[Kosh]

And you can be doubly sure that no one would vote for an anti-choice, anti-life candidate (which Palin certainly is, since she's indirectly in favor of endangering women by forcing more illegal abortions) who would set back our slow crawl towards sex equality.

All that stuff as well as her rabbid anti-science and her total ignorance about the world is why she would have been a terrible choice. If she got anywhere near the whitehouse it would have been a disaster.

[General Battuta]

I'll merge your posts for you, BlueLion. Just the way these things work, nothing personal.

I don't think anyone is saying that models and actors should be sexualized and gawked at; that's a whole other bucket of worms. The point is that, whether this social phenomenon is a positive one or not, people getting into modeling or acting are signing up to be looked at. Their appearances are a significant part of the jobs they perform.

Politicians, on the other hand, are signing up to represent the interests of the people. They are signing up to fulfill an organizational, administrative role, and to provide the society with structure. Their ability to fulfill this role would not be affected if they all wore burlap sacks over their heads, and their appearances are irrelevant to their job performance. However, what we observe is that whenever a female politician reaches a certain level of prominence, she is inevitably judged on her appearance regardless of its relevance to her duties. And this is an impulse that, as a society, I think we should resist.

That's my point. It doesn't have to be that way. If models looked like all of us (mostly me) we'd have to base our opinions on the product. Something we demand from our officials. And for some reason we just accept that everyone else will sway us with boobs.... well maybe not you but you get my point.

The entire advertising tactic employed here involves conflating the model's positive attributes with the product's. This is done intentionally.  Are we arguing the same points here? It sounds like you completely agreed with Rian's points.

Is it possible that you're arguing the same thing as iamzack and Rian and I but the original criticism of your post set up an artificial divide of some kind?

EDIT: Feminists clearly have a sense of humor.

[Blue Lion]

The entire advertising tactic employed here involves conflating the model's positive attributes with the product's. This is done intentionally.  Are we arguing the same points here? It sounds like you completely agreed with Rian's points.

Is it possible that you're arguing the same thing as iamzack and Rian and I but the original criticism of your post set up an artificial divide of some kind?

That's my point, there IS a divide. Why is it ok to use women's (and men's) bodies to sell many types of things but not another type of thing?

We can't use a woman's body to sell her political platform because it's wrong but it CAN be an issue for other things?

I just can't believe I've out hard cored the self described hard core feminist.

What she (and others) have been saying is basically "I can't believe that a woman's appearance makes any difference at all........ unless we're selling something, then women's bodies are objects to make money off stupid men"

[Ghostavo]

In other words, is this wrong (NSFW)? 

[Blue Lion]

That's wrong on a few levels

[General Battuta]

The entire advertising tactic employed here involves conflating the model's positive attributes with the product's. This is done intentionally.  Are we arguing the same points here? It sounds like you completely agreed with Rian's points.

Is it possible that you're arguing the same thing as iamzack and Rian and I but the original criticism of your post set up an artificial divide of some kind?

That's my point, there IS a divide. Why is it ok to use women's (and men's) bodies to sell many types of things but not another type of thing?

Well, um, I don't really think it's okay.

But when you've got an attractive woman (or man) in an advertisement then they're only presenting their attractiveness and, in fact, they've volunteered to do so. A politician woman (or man) has not volunteered to do that. She (or he) has presented substantive reasons why you should support her. That alone isn't a big difference, BUT...

The most powerful reason it's wrong is the simple fact that women tend to be judged on their appearance more then men. That's a cultural inevitability supported by reams of IAT data. And it has to be combated because it's a problem for a women and an obstacle towards their equality.

And it's one reason that the use of beauty in advertising is a problem.

We can't use a woman's body to sell her political platform because it's wrong but it CAN be an issue for other things?

That seems like a fair point. Except here the woman (or man) hasn't offered her (or his) body as a selling point. You've done that yourself.

I just can't believe I've out hard cored the self described hard core feminist.

Referring to zack, I presume? I don't understand why it would surprise you. I assume you're a feminist yourself, just like (hopefully) everyone else: you believe men and women should be equal.

What she (and others) have been saying is basically "I can't believe that a woman's appearance makes any difference at all........ unless we're selling something, then women's bodies are objects to make money off stupid men"

Look, unless you bury your head in pure logic, it's obvious why it offends iamzack:

Beauty is a stereotype-relevant trait for women. Women volunteer themselves to sell products TO OTHER WOMEN (you seem to be under the misapprehension that beautiful women generally appeal to men when psychologically this is not true; they appeal to women who want to emulate the beautiful woman) on the basis of their beauty. That's the difference here...the question of volunteering. At least I think so.

Politicians do not volunteer to do so. It is wrong to judge a female politician on appearance more so than you would a male politician because you're judging her on stereotypic traits. It'd be like judging all black politicians on their basketball skills or their rapping abilities, both stereotype-relevant traits. Or even judging all male politicians on their musculature.

I mean, musculature is used to sell products to men in ads all the time. But if you suggested we should seriously judge politicians on it you'd be laughed out of the electorate (Schwarzenegger notwithstanding  .)

[Turambar]

It'd be like judging all black politicians on their basketball skills or their rapping abilities, both stereotype-relevant traits.

This.

[Blue Lion]

Beauty is a stereotype-relevant trait for women. Women volunteer themselves to sell products TO OTHER WOMEN (you seem to be under the misapprehension that beautiful women generally appeal to men when psychologically this is not true; they appeal to women who want to emulate the beautiful woman) on the basis of their beauty. That's the difference here...the question of volunteering. At least I think so.

I could go find TONS of ads directed at men with hot women in it. The first one that comes to mind are those body sprays where guys spray themselves and women in skimpy outfits literally attack them.

Beer ads with bikini babes, car ads with hot women. E3 girls.

I went to the North American Auto show a few years ago and every car had a tall leggy blonde woman in a tight dress talking about it. That wasn't by accident and it wasn't aimed at the few women there.

If you ask people about Transformers 2, who do you think mentions Megan Fox? Guys or girls?

Politicians do not volunteer to do so. It is wrong to judge a female politician on appearance more so than you would a male politician because you're judging her on stereotypic traits. It'd be like judging all black politicians on their basketball skills or their rapping abilities, both stereotype-relevant traits.

You're right, they shouldn't but they do. We've accepted a person's looks as part of the package for so long in every other area that it is almost impossible to turn off.

The reason it is accepted everywhere is because WE accept it. We understand that clothing ads, and other things will use sex appeal to get our attention. The only difference between politics and everything else is we decided to care about politics. Hot girls in ads didn't happen overnight, it happened because we accepted it.

The use it because it works, and it is really only a matter of time before it works more into politics too. TV has done wonders to change how all our politicians look. We've already shown an acceptance to people using their bodies to sell things. Politicians know this. That's why they have image people. They work tirelessly to sell an image and we're shocked that sexuality is part of that image when it's shown to be wildly sucessful in everything else.

[General Battuta]

Well, uh, it sounds like we've kind of hit the point where we're saying the same thing.

Since you were satirizing this tendency you're describing from the beginning with the 'she's kind of hot' remark, and both iamzack and I were offended because we took it at face value, it seems like we're all in agreement that it's not a good thing.

The objectification of women is a problem no matter where it occurs.

Of course, there are certain contexts where it's with consent (in advertisement) and certain contexts where it's not (what you did with Palin, though it was satire.) Now, arguably, she's set herself up to be portrayed in this way, but nonetheless, it's not an appropriate part of the discussion of her merits because it's such a stereotypically relevant trait for females, and activating that stereotype simultaneously activates stereotypes that women are emotional, flighty, and incapable of rational decisions.

You can't argue with the data, and the fact is that talking about women's appearances, even in jest, leads women who are exposed to the discussion to behave and perform differently in short-term assessments. The same thing is true of talking about Asian people's stereotypic talent at math: it makes Asian people listening to the discussion temporarily better at math.

[Mikes]

Says the rampant feminist.

I really don't understand why feminists aren't on her side.  I mean what would be the ultimate expression of feminism be, if not for a woman to become President of the United States?

OH!  I know why they hate her, she's pro-life.

Fighting for "equal rights" is one thing - fighting for a totally unqualified person just because she happens to be a woman is another.

That would be quite sexist actually

[NGTM-1R]

Well, it's official.

And anyone who ever possibly thought she was qualified for office shouldn't think so anymore after that speech.

[MP-Ryan]

Well, it's official.

And anyone who ever possibly thought she was qualified for office shouldn't think so anymore after that speech.

The best thing everyone could do is pay her no notice whatsoever - maybe she'll disappear and spare us all the agony of another election with Palin in the spotlight.

[karajorma]

Actually, I'd rather they ran her than someone competent.

[Black Wolf]

Palin was a proverbial sacrificial lamb for the Republican Party. They knew long before the election that anyone they fielded had a slim chance at best, so they picked a running mate on whom they could blame their failure without sacrificing a truly viable political figure. Palin was an obvious choice because, well, she's an idiot. (An unfortunate side effect is that she's now under the impression that she's important.) I refuse to believe that Republican Party was incompetent enough to think they could really woo a significant number of Clinton supporters with an anti-abortion candidate. They had to have known that their choice would be interpreted as a counter to Hillary Clinton, and that Palin's political positions could only make her a laughable failure in that capacity.

That was probably a big part of it, but I also think that they knew that they had to mobilize the right wing again to win (after all, it'd won them the two previous elections), and John McCain was well established as being significantly less right wing than Bush.  Palin was probably, at least in part, a big message to the bible bashers that yes, this is still the party that supports your views, so get out and vote. If the US had compulsory voting, they'd probably have chosen someone better qualified, since they'd know the right wingers would vote for them anyway.

As for all the feminism stuff, particularly the ridiculous over-reaction to what was obviously a joke (anyone who thought that that was a serious piece of political commentary that should be carefully considered when making voting decisions has pretty sizable problems that have nothing to do with gender), I say boo hoo. You need to learn when to let things go.

I have no problem with historical feminism. It more or less all happened before I was born, but getting the vote and the right to own property? Great. Overturning social and legal inequalities? Fantastic. Getting women into politics, the judiciary, high corporate positions? No problemo. We've reached a point now where women can be and do more or less anything they want, and while there are still some issues, I don't think men making jokes about womens appearance is one of them, any more than women making jokes about men being stupid, or belligerent or permanantly horny or whatever. It happens, it will continue to happen. Hell, wasn't there a whole bunch of photos of Obama wandering around the beach in Hawaii with his short off all over the women's magazines back during the US Election? That was OK though, because it's women doing it to men, right?

I'm sure that everyone here can think of plenty of times that jokes about men are seen as OK on TV, movies etc. etc. If feminism is about equality, why should it be any different to make these jokes on both sides of the gender divide. There's no maligninty involved, so people need to be less sensitive.

[Blue Lion]

Of course, there are certain contexts where it's with consent (in advertisement) and certain contexts where it's not (what you did with Palin, though it was satire.) Now, arguably, she's set herself up to be portrayed in this way, but nonetheless, it's not an appropriate part of the discussion of her merits because it's such a stereotypically relevant trait for females, and activating that stereotype simultaneously activates stereotypes that women are emotional, flighty, and incapable of rational decisions.

You can't argue with the data, and the fact is that talking about women's appearances, even in jest, leads women who are exposed to the discussion to behave and perform differently in short-term assessments. The same thing is true of talking about Asian people's stereotypic talent at math: it makes Asian people listening to the discussion temporarily better at math.

You're saying if a woman is in politics and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, it's a great thing (and I agree). however, you're saying if a woman is in modeling and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, ... oh well?

What about all the ugly people who can do the job the same as the hot models but don't get the jobs? They don't consent to the sexualization of the industry, we do. The only reason they do it is because we let them. The only reason they don't do it in politics is because we don't let them.

I mean, are you saying that if men and women in politics choose to use their bodies as tools to sway us, you'd be ok with it? If politicians started using hot women and such the same way other places do to get our attention it would be fine because the models consent to it?

[General Battuta]

Of course, there are certain contexts where it's with consent (in advertisement) and certain contexts where it's not (what you did with Palin, though it was satire.) Now, arguably, she's set herself up to be portrayed in this way, but nonetheless, it's not an appropriate part of the discussion of her merits because it's such a stereotypically relevant trait for females, and activating that stereotype simultaneously activates stereotypes that women are emotional, flighty, and incapable of rational decisions.

You can't argue with the data, and the fact is that talking about women's appearances, even in jest, leads women who are exposed to the discussion to behave and perform differently in short-term assessments. The same thing is true of talking about Asian people's stereotypic talent at math: it makes Asian people listening to the discussion temporarily better at math.

You're saying if a woman is in politics and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, it's a great thing (and I agree). however, you're saying if a woman is in modeling and doesn't want her body used as a criteria, ... oh well?

What about all the ugly people who can do the job the same as the hot models but don't get the jobs? They don't consent to the sexualization of the industry, we do. The only reason they do it is because we let them. The only reason they don't do it in politics is because we don't let them.

I mean, are you saying that if men and women in politics choose to use their bodies as tools to sway us, you'd be ok with it? If politicians started using hot women and such the same way other places do to get our attention it would be fine because the models consent to it?

Uh, no, I'm definitely not okay with that.

And I think advertising should employ more 'normal' women, definitely. It'd help.

But, at the very least, men and women in advertisements have supplied their own consent to be treated as objects. They know they're going to be evaluated on appearance and appearance alone.

[Blue Lion]

How do you know? What if they just want to be a good model and not have you focus on their looks? What if an actress wants to be seen as a good actress and not a pretty face? Is it still ok to leer at them because that's how the industry is?

People stare at these women without any doubt because... well of course they want to be leered at, that's why they're there. Completely ignoring WHY we think it's ok to look at them to begin with.

[General Battuta]

How do you know? What if they just want to be a good model and not have you focus on their looks? What if an actress wants to be seen as a good actress and not a pretty face? Is it still ok to leer at them because that's how the industry is?

People stare at these women without any doubt because... well of course they want to be leered at, that's why they're there. Completely ignoring WHY we think it's ok to look at them to begin with.

I've said more than once that I think that's a problem. I agree that we do need to think about our attitudes towards things like that. I'm not sure where the disagreement is, in fact.

Though I must admit I think some of that is reductio ad absurdum - exactly what kind of model wants to 'be a good model' without caring about looks? That's what modeling is.

[Mikes]

Actually, I'd rather they ran her than someone competent.

Well...  looking at the track record of US elections ... "candidate competency" appears to be a variable that is at least somewhat independent from the election result.

She may be incompetent, but if she runs, she might still win anyways LOL

[Blue Lion]

Though I must admit I think some of that is reductio ad absurdum - exactly what kind of model wants to 'be a good model' without caring about looks? That's what modeling is.

It is because we've made it that way. It should be how we view politics now, but for some reason everyone is "meh"

"We shouldn't judge a politician based on looks, we save that sexism for TV and modeling"

Very weird to me.