Comments on: HRC: And One Other Thing

By: Jen

Jen — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:28:10 +0000

What’s sad, at least, to me, is that when I say that I think Hillary Clinton is beautiful is that people deride my sense of aesthetics. The “is it fuckable?” standard doesn’t apply to Clinton when I look at her, simply because the force of her accomplishments and passion is truly awesome and beautiful to behold. It doesn’t hurt that physically, she is also very fashionable and pretty.

Then again, someone could be quite conventionally ugly, and if they recited beautiful poetry and heart-felt sentiments to me, they would be radiant. What is sad not only is that her success is derided for a lack of beauty (which, is false: Clinton wears her age like the latest Versace skirt), it’s that her personality and accomplishments are not factors of her appeal, they are detriments. Can you imagine a world in which Obama’s political successes made him ugly? I cannot. When someone tells me that sexism is dead, I assume they must be deaf, dumb, and blind.

By: Jemima

Jemima — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:32:52 +0000

I have a blog post up about the jokes and insults being flung about an Italian politician who happens to be an ex-model (nude model that is). Very much on the same topic as you talk about here, though somewhat shorter :P

http://jemimaaslana.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/when-women-joke-about-women/

By: roses

roses — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:55:13 +0000

She is a very attractive woman. Of course, if she wasn’t, that wouldn’t make it okay to attack her for her looks. But the fact that she is really highlights the way it’s not about looks at all. It really is just a way to tear women down a peg. “You may be our next president, but I still have the power to judge whether you’re fuckable or not, and don’t you forget it.”

By: Niki

Niki — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:54:29 +0000

I think there is also an element of disbelief that an attractive woman would WANT to do anything but serve men.

By: Renee

Renee — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:11:54 +0000

I was reading your post and listening to Chistian Amanpour on CNN.. It occurs to that any woman who takes on a traditionally male role is constructed as ugly and unfeminine. It is a form of castration really, a cruel and vicious unsexing meant to discipline us back into docility. When women succeed despite the best efforts of patriarchy I think that they find it threatening. If we can succeed despite the roadblocks against us what could we accomplish in a truly equal world. This more than anything keeps those hateful MRA`s up at night.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:14:58 +0000

Gendered attacks are easy because no matter how absurd; they somehow retain their potency. You’re right about it being about as far from a legitimate political argument as you can get but our national political discourse is both polarized and vacuous. Most people seem to either love or hate Sen. Clinton and I think that goes a long way towards explaining why she is judged so negatively (and sexism goes a long way towards explaining why Sen. Clinton raises such strong feelings in people).

I doubt that for her detractors Sen. Clinton’s appearance is remarkable (in any way) but I do not think it is about how she looks. People usually have some idea of how effective an insult will be and they are selecting the one they think will land with the most impact.

By: boardincali

boardincali — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:28:48 +0000

I think that it stems from an intimidation factor. When women become dominant on a male dominated environment, they make up petty excuses or attacks. Take Danica Patrick for example, after her victory, there were people saying that she had advantages, and they "let her win" because she was a woman. This woman is successful because of her mind! Fuel rationing and experience won it. Hilary is also recognized for her mind, looks have nothing to do with it, and never should.

By: Pop Feminist

Pop Feminist — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:32:19 +0000

Well, it’s a wonderful way to knock a woman down a peg isn’t it? So much of our worth on all levels is tied in one way or another to our appearance. If you call a woman “fat” or “ugly”, you’re in essence making a comment on the whole mosaic of her person as being not good enough.

If the media can convince the world that Clinton is ugly, they save themselves the trouble of convincing us of her other short-comings; it will simply go without saying. Same with Yoko. It’s hard to actually justify hating someone who John Lennon loved so much. By pointing out that she’s ugly (when Lennon could get any woman on earth), it’s a cake-walk to chalking her influence on him up to witchcraft, or a painting her as a manipulative bitch who wants only to control his income and break up the beatles.

Keeping women under the thumb of the beauty industry is a key weapon in undermining the accomplishments of feminism. Naomi Wolf’s “The Beauty Myth”, while out of date and often overly simplistic, does a good job in demonstrating the many ways in which beauty is used as a weapon against would-be successful women.

Ugh. It’s such a shame that something so small and boring as beauty is capable of dolling out so hard a blow on the lives and liberation of women.