Eva Soriano judged on looks, not comedy

Eva Soriano: 31, 1.77m and a controversy that's not about jokes

A comedian who appears on TV explaining why 8M is needed ends up being judged almost exclusively on her looks. That's the paradox surrounding Eva Soriano, an actress and monologuist antiestéticatured in a tweet by Late Motiv on Movistar+, who circulating references describe as 31 years old and 1.77 metres. Her Instagram activity also comes into play: some read it as constant self-promotion. The result is a clash of opinions that says far more about the viewer than the subject.

Who is Eva Soriano and why is she being talked about?

She is identified as a comedian and actress with a continuous presence on television. Her name is linked to a tweet from Late Motiv on Movistar+ that asked why 8M is so necessary, with her profile as one of the invited voices. From there comes the framework: a female public figure who champions a cause and, at the same time, sees her work measured by a different yardstick.

The available material is scant: a television career, acting roles and monologues. With that, the conversation fills with judgments and very few references. There is no consensus even on her professional style.

Looks as an exam

Opinions fall into three groups. One reduces the issue to an aesthetic question. Another rejects her appearance without nuance, with insults pointing to the age she appears—some say she looks fifty—or her tone. A third responds with indifference or mockery: she'd be invited to a buffet, credited with good lentils, joked about her grandmother. The joke, the body and politics all end up mixed in the same bag.

There also hovers an idea held by one participant: that women's humour works worse than men's. It's an unfounded prejudice, but it helps explain why in that exchange of comments her physique appears before the script. With that burden, any professional assessment is born contaminated.

Why does attractiveness weigh more than professional worth?

Because aesthetic judgment is instant and professional judgment requires time, context and some attention. Against that, a specific reproach appears: that "as an actress she's not worth much and as a comedian, even less", although her looks are acknowledged. The criticism comes with another judgment: that by now she would have hit a wall. In the thread, the expiry date appears before the filmography.

The pattern repeats in the comments: her physique is discussed before her text. Add to that another factor: some comments mix rejection of her figure with the cause she defends, 8M.

The underlying question remains. If the pattern—woman, camera, own cause—repeats over and over, is it any use talking about 8M or do we keep measuring female comedians with the tape of models?