« Foolish (NSFW) | Main | The Michelle Obama Effect » GOP Previews Its Outreach Strategy To Women18 May 2009 06:32 pm Seriously, is there anything left to say? I don't know why I'm amazed. The politics of this are obvious--this thuggish, moronic excuse for a political group is eating itself alive. The Ignorance of the Southern Strategy begets the ignorance of this video. But we already knew that. I'm here to talk about something else. I was actually shocked to see this. And then I felt stupid for being shocked. I think this points to something that men just don't think much about: That being, how it feels for your looks to be fair game. I think this is what makes bigotry so tough to fight. It's not about the limits of empathy--it's the limits of imagination . Women make this point all the time about the pressure of being judged for their looks. And I sorta of nod in that, "Yeah, that's fucked up, I'll take your word for it" sort of way. But the truth is I can't see it. I don't get it. It's like when women describe walking down the street and getting cat-called all the way. Because it never happens when I'm walking with a woman, I don't quite get it. It's not that I don't believe it--it's that I can't imagine it. And then one day you see it naked, hateful, right in front of you. It must be akin to being white and seeing the Rodney King video--you'd heard black people say that this sort of thing happens. But to see it... Rush Limbaugh attacking Nancy Pelosi's looks is beyond sureal--I can't even think of a good metaphor. It's beyond him giving a lecture on drug abuse. It's more than him giving weight loss tips. It's like watching Martians land, like watching a major party--in this era--hand the mic off to an unrepentant bigot. Amazing. Don't they know who the fuck votes? Do they really think Sarah Palin can fix this? Comments (61)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
There's a lot in life that I don't understand.
I really have trouble understanding why this level of playground discourse is tolerated.
I feel like I'm eight years old again. Where do people get off criticizing people on how they look instead of the substance of the argument? Have we really become so image-centered and so shallow in this country that style trumps substance?
No offense I don't think that the appropriate question here is "would this happen if she were a man?" Rather I think the broader question is why do we tolerate this type of dialogue in our public discourse?
This is something I really don't understand. If I said to someone 2+2 = 4 and they said "well you're fat." They'd be laughed at for immaturity. Why isn't the same thing happening here?
Because the person saying "2 + 2 = 4" is a girl, and, as Barbie tells us, math is hard. I understand your point-- that there's a lot more shallowness going around than just sexism-- but can't you see how gender-loaded those attacks are?
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.
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.
I'm kind of surprised you're surprised, given what Clinton went through in the '90s and again as a presidential candidate. It ain't just the GOP, and this seems pretty tame compared to things I've heard about other powerful women (Clinton, Obama...).
Not that this excuses, but I was 17 when Bill Clinton came in. I just wasn't that politically aware then. There was no internet, and I didn't have cable. These days it's so much more intense. So many more people talking.
I was 18 when Bill Clinton was elected, that was the first election in which I voted. Maybe it's just because I'm female, but the hatred leveled at Mrs. Clinton was pretty overt. Or maybe I was just more politically aware - my mom took me to NOW and ERA meetings when I was very young.
Yeah, I really don't think it's more intense now than before. But I hear that you are open to seeing it. It really IS everywhere.
No, 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.
It wasn't so much that I couldn't see sexism back then, it was that I didn't see much of anything. I didn't vote in 92. I wasn't astute in terms of politics. You were in early bloomer. All of us weren't so lucky. There ain't much point in faking like we were.
I do think we're more likely to see it as women-- and probably particularly sensitive to it as teenage girls, since we knew this was the kind of future we were looking forward to.
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:
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.
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.
I guess the punditocracy didn't learn the true lessons of McCain-Palin. Assuming they could drop in anyone with ovaries and figure Independents/Dems who support Clinton would run to their side was proven to be a monumentally stooopid decision.
And trying to drag down the 3rd most powerful politician in DC with potshots about her looks is just as silly. Except for the hardcore 20%, I'll bet most women (Dem/Independent/GOP) are proud to have a woman as Speaker - these bloviators are too simpleminded to respect that.
From Rush:
Well, y'all would know about that, eh Rush-at-boy? I know he'd like you to think that pregnant pause was for comedic effect, but we all know it was really him wondering if his Viagra-ridden prostate might feel some karmic backlash for making a tumescence quip.
Mmmmm. Yeah, I was kind of expecting worse, with that tag. This is pretty baseline.
Honestly, I don't know if this will ever change. I have more hope for a future in which men can be just as demeaned for being ugly or at least failing to maintain a standard of desirability into middle age...It's like "retarded." You could maybe get people to stop using that word and switch to another, but whatever the new word is will attract the same meanings and soon be put to the same use as an insult, so long as being mentally deficient in some way is considered a bad thing. Same deal. So long as men desire women and being beautiful gets you somewhere, so long as "hot" is something you're suppossed to want to be, as a chick, then being undesirable in some way will be a ripe field for insult....
To flip the catcall scenario, I would never have known that a street two blocks from my dorm had a brothel on it if one of my male friends hadn't mentioned that he always got solicited there...
Reminds me of a Devil's Panties comic from earlier this year.
There's a bit of theory that holds that a not insignificant element of homophobia is the fear of being objectified. Hence the paranoia around straight men having to share showers with gay men. I say, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Yeah, people roll their eyes when people bring up intersectionality, but there really is a connection between homophobia/men are supposed to be the objectifiers/women are supposed to be objects.
"Do they really think Sarah Palin can fix this?" is the perfect remark. It just encapsulates the entire phenomenon. When the Republicans get that flash of recognition about this way of behaving, what they recognize isn't "We're using some abhorrent rhetoric and supporting some bad positions;" it's "We've alienated those people as voters and need to throw them a bone." But the same rhetoric and positions that drive women away at the polls drive them away from party involvement, which means that when you want to show them that there's room for them in the party, someone like Palin is the best you can do.
I appreciate your surprise, because to me it indicates an open mind, a willingness to pay attention, learn, and to still BE surprised.
To be honest, I've been a feminist for as long as I can remember, and have studied it formally for 11 years, and *I'm* still surprised by how open and virulent the misogyny is sometimes. For instance, the simultaneous freakout among many white male pundits about the prospect of race or sex being considered *at all* in the SCOTUS decision, and the swift and sure swiftboating of Sonia Sotomayer, took my breath away. I was a little surprised at how personal it felt. But the sense that these doods just couldn't imagine that woman/non-white person could be automatically considered the best choice felt like a personal attack, and a reminder that for them, however liberal they may consider themselves to be, someone like you or me will never simply be assumed to be the best, while a white man so chosen will never be assumed to have gotten there through connections, privilege, or any other advantage besides intelligence and hard work.
Also, I think a lot of it blurs into background noise - being catcalled on the street, being called sweetie by strange men and being told to smile, for instance. I've just gotten used to it. That doesn't mean I like it or think it's ok, but it's too draining for me to go around every day being outraged about everything.
Your comment really spoke to me. I wish women showed a bit more solidarity with one another, but patriarchy has a long and effective history of enabling the ridiculous competition exists among us. The lack of discussion of male privilege (and white privilege) keeps us in the dark ages - we can't really progress until the daily insults women endure are called into question. It would be great if more men would join us in this fight.
And what the hell is it with that "smile" crap?!? I can't even control my own face? Having an expression reflective of my state of mind threatens strange men? Good lord. I wish that crap didn't piss me off as much as it does.
I don't know that women are the only ones that get that smile bullshit. I used to hear that from my mother and her friends or complete strangers in that general age range when I was kid. Funny, it was always women who said it. I agree with you. It's absurd that someone would feel the need to dictate the expression you've chosen to wear at any given moment. You want me to smile? Tell a fucking joke? A good one. Not that "knock, knock" shit.
Really? I guess people think of women as they think of kids sometimes - not as people with independent emotional lives!
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"
They do it because they can. No one holds them accountable. Under the auspices of providing a "balanced" view, cable news grants these children platforms to spew this nonsense, as if they have thoughts important enough to add to the public discourse. Usually such vitrol is reserved for those of whom they are most threatened and/or intimidated (i.e. Hillary, Michelle O). Maybe if Nancy went the route of Miss California and bought some boobs, they'd be more supportive??? Of course not, because Madame Speaker has actual power, unlike Miss Cali who has a nice die job and silicon.
Rush Limbaugh attacking Nancy Pelosi's looks is beyond sureal--I can't even think of a good metaphor. It's beyond him giving a lecture on drug abuse. It's more than him giving weight loss tips. It's like watching Martians land, like watching a major party--in this era--hand the mic off to an unrepentant bigot.
This is so on the money, I love it Coates.
Amazing. Don't they know who the fuck votes? Do they really think Sarah Palin can fix this?
Yes, they are that dumb.
Coates, they are who we thought they were.
They've turned control over the Party to the racist junkie radio show clown.
Do they really think Sarah Palin can fix this?
Yes, they do. They also thought Clarence Thomas could fix the problem they have with African-American voters.
Anybody recognize the clown flailing around on Hardball? I don't.
Are these the same people who got so outraged about Wanda Sykes' jokes?
Yes, exactly the same. All the people who you vaguely disagree with are interchangeable.
In this case they are pretty much the same people.
If your gonna be a right wing troll at least bring something.
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Thank god Limbaugh doesn't have subpoena powers.
I'm not shocked they do it. I'm not shocked that they do it in a way that isn't very witty. As girl and as mom, I've heard boys doing the same stuff. I assume that somewhere around the corner, a fair number of grown men still make these cracks.
What shocks me is that they do it where I can hear them. Most boys are embarrassed to have adult women hear them. Nearly all adult men feel the same way. The exception I can think of are men selling a certain kind of performance calculated to shock, like late-night stand-up or the creators of Beavis and Butthead.
I'm not shocked that there are Republicans who do this stuff and others who laugh.
I'm stunned that there aren't thousands of other Republicans lunging of the political equivalent of the remote control to make sure the country mainly sees some other channel of the GOP.
Where did all the grownups go?
There were never any grownups. Any group that put out that load of crap that was the leadup to the Iraq war, and then the even more inept occupation lacked anything resembling adult supervision.
But that's exactly the problem. We've driven the misogyny underground, rather than killing it. It's still there, festering, and it bubbles up only rarely, when a woman in power is on the ropes. Since we have so few women in real positions of power, it's extraordinarily rare to see it in public.
Thanks for posting this to bring it to everyone's attention. This fight won't ever be won until we shine the hard light on this nasty stuff and the thousands of non-misogynist Republicans out there do the right thing and fire these assholes.
this thuggish, moronic excuse for a political group is eating itself alive.
Excuse me, I'm about to send them some catsup. Keep chowing down, fellas.
Oh, but Sarah's so hot... And she's a winner. And wimmin love winners.
What is it that we call the generation that never grew up? It starts with a B, I think. Two B-words, in fact. And neither is "Butthead," although sometimes you wouldn't know it.
Women of that generation simply aren't allowed to look like nice old ladies. Pelosi's a grandma -- what's she supposed to look like? I think she'd look nicer with grey hair and less make-up, the way grandmas have looked forever, but how many Baby Boomers have the courage to do that? The eternal youthfulness thing is getting increasingly strained.
Meanwhile, the Boomer men are still behaving like they're at a frat party. It's all so old, and so boring.
Can all of us post-Boomers, of all political stripes, agree to (1) grow up, and (2) grow old gracefully?
Just checked -- actually, Pelosi's a pre-Boomer. She was born in 1940, which makes her only 4 years younger than John McCain. You know, the guy who is too old to be president. There were plenty of comments about HIS age, although not really about his looks as such.
So the question is not just how grandmas are supposed to look. It's how women (and men) who are almost 70 are supposed to look. I mean, really! It takes that long to work your way up through the ranks, and people who have put in the time are going to look it.
Palin's relative youth and hotness go along with the serious handicap of relative inexperience. Maybe she'll have an amazing resume in 25 years, but she'll also have the wrinkles to go with it.
For the life of me, I can't see why we should care. It's the inverse of telling kids that they look stupid in ripped up jeans. What happened to people minding their own business?
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.
What are you, some sort of libertarian?
Right, but who said it doesn't matter?
"Pelosi's a grandma -- what's she supposed to look like?"
Apparently, Palin (who is also a grandma).
The end of the video asked if this would happen to a man, in 2004 there were quite a few shots taken at Kerry for his alledged use of botox. During the primary, Matt Taibbi was called out by feminists for making fun of Hillary's looks, and his response was a long list of disparaging remarks he made about the looks of a slew of world leaders.
I realize it is different because of the constant focus on the looks of women, but the video did ask the question.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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"
How does this contrast with "Stokely Carmichael in a dress"?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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.