Print This Post Print This Post

Oct

23

Note to GOP: Beauty is not a political argument


First, please check out and consider blogrolling The Political Voices of Women. It began as Catherine Morgan’s attempt to collect links to at least 100 political blogs authored by women. Well, she got up to (and maybe beyond by now) 200 and decided to start the blog. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The content so far is excellent. For example, yesterday she posted this link to a Feministing story about a GOP [see Anon the First's comment below] poster making the rounds:

I think I may have seen it or something like it before but the point remains, as stated at Feministing:

The idea that discussing the attractiveness of women’s bodies as a point in favor of or against a specific set of political beliefs is just disgusting. And the implied possession — as in, our things are pretty and yours are ugly — is also revoltingly sexist.

Which I why I also can’t stand it when people (especially those on the political left) choose to focus more on right-wing women’s looks [if you want to see what outrage really reads like, check out that link] than their heinous political statements. It’s. Not. Okay.

Obviously we could find 10 hideous photos of GOP women and 10 gorgeous snapshots of Dem women. Maybe what we should be doing, of course, is focus the focus on the men.

Naw – I’m just teasing! Well, maybe. No – no. Waste of time, not enough outrage. Just looks.

By the way, if the GOP does decide to argue that beauty does in fact figure into decision-making, they should be prepared to back that up by expanding the ADA to cover discrimination based on beauty. How’s about that for consequences?

Bookmark and Share

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:34 am October 23rd, 2007 in Campaigning, Culture, Marketing, Media, Politics, Women 

Comments

17 Responses to “Note to GOP: Beauty is not a political argument”

  1. 1 Mike on October 23rd, 2007 11:17 am

    Who slipped in the man's picture on the GOP side? (hint … look for the Adam's Apple)

  2. 2 Anon on October 23rd, 2007 12:00 pm

    Hmmm … The image is characterized as "a GOP poster." The obvious implication is that the Republican party is somehow connected to the poster.

    When I went to Feministing, I found: "So I wasn't really surprised when Garance sent me this image, which is apparently making the rounds on Facebook." I then went to theGarance.com to find out more. Nothing there–at least that I could find.

    Apparently all we know (from these posts) is that some unknown persons have been passing around the image on Facebook. Yet, this has somehow been transformed into "a GOP poster."

    Now, my question. Would it be fair to characterize an anonymous anti-Republican image as "a Democratic Party poster?"

  3. 3 Jill Miller Zimon on October 23rd, 2007 12:45 pm

    Anon wrote: "Would it be fair to characterize an anonymous anti-Republican image as "a Democratic Party poster?"

    That's the wrong question.  The question is whether the presumption is faulty – and it isn't.  That doesn't mean that the presumption is correct. But according to what research you've done, we still don't know whether the assumption is correct or not.

    In appreciation for you leaving this comment, which certainly could have been a lot snarkiet, I have stricken "GOP" from before the word "poster."

    Thanks for reading and commenting.  And yes, my presumption is that the poster is in fact a GOP-connected poster.

  4. 4 Jill Miller Zimon on October 23rd, 2007 12:47 pm

    Now, now Mike.

  5. 5 Mike on October 23rd, 2007 12:53 pm

    But (s)he sure has a purty mouth.

  6. 6 Jill Miller Zimon on October 23rd, 2007 12:57 pm

    Mike, I'm going to have to ignore you…

  7. 7 Anon on October 23rd, 2007 2:39 pm

    "GOP" may seem to be a trivial point, but I do appreciate your change.

    BTW, this image seems to be old news. It appears to have been posted in July, 2005, at http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/002188.html

    (I tried to embed the link using HTML, but the blogging software doesn't seem to allow it.)

  8. 8 Jill Miller Zimon on October 23rd, 2007 3:16 pm

    Hmm – sorry about the html embed – it should have worked – but I haven't used it yet.

    Yes – I mention in the post that I think I've seen the image before just didn't recall when or where.

    Thanks again. :)

  9. 9 Catherine Morgan on October 23rd, 2007 8:02 pm

    I just want to thank you for your kind support of my new blog.   I'll be looking for guest bloggers, and I hope you will consider.

    Thanks so much.

    Catherine.

  10. 10 Jill Miller Zimon on October 23rd, 2007 10:33 pm

    Catherine, really – it's my pleasure.  I'd love to do a guest post.  Dig up Maggie Thurber and Lisa Renee Ward too – they are both great Ohio bloggers who just happen to be women. ;)

  11. 11 Jill Miller Zimon on October 23rd, 2007 10:34 pm

    Oh! And Carole Cohen, who writes on real estate and news, and Wendy Hoke who writes on journalism and new media.  Also great Ohio bloggers of the feminine persuasion.  I'm sure there are more – just not on the tip of my keyboard.

  12. 12 Catherine Morgan on October 24th, 2007 1:04 am

    Hi Jill. 

    That sounds great.  You can give them my email…
    catherine AT catherineblogs DOT COM (just have them write guest post in the subject line)…and you can feel free to contact me anytime as well. 

    Catherine

  13. 13 Jill Miller Zimon on October 24th, 2007 7:37 am

    Will do – I'll email them all with the info.  Keep on bloggin'.

  14. 14 PunditMom on October 24th, 2007 2:26 pm

    Someone thinks Michelle Malkin is attractive??

  15. 15 Jill Miller Zimon on October 24th, 2007 2:31 pm

    ooooo! lol

  16. 16 Keith on October 24th, 2007 8:54 pm

    She could be – if her personage wasn't so contorted by rage. Every picture I generally see of her, she's sneering.

  17. 17 Jill Miller Zimon on October 24th, 2007 9:39 pm

    Boy – do I feel like people are just TEMPTING me to say nasty things.  I will resist. I will resist. I will resist.

Leave a Reply




"));