The Atlantic - Latest Comments in GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Karin Robinson — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:02:00 -0000

"I imagine Pelosi is tough enough to handle this kind of thing, and if she's not, she's in the wrong line of work."

Actually, I'm glad you raised that because it brings up something I wanted to mention.

Clearly, Pelosi IS tough enough to take this - and I'm sure she doesn't bat an eyelid. The woman was raised in the political world, she's had a long and successful career, she knows how the game is played, and if the things that are said about her are deeply offensive, at least she has the satisfaction of knowing that she's arrived at the top of her profession despite them.

But what about young women starting out? When a bright young woman, who wants to serve her country starts considering a career in the political arena does it seem right to you that one of the factors she should have to consider is whether she's OK with being called ugly, or fat, or unattractive on a regular basis? Girls outperform boys in school, more women than men attend law school, and yet far more men than women go into politics.

In fact, Nancy Pelosi is not at all bad looking - I'd say she's far better than-average for her age group. She sure looks a lot better than me, and I'm much younger. So if Nancy's going to get attacked I know for sure I would. Yech. Politics is hard work, it requires a 24-7 dedication, you can lose your job in spectacular fashion at any election. That's all as it should be. But then as an added bonus, people get to call me fat and ugly on TV? I'll pass, thanks.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

cls — Wed, 20 May 2009 04:46:02 -0000

It's not a matter of treating her with kid gloves because she is a woman, though. It's about the fact that denigrating a woman's looks is a fundamentally different animal than denigrating a man's looks, since men's looks matter much, much less to the value society assigns them as human beings than women's do to theirs. It's not just about Pelosi. It's about reinforcing the idea that it's okay to mark women, and women IN PARTICULAR, as less-than because they don't look a certain way--an idea which has real consequences for you and me and all other women, not only for the target in question. That shit splashes back.

And TNC--I'm another woman who really does appreciate your surprise, since it indicates an open mind and a willingness to be horrified by this sort of crap. Thanks for giving it some attention. All the same, though, this sorta thing is par for the course, if a bit more blatant than usual. And it's not just limited to the GOP--the commentary by some ostensibly "progressive" dudes during the Democratic primary was a lesson about what's lurking in people's ids that I'll not soon forget.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Lee — Tue, 19 May 2009 17:10:36 -0000

You know, I'm a woman and I definitely have a different take on this. In an ideal world, people would not care about politicians' looks, but in the real world we live in, they do. That goes for both male and female politicians. Politics is a brutal sport, and when you put yourself into the public eye like that, everything about you becomes fair game for your enemies- your looks, your family, your sex life, whatever. I'm not going to tell Republicans they should stop making fun of Pelosi's looks any more than I'm going to tell Democrats they should stop making fun of Newt Gingrich's. It seems like people are expecting them to treat her with kid gloves BECAUSE she's a woman. I imagine Pelosi is tough enough to handle this kind of thing, and if she's not, she's in the wrong line of work.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Joel — Tue, 19 May 2009 16:22:51 -0000

These clowns perceive women as weaker than they are -- and so they'll pick on them. It's the law of the jungle, and these rats have no choice but to abide by it.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

C. — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:54:06 -0000

"I'm arguing for a social change where it is permissible for women to look their ages (which Pelosi does no matter how much hair dye she uses), without disguise or apology. And without being held to standards that would be sexist if applied to women 30 years younger. (And for men to have that permission too, because the whole appearance thing is starting to torment men now too.) It's precisely because most people aren't models, and because the whole modeling/performance thing has sprawled into areas of public life that shouldn't have anything to do with looks."

Good bloody luck with that. Perhaps I am a bit hypocritical, because I usually find arguments from evolutionary psychology to be bullshit, but: What you're arguing for here is a world in which being hot confers no advantage. I think you're swimming against 6 million years of tide. Switch Palin's body with Janet Napolitano's --- does she get the VP nom? I say no. Because her youthfulness and beauty were attractive qualities, big ticks on the plus side of the ledger that helped make up for considerable inexperience (in the minds of her backers).

What has 40 years of feminism and increasing equality and economic power for women brought us? Men have become very slightly more objectified, women perhaps very slightly less. I mean, you can't openly admit you're hiring a secretary for her sweater filling capabilities, the way you could in Don Draper's day. And we have invented the term "manscaping."

I think it's much more likely that if we ever achieve a future of true equality where women and men are earning the same for the same work and have the same career opportunities and share household and child care work equally, etc. --- even in that blessed paradise, every cellphone will have a camera, and people whose job entails using their personality and charisma to charm strangers will be hugely advantaged by being attractive, and the implication that one is unattractive will still be insulting. What we can hope to change is the idea that chicks especially have to be attractive to help make up for an inherent lack of substance, and that to be unattractive, to put no thought or care into your appearance, is to be bad at being a woman. A world in which Joe Biden's hairplugs are not merely goofy, but indeed repugnant --- that we can achieve.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

cassia_obovata — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:13:49 -0000

Not a fan of Pelosi but this level of misogyny is just vile. Rush et al may be who we thought they were, but "journalist" Alex Castellanos? Not who I thought he was. THAT shocked me. And by the way, botox isn't the only way to get mask facies; witness Michael J. Fox ... oh yeah, Rush thought he was faking it too!

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

M.C. — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:08:24 -0000

No, it's more complicated than that. It's a question of what female power looks like. I submit that political and legal power will often look old, simply because it takes a lot of time to climb the relevant career ladders. If women can't look old, or to put it another way if we are under constant pressure from men and the media to look young, then we are being asked to do something impossible. In that world, women with the right seniority will always seem laughable in some way.

I'm arguing for a social change where it is permissible for women to look their ages (which Pelosi does no matter how much hair dye she uses), without disguise or apology. And without being held to standards that would be sexist if applied to women 30 years younger. (And for men to have that permission too, because the whole appearance thing is starting to torment men now too.) It's precisely because most people aren't models, and because the whole modeling/performance thing has sprawled into areas of public life that shouldn't have anything to do with looks.

I remember reading about Madonna's workout routine at some point. It's impressive. Takes a lot of time. And Madonna is extremely good-looking and fit for her age. But that's her job, for which she gets paid extremely well. It isn't Pelosi's, so there's no reason she shouldn't have permission to be an old lady.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:23:56 -0000

It's really no one's business. She's not a model--she's the Speaker Of The House. What does this have to do with the CIA and torture?

What gives anyone the right to dictate to other people how they should handle aging? Fools need to mind their own faces.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

CitizenE — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:55:28 -0000

The Pelosi misogyny is so obvious. Since nothing sticks to Obama, playing on all the misogynistic stereotypes of Pelosi as a red herring for addressing torture is so obvious. This has nothing to do with the woman's vote. Even women can blame Pelosi for whatever ails the Democratic party. She is an unappealing female, right--bossy, shrill, like Sotomayer, right?

When this all first came up about a week ago, Sullivan and Yglesias thought--well this will be good for making the torture issue bipartisan or something. What a bunch of crap. This is pure Republican bait and switch, and one can already see Democratic apologists (et tu Donna Brazille) folding on the torture issue--American people want a chicken in their pot, a Lexus in their Nexus, a shot in their dark--they don't want to discuss torture, war crimes; they don't want to think of themselves as horrible people.

It makes my skin crawl, and Obama has to answer again and again. The Democrats will not be forever able to cash in on how the Republican party is an abject failure, if they turn a blind eye.

Here it is. I might have been satisfied with a Truth Commission, but as it stands now I say: Investigate; where crimes have been committed, prosecute. Republican, Democrat--let the chips fall where they may. Prison for those convicted. This whole Pelosi deal isn't simply about women, but about getting away with crimes against humanity.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Jonathan — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:55:04 -0000

How does this contrast with "Stokely Carmichael in a dress"?

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Sorn — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:33:23 -0000

I can and do see the gender bias in this type of talk, but prejudice is usually symptomatic of a larger problem. Arguably there is a fine line between prejudiced ignorance and ignorant prejudice. However, I think that the attacks on Nanci Pelosi are a sign of where the anti-intellectualism that certain segments of the republican party like to sell eventually ends up.

I don't hate the gender bias so much as I hate the ignorance which produces the gender bias, and I absolutely hate the fact that such ignorance is not only tolerated but encouraged.

Decency, good taste, upholding the dignity of other people, it all flows from wanting to understand. Not wanting to understand anything other than a point of view that agrees with what you already beleive is what produces this type of crap. I don't understand why we tolerate this level of ignorance in talking about our public figures.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

GamblinwithArafat — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:16:54 -0000

Lets say hypothetically Pelosi did use botox. Would that be a fair mocking point? Wheres the line on looks anyway? Its okay to have websites like this http://www.bushorchimp.com/, but because pelosi's a women she can't be mocked for her looks? I mean Rush Limbaugh isn't the most sensitive person in the world, but this is like taking one minute snippets of Jim Moran, Cynthia Mckinney and Nikki Turner saying "look at the democrats outreach to jews" or quotes from Olbermann and others during the primary and saying look at the democrats "outreach to women"

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

oldhickory — Tue, 19 May 2009 11:10:51 -0000

And so many more people listening. The way that information is spread and gathered is crazy. I mean honestly, I'm replying to a blog that I heard about from a magazine that I read after looking at the news on Google & catching up on a story from NPR. It's not just that they need people listening (because they are) but they need people to listen to them and so they try everything. I guess that must be why listening to Fox News is like being in the varsity football locker room & CNN is like amateur hour debates in the common room of my college dorm.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

M.C. — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:53:18 -0000

I actually think women who are seriously plain take less heat over their looks than women who used to be attractive and are now old. I have yet to hear anyone talk about Madeleine Albright's looks, or Angela Merkel's. They look their age and dress their age, and they don't look overdone. Nobody looks at them and sees hotness gone to seed. They see grown women doing grown-up things.

I'm not saying older women don't have the right to dye their hair and use a lot of make-up. They certainly can, just as bald men can wear hairpieces if they want to. But it doesn't fool anyone, and it does open the way for jokes. Plastic surgery even more so.

That's why I hope we can get to a cultural point where we can treat the inevitable signs of aging as normal and not ridiculous. And realize that if you want a 40-year resume, it will come attached to a 60+ year old face.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Tel — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:27:37 -0000

"Pelosi's a grandma -- what's she supposed to look like?"

Apparently, Palin (who is also a grandma).

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

GAPeach7 — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:17:19 -0000

The difference here is that you were told to smile as a child - I am a grown ass woman and people are telling me to smile. I'm not knocking you AMT.

That's one of the things I love about the First Lady - she refuses to be artificial or make people feel comfortable.

When people tell me to smile, I say tell me a joke - I want to see your dance moves before you see mine.

*stepping off soapbox"

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Lee — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:10:51 -0000

Isn't it possible that people make mean-spirited comments about politicians' looks all the time, but it's only perceived as particularly offensive when it is directed at a woman? I remember a LOT of comments about how John Kerry had a horse face, and Al Gore looked like a wooden puppet, and George Bush looks like a monkey, and John McCain has yellow teeth, and John Edwards has plastic hair and looks like a cheesy ken doll, and Joe Biden has bad hair plugs, etc., ad infinitum. But in our culture, picking on a guy for his looks is considered less offensive because of course a guy can be ugly and still have other things going for him, whereas when a woman is ugly, game over, who gives a fuck if she's a nobel prize winner, right? Maybe the fact that people can point out that Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton and the like are not exactly supermodels and yet it has zero impact on their ability to hold powerful political positions is actually a GOOD thing.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:06:27 -0000

Right, but who said it doesn't matter?

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Josh Jasper — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:02:41 -0000

What are you, some sort of libertarian?

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

albatross — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:38:16 -0000

But politicians' appearance does seem to matter--I'm pretty sure the average successful politician looks better on TV (and is taller) than the average American, or even the average American drawn from the same social class as the politicians.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

LonBecker — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:37:34 -0000

I also expected the comments to be much worse given the set up. Obviously Limbaugh calling someone else ugly shows a lack of self-awareness. But botox jokes about Pelosi seem no worse than hair jokes about Edwards, and there were plenty of those.

Limbaugh was the only one who turned the issue to sexuality as well. But then he is just a buffoon. This clip really does pale compared with what was hurled at Hilary Clinton during the '90s. And that is true even with the lesser media of the time.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

albatross — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:27:20 -0000

Just as an aside, Kerry also had botox rumors spread by the American Pravda crowd. And I've seen some folks on the left--though nobody nearly as prominent as Limbaugh--making some pretty sexist, smarmy comments about Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, to say nothing of Sarah Palin.

But honestly, how do you expect these guys to argue? On the facts? With reason? Let's not be silly--the facts are overwhelmingly against them, and rational argument can't take the anywhere they want to go. Schoolyard taunts are pretty much what they've got left.

The scary thing about all this is, the Obama administration can fail big. The economic crisis isn't generating scary headlines so often anymore, but it's far from over, and things could go south in a big way. The war on terror was run as a political campaign, and wasted tremendous amounts of money, but small groups of terrorists could still manage another 9/11 scale attack. Afghanistan/Pakistan could melt down into a bigger disaster than Iraq ever was. Any of those might very well send Obama home after one term, and put the Republicans back into the white house and back into control in Congress.

And the Republicans have, as far as I can tell, been taken over by lunatics. Their positions range from creepy to horrifying, their rhetoric from unintentionally funny to bone-chilling. Put these guys back into power in 2012, in the midst of 20% unemployment and the aftermath of another terrorist attack in which, say, 500 people die, and they will be in a position to honest-to-God wreck the country.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:26:56 -0000

Look, the point here isn't that you should've seen it then. The point is that it has always been there, in an overwhelming way for some women. No, there was no Fox News or internet access, but there were magazines, billboards, talk radio, television, and newspapers. And it was as bad, then as now.

I don't have a problem debating this, but we have to at least agree on what we're debating, or else there isn't much of a point.

In the first post I pointed to media and intensity. Perhaps, I wasn't clear enough and so I attempted to clarify by saying:

the point isn't that the hatred is more intense, or that the sexism leveled at Clinton wasn't overt. It's that the media coverage is more intense (hence the mention of internet and cable news). Thus more opportunities to see it. There was no Fox News in 92--among other things.

Like I said, I'll argue all day. But not just for the hell of it. We have to at least faithfully communicate. Otherwise, there really isn't a point.

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

DC Fem — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:23:25 -0000

I don't think these blowhards realize how many women are already dealing with someone just like them in their lives. Lots of women are married to, or the daughter of, or the sister of (you get my point) a loud mouthed man who thinks he knows everything, is always right and insults women with sexist crap about their looks while patting his continually expanding belly. Why would a woman who already has a fool like this in her life vote for another one?

Re: GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women

Persia — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:12:58 -0000

To continue with this theme, Salon has an article on 'fashion-based' criticism of Michelle Obama today. Money quote:

It's not surprising that New York Times Op-Ed writers Maureen Dowd and David Brooks, two baby boomers caught up in rehashing some sort of eternal return of femininity that has been veering toward irrelevancy for decades, use Michelle's muscular arms to insinuate that her husband is a wimp, but it's particularly gross that they're so tone-deaf about playing into a stereotype of black women as bossy and emasculating.