Sorry this is a wee late.
First Lady of Argentina Cristina Kirchner has decided to run for President, and she makes Hillary Clinton look dowdy.
When When Argentina's foxy first lady and fashionista Cristina Kirchner announced July 2 that she would run for president, she allowed her long, black hair to cascade over a plunging neckline.But America's first lady of politics, Hillary Rodham Clinton — who has often been compared to Kirchner — opted for a solid black pants suit during her recent presidential debate.
Other international women with brains and power, such as France's Ségolène Royal, flaunt their sexuality. But Americans prefer to play the dowdy card.
Why, oh why can't we have a hot, long-haired candidate with a "plunging neckline"? Oh right, because she would probably be deemed an immoral slut. Better dowdy than dirty, right? This just makes me fume.
Thanks to Rebecca for the link.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hillary faces dowdy/whore dichotomy.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5658
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
We're a repressed, stupid country, all right. What about that p*rn star... er... erotic actress who was in the Italian Parliament for a while? Or the fact that the Swedish National Bikini Team was the president of the European Union?
Other international women with brains and power, such as France's Ségolène Royal, flaunt their sexuality. But Americans prefer to play the dowdy card.�
I wasn’t under the impression that Segolene Royale was flaunting her sexuality. What does presidential candidacy have to do with sexuality, anyways? Why don’t we ever talk about the sexuality or dowdiness of male politicians?
Most US politicians, male and female, are dowdy. That's why they call Washington "Hollywood for Ugly People".
Your post appeared in my aggregator just above this link from the WaPo:
Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory
It's a fashion piece by Robin Givhan, so we'll see what the response becomes. Givhan calls displaying cleavage a "provocation," perhaps with the German bus driver from earlier this week in mind?
I read the Post every morning, and their "article" on Hillary this morning INFURIATED me.
Women in politics, and power in general, are doomed either way. If you're too attractive you will be accused of wanting attention, being a slut, or worse.
Or, if you are a non-descript looking middle aged woman who has spent her professional life working hard to gain credibility in the "Old Boys Club," you will be called Dowdy. And if you try to have a little fun with your appearance, you will be ridiculed for it.
When will the Post run an article focusing on Barack's crotch? The tightness of his pants? I'm guessing never.
I read the Post every morning, and their "article" on Hillary this morning INFURIATED me.
Women in politics, and power in general, are doomed either way. If you're too attractive you will be accused of wanting attention, being a slut, or worse.
Or, if you are a non-descript looking middle aged woman who has spent her professional life working hard to gain credibility in the "Old Boys Club," you will be called Dowdy. And if you try to have a little fun with your appearance, you will be ridiculed for it.
When will the Post run an article focusing on Barack's crotch? The tightness of his pants? I'm guessing never.
Stories like the ones above really bug the crap out of me. It seems like I can't read any piece about a female politician without her wardrobe/physical appearance being mentioned. This happens even in 'news' stories that are supposively reporting politics and not fashion. It's a bizarre phenomenom that I've never really understood. Nobody ever mentions anything about what male politicians wear. I'd love to see the reaction people would have to a serious news article about Bush's state of the nation address that has a paragraph dedicated to his lovely Brooks Brothers 2 button suit.
Actually, in the last 2 presidential elections, a lot WAS said about what Kerry/Gore were wearing in the debates. That doesn't mean I disagree with what everyone is saying. But we are a country that definitely prefers our politicians to look conservative, no matter what party they're from. Perhaps a sign that there really ISN'T a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.
But you're spot on, Vanessa.
ohmygod- Hillary Clinton has tits!?
The biggest kicker in the article, in my opinion, is this journalistic gem:
"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified . . ."
Right- because women ASK to be objectified.
I saw the Post's style section article first and then when I realized the ABC News story Vanessa was writing about was two weeks old I realized that this is a new campaign meme developing. Hillary's Breasts.
Here's my take on the stories.
The Breasts Of Hillary Clinton
I saw the Post's style section article first and then when I realized the ABC News story Vanessa was writing about was two weeks old I realized that this is a new campaign meme developing. Hillary's Breasts.
Here's my take on the stories.
The Breasts Of Hillary Clinton
I think it's irritating that people focus on this AT ALL. I mean, no one cares that John Edwards is better looking than John McCain or like someone said above me, how tight Barack Obama's pants are. We need to either discuss appearance for both men AND women, or not discuss it at all for either. Because while we are still talking about the hotness/frumpiness of female candidates but not male ones, we are sending a message (when conscious or not) that women are inferior intellectually then men.
"Why, oh why can't we have a hot, long-haired candidate with a "plunging neckline"?"
Why, oh, why, is it that the only options for women are to be "hot," "long-haired," and well-endowed with the boobage?? I can't believe a feminist website is longing for the first female presidential candidate to cave to culture's sexist "norms" for women. Why can't Hilary just be who she is and not have everyone yakking about her supposed lack of "sexiness" or her supposed "dowdiness"?? Why is this even an issue on this website? Get your heads out of "Glamor" & "Cosmo", gals, there's more to life than that. Yeesh!
Uh, alikatze, I think you're just a wee bit confused. It's called sarcasm, and you'd better get used to it because it shows up frequently on this site.
The whole post (and the comments) have been about how stupid the original article was. So why are you castigating us for noticing that other people are focusing on Hillary's looks when we're opposing it?
When will the Post run an article focusing on Barack's crotch? The tightness of his pants? I'm guessing never.
No, but we can ...
When will the Post run an article focusing on Barack's crotch? The tightness of his pants? I'm guessing never.
No, but we can ...
When will the Post run an article focusing on Barack's crotch? The tightness of his pants? I'm guessing never.
No, but we can ...
ugh, sorry, I have no idea why that posted three times.
elyzabethe: Girl, you are my hero! Thanks for making my day.
I wasn’t under the impression that Segolene Royale was flaunting her sexuality.
Royale was clearly someone with a sexuality. For those who believe women are supposed to be asexual, even having evidence of being in a relationship for reasons other than "I wanted to have a fairy-tale wedding and a husband", e.g. because you might feel sexually attracted to someone, is "flaunting her sexuality". Remember, "only men are supposed to actually enjoy or want sex".
The answer is because we criticise them for it whether they do or don't. In the UK there was a big deal made about our new home secretary Jacqui Smith showing a cleavage, which she wasn't really and the photo of her was taken from above... I mean who doesn't have a cleavage from this angle??
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_03/SmithyDM0207_228x328.jpg