Video: It's like the beauty critique scene in 'A League of Their Own'. Except, you know -- with actual human lives at stake
Why'd pro-equality candidate Martha Coakley lose to "manly man" Scott Brown? Well, because she's an "unappealing" feminist who could never get her hair as beautiful as Phyllis Schlafly's, natch:
Yep, that's where we are in our politics, people: Voting on a hair, keeping the American experiment alive by the same. [::le sigh::]
**EARLIER: One should not forget the time that another conservative anti-feminist, Janice Crouse, condemned the "the dowdy image of female leadership a la Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Madeline Albright, or Janet Reno," as well as Nancy Pelosi's "surgically induced gash of a smile, which is hard to endure." All while -- get this -- condemning the supposed attacks against Sarah Palin: Concerned (non-dowdy, non-surgically-induced, clearly gender-roled, conservative) Women For America [G-A-Y]
Is it just me? Am I the only one in the world who ponders the thought (every time that I look at Phyllis), "Who would ever have sex with that woman?" She may have had better days, but I certainly can't remember any of them. Talk about unnatural pairings, Phyllis Schlafly plus anyone else. Talk about grrrrrrrly girl!
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 22, 2010 2:52:55 PM
I wish I'd been the one selling hair spray to her all these years ... I'd be retired and wealthy by now!
Posted by: K in VA | Feb 22, 2010 3:04:37 PM
Because, you know, male politicians are all handsome heartthrobs...
I won't say anything too unkind about Phyllis Schafly's appearance. With the likes of her and Janice Shaw Crouse, the real ugly's on the inside.
@ K in VA: Next year, GOProud should operate a hairspray concession booth at CPAC! They'd be the most popular, best-funded organization there!
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Feb 22, 2010 3:10:32 PM
Seriously, who cares what any of these women look like or whether anyone wants to have sex with them? It's not relevant to a political debate and neither the pro-gay or anti-gay side should stoop to that.
While many feminists rightly criticize the superficial, gendered attacks lodged at Sarah Palin, "Concerned" Women For America only seem "concerned" with sexist attacks aimed at like-minded conservative women. They aren't real allies to women.
Posted by: fannie | Feb 22, 2010 5:17:32 PM
And also, this post gets bonus points for referencing A League of Their Own:
"Gracefully and grandly, gracefully and grandly. Legs together, left over right. A lady reveals nothing."
Posted by: fannie | Feb 22, 2010 5:19:29 PM
Agreed, Fannie. With everything you said.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 22, 2010 5:20:10 PM
"... or whether anyone wants to have sex with them? It's not relevant to a political debate and neither the pro-gay or anti-gay side should stoop to that."
But, that's just the point, fannie. Schlafly (and everyone in her camp) get a lot of traction (while spreading their hate against LGBTs) from the "icky" factor of two men having sex... with each other. They call us abnormal, an abomination, sick. The people who listen to Schlafly immediately identify with her because of that ick-facto. But I would bet that almost all of them would find the idea of anyone fucking Schlafly to be equally as icky.
Shlafly says that feminists are homely... to get people to feel icky about having sex with them. She uses the same ploy, albeit, probably with a little bit less impact than against LGBTs. When you look at those who are actively spreading the gays-are-icky meme (Schlafly, Gallagher, Barber, LaBarBear, Wendy Wright, et al.), and think about any of them having sex, just about anyone on the planet begins to feel icky about straight sex.
Maybe it's just a stretch on my part, but getting people to look at these shriveled husks and heaping mounds of flesh as icky and un-fuckable, undermines a big part of their appeal. And diffuses the icky factor. And, make no mistake, they get a lot of traction from the icky factor, while also suffering virtually no blowback from using it. The notion that we suffer blowback from using it is untested at best, and more than likely untrue.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Feb 23, 2010 2:43:43 AM
I thought people didn't vote for her because she never recanted her judicial decisions during the Satanic Panic that landed some innocent people in jail who are still serving time. (Being a feminist doesn't preclude being morally dodgy, unfortunately.) Hope Democrats choose a better candidate next time.
Posted by: Kaye | Feb 23, 2010 9:00:42 AMcomments powered by Disqus