Last week, Vanity Fair published an article about six successful, entrepreneurial women who have large followings on Twitter. Without a doubt, the six women got burned.

The article drew attention to women who had significant Twitter followers, including  @digitalroyalty @AdventueGirl @JuliaRoy @PRSarahEvans @POP17 and @feliciaday

These women are all deserving of an article in VF, as is the phenomenon of Twitter. Felicia Day leads the group with more than 1.7 million followers; AdventureGirl comes in second at 1.4+ million, down to POP17 at 25,000+. This is no small feat. I've been at it for almost a year and my paltry following of 1200+ pales by comparison.

Following the release of the article, Felicia Day wrote a blog about how disappointed she was with the story. She writes that she received a tweet letting her know the article had been posted. In her words..."I had been running out the door, but clicked and saw the GORGEOUS (emphasis hers) image by Michael Halsband...and got very excited and posted a link without reading the article. Well, bad idea."

She goes on to write that when first approached by the magazine, she was very excited because, it is after all, Vanity Fair. But reading the article made her livid, especially the writer's inane use of words like "Twilebrity" "Tweeple" and "Twitformation Superhighway." In a blog of her own, digitalroyalty shares a lot of Day's concerns.

Day went on to write, "But what really ENRAGED me was the general tone, which artfully made intelligent, articulate women sound vapid and superficial."

And this is where i felt the need to weigh in. This is what I wrote on Day's blog."I agree with what you say, but can't help wonder why you all thought dressing in trench coats that makes it appear like you are naked underneath, would then lead to a serious article about powerful, successful women tweeting. The marginalization occurred when you all agreed to pose like models and focus on your looks rather than your brain. Despite the marching and bra burning, we really haven't come that far, baby."

OK. I admit, I might have erred on the side of hyperbole. But I spent a decade or more standing up for women's rights, and i sometimes feel young women take it for granted and aren't doing much to push the issues further. A generation of women are drafting in the wake, and no one's picking up the baton.

There were a few responses to my comment -- both pro and con. Day commented: "So you can't look glamerous/pretty and be taken seriously for something else? I dunno if that black and white argument needs to be applied in this day and age."

My response: it would appear that it does. Please, don't get me wrong. It's not that I think women shouldn't be everything they want to be and have all the attributes -- smart, funny, tough, sexy, beautiful, charming, wicked, engaging etc applied to them. But the point i was trying to make, is that we're still not there. So while Day is disappointed in the writing, I am disappointed in the photo, and don't think the two should or can be separated. Both tell a story, and unfortunately in this case, they tell the same one.

I am a woman of a certain age -- most likely the age of the six women's mothers. I've mentored women in the public relations profession for the past 26 years and even though it sucks big time having to say it, I remind them to lead with their brains not their beauty. I counsel them to walk in the room and walk out recognized as someone who is smart and strategic. I'm not suggesting they put a bag over their heads. It's just if we're going to have to play up one thing over another -- to be taken seriously as a professional young woman, play up what's between your ears, rather than hinting there's nothing underneath your coat.

I'm certainly in the minority here, as more comments on Day's blog liked the photo than didn't. Since fans can be exceedingly loyal, i decided to crowd source the VF story among the people working in my office to see what they had to say.

Of the six responses that came back, only two even mentioned the photo.

Ian said he got lost in the article and couldn't find any insights at all. Darren thought the article made one good point bringing to the fore, "how real time relationships suffer in order to maintain this level of fame."

Julia wrote, "These savvy women have clearly worked hard to build their brand and earn their own share of voice in what can be a very competitive social media space. I'm disappointed to see that VF has reduced their efforts to the "Internet's equivalent of a telephone chat line staffed by a bunch of cheerleaders."

Marissa thought the article was pretty balanced but could have shown the value of the women's Twitter celebrity status upfront. "The article pointed out that if so many people are talking, it's hard to tell who's actually listening." Doug thought the article portrayed the women as "pretty narcissistic, shallow and bubble headed because of things the author writes, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PHOTO (emphasis mine). It "conjured up memories of the talking Barbie saying 'Math is hard'."

Crystal said she wasn't a fan of the article. "There is nothing female about it and it mentions nothing about why Twitter is a good tool for women. It also fails to highlight the accomplishments of these women and why they have so many followers. I got the impression that the only reason that they profiled women was so that they could take a sexy-tech picture."
Crystal's a woman after my own heart.

Please weigh in. In this case, does a picture speak a thousand words?