as heiresses, and if one is not going to be an heiress, where does that leave them?
4. They’re all well-educated-they’ve been able to go to great universities and have access to everything society seems to offer.
5. They’re all talented-for example, two of them are competing to be on the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team. What makes this interesting, is that their talents seem largely to have been made possible by their wealth and connections, for example, those that are businesswomen, actresses, etc.
6. All of them are important by worldly definitions-it’s all about popularity, what everyone else thinks of them on a grand scale.
This is the type of “photo essay” I typically read, but as soon as I started analyzing it, I realized that it devalues me as a person. It leaves no place for any women that was not born into wealth or do not have an unlimited supply of opportunities and resources, or will never become famous and are not interested in doing so.
I think I forget when I look at these things to look at the documentary side of the world, the things that give voice to the voiceless, exalt the everyday, and find transcendence through tribulation. (For examples of docs of the type I'm talking about, see a writeup by a professor I've taken several classes from about what he sees as the objectives of docs as a worthwhile medium-- http://fitforthekingdom.byu.edu/?page=about&piece=depth ). If I want to elevate myself to what I'm worth, I can't seek for "reflections"/examples in Forbes picture slides--I should instead look at real people around me, real stories, real triumphs, real failures, and thus find real hope.