Sunday, July 4, 2010

The Hotness Gap

Remember the missile gap? During the 1960 presidential election John Kennedy accused the Eisenhower administration of having allowed the Soviet Union to surpass us in space exploration. It had something to do with Sputnik.

Now, however, the 1960 presidential campaign is remembered for the first televised presidential debates. And the salient point about those debates, which gave John Kennedy the presidency, is that people who heard them on the radio thought Nixon had won while those who watched on television gave the nod to Kennedy.

Why? Because of the hotness gap. John Kennedy was largely hotter than Richard Nixon. Women ogled him; they fell in love with him. Men wanted to be like him; they wanted to emulate his example.

It didn't stop with John Kennedy. Women ogled Bill Clinton and fell in love with Barack Obama. When called upon to defend Bill Clinton against charges of sexual predation, many women replied that he could not be a sexual predator because they, for their part, would happily give him their all. He would just have to ask. Clearly, men could see the advantage in being like Clinton, or, at least, in saying nice things about him.

The same applied to Barack Obama. How many women were more than willing to overlook his lack of relevant experience because, after all, he was really, really hot?

Good looks, even hotness, is part of everyone's human packaging. Some people have more of it; some less. It does not much matter whether it is fair or unfair. As long as we get to see these candidates on television, day in and day out, their appearance matters.

For some an alluring appearance makes us want to get to know them better. A good first impression makes us more likely to want to associate with them, to be part of their circle. With politicians good looks or raw hotness can make a message more appealing. We might start out being dazzled by an appearance, but if it holds our attention it offers the candidate an opportunity to make his or her case.

Some politicians are clearly deficient in hotness. If they are clever enough they can use it to their advantage. Take Chris Christie. Gov. Christie is the ultimate in hotlessness-- but he has worked it to his advantage. He has forged a strong connection with voters because many of them were initially disinclined to ogle him. In many ways the same applied to Margaret Thatcher.

Hotness matters, but it is not the only thing that matters in politics. And it has a limited shelf life.

I wanted to introduce this discussion on a coldly, rational note, because now our discussion of hotness is going to heat up. When it comes to the newest political phenomenon, the hot Republican woman, some very strange things have been happening.

It is not news that prominent Republican women are considered to be hotter and prettier than prominent Democratic women. Among the punditry compare Ann Coulter with Janeane Garolfalo. And it is not news that Democrats and feminists consider this to be a problem.

Sarah Palin crystallized the trend and also elicited the hottest backlash. When she arrived on the scene, it seemed like Bush Derangement Syndrome instantly morphed into Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Now, thanks to Palin among others, attractive Republican women candidates are starting to gain political success, and it is clearly upsetting the feminist matriarchy.

Newsweek's resident feminist, Julia Baird writes: "Something pretty creepy has been happening to conservative women lately. There seems to be an insistent, increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women in the public eye, like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Nikki Haley-- not to mention the likes of Ann Coulter. The sexual references are pervasive; they come from left, right, and center, and range from gushing to highly offensive." Link here.

Creepy to whom? Are these women complaining because people find them attractive? Don't they dress themselves in order to enhance their good looks and allure? Why does Julia Baird think it is her job to complain on their behalf?

And isn't Baird perpetuating the same kind of stereotyping when she fails to denounce the relentless and gender-based stereotyping of Sarah Palin as ignorant, as what used to be called a dumb broad.

Such stereotyping is not coming at us from all sides of the political spectrum. It has become the stock-in-trade in the leftist media. As a group of reporters covering Palin in California the other week made perfectly clear, it is thoroughly acceptable, even desirable, to impugn Palin's intelligence.

Besides, no one thought it was creepy when women swooned over John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. And why does Baird ignore the two most important female Republican candidates this year, Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman? Could it be that they do not merit mention because they are not hot enough, or because their success was not based on their hotness or their feminism?

Like a good feminist Baird believes that the patriarchy has been organized to oppress women. She believes that when women gain power they are naturally going to be diminished and demeaned for their hotness. Or else that they cannot succeed unless they keep their hotness under wraps.

If she is referring to the fact that Nikki Haley was accused of being an adulteress, she might have a point. Unfortunately, the accusations did nothing to reduce Haley's support. They may even have enhanced it.

Beyond that, most of the attacks against Sarah Palin's hotness have come from the left, partially couched in the stereotype of the dumb broad, but also in the most bizarre birther fantasies.

The birther movement claims, based on no real evidence, that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's son. Of course, this evinces an unhealthy obsession with Palin's reproductive system, but it also seems to want to deprive her of the capacity to bear another child.

Hot Republican women are a political issue, but they are also a cultural force. If that bastion of patriarchal oppression, the Republican party, is nominating more and more women, and being represented by more and more attractive women, what are the cultural consequences?

It is worth mentioning, even if only in passing, that the hot Republican women in question are not in the same category as Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga. They do not represent the kind of hotness that plays well in music videos. They are adult women; they have husbands and families; they have worked hard on their careers and have garnered a measure of success.

But they have done it without compromising their womanhood. None has ever pretended to be anything other than a woman.

If you believe that the world of men can only accept women who leave their femininity at the door, then these Republican women are saying that you are wrong.

Moreover, these women are not feminists. They are not leftist ideological zealots. They did not try to overthrow the patriarchy. They took the opportunities that were available, and they did not spend their time agitating about the opportunities that were not available. They competed and succeeded on the playing field that existed, and did not ask for special favors and dispensations because they were women. They did not spend their time airing grievances because they were too busy with their lives to involve themselves in such self-indulgent exercises.

If you read to the end of Julia Baird's article, you will discover that she does not conclude by saying how wonderful it is that the Republican party has fielded so many great women candidates. Instead she falls into knee-jerk grievance mode by complaining that there are not enough women in government.

You have to wonder why Baird is so thoroughly out of sorts about hotness gap between Republican and Democratic women, or better, between conservative women and feminists. Why is she so worried that leftist men are now fantasizing about hot Republican women?

Here's a guess. Feminism and radical leftism has always tried to deal with dissent by making the dissenters into outcasts and pariahs. If you disagree with the basic dogmas of feminist ideology you will, in many communities, be shunned from polite society.

There are many places in this country where men hesitate to admit that they are Republicans because they will not just lose friends, but they will lose dating opportunities. Many women openly brag that they will not date Republicans; often they will not even talk with them.

Say something nice about Sarah Palin in many communities and you will immediately be labeled as deranged. I do not even want to think about what it is going to do to your sex life.

If all women are feminists, then this strategy can work. But if the most attractive women are Republicans, then it will start breaking down. If a man had to choose between a fantasy date with Nikki Haley or one with Elena Kagan, which would he choose? If he had to choose between being married to Sarah Palin or being married to Hillary Clinton, who would he prefer?

There is worse yet. As I believe, feminism is a cult. It is directly in the business of recruiting new adherents. From the perspective of feminist recruitment efforts, ask yourself this: if a girl is going to choose an adult female role model, who is she more likely to choose, Sonia Sotomayor or Michelle Bachmann?

Feminists need to demonize these attractive Republican women because they pose an existential threat to feminism.

Perhaps feminism deserves some credit for breaking down barriers, but the fact remains that if they patriarchy was really as all-powerful and oppressive as feminism believes, then these women would not have the career success that they have achieved. As it happens, they are great role models for young girls and young women, and, in point of fact, they have achieved what feminists are constantly complaining that the patriarchy is preventing them from achieving.

In many ways they have it all. The worst part, apparently, is that, to get it all, they did not have to leave their womanhood at the door.

[A warm welcome to those of you who arrived here via Instapundit and Dr. Helen. And my special thanks to Prof. Glenn Reynolds and Dr. Helen Smith for linking this post.]

[For those who would like some visual evidence of the hotness gap, this link will take you to the now classical representation.]

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

I came over from Instapundit because I figured it was about how Anna Chapman opened up a hotness gap with the KGB. That would have been more fun. And any hotness blog MUST have pix!

Anonymous said...

Men were reluctant to give women the vote because women are largely silly about serious matters. They are basically ruled by their emotions and they tend to be single-issue voters. They vote for or against a candidate for reasons which are superficial - even childish. Women have ruined public education, further ruined elections and politics; in fact, women have ruined virtually everything they have had a significant hand in. Here's to all the cowards who voted for the 19th amendment.

nikrok1 said...

Anonymous must have balls the size of
a small planet. He said what I've been thinking for years. I salute you!

Canadian Cincinnatus said...

The reason feminists hate hot conservative women is because feminism has always been the ladies' auxiliary of the left. Pushing women's rights was just a vehicle for advancing left-wing causes. The reason feminists hate people like Michelle Malkin and Sarah Palin is because their existence undercuts the whole project

crunchycon said...

I'm a womanm and I'm not sure I disagree with Anonymous #2.

ic said...

Chris Christie ain't hot, but have you seen his opponent? That Goldman Sachs guy was out right awful, old and washed out, and hypocritical. A mega billioaire whose nest egg was just made golden by Uncle Sam was to fight for the people? Yeah, raise taxes on those who still earn an income, and leave his own golden egg untouched. Mighty glad most NJ voters were not born yesterday.

blake said...

The two anonymouses aren't quite so brave--well, original: Ann Coulter said it first.

Repeal the 19th?

AJ... said...

Very interesting thoughts, Mr. Schneiderman. And uncommonly well written.

fshafer said...

I agree with the anonymous poster who said the 19th amendment ruined it for us all...... I agree...... women deciding things is a ridiculous situation............ esp. from the left............
I have taught in the public schools for over a decade........ and women have ruined it for boys at least....... same with the military....... they want to be able to do the military and the fire dept and police dept, then when they get it, they want to skate because they can't handle the job????!!!! kind of similar to affirmative action

Sissy Willis said...

Oh. I thought you were going to say Anonymous had balls the size of a small peanut. His description of the silliness of women may apply to many women on the left side of the aisle. It has nothing to do with the fearless woman warriors now carrying the Republican staff into battle. As for ruining public education, that had nothing to do with women, but rather, with the radical Gramscian march through the institutions. Those who do not study history ...

blake said...

Sissy,

Yeah, at this point, it's the women who are leading the charge back to sanity.

ic said...

Anonymous2: Those silly things proved their silliness by proclaiming that Palin wasn't a woman, basically because she did not abort her baby, and had a hot man in tote.

Btw, Maggie Thatcher isn't a woman either.

Bitchiness and jealousy mean much more to them.

Milwaukee said...

Spot on. Women tend to vote with pocketbook, family issues. Men tend to be more willing to vote for big picture issues, putting their community ahead of their family. Yes, women are more likely to vote emotionally, and liking a persons looks is part of that. Men will do the "Birkenhead drill": stand at attention on the deck of sinking ship while women and children load the lifeboats.

A recent piece noted that 93% of work place fatalities were men. I'm willing to bet that female fatalities amongst firefighters are disproportionately low because when push comes to shove, men will leave their female companions in safety while they advance the hose into the fire.

We need to recognize and reward women for doing what women do uniquely better than men, and reward and recognize for doing what they do better than women. This race, 'we can do anything you can do better' is counter productive and silly. This is about relative strengths.

grichens said...

Canadian Cincinnatus has it.

"Feminists need to demonize these attractive Republican women because they pose an existential threat to..." liberalism.

My mother-in-law was one of the first women to be granted a PhD ("DPhil") from her science department at Oxford. To her credit (and my gratitude), she and her husband raised their daughters to be independent thinkers and true feminists while at the same time not ashamed of their own "hotness". One daughter holds a degree in economics from Cambridge and has been promoted to the role of director at a major UK bank while the other is an accomplished MD.

Had any of these women chosen to run for a major political office under a conservative banner they would no doubt have been vilified by catty liberal "feminists".

Anonymous said...

Guys, I apologize for letting the fumes from my hair spray make me all girly-girly stoopid. *giggle*

I guess I should move on from the political concerns that are important to me, being a silly, superficial, society-ruining chick: small government, lower taxes & lower spending, strong defense, killing Obamacare and entitlement programs, banning public employee unions, scaling back the overregulation that is killing American businesses, and telling Congress to keep their filthy paws of the BCS.

Henceforth, I pledge to take up the political concerns that are important to my natural superiors, aka men: small government, lower taxes & lower spending, strong defense, killing Obamacare and entitlement programs, banning public employee unions, scaling back the overregulation that is killing American businesses, and telling Congress to keep their filthy paws of the BCS.

But please don't ask me to give up my hair spray. You will get my Sally Herschberger Star Shine only when you pry it from my cold, dead hand.

BTW, does my pocket copy of the Constitution make me look fat?

Anonymous said...

In Julia Baird's case, I'm not sure the hate is political. It could just be envy. She looks like she could be Bella Abzug's kid sis...

Anonymous said...

If Hotness matters as much as you say, then we all better get used to the idea of President Palin!

paul a'barge said...

Baird is complaining because her side is losing.

Attila Girl said...

There's a kernel of truth in here, but there's also plenty of exaggeration. For one thing, there is this fundamental contradiction: admitting on the one hand that hotness is something that some people have more of than others--due to accident of birth, approach to food, metabolism, and how well one's skin weathers--and that some men are hot, too (not to mention the fact that some men like Bill Clinton are not classically attractive, but are able to compensate with charisma). And then, a few paragraphs later, conflating hotness with femininity. Is Margaret Thatcher really less "feminine" than Sarah Palin? Really?

And then there is the failure to distinguish among the types of feminism out there, but the painting of all of it as a "cult." Where do you draw THAT line? Is it cultish to want to own property in one's own name, or to vote? (I suppose Anon2 wants us to be able to run for office WITHOUT voting, and I'm not sure how that works.)

Attractiveness is often a large component in charisma. Charisma is valuable in politics.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #2 said exactly what I've said myself: I love the ladies, but there's a high proportion who are silly, superficial ditzoids who are easily distracted by glitz.

No, not every one, but a lot. Too many. For anyone who doubts it, I have a question: which demographic dominates celebrity gossip magazines and TV shows?

I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

The point, which escape too many women, is that we're choosing a chief executive officer, not a bed mate. I don't care if the President is a ringer for Jabba the Hutt; the question is, "does he make sound decisions?"

Conversely, those who consider looks in choosing a leader should consider whether they would have wanted to place their fate in JFK Jr.'s hands. Pretty boy? Yes. Stupid, with rotten judgment? Not just yes, but hell yes.

Give me Jabba anytime.

ck said...

Utah and Wyoming were the first to give women the vote, but we have reasonable women.

Anonymous said...

Everyone here must read The Misandry Bubble.

It expands on this topic, and others, in great detail.

lumpy said...

Anonymous, nikrok1, etc. You do know, don't you, that your claims against women lack historical foundation and seem to be purely emotional, silly, and even childish in nature?

Oh, but we men are much more rational. We vote based on whether our local sports teams have won recently. That makes much more sense.

Anonymous said...

lumpy,

A mangina like you is the most pathetic of all.

Being a pedestalizer will not get you laid, as women are repelled by suck-ups like you.

But I doubt you will figure that out.

Tom P said...

Seems to me there is more to it than that. When the 19th Amendment came along, the culture had managed to accustom itself to the male voters who are(somtimes) idiots. The addition of female voters who, because they are female, are (sometimes) a different kind of idiot, introduced confusion. Combined with the fact that the female voters and the male voters responded to each other as well as to the issues (which had not been the norm) resulted in quite an impressive amount of political noise. Probably would have worked the same way if the sexes were reversed.

We're still looking for ways to turn down the crazy so we can hear each other think.

People who indulge in particularisms like Feminism and Nanny Statism aren't sure where they fall on the idiot spectrum, so they go find something to be against because it's easier to be against something than it is to come up with something to be for.

Humans - can't live with 'em, can't feed 'em to Cthulu...

Anonymous said...

Democrats and Republicans unite to form Misandry Party.

Democrats are misandrists, of course, by many Republicans are whiteknighting pedestalizers, who think sucking up to women will get them laid (actually, the opposite is true). This is why Republicans support any and all leftism, as long as it is packaged as 'chivalry', the opponents of which must be 'misogynists'.

This is why Republicans also expand government, despite claims to the contrary.

Hucbald said...

A hotness post is abjectly worthless without images.

Anonymous said...

A few exceptions don't change my point (Sarah Palin, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachman, etc).

I challenge any of these ticked-off women (and male suck-ups to women)who have posted to explain how public education is not ruined and that women haven't ruined it. I dare any of them to refute the idea that looks plays such an important role in politics and other such utter nonsense wasn't introduced by women. Rudy Giuliani didn't stand a chance in large measure because conservative women didn't care for the way he treated his wife. Be proud of yourselves. You have elevated the conversation. Now, hotness and bulges matter in an election as well as touchy-feely, Phil Donahue crapola. Be angry if you want. But then, that would only prove my point.

Anonymous said...

Except that... B.O. is truly not hot. He has always looked to me like a gay mouse. Besides, even a legitimately hot dude starts to look repulsive after a year of repulsive deeds against all that we hold dear.

stonelight said...

it's time America had a hot Presidentress (Presidentrix?)

Feminism is for women too bitter or attractiveness-challenged to achieve attention in mainstream ways

yeah I said it

Whiskey Jim said...

Amen Mr. Schneiderman.

On a related note, someone should pry the Miss America contest from Trump's silly hands and run a real contest identifying the most beautiful, confident and intelligent young woman in the country. It would be a pleasure to watch, and drive the left absolutely nuts.

BTW, one of the hot women on Fox is a Rhodes scholar if I remember correctly, besides all the capable lawyers as analysts who generally make most of the women on MSM look plain inside and outside.

And if you spend any time in the Beltway, the accepted women's attire resembles your grandma's wardrobe. It's the PC chic to deny femininity since of course it's degrading to have a woman's body and use it. It's a strange and hypocritical stance inside a party that supposedly is on the freer side of morality.

blake said...

(I suppose Anon2 wants us to be able to run for office WITHOUT voting, and I'm not sure how that works.)

You might want to read this Wiki entry on Victoria Woodhull, who ran for President in 1872. With Frederick Douglass as her running mate (sorta).

It lists a few women who held office and points out that in English common-law there was precedent for women to do so.

M. Report said...

Women _are_ observably wacky, but
is it nature or nurture ?

The spartan women said that their
men were the only ones who expected
adult behavior from women because
spartan women were the only ones
who taught their sons to do so.

Allowing half of society to remain
children because they are so cute
and cuddly is not a viable option
in an advanced society.

Anonymous said...

GREAT ARTICLE, well written! THANKS! The comments are also interesting, as my husband and I have discussed this for several years now. The 19th amendment DID ruin the country. Women (myself included) TEND TO focus on hearth-and-home type of issues. Men TEND TO focus on world-and-finance types of issues. It's genetics, and NO, men and women are NOT alike. I think that the girls have pretty much ruined the country, and need to be reined in pretty sharply. I don't know that you could succeed in completely taking the vote, but perhaps we could go back to only "property owners" and maybe "business owners" have to right to vote. If you want to vote, you have to have some skin in the game.

Anonymous said...

Tired of leftists who hate Sarah Palin, who think there's global warming, and who think that Islamic terrorism is all our fault? I'm a leftist, and I'm trying to reform the left, but I need your help. Stop by my blog sometime:

http://iwantanewleft.typepad.com/i-want-a-new-left/

John Pepple

Anonymous said...

Ann Coulter is hot? Really?
Obama is hot? Come on, now! You're just messin' with us.

Anonymous said...

Heinlein-Libertarian.blogger.com
(Sorry, trouble logging in today.)

One paper, and one article worth taking a look at:

Female voting power: the contribution of women’s suffrage to the growth of social spending in Western Europe (1869–1960)

( http://www.springerlink.com/content/26787l3114660519/ )

The paper finds an undeniable link between social spending and female voters.

"Do you suffer bag-lady syndrome?"

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Playingcatchup/P140989.asp

Discusses a widespread psychological phenomena amongst women: The irrational fear that they will end up old, poor, and living on the street without anybody to care for them and no means by which they can care for themselves.

The second explains the first, if you ask me. Women tend to look to government as the surrogate husband/kid that can care for them and their family if something goes wrong. Men do not suffer from this syndrome.

Women's natural inclinations tend to disappear when they get married and have children. Women are still much more liberal than men, but there is a substantial swing to the right.

Denying women the vote is begging for a civil war (or at least a lot of time spent on the couch,) and denies women who are responsible and at least somewhat capable of rational thought a spot in our system. On the other hand, restructuring the franchise so that both irresponsible women and men are unable to vote means that we can have the best of both worlds.

I'd argue for this:
1) No representation without taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you do not get to vote. Any welfare benefits would be subtracted from taxes paid. Only positive numbers get to vote. An alternate form of "taxation" would be military service, for which you get the vote automatically upon completion of a term/the equivalent in years in-service.

2) You must own X acres of land. The exact number is something I am not qualified to fix, but it should amount to one, single-family home in an urban area.

The same requirements should probably apply to running for office. These requirements will prevent single women (who almost never buy a home,) and irresponsible males from voting, and prevent welfare recipients from being able to vote themselves more benefits.

Anonymous said...

XYYLibertarian.Blogger.com

Attractive people tend to excel in everything they do, even if they are not very good at it, because people perceive them as being good at it. Mr. Schneiderman is right, hotness matters. The one key thing that can make up for it, as other commenters have suggested, is confidence. Ronald Reagan, Chris Christie, etc. really believe what they are saying, and so they are unafraid in the face of criticism. McCain, on the other hand, was afraid to run negative ads against Obama because he was black. Nominating conservatives who are not going to say whatever the media wants them to will mean a lot more electoral success.

Anonymous said...

XYYLibertarian.Blogger.com

One paper, and one article worth taking a look at:

Female voting power: the contribution of women’s suffrage to the growth of social spending in Western Europe (1869–1960)

( http://www.springerlink.com/content/26787l3114660519/ )

The paper finds an undeniable link between social spending and female voters.

"Do you suffer bag-lady syndrome?"

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Playingcatchup/P140989.asp

Discusses a widespread psychological phenomena amongst women: The irrational fear that they will end up old, poor, and living on the street without anybody to care for them and no means by which they can care for themselves.

Women tend to look to government as the surrogate husband/kid that can care for them and their family if something goes wrong. Men simply do not suffer from this syndrome.

Married women are much more liberal than men, but there is a substantial swing to the right.

Anonymous said...

XYYLibertarian.Blogger.com

Denying women the vote is begging for a lot of time spent on the couch, and ignores the large number of women who are capable of thinking rationally. We can, on the other hand, deny the irresponsible and the leeches the right to vote without excluding reasonable women.

I'd argue for this:

1) Military service = immediate vote upon completion of one term/equivalent in years, assuming honorable discharge.

2) No representation without taxation. If you do not pay taxes, you do not get to vote. Any welfare benefits would be subtracted from taxes paid. Only positive numbers get to vote.

3) You must own X acres of land. The exact number is something I am not qualified to fix, but it should amount to one, small, single-family home in an urban area.

Keep single women, welfare recipients and idiot college students off the roles all at once, and you will see liberalism die almost immediately.

Anonymous said...

The 'classical representation' has been greatly expanded and updated, with commentary, over here.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who refers to a leftist as a 'liberal' has already lost the battle. This is why the Right never wins.

By accepting the terms 'liberal' and 'progressive', you are agreeing to restrict yourself to the battlespace the left has told you to stay in, which is rigged in their favor.

This is why the right never wins. They are too stupid to fight the left.

LEL said...

I am a conservative woman and agree that anonymous has the balls the size of a peanut. His, ignorant, misogyist rant was absurd and ironic given his own childish, emotionally charged opinion. And he would make a fine muslim as would anybody who agrees with him. In fact I would advise him to live in those muslim countries and see the consquences of societies where women are unequal. It's interesting that nations where women are the most repressed, are the most poor and backwards, whereas nations where women are equal are prosperous and modern. Anonymous #2 obviously has insecurities with his own masculinity. And that woman who agreed with him also has a problem.

Would you describe Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Michelle Malkin and the other conservative women as silly about serious matters. I believe they have shown more courage and sense than the current men we have in power.

C_inDC said...

The combined intellectual power of the author and commenters is staggering. I haven't encountered this level of ignorance for some time. Stumbled onto the blog accidentally and all I can say is, I'm sorry for whatever a woman or women did to you. But, am glad to say, history is on my side and the side justice and a more evolved, thoughtful world.

Wendy Georgeson said...

The main issue with people that are "hot" is the fact that in many cases they get trough life with the help of their good looks, but with little or no intellectual effort. On a later stage, many of them are surpassed by less hotter people which, because of their lack of hotness, had to study and learn different traids in order to get around. Politics makes no difference. Good looks help, good looks promote, good looks get you votes, but sadly, good looks don't think for you.

Duke of Earl said...

I'm afraid LEL demonstrates the inability of many women to reason.

Muslim countries are not backwards because they oppress women. Both advanced and backward Muslim countries "oppress" women, so there isn't a cause/effect relationship there.

In the 16th Century the West was largely ahead of the Middle East, and women didn't get a great shake there either.

Female emancipation is something that occurs within certain societies, and seems that in the West it correlates to their social decline.

C_inDC claims that she lives in a more evolved age. Evolved just means changed, and certainly society has changed. That doesn't mean it has changed for the better.

LindaF said...

This is actually kind of a stupid discussion.

So, some of the women running for or in office are classically good-looking; some are decidedly not.

Voters, all things being equal, will tend to vote for the better-looking candidate. Kind of like how potential employers put the better-looking candidates in the final rounds.

So?

The appeal of Palin and Bachmann comes from their ability to speak plainly and shoot straight - as does Chris Christie's.

It's a small, very side issue. In South Carolina, we've had two governors in a row that were classically good-looking - Sanford and Haley. Their looks had no effect on their competency.

The complaint about hot females comes from the idea that they have not earned their accomplishments - that they coasted on their good looks. And, to be fair, some women do.

I doubt that it will be a defining issue in the next election.

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Thanks LindaF, for your comment. I was trying in the post to point out that the vitriol that has been heaped on Sarah Palin and some others has something to do with their sex appeal.

I was also pointing out that there are lots of good looking women on the right side of the political spectrum, and there are, apparently, far fewer on the left.

I do believe that this has shaken the foundations of American feminism... thus feminists hatred for Palin, Bachmann, and the rest.

I agree with you that looks count. And I also agree with you that Palin and Bachmann have gained an audience because they talk straight, as does Chris Christie.

Yet, the press is a lot kinder to Chris Christie.

Ursula said...

I believe everyone must look at this.