More feminist procrastinating
I am craving pizza today. And yesterday. I think I am starting to go into winter torpor.
I was reading ridiculous stuff about whether or not Republican chicks are hotter than Democrat chicks (Democratchicks?), an offshoot of the "Babe Theory of Political Movements" (which is a joke, no?). While this is an inane topic (because obviously Democrats are hotter - unless you're big into the hairspray and pumps and glazed expressions, ha ha) what bugged me about it the most is that the underlying presumptions of the whole discussion are:
1) The primary role of women is to advertise the party, thereby making the party desirable. Like using supermodels to sell beer.
2) Men act - women adorn. (Men are subject, women are objects.)
3)Men are the Default - women are Other.
4) Women are judged on their looks over any other metric.
I'm so not being paranoid about this. Maybe I will eat some pizza to ease the pain.
I also read this lame NYTimes magazine piece by Maureen Dowd which was all "Blah blah blah, feminists wear Birkenstocks and so I can't get dates, blah blah, can't 'have it all' blah." There's an excellent piece by Katha Pollit in the Nation which is much more worth reading than the M.D. story. Can I just say, I have never had trouble getting a date because I'm too smart and accomplished or whatever . . . Maybe this is because I would never consider dating someone who didn't dig the smart girls. Maybe this is also because I only know other grad students, who tend to be liberal and bookish. Still, though.
But I don't want to get going on patriarchy and advertising. I am already a lazy enough grad student. There are any number of other things I ought to be doing.
By the way, I don't have Ann Coulter stylee highlights or stick-insect legs and I am damn hot.
P.S. Shameless self-promotion: Tomorrow is my birthday!!!
I was reading ridiculous stuff about whether or not Republican chicks are hotter than Democrat chicks (Democratchicks?), an offshoot of the "Babe Theory of Political Movements" (which is a joke, no?). While this is an inane topic (because obviously Democrats are hotter - unless you're big into the hairspray and pumps and glazed expressions, ha ha) what bugged me about it the most is that the underlying presumptions of the whole discussion are:
1) The primary role of women is to advertise the party, thereby making the party desirable. Like using supermodels to sell beer.
2) Men act - women adorn. (Men are subject, women are objects.)
3)Men are the Default - women are Other.
4) Women are judged on their looks over any other metric.
I'm so not being paranoid about this. Maybe I will eat some pizza to ease the pain.
I also read this lame NYTimes magazine piece by Maureen Dowd which was all "Blah blah blah, feminists wear Birkenstocks and so I can't get dates, blah blah, can't 'have it all' blah." There's an excellent piece by Katha Pollit in the Nation which is much more worth reading than the M.D. story. Can I just say, I have never had trouble getting a date because I'm too smart and accomplished or whatever . . . Maybe this is because I would never consider dating someone who didn't dig the smart girls. Maybe this is also because I only know other grad students, who tend to be liberal and bookish. Still, though.
But I don't want to get going on patriarchy and advertising. I am already a lazy enough grad student. There are any number of other things I ought to be doing.
By the way, I don't have Ann Coulter stylee highlights or stick-insect legs and I am damn hot.
P.S. Shameless self-promotion: Tomorrow is my birthday!!!
posted by Joolya at
5:06 PM
6 Comments:
I've seen several photo lists of right versus left women. Every one of them was a simple case of careful selection and not representative of anything. Last time I checked an ideology should not require window dressing to make it attractive... and I agree that it is a slap to everything women have worked for to be used as such.
Anyway, happy birthday! (dare I ask how many... don't hit me)
;-D
I know the British political scene is pretty meaningless, but this is true here too. The former chairman of the Conservative party, Theresa May, is always being touted as the toff's top totty because she wears interesting shoes. But I'm willing to bet that conservatives care more about what "their" women look like than liberals because they are social dinosaurs. Viva la revolucion! &c.
Happy birthday! Did you remember to call Grammy yesterday?!
Ya know, I don't think you're being paranoid either...
And on that note, a belated Happy Birthday.
(Happy Birthday To You! Happy Birthday To You!)
Women are judged on their looks over any other metric.
It's a pretty well known fact that attractive people attach appeal to whatever they represent and endorse. So it's either "use it or have it used against you". I'm not endorsing the use of "political supermodels", of course, but cynically saying, "what else do you expect?" So long as humans are biological and have biological impulses and attractions based on visual cues, advertisers and clever public relations persons will continue to use those facts to their advantage.
Further, it really depends on context, doesn't it? Relative to a particular situation, men can be judged on their looks over any other metric as well, especially with respect to Hollywood/music.
If all we're exposed to is seeing someone, and not meeting them and talking to them, what can we expect? Say a woman is shown pulling up in a Rolls-Royce, she'll be judged on her money and her looks (same with a man). If the woman/man carries herself/himself with a certain powerful air, then the conclusion upon seeing them is "snob/rich bitch/bastard". Such judgments are natural appraisals of visual criteria, regardless of their hotness.
If the woman pulls up outside a political pacifism rally in a VW Beetle, is wearing semi-ratty clothes, and has the stereotypical Bohemian hair/clothes/makeup, she'll be judged a "hippie" by her looks and the context, irrespective of whether she is hot or not, right?
Now, this same hippie look, contrasted with the old, rich, martini-carrying, immigration-complaining, stereotype of your Californian Republican (or Floridian, or New English) are applicable to how they represent the party as well. The issues that are most important to people -- their core values, are going to determine their party affiliation, and we all know that, generally speaking, Republicans control much of the corporate rich, while "greenies", pacifists and educational progressivists belong to the Dems.
Don't we all form an image of those two stereotypical GOP/Dem types? Perhaps it's good that political parties (both) have a sort of image overhaul. At this point, I think the end -- getting Bush and the Bush Congress out -- justifies whatever means necessary. Hell, if you knew you could tip Florida in the Dem favor this election, wouldn't you show a little leg? For the children's sake?
;)
Happy Birthday, sure, but repent because the end is near. End Times John, this is no joke. www.endtimesmessenger.com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home