“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.” — Rush Limbaugh, Truth #24 of the 35 Undeniable Truths of Life.
One of the most superficial complaints against Fox News, does find a shred of sympathy with me, if only just a shred: “Real women don’t look like that.” It isn’t true, in the purest technical sense. Women can be occasionally readings-off-the-charts beautiful. But the complaint resonates because it isn’t a complaint only about beauty, and it isn’t only about one or two women. The complaint is that they all look the same and, collectively, this achieves an effect that isn’t natural-looking. Breasts more-or-less the same size, hair all the same color of bleach-blond, glossy glistening lips…it’s an attack of the clones. Just a bit of height variance but not too much.
It makes you wonder who got passed over.
However, even though there’s some merit to this it still ends up being rather silly. The job is to appear on television. Looking good, within this group, should therefore be something like being able to fly when you’re in the Super Friends. Now, there could also be a legitimate charge about sexism, since the men also must meet this requirement of looking good but they all have their identifiable and unique appearances. You aren’t going to mix up Sean Hannity with Bill O’Reilly any time soon…but one can see there is some policy in place, be it soft or hard we do not know, instructing the women to resemble some ideal as closely as possible. Five-foot seven, moist glistening rosy lips, medium-large breasts, nothing at all wrong with a short skirt, turtleneck, and either some sharply spiked heels or dressy knee boots. It does look more incriminating on a whole gaggle of them than on any one of them.
But again…the baseline requirement is to look good. That has a bearing on the situation, because it means something.
With that in mind, then, now consider my complaint about women who have real power — women who can argue with others about what is to happen to my health care, my taxes, and the products I require, from bullet cartridges to light bulbs. It is a close-cousin complaint of “Real women don’t look like that,” with two important differences: One, rather than being beautiful, they’re all ugly. Opposite direction, but equal distance. Even greater distance, really. I can go out on a weekend, shopping, meeting random people — I’m very, very sure I will catch a glimpse of some women who look like Megyn Kelly before I meet even one that looks like Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Sonia Sotomayor, Geraldine Ferarro, Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Madeleine Albright.
Second difference: These ugly broads have real power. Gretchen Carlson can’t make me do a damn thing, other than occasionally wish some centerpiece on the coffee table would be moved slightly out of the way. Can’t stop me from doing anything. Can’t make anything I buy any harder to get, or more expensive…she can’t even start to do any of these things.
The similarity between the two complaints? Both have what credibility they have, because of aggregates. It would be just as laughable to point at Elena Kagan and say, “something is wrong with appointing a woman to the bench who looks like that,” as it would be to single out Laurie Dhue and say “news shouldn’t be delivered by someone who looks like that.” The complaints are about long-standing hiring practices. Trends. Probability theory. The lack of exceptions when & where one would & should be able to expect to find some, or one.
My complaint makes more sense than their complaint. Beauty is a good thing. And, let us state it for the third time since it’s important: In the case of ravishing Fox News anchors, it directly pertains to the job. And really, my complaint has much, much more going for it than mere personal appearance — it calls out a larger issue. It isn’t even confined to women. Ever since the baby-boom generation has reached an age which might “fit” the occupations in our business world and our government invested with real power, like say, back in ’92 when Bill Clinton was elected President, our society seems to have become consumed with a passion for pretending mediocre people are excellent in ways that cannot & should not actually be defined. Perhaps the greatest example of this is Joe Biden being an “experienced elder statesman,” although there are several others. That, I suppose, is the real passion behind my complaint. I’m sick to the point of nausea, of this soft cultural expectation that I should be ooh-ing and aah-ing over the wisdom and perspicacity of these lifelong public-trough-gobbling paper-pushing bureaucrats, boasting of entirely lackluster accomplishments, or none at all. Public sector zombies who don’t actually have any good ideas.
This crushing avalanche of butter-faced women being appointed to powerful positions, is simply a vessel through which this sickening product is delivered.
But my quibble is really with the selection process. Discussing the issue over at the Hello Kitty of Blogging, I was challenged repeatedly over this yesterday morning…accused of wanting to lock up the ugly women and keep them out of the way. Interesting, isn’t it? People who object to the pulchritudinous females on Fox News, never seem to be accused of wanting to lock up pretty people and keep them out of the way — even though, in that case, it really is true. But anyway, my opposition and I both came to the agreement that Maggie Thatcher would not have been too likely to win any beauty contests, nor would Jeanne Kirkpatrick. But they do not find disfavor with me by any means, because they’re not part of the complaint. Again, the selection process; in both cases, its purpose was to find someone with specific qualifications. Read that as, rock-hard balls. In both examples, the best man for the job turned out to be a humdrum-looking female. And in both cases the funny-looking female served with distinction. “What’s excellent about Margaret Thatcher?” is a question that can be easily answered. “What’s unique about Jeanne Kirkpatrick?” is also a question that can be answered.
Contrasted with that: Point to one single wise decision made by wise-Latina Sotomayor, or Obamacare Solicitor General Kagan. Just one.
What started it was a fundraising letter sent out by Sarah Jessica Parker, who is hosting an Obama bash at her home. Just like, ah…dimpleface George Clooney. You see the soft sexism at work in this subtle cultural push coming from the left: The men, should they be so genetically blessed, get to be cutie-pies. That’s perfectly alright. Women are required to be bow-wows. And, throughout the years and decades of seeing the Janet Renos and the Donna Shalalas, you and I are required not to say a single word about it. We’re trying to lock up the ugly people and keep ‘em out of the way, you know.
Well, maybe good manners would call for keeping my silence about it, but there’s a problem with that: Bad things have been happening from that. I suppose I should repeat the tired, obligatory litany yet again…no, I’m not saying ugly people make dumb decisions or that good looking people make wise ones. It’s the selection process. William F. Buckley famously delivered a line, the exact wording of which it seems no one can definitively pin down, about his preference for being governed by the first thousand names out of the phone book instead of by the Harvard faculty. Well, I’d rather have the decisions that apply to me, decided by a Magic-8 ball than by this menagerie of ugly people appointed by these progressives who seem to think, although they won’t say out loud, that real power should be reserved for women who would be sexually rejected by any straight man with standards. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: It’s obvious they’re trying to send a message about women, beauty and power. In fact, they’re spending a lot of energy on it. Wouldn’t good manners counsel us to try to figure out what that message is, just as much as to keep our silence about it? These are people who make decisions that actually matter. Shouldn’t we be trying to figure out what it is they want to do with our women? It’s clear that “leave them alone” is not the right answer.
Eva Longoria is drop-dead gorgeous. She’s also a silly slobbering Obama-fan airhead. How come, I wanted to know, she isn’t hosting an Obama bash in her home, and sending out a fund-raising letter? Sarah Jessica man-hands Parker? Not wanting to be unkind, but…come on…has she even done anything lately?
After awhile, if the scales haven’t already fallen from your eyes, you gotta let ‘em fall. There certainly is a no-pretty-people thing taking place here. It’s being more-or-less ‘fessed up with all the bitching about Fox News.
I’ve written before about how this works, how there is this reverse-sloping effect; Hollywood whores can find favor with the modern left-wing chattering class, so long as they mind their place. If you go along with the idea that Sarah Jessica Parker was selected in some way and Eva Longoria might have been blocked, and this wasn’t all about volunteering, then there must be a hierarchy within even that. Good on you for having the proper lefty opinions, Hollywood whore, now go make your YouTube videos and stay out of the way of our official functions…it’s always the ugly girl’s turn in the limelight because that’s just how we roll.
And then, as you move out of show business and up the power ladder, the requirement is more and more strict. Just grabbing that coffee mug and circling around the table on The View — you don’t have to talk to the progressives too long at all, to find out Elisabeth Hasselbeck is causing offense where her three co-hosts are not, and it isn’t just a problem with opinions, it’s an issue that has something to do with loveliness. Darn that Hasselbeck girl; sane straight men would actually want to sleep with her. How dare she.
And by the time you get to Congress, or the President’s Cabinet, all bets are off. Bow wow.
George W. Bush was going to make an exception to this. Remember that? He looked for a Labor Secretary capable of making good decisions, one who had some balls. He found gorgeous Linda Chavez. The nomination withered and died on the vine, because of something about giving money to an illegal immigrant. You really think it was about that? Really? Timmy Geither is Secretary of the Treasury and he had an embarrassing tax problem resulting from — well, just plain deciding he didn’t want to pay, when you get down to it. No problem there at all. He serves today with the same “distinction” we’ve come to expect from these humdrum mediocre liberals who’ve never actually made any good decisions about anything. So bollucks on the illegal-alien story. Chavez was blocked because she’s beautiful. President Bush somehow, thank goodness, got around this with Condoleeza Rice. How that happened, I don’t know.
We may as well just admit what this is really all about: “Having it all” is dead, done, gone, buried…it may never have been a reality in the first place. Back when I was just beginning to be aware of what was happening, feminism was called “Womens’ Lib,” short for “liberation,” and a key focus of it was that women should be able to make choices, but not sacrifices. The stated goal was to reform society in such a way that if a woman had a family life, and wanted to advance in her career, she should not have to give up the former for the latter, or vice-versa. Nowadays, something’s flipped. Rather drastically. Like a semi-conscious Rip van Winkle, I’m awakening in a new age and I see women are supposed to make such exchanges, almost like a ritual exchange in a marketplace. They should be ready to give up power for beauty, and beauty for power, they should never aspire to acquire, or retain, both; and, most strange of all, the enforcers of this protocol are our women.
Women do not appreciate the idea of other women being both powerful and beautiful.
Famous legal blogger Ann Althouse (who seems to be quite fetching, herself, when she’s facing the camera) highlights a longstanding theme in the so-called “comedy” of loathed unfunny-man Bill Maher: “Our whole society is based on making women nod.” Like many others, I’m repulsed by the very thought of it, but I have to admit he’s right.
We do dumb things to gain female approval, over and over again. It is what makes our society go. And that is to our detriment.
In fact, I pause here to notice something: Women in our society, on average, are not bad at making decisions. I see women making good decisions pretty much every day…or every week, anyhow. We don’t have a lot of women where I work, but I do get to live with one. She’s pretty good at picking things, deciding things. Better than some men, maybe even, on occasion, me. Okay, not that often, but still. Women can make good decisions. So there is something curious afoot when these bonehead decisions are made by others, who are not women, to serve the purpose (and none other) of gaining this female approval. We’re back to Bill Buckley’s phone book again — the institutionalized selection method is compared to a purely-random selection method, and found to be inferior. A pair of dice will come to the right decision more often than one of these pussy beta males trying to Make Women Nod.
Two Supreme Court vacancies have opened up since Barack Obama became President. Both times, the vacancy was filled with an ugly white woman — one not known for making decisions any better than that rolled dice, but whom we’re supposed to perceive, against the evidence, is somehow sagely and wise. Two out of two is outside the probability norm. Simple inductive reasoning suggests, rather forcefully, an affirmative action program for ugly people is in place.
In fact, we’re long past the point at which a reasonable and honest observer can avoid noticing such a thing by one way, and one way only: By consciously deciding not to notice.
So, no. I don’t want the ugly people to be caged up and kept out of the way. Being beautiful has nothing to do with the job…but, because of that very thing, I don’t want the pretty people to be caged up and kept out of the way either. It’s not an either-or situation, that’s my point. Does our ultra-sophisticated, ultra-evolved, ultra-sensible society have the “nuance” to think in these terms? To understand that cosmetic attributes may be entirely unrelated to the desired selection method? Some barnyard animals can do that; can we? These positions of real power don’t have to be reserved for the gorgeous people or for the homelies.
It is possible to simply — ignore the issue of personal appearance altogether, and just pick the right person for the job. Yeah, crazy idea, I know. When you dare to dream, dream big.