Have you noticed something interesting about this new crop of Republican female politicians? Of course you have. They’re all sexy but untouchable, like a little army of Barbie dolls with Bibles. Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Nikki Haley, Christine O’Donnell, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Monica Crowley, Michele Bachmann… drop-dead gorgeous, every one of them. But it’s not just their looks; they also share a fascinating aura of suppressed but seething sexuality. (Hey, that last phrase is fun to read aloud, isn’t it? But afterward you need to wipe your monitor screen…) There’s a suggestion of a feisty world of fun under the neatly buttoned suit… but not for you, Sparky. Not for you. You’re just not pure enough. If you were, maybe YOU could be the one to free Christine O’Donnell from the cold shackles of virginity… but alas, you can only dream.
Republican men are inexplicably turned on by this overtly demeaning, “look-but-don’t touch” message, this “she’s hot, but too virtuous for the likes of you” kind of insinuation. It more or less embodies their under-evolved view of women. The socially conservative Republican male views women not as serious peers and colleagues, but as shiny sparkly playthings. Why they also want their politicians to be legislative eye candy is mystifying… but it’s true. Don’t believe me? You should spend some quality time amongst the Freepers. Whenever a right-wing female pol or pundit is mentioned in a thread, they enforce “The Rule.” This “rule” demands that if you mention one of these women, you must also post photos of her. Then everybody gets to post their favorite photo, and soon there’s a whole gallery of political pulchritude spread across the page. I’m used to it now but when I first saw it, I could hardly believe it. Imagine that happening at a left-wing site. Well, you can’t, it’s unimaginable.
Also, it’s hard to imagine Sarah Palin having the same following if she gained fifty pounds and developed a skin condition. In fact, I can’t picture the Tea Party getting all excited about any female politician who doesn’t combine these three elements of physical good looks, rich sexual promise and overt religiosity. They just can’t, because with social conservatives, at some level, it’s always, always, all about sex. Every policy they fight hard for, every issue they go to the mat for (sorry) has some element of elevating male power, objectifying female attractiveness, and controlling sexual expression. No wonder all the politicians I mentioned have huge gender variations in their approval ratings, running 12 to 20% more positive among men than women.
Am I wrong, righties? Prove it. Tell me about a physically unattractive but coldly competent female politician or pundit whom you personally admire. Oh, and Margaret Thatcher doesn’t count. That lady has always been in a league of her own.
538 Refugees 
Oddly, I was just writing an article regarding the very same topic Great minds and all that. As a songwriter friend once wrote;”It ain’t the end of the world. It’s just the wreck of the Barbie Ferrari”
I don’t find Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham particularly attractive.Still, I take your point. What is more disturbing to me is that these female politicians are unabashedly sexual in their self-presentation. Can you imagine Scott Brown in Speedos? (Well, probably you can, but still.) In fact, he ran away from that image of him, and ran toward competence.The problem with using your boob job or your looks rather than your brain is that those things are fleeting. It’s not much of a career if your shelf life is 10-20 years, tops.You didn’t ask us lefty feminists, but I admire Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan. I’d throw Sandra Day O’Connor in there, too. These are all women who (necessarily) overcame some sort of adversity to get to the positions they occupied. That’s worthy of admiration.
PS: Mann Coulter doesn’t count
Mr. U, you know Terry Anderson? Holy crap, he’s one of my favorite songwriters ever since “I Love You, Period.”
Treme: From a previous avocation.
@Monotreme: You didn’t ask us lefty feminists, but I admire Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hilary Clinton, Shirley Chisholm and Barbara Jordan. I’d throw Sandra Day O’Connor in there, too. See, I knew you would admire those women. The Freepers are just scathing about that same group… but when they post criticisms of these women, it’s usually attacking their LOOKS… not their personalities or politics.I find it really puzzling, actually. Why do Republican men think looks matter so much in their female politicians? I hope some of them will log on and give me an answer. I’ve wondered about it for years, actually… (and developed a few theories I’d like to test 🙂
Well, we’re getting closer to a working hypothesis, Filistro.I don’t admire someone who is born with pulchritude, any more than I admire someone who is born rich. That’s just a shuffle of the genetic dice.I do admire someone who is born beautiful, or wealthy, or powerful, who uses that genetic birthright to do some good in the world. It doesn’t even have to be something I agree with, as long as there’s some sort of morality informing it.On a personal note, my wife (who has a PhD) was most attractive to me as a total package, not just for her physical beauty (which was, and is, considerable).I think social conservatives, with their belief in the anointed, tend to think that those who are born beautiful or rich are somehow anointed by God. (Apparently, “smart” doesn’t count for much.) That’s my hypothesis.
@Mtreme: I think social conservatives, with their belief in the anointed, tend to think that those who are born beautiful or rich are somehow anointed by God. Hmmm… interesting… but I’m not sure it holds up. If that were true the socons would be big admirers of Paris Hilton, but they’re not. In fact they loathe women like her. What they want is a woman who’s hot and sexy and thinks just like they do. Well, I suppose every man wants that 😉 but among the socons it has a creepy “Stepford Wife” kind of vibe that I can’t really nail down. I’m working on it, though.(Hey GROG… if you’re reading, I’m exempting you from all this. You’re one of the few righties brave enough to be my friend even though you and I agree on practically nothing. I admire that quite a lot 🙂
Oops.. obviously we don’t have the handy “your html is not closed” feature we had at the old site. I’ll have to be more careful.
Oh Jeez… is the italics html going to stay open for EVERYBODY now?
Fili:Never fear. It can be fixed.
Or not.
Michael Gerson today commented: “In Tea Party theory, inexperience is itself seen as a kind of qualification. People like O’Donnell are actually preferable to people like Rove, because they haven’t been tainted by public trust or actual achievement. This is the attitude of the adolescent — the belief that the world began on their thirteenth birthday. It is also a sign of childish political thought.” So building upon that “qualifications” base by picking – from that pool of possibilities – someone who is photogenic and above-average looking would make perfect sense in their world-view.Take a look at the Fox News anchors and hosts, Gretchen Carlson, et al. They’re built from the same model.
9/18/2010 11:25 AM Monotreme wrote:Or not.LOL… Sorry everybody, I’m SO embarrassed. I think I’ll just slink away in disgrace and go soak my foot 😦
Filistro:I know life is unfair, but politicians, like other leaders, are chosen in part based upon their looks. This applies to men as well as women. You will not see a short, unattractive male get close to a nomination for President in this age of television.Some undoubtably male members of a local GOP district in Minn released an absolutely sexist and hilarious Youtube video where they scrolled past photos of all the conservative babes to the soundtrack of “She’s a Lady,” and then past the worst possible photos of famous women of the left to “Who Let the Dogs Out.” The humorless state GOP yanked the Youtube clip in about 24 hours, but you can see the photos used here:http://citizen-pamphleteer.blogspot.com/2010/08/best-sexist-political-satire-of-all.htmlMilady, your post above represents the flipside of this sexism, without the frat boy humor. Parade of Barbie dolls? :::rolls eyes:::
I don’t know. It might be something more base than we’re alluding to. I think men just respond to beautiful women because in the back of their minds they are programmed to think ‘Wow, I could totally make some good offspring with that’.I think it’s just that simple.
@Bart.. “but you can see the photos used here”Good grief. You posted that crap at YOUR OWN BLOG?Bart, Bart… just when I think you’re maybe beginning to show some tiny traces of vestigial improvement… there you go again.
Of course of I’m reading Fili. Just taking it all in. Some of my closest friends are female raging lefties. (Most of them are attracted to cavemen like myself.)
@Mr U… “I think men just respond to beautiful women…”Well, of course they do. But why do Tea Party men want their POLITICIANS to be cutie-pie sex machines? I think maybe Jean comes closest to a working theory with her idea that the more cute, ditzy and sexy their female pols are, the further removed they are from any kind of threatening “establshment” image… or the horrible taint of having an actual IQ. Sorry for the extreme generalization, but… socially conservative men are, for the most part, turned off by smart women.Lefties, on the other hand, seem to ADORE them 🙂
Fili said:”Every policy they fight hard for…” You said hard.Btw, I love Condi Rice and I don’t find her particularly attractive.
@GROG… “(Most of them are attracted to cavemen like myself.)”LOL!!! Now that’s a whole other fascinating area of research… what do smart women see in cavemen?Maybe we shouldn’t go there… 😉
Speaking of Margaret Thatcher, can you imagine palin ever being considered for a high level position in the British Parliament lol Would the The Right Honourable Miss palin take her grizzlies, pigs and bridge to nowhere and pack them where the sun don’t shine! ;)>Again my fave ~ National Review’s Rich Lowry gives Sarah Palin’s debate winks a rave review:I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.You bet’cha!Indeed, Lowry, Bart et al conservative men got a hard-on when mama grizzley winked at them!And yes, fixednoise has some babes, some of which can actually form a complete sentence and have a rational thought …>Bart is correct (gasp) as politics has much to do w/superficiality ie mittens, Schwarzeneggar etc. but since the conservative meme, were the only party of god, run by evangelicals, Republicans are soooo overwhelmed w/their sexual repressions, when wingers see a good lookin’ babe, they release all their googoo gaga 😉 pent-up frustrations and gush like little kids.Much like boys did back in the ’50s/’60s when they saw their 1st Playboy magazine. I digress :)take care, blessings
@FiliGood grief. You posted that crap at YOUR OWN BLOG?~~~~~~~~~~Bart may be the most repressed winger at 538 as he struggles w/sexual innuendo 😉
Ah.. shiloh brings us even closer to a working theory! Combined with Jean’s ideas, we may just have the answer here.Socially conservative men are SEXUALLY REPRESSED. But it’s permissible to drool over Palin or O’Donnell because: a.) they’re politicians, not actual women (or Playboy centerfolds) b.) they’re really, really religious, so it’s okay, God won’t be madandc.) they aren’t all that bright, so they’re not scary or threatening.Wow. A light dawns. I love it.
hmm, somebody didn’t close one their italic quotation mark(s) up the page as everyone’s posts are now in italics.This happened every now and then at RCP in 2008 …A glitch in blog html design.This is why a “preview” option is quite helpful.carry on
@shiloh… “somebody didn’t close one their italic quotation mark(s) up the page as everyone’s posts are now in italics…”Yes, I’m sorry, ’twas I. (Hangs head in shame, retreats to heating pad and ice pack…)
@FiliShit happens! 🙂 ie cheney/bush from 2001 to 2009 😉
Damn. I just wrote a brilliant piece of commentary, and lost it. The essence of it was, the right wing babes help their drooling admirers to shut off their minds. That makes the nonsense of Republican rhetoric much easier to swallow. No one accuses these babes of being Rhodes scholars or even of understanding the rules of checkers. They are the perfect symbol for the Republican party — all surface glitz, no depth, no thought, no capability for logic.The appeal is felt from the neck down, and has nothing to do with the brain. Do keep in mind, the R’s are an anti-intellectual lot (they’re convinced being able to balance a checkbook is “elitist”).Someone who might make them think — well, one wouldn’t want that. It’s far easier to… oh, wait, boobies. he. hee hee hee ….
Why is the floor so sticky in here?
Okay. Don’t make me start using the censor feature. You bad boys.
I’ve been thinking about this myself and I have a theory. I think it’s the false dichotomy of some (many?) men that a woman can either be pretty or smart, but not both. If you tend to be of the mindset that women should be subservient to men, an intelligent woman is threatening. If she’s cute, and can therefore be labeled as not very bright, she’ll probably just sit there and smile pretty for the camera and let the men tell her how to vote on the important issues. I don’t really know how prevalent this view is, but it’s certainly going to be more common among the “women belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant” crowd. And men with that attitude are going to be more likely to be on the far right because of their stance on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.)
@Grogs: “If she’s cute, and can therefore be labeled as not very bright, she’ll probably just sit there and smile pretty for the camera and let the men tell her how to vote on the important issues.”Hey, Grogs, that’s very astute.(Clearly YOU are not a caveman!)You’re saying socially ocnservative men like their womenfolk to be decorative, dim, and BIDDABLE…. and because that’s the kind of woman who appeals to THEM, they naturally think it’s what everybody likes. So in theory they just have to nominate cutie-pie bimbos, and they can easily get them elected and thus have a whole lot of useful idiots installed in positions of power.(Come to think of it George Bush… though not technically a bimbo… was actually the template for this strategy, no?)But wow… diabolically clever, righties! Now let’s all enjoy watching how badly it fails come November. Because… strange as it may seem to y’all… bimbos just aren’t everybody’s cup of tea.
Jerry Harrison of the Talking Heads said it best, I think.Pretty girl, young girl, old man, man with a gun, two people in love: The rules do not applyIn other words pretty girls get a pass in life.
As he loaded the chamber her eyes got starryIt ain’t the end of the worldIt’s just wreck of the Barbie FerrariWhen they get home from church won’t they be sorryHe’s cornered ’em all on his urban safari It aint the end of the world… It’s just the wreck of the Barbie Ferrari ™
Please don’t confuse me with Grogs. Grogs is clearly not a caveman.
“Come to think of it George Bush… though not technically a bimbo… was actually the template for this strategy, no?”Actually, I think it was Saint Ronnie. The man wasn’t too smart to begin with. And by the time he became president, he was totally senile, and wasn’t actually all that aware of what went on around him.For 30 years, the Republicans have been a brand, and have pasted cynical faces upon that brand. They’ve been about selling tax cuts, and a bunch of rhetoric they never follow through on — and that doesn’t actually mean anything anyway. And they put an attractive face on it, first a “strong” face (Reagan) then an old-boy let’s-hang-out face ( W.) now a sexy face. Still the same brand, still the same cynical nonsense. Different ad campaign.There’s a new book out about Reagan — “The Clothes have No Emperor”. This works for the entire Republican Party. It doesn’t matter what face they plaster on their cynical rhetoric. It’s still jingoistic fear, and that’s the real product they’re selling.
“Please don’t confuse me with Grogs. Grogs is clearly not a caveman.”It’s true. I have not requested identities. You can masquerade as anybody here. I should probably require people to sign up. I’m learning.
GROG,re: I’ve been thinking about this myself and I have a theory. I think it’s the false dichotomy of some (many?) men that a woman can either be pretty or smart, but not both. I think you may be on to something. And as my mother occasionally noted about a pretty but dumb woman, “When God was handing out brains, she was in the looks line.”
This is just an attempt to turn of the italics.
The attempt to turn off italics does not seem to have worked. This is a very odd set of blogging software.
Hey, it DID work! THANK YOU!!I’d ask how you did that, but I know I would never understand the answer…
@filistro “Am I wrong, righties? Prove it. Tell me about a physically unattractive but coldly competent female politician or pundit whom you personally admire. Oh, and Margaret Thatcher doesn’t count. That lady has always been in a league of her own.”=============First, there just aren’t many politicians I admire, and there aren’t many conservative women politicians, and then you go and take one of my three picks for the greatest leader of the 20th century out of the running….. I actually admire Hilary Clinton. Don’t like her, don’t like her policies, but I admire her. I also like Angela Merkel. I “enjoy” Sarah Palin (I also enjoy a good rare “red meat” steak dinner). I didn’t like Sandra Day O’Connor, because she was one of the most fuzzy thinkers ever on the Supreme Court. I admire Carly Fiorina (and not Meg Whitman).Your whole piece is from the fever-swamp of the left. When you run out of valid criticisms you then move on to inventing pyschological critiques of your opposition. Bush invaded Iraq because of his daddy. Conservatives only support women if they’re babes. (Obama Girl must be your model of left-wing intellectual power).The facts of the matter are that good-looking people tend to have an advantage in life — and especially politics in the age of TV. Study after study has shown this. Corporation executives tend to be taller and better looking. Beautiful young women tend to get more warnings and fewer tickets for speeding.Who was better looking? Clinton or Dole? Obama or McCain? Why is it that the left falls in love with pretty faces? Why couldn’t the far more competent and experienced Hilary Clinton beat her pretty-boy opponent?How, for God’s sake, could ANY party make John Edwards a presidential contender if it wasn’t for his looks?
@JeffToo funny, the party of Ronald Reagan, mittens, Nikki Haley, Bachmann, Blackburn, palin and O’Donnell, etc. talkin’ about superficiality ~ Oh the humanity!Pot/Kettle indeed!>Who was better looking? Clinton or Dole? Obama or McCain? Why is it that the left falls in love with pretty faces? Why couldn’t the far more competent and experienced Hilary Clinton beat her pretty-boy opponent?Jeff, once again showing his prejudice against Obama w/his snide, sore loser sarcasm meme.Obama was elected president w/(((69 million))) votes 7.5 million more than cheney/bush as Jeff tries to cope w/his winger despair …Deal w/it Jeff as best you can, eh.btw, Jeff doesn’t like Whitman ’cause she doesn’t even qualify as a RINO being much more of a Dem than a Rep. Which is why she is close in the polls in progressive CA, plus, of course, her large personal fortune which she is probably wasting on her campaign.carry on
@shiloh,You know, I was responding to filistro’s contention that Republicans like pretty faces. I then pointed out a fact that has been very well known for a long, long time — pretty/handsome people do better. It doesn’t matter if they are Republicans or Democrats or corporate executives. It’s a fact. Pointing out that Obama is much better looking than Bob Dole isn’t a sign of prejudice (unless, perhaps, you’re Bob Dole). Pointing out that John Edwards’ ONLY claim to plausibility was his looks is hardly unreasonable. You seem to think that I’m not fond of Whitman because she’s a RINO. Actually, I’m not fond of her because she doesn’t seem to be very informed, and because I’m not impressed by her money. I watched Jerry Brown as mayor of Oakland, and I think he did a good job. I also think he may be the only person who can take on the public employee unions — and succeed.Call me a winger all you like. Yes, I’m conservative. I also recognize reality. I’m not sure that anybody who presumes to know what and why I think the way I do, can possibly be in touch with reality. Oh, and by the way, I’m hardly in despair over Obama. I regard him as a much-needed vaccination. Two years of the Messiah and the Republicans are back to life, and (thank you Tea Party) being forced back to their fiscally responsible roots. Two more years and I think we will see a Republican Senate and a new President.It’s always amusing when somebody who doesn’t know you, thinks they can assemble a bunch of half-assed stereotypes and happily draw meaningless conclusions. I had hoped that Obama would actually do as he had promised — try to govern from the middle. Instead he made love to his teleprompter and delegated economic policy to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
Jeff, why so bitter!btw, less is more especially when you are reinforcing all your prejudices as my only personal thought was your constant, 24/7 ad nauseam disingenuous/sore loser bittersarcasm re: Obama definitely makes you appear racist!take care, blessings
From the memory hole: <a Sarah”>HREF=””http://bit.ly/9rnLIt>Sarah Palin endorses TARP.
Aww, crud. Let me try that again.From the memory hole: Sarah Palin endorses TARP.
Aww, crud. Let me try that again.From the memory hole: Sarah Palin endorses TARP.http://bit.ly/9rnLIt
I wonder how you got so good. This is really a fascinating blog, lots of stuff that I can get into. One thing I just want to say is that your Blog is so perfect!Send Flowers to Poland | send flowers to china.