I have become increasingly infuriated with the condescending way women are portrayed in the media. Your paper is no exception. I am referring to the article "The Deft Diplomacy of Queen Noor" {Style, Oct. 4}.

Although Noor drew a capacity crowd to the Brookings Institution to hear her remarks on "Humanitarian Consequences of the Gulf Crisis," a reader had to muddle through six paragraphs of slop before gaining any insight into the queen's position on the conflict in the Middle East. First there was a romantic commentary on her appearance -- "The queen is, at 39, improbably beautiful, a golden blonde with sleepy eyes." Then came a description of her outfit -- "simple pumps and slate-blue suit, her only extravagance a bright azure blouse with matching kerchief peeking from her breast pocket" -- followed by an envious interjection about her hair -- "If you are a woman who went to high school in the '60s or '70s, you probably spent some of your time wishing plagues, or pimples at least, on a classmate who had hair like Lisa Halaby's."

Whether Noor was "gorgeous" or "improbably beautiful" was irrelevant. Besides being a Princeton graduate, the queen possesses firsthand knowledge of Jordan's precarious position, and she deserves respectful coverage as a representative of her country, not a fashion report gushing about her braided navy cloth headband, her smart suit or her golden tresses. I consider this type of reporting archaic, insulting tripe.

Lauren Paige Kennedy