Feminism/Feminist

[Tattooed Goddess]

Sarah Palin is too pretty to be a true feminist. The feminist organizations take pride in picking ugly women to represent them. Being ugly is like spitting in the face of all men. It's a way of saying "See, because I'm so ugly looking to conventional male standards, you are forced to listen to what I'm having to say"

Sarah Palin gets on my nerves, but her hotness gets on a lot of feminist nerves. She could be wearing pantsuits instead of skirts as far as they are concerned. She can't represent them, because so much of her audience is just looking at her physical or feminine attributes.

Hillary Clinton far more represents what a feminist politician should look like.

 

[dolfette]

if i thought she was chosen on merit then i'd agree with your sarcasm there.
but i think she was only picked because she had sex appeal and was female, that they thought they needed a woman (because the other side had one) and she'd look good on camera.
it was reported she thought africa was a country, not a continent ffs...if that's true then that's beyond dire.

it's like a bar owner picking a pretty barmaid who can't pull pints, because he thinks the punters will come anyway just to look at her.

yay feminism?

 

[wallyj84]

Sarah Palin is too pretty to be a true feminist. The feminist organizations take pride in picking ugly women to represent them. Being ugly is like spitting in the face of all men. It's a way of saying "See, because I'm so ugly looking to conventional male standards, you are forced to listen to what I'm having to say"

Sarah Palin gets on my nerves, but her hotness gets on a lot of feminist nerves. She could be wearing pantsuits instead of skirts as far as they are concerned. She can't represent them, because so much of her audience is just looking at her physical or feminine attributes.

Hillary Clinton far more represents what a feminist politician should look like.

Was that sarcastic?

By the way, I never thought Hillary Clinton was ugly.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I was being serious. Have you ever seen Gloria Steinam or any of the women who are high up on the feminist organization totem poles? Good lord. It's so people HAVE to listen to what they are saying and can't zone out by looking at tits or a pretty face.

 

[petite]

Feminists don't have a problem with attractive women being spokespeople or politicians or care if a politician wears skirts.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I'm not talking about who claims to be a feminist when they are regular people in real life. I'm talking about those who run feminist organizations usually are snide towards beautiful women. If one doesn't think women should be looked at as "objects of desire" by men, they aren't going to want their spokeswomen to look remotely close to desirable to most men. They believe it negates the message.

 

[carbonfiber]

Rouge - I think you are hot no matter how you feel about it

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Carbonfiber, then I probably wouldn't be picked as a spokesvagina would i?

 

[MickeyLee]

Sarah Palin is too pretty to be a true feminist. The feminist organizations take pride in picking ugly women to represent them. Being ugly is like spitting in the face of all men. It's a way of saying "See, because I'm so ugly looking to conventional male standards, you are forced to listen to what I'm having to say"

Sarah Palin gets on my nerves, but her hotness gets on a lot of feminist nerves. She could be wearing pantsuits instead of skirts as far as they are concerned. She can't represent them, because so much of her audience is just looking at her physical or feminine attributes.

Hillary Clinton far more represents what a feminist politician should look like.

*blink* really?

i have problems with sarcasm sometimes... so i am genuinely asking.. really?



eta: nevermind , read a bit more of the thread.

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I was being serious. Have you ever seen Gloria Steinem or any of the women who are high up on the feminist organization totem poles? Good lord. It's so people HAVE to listen to what they are saying and can't zone out by looking at tits or a pretty face.

Gloria Steinem Playboy Bunny
Gloria Steinem 2009

maybe you meant Andrea Dworkin?

I'm not talking about who claims to be a feminist when they are regular people in real life. I'm talking about those who run feminist organizations usually are snide towards beautiful women. If one doesn't think women should be looked at as "objects of desire" by men, they aren't going to want their spokeswomen to look remotely close to desirable to most men. They believe it negates the message.

 

[thetramp]

So you're only a feminist if the woman meets your standards of intellect?

Being a feminist means supporting the rights of women, it does not necessarily mean to support any women under any circumstance, for example one that runs for an office she in ones opinion is not qualified to fulfill.

I absolutely believe that it is possible to be a feminist and yet vote for the person one thinks is most qualified to fill out a certain position, regardless of what gender that person is.

@Mademoiselle Rouge,

i have been in contact with a lot of feminists, and i have never seen that they had problems with attractive spokes persons, tho it is true that they are less likely to follow societies ideas of beauty, as the ones that i have met mostly have been strong individual personalities who did not want to conform to social perceptions, and fashion trends. But for one, that does not mean they weren't attractive, i would just say they wouldn't match societies idea of fashionable, secondly i have not experienced them being biased against women who do look fashionable as the society looks at it, if that women was contentswise an able spokesperson

 

[helgaleena]

Gloria Steinem is beautiful! And men make fine feminists. I truly don't understand your logic, MR.

And any female who is undermining equality for all would not be feminist. QFT

 

[wallyj84]

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I was being serious. Have you ever seen Gloria Steinam or any of the women who are high up on the feminist organization totem poles? Good lord. It's so people HAVE to listen to what they are saying and can't zone out by looking at tits or a pretty face.

I'm not talking about who claims to be a feminist when they are regular people in real life. I'm talking about those who run feminist organizations usually are snide towards beautiful women. If one doesn't think women should be looked at as "objects of desire" by men, they aren't going to want their spokeswomen to look remotely close to desirable to most men. They believe it negates the message.

Many people have said that my views are ridiculous and not based on reality.

Now it is my turn.

This viewpoint is ridiculous and not based on reality.

By the way, since when has Hillary Clinton been ugly? I can't get over that statement. I've never looked at her and thought she was ugly. Old, yeah, but not ugly.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Many people have said that my views are ridiculous and not based on reality.

Now it is my turn.

This viewpoint is ridiculous and not based on reality.

By the way, since when has Hillary Clinton been ugly? I can't get over that statement. I've never looked at her and thought she was ugly. Old, yeah, but not ugly.

I think Gloria Steinem looks rough, but she might look good for age, i have no idea how old she is.

And i dont think Hillary Clinton is pretty, she wasn't pretty when she was young either. But we all have different tastes. I remember seeing pictures of her when she and Bill first met. Personally i think she looked better before she got the Lady Politician hair cut.

A lot of people hated Sarah Palin right off the bat because she's pretty. They feared that she would get votes based on that and I'm sure she probably did. She's gorgeous but stupid and her voice makes me want to climb the walls.

I don't like the politician makeovers, I'm surprised someone never cut Sarah Palin's hair off significantly so it didn't look so young and secretary fantasy-ish.

 

[sbat]

I'm genuinely a bit confused by what people mean when they say equality for all. Maybe its because words like "deserve" and "rights" are thrown in.

Should a person with no aptitude for math have an equal right to be head engineer on an oil rig as someone who is extremely talented? Does a beautiful female politician have an equal right to represent feminism as an ugly one? Do I deserve a certain lifestyle by virtue of simply being born, no matter how hard I work or how I treat other people? Should we as a society devote resources towards the less talented and productive at the expense of some who are very talented? If so, on what basis? How does that engender equality? How does the equality espoused by feminism address these pragmatic issues?

 

[D_Wally Walnuts]

I'm genuinely a bit confused by what people mean when they say equality for all. Maybe its because words like "deserve" and "rights" are thrown in.

Should a person with no aptitude for math have an equal right to be head engineer on an oil rig as someone who is extremely talented? Does a beautiful female politician have an equal right to represent feminism as an ugly one? Do I deserve a certain lifestyle by virtue of simply being born, no matter how hard I work or how I treat other people? Should we as a society devote resources towards the less talented and productive at the expense of some who are very talented? If so, on what basis? How does that engender equality? How does the equality espoused by feminism address these pragmatic issues?

In my mind, equality means being afforded the same opportunity to prove what I'm capable of. If there's a position open, let me apply for it. If there's a contract up, let me bid on it. Some people in some places are turned away based on their race, gender, physical handicap, etc...

 

[sbat]

In my mind, equality means being afforded the same opportunity to prove what I'm capable of. Some people in some places are turned away based on their race, gender, physical handicap, etc...

But I figure that's balanced out by untalented/undeserving people who are selected based on qualifiers that aren't illegal such as family/political/financial connections, the name of the school or past employer on the resume, and being good looking. Striving for equality is pretty admirable, but from the collective descriptions of feminism, it seems like most are going for the warm and fuzzy without really hitting on the fact that we don't have enough time or resources as a society to give everyone a chance to prove themselves.

So what kind of impetus does the body of feminist thought put on proactively (on an individual level) ensuring equality when it's not forced onto others?

 

[wallyj84]

I'm genuinely a bit confused by what people mean when they say equality for all. Maybe its because words like "deserve" and "rights" are thrown in.

Should a person with no aptitude for math have an equal right to be head engineer on an oil rig as someone who is extremely talented? Does a beautiful female politician have an equal right to represent feminism as an ugly one? Do I deserve a certain lifestyle by virtue of simply being born, no matter how hard I work or how I treat other people? Should we as a society devote resources towards the less talented and productive at the expense of some who are very talented? If so, on what basis? How does that engender equality? How does the equality espoused by feminism address these pragmatic issues?

What you're talking about isn't equality, at least not the kind of equality I support.

The equality that I'm a proponent of is equality under the law and judging people based on their merit instead of gender/race/religion etc.

 

[sbat]

What you're talking about isn't equality, at least not the kind of equality I support.

The equality that I'm a proponent of is equality under the law and judging people based on their merit instead of gender/race/religion etc.

I'm not supporting any measure of equality. I'm asking how feminism prescribes ensuring equality "based on merit" while still supporting a society in which people are free to pursue their (legal) preferences. I listed a few legal ways to discriminate, and briefly described one theory as to why they persist in spite of progressiveness. How does feminism address that?

Or another option is defining merit. How is being well connected of less merit than merely being "above average" in talent?

 

[wallyj84]

I'm not supporting any measure of equality. I'm asking how feminism prescribes ensuring equality "based on merit" while still supporting a society in which people are free to pursue their preferences. I listed a few legal ways to discriminate, and briefly described one theory as to why they persist in spite of progressiveness. How does feminism address that?

Obviously a true meritocracy is impossible. There will always be people who get jobs based on looks or family connections. Those kinds of things are impossible to get rid and really they aren't that much of an issue.

What's important isn't to go after those kinds of things as it is to fight the truly egregious forms of discrimination like refusing to hire someone because of their race/gender.

 

[wallyj84]

Or another option is defining merit. How is being well connected of less merit than merely being "above average" in talent?

I don't think being well connected is a bad thing. Honestly I don't think that's really a form of discrimination.

Once again, I think your definition of equality is a bit different than mine.