gross, but typical.

completely irrelevant, but ann coulter is totally a man.

My only question is: how the hell did Ann Coulter and Laura Bush make it to the good-looking women list? Aside of from objectifying women, this claim is just out right stupid.

"Oh, come to our side, our women are so much better looking - but you ain't getting any until you get married."

Oooh. Kay.

Marc

Oh, don't get me started on this! It's just patently ridiculous to say that any political movement or party has the more conventionally attractive women - people don't choose their politics based on their own looks! But also what bothers me is the implication that these women "belong" to each party (like with the great misogynist term "our women"), and can be used as an object to hit your opposition over the head with.

I love how the Repubs are mostly professional headshots or publicity shots and the Dems are all the worst possible candids.

Am I the only one disturbed by the fact that most of the Republican women look like Barbie dolls? Not that there's anything wrong with slender blonde women, but...not really striking any blows for diversity there. Also, I'd rather have smart women on my side, who may not fit the conventional model for beauty, than pretty but evil and stupid(*coughanncoultercough*).

I assume this is a joke, but just in case it is a serious attempt to influence people:

A. Bo Dereck? Really? Are they going to bring Hollywood activists into this, because I imagine that would be a losing proposition for conservatives?

B. As a pro-life argument, this is obviously pretty stupid, although I guess there isn’t much else to do. The “because God says so� argument only works on certain segments of the population.

And in addition to the professional headshot vs ugly expression candid shot: most of the photos of Republican women were taken at a much younger age.

Huh, your women are OLD too! (and ours have drunk a potion that will keep them young forever, provided they remain EVIL.)

Noname: This was put up in a facebook group I visit recently. My first reaction (aside from glamour vs. bad candid) was that they used bo derek. I was like, if you want me to list every attractive hollywood liberal female, your republican list would start to look pretty frumpy. I mean, Ashley Judd and Scarlett Johansen? But the entire idea that one side has "hotter" women is completely ridiculous and completely misogynist...which is why a republican came up with it.

Janine Turner? (burns Northern Exposure DVDs)

Glaring proof that GOP doesn't really connect with voters on REAL issues.

Janine Turner and Bo Derek haven't had careers for years. Are there so few Hollywood conservatives that Republicans have to dredge up D-list celebrities?

And, how did they manage to make Teresa Kerry look like Linda Blair?

I had a whole snark post running in my head about this, but I can't even do it. All I am capable of is...ARG!!!!!!*#$^&*@#

(And seriously, if I have to hear/read "Ann Coulter is a man," one more time...transphobia is not cool, ya'll.)

Oddly, this makes me feel good. Because if the best the Republicans have is "our women are prettier!"--they are going DOWN in '08.

And, of course, they can't even do a good job, it's patently obvious that the Republican photos are all Photoshopped headshots, while the Democrats are shown in awful candids (that are also probably Photoshopped, but to look worse.) It just makes the whole thing look ridiculous.

I think it's very telling that whoever put this together chose to exclude Condoleeza Rice from the Repub hottie list. I'm sure an attractive photo can be found, but I'm sure an African American woman just doesn't fit into this kind of person's very limited ideas of attractiveness.

All of which is beside the point. The thing shouldn't exist. The fact that someone believes that this is a valid argument is frightening.

i love it. they just proved a point for us without our having to lift a(n ugly) finger. thanks, conservative dimwits!

Sure, the ones included in this pathetic piece might be prettier, but they're less intelligent and morally corrupt. :shrug: What was the point again?
Why isn't there a piece about which party has hotter men? Oh right, because men are the decision-makers while women are the decorations.

Not only is it silly for the reasons above (Bo Derek? Really?), but I think it's quite telling if you look at what the people on each chart actually *do*. The list of Democrats includes one of the most important journalists of our time, a U.S. Senator, a former Secretary of State, a former Attorney general, one of the most important feminists of our time, and the Speaker of the House. The list of Republicans is made up of the First Lady, a couple of actresses, and a bunch of talking heads, many of whom I had to look up to figure out just who they were (you couldn't put Condoleeza Rice on that list? Really?).

The message I'm getting is that the Republicans care about how you look, whereas the Democrats care about what you do.

Liberal Democratic women are always going to be prettier than conservative Republican women. And liberal women also care about you where as neocon women don't give a rat's ass about you, just like the men who dominate the GOP.

Besides, SarahMC, the right would lose that "competition" in about four seconds. There's a lot of genuinely good looking men on the left, and a lot of men on the right that look like they crawled out from under a bridge (and probably did).

My college's conservative "news" rag (it's not really news if it's nothing but opinion articles) recently ran something similar on their back cover saying: "Scientific Proof that Conservative women are better looking" and pictures of hot news anchors (all from Fox), and bad pictures of female Dems. I found as many as a I could and threw most of them out and hung a redacted version on the lecture hall walls that read: "Scientific Proof that Conservative Men are Sexist Pieces of Shit"

The saddest part was there was an article inside (by a woman!) talking about how women really have tons of power because men want to sleep with "us" and by us she means skinny and pretty white women. That just made me want to cry.

You can download it if you're looking for something to push you over the edge to insanity (it's the Oct 2nd issues):
http://binghamtonreview.googlepages.com/home

AHH!!

I sent this to Jessica a while back! I just graduate from SUNY New Paltz...and last year when some of my friends and I saw this flyer being distributed around campus by the NEW PALTZ COLLEGE REPUBLICANS we decided to do something about it. With the help of a lot of people we came up with this idea:

We printed out pictures of the faces of the "ugly" Democratic women, made them into masks...then made signs contrasting appearance issues with real issues (e.g. "What's worse: AIDS in Africa or FAT THIGHS?"...."What's worse: Cutting funds to UNFPA or Wrinkles?"). We all showed up at the college republican's meeting and stood there the whole time in silent protest (though after much provoking some of us responded).
We tried to make the point that these things are irrelevant and like you said, NOT a political argument. When the WOMAN (a college student) tried to claim it was all a joke I told her that the moment she put it up on flyers with the club's name on it, it became serious. And that it is in no way appropriate to put it up in an educational institution where many women come to learn and be taken seriously, not be told they will be judged on their appearances. I also told her she probably wouldn't think it was that funny if she tried to apply for a job and wasn't hired because the (most likely) man who was hiring her didn't like the way she looked.

Ughh... I will try to find a link to the newspaper article they did on us...it was infuriating but very rewarding to take part in that.

*Leslie

i would laugh it it wasn't so pathetic.

I disagree that this is not a political argument…it’s subtle, but there is a political argument here, and that’s why it’s dangerous. The subtext of the poster is that women who fit normative beauty standards don’t need the benefits of the “special interests� Republicans tend to say Democrats want. Women who are “proper� women—attractive ones who know their place--get by just fine the in world, this poster says, and if you (Democrat woman) could be a proper woman, you wouldn’t need the excessive, wrongheaded allowances you stand for. Obviously (says this image) if you were able to be a “real woman,� you wouldn’t have all the problems you do. In other words, if you were able to fulfill your proper societal role, you wouldn’t be a Democrat.

So the poster reinforces the idea that women’s power should come from their beauty. That is indeed a political argument, and it’s all kind of tied up in normative gender expectations: ‘Democrats are people who can’t live up to society’s expectations.’

"people don't choose their politics based on their own looks!"

I may be wrong, but didn't many people cite JFK's, er, "dashing good looks" as a reason for voting for him?

I think neredalert hit on an important point with the "manCoulter" comments. This entire thread works off the assumption that to invalidate opinion by pointing out subjective physical attributes, is a very minimizing style of sexist response. It's reductionist and nothing else.

Is it me or is anyone else concerned that many of the comments completely buy into that argument by getting into "their hotter, no we are, the men are lizards, etc." It's similar to responding to an accusation of ugly with, "that's completely not fair to judge her opinions on looks. And besides, she's really pretty".

To me, that just waters down the central argument.

I may be wrong, but didn't many people cite JFK's, er, "dashing good looks" as a reason for voting for him?

Their own looks, not the looks of others. It's silly think people actually say "hey, I'm a hottie, I guess I should be Republican!" And as regards the JFK thing, well people may well vote for the more conventionally attractive candidate (pretty people often get more promotions, etc. etc.) but I doubt most people base their choice of politics on it.

I think Pythia's got it...its like an extension of the whole "Feminists just need a good fucking from a 'real man'" argument....we wouldn't be so angry if we weren't deprived of patriarchal male validation because of how unattractive we are.

So yes, I suppose it is an argument if you dig, but it certainly is not a valid or respectable one. I am appalled that this is still acceptable in certain circles, but not really surprised.

Very true, sgzax, my first thought after *general mind boggle* was "Where's Condi Rice?" It's a subtle but very pointed omission from the person who put this graphic together.

Yeah, its offensive, but I just can't be bothered to work myself up into a lather over it. It's such a clunkily ham-fisted & transparent attempt at feminist-bating that I'm embarassed for anyone who falls for it. It says everything we already know about the GOPigs & their unbearably shill say-anything HoBot window-dressing.

Leslie: good on you for calling out the assholes on their shit.

How different is this really from the whole Obama picture making the rounds with him on the beach without his shirt on? That was an attempt to equate youth, vitality and attractiveness to a liberal candidate. Don't really care for either attempt, but let's not pretend that only one side of the political aisle uses such methodology to control its image.

Excellent insight, Pythia. I definitely think that you're on to something there.

How awful. There are so many things wrong with this picture. It's like booth babes for politics.

Also, I agree with nerdalert. Transphobia == not cool.

Could it be that the Republican ideal is that of a blonde trophy wife and those of us who are not "kept" might have to think more and be more politically involved rather than spending our time and money on hair dye, working out, and makeup?

Also, think about what happens to the Repub wives once their men move on and decide its time for a newer model Barbie...

Democrat ladies are loved for our bodies AND our minds!

Could it be that the Republican ideal is that of a blonde trophy wife and those of us who are not "kept" might have to think more and be more politically involved rather than spending our time and money on hair dye, working out, and makeup?

Also, think about what happens to the Repub wives once their men move on and decide its time for a newer model Barbie...

Democrat ladies are loved for our bodies AND our minds!

Thomas, I think the simple "so what?" argument is the strongest. You don't need to concede to their game of having to be main-stream attractiveness in order to be... something. I'm not even sure what they're trying to say... just that they're prettier...? Doesn't really make sense.

Just look at the Democratic women's status in comparison to the Republican women. On the Democratic side, you have the first woman Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Speaker of the House (and probably President). On the other side, you have lunatic pundit, lunatic pundit, lunatic pundit . . . .

Of course, they conveniently left out a picture of Elizabeth Kucinich. And Elizabeth Edwards is a lot better than Laura Bush. Aside from their argument being plain stupid, it's not even true.

Pythia: I get the point you're making & like it very much, but I'm guessing that a distinction needs to be made between "argument" vs. "insinuation". The poster is very clearly insinuating exactly the point your making, but because it is insinuated rather than argued, it makes it so much easier for them to blow it off as a "joke/not serious" & provides an out for the manufactures of this kind of material & their enablers/defenders to brush off criticisms as "hysterical/unfounded/unrealistic" & the critics as "humourless, whining bitches who want to take away our fun".

The GOPig Noize Machine excels at this kind of intellectually dishonest slight-of-phrasing & they've had 35 years to improve it, plus all the help they've had from a media that refuses to call them on it. It ditches any attempt to address any rational concerns & taps into a reservoir of neurosis & ill-logic that would dry up & blow away under even the most cursory attempts to shed some light on it. This brand of Bating Your Opponents with Fuckwittery is the Ringnutz's bread-&-butter & its only getting worse the more it goes unchallenged.

If you can get your hands on it, there's an excellent short essay called "Alphabets Of Unreason" by J.G. Ballard on exactly these kinds of discourse dynamics.

On the Democratic side, you have the first woman Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Speaker of the House (and probably President). On the other side, you have lunatic pundit, lunatic pundit, lunatic pundit . . . .

I think it's a fairly good indicator of what they think women should be contributing to political arena...good looks and, apparently, the ability to spew venomous, hate-filled rhetoric.

PS: Helen Thomas Rules!! She seems to be the only journalist in the White House Press Corps (or anywhere, it seems) with the ovaries to ask anything other than a softball question...which is why they (Bush & Cronies) rarely directly call on her.

re: Condelezza Rice.

I speak from somewhat expreience when I say that black women who are darker skinned with "traditional" African features are not considered "attractive" by white male standards. If Ms. Rice had the skin tone and facial features of, say, Halle Berry or Vanessa L. Williams then you bet your ass she'd be on that list.

We have to remember that this is a kind of "I'd hit that" list, and most white men don't want to fuck Condelezza Rice.

This poster is actually really, really old so I am surprised it started making the rounds again. I think the first time I saw it was in '04.

Suzy, I don't think it's a sophisticated argument, just a variation on the old "feminists are ugly" theme. But I think back to what Jessica wrote in FFF: that it may be stupid, but it stings, so I'm leery about letting it go without refutation.

complete bullshit! They just took uncomplimentary photos of all the dems.
Anyways whos stupid enough to want someone just for their looks when you have Ann Coulter who says women should have their voting rights taken away because we vote democratic, and her anti-semantic quote "we just want Jews to be perfected, as we say," when she was claiming it would be better if they would just be Christian. All the republicans shown are obedient dogs to the men who hold their leashes. They shouldnt even have vaginas!

I just love the general idea that they are going to prove that their better by proving that they are more shallow.

This reminds me of a session I attended at a conference held at my fairly conservative university. The speaker concluded her presentation by asserting that "pro-choice women just don't look happy."

Apparently anti-choice women smile more. Who knew?

I'm really glad Ann linked to Amanda's post that was taking Maxim to task for writing a whole lot of "Ann Coulture looks like tranny and is ugly" articles.

I've heard way too many *liberal* boys feel the need to resort to the "Ann Coulter is an ugly bitch" tactic to get the point across they don't like her views.

I think I've told this story before but on Smirkingchimp.com there was someone who was posting up images that he was going to be printing on T-Shirts and it was a sexy cartoon of Ann Coulter that showed her topless (looking like a devil nazi) with exposed nipples.

I wrote that person and said I objected, as a woman, the need to literally strip Coulter naked to make your point about her.

I don't think the guy on the other end quite got what my point was. In fact several people chimed in to say their only problem was the cartoon made Coulter look too sexy. (Because she's really ugly, get it?)

In the end he only slightly modified the design to cover her nipples.

Oh please! "Our men" are better looking than both groups.

Andrea Dworkin... a democrat!?!?!?! HA! That is ridiculous.

Yea, I received this awhile back. I replied to everyone on this list that I found this surprising, since most Republican men lately seem to have more interest in little boys than in women.

This is really class warfare. Those have class, those do not.

Have a collection of ladies aged 60+ (I bet that the Democratic 9 has the average age at least 20 years above the Republican, perhaps 30), and then search for the ugliest photos that they could get in the last 20 years.

I hesitate what was in worse taste: "beer and boobs", or this collection. In both cases we can witness what passes for sense of humor among some people.

Courtney,

Of course Andrea Dworkin is a Democrat. The dead only vote for Democrats... or is that just in Louisiana?

Jane, I know exactly what you mean! Some time ago there was a guy on Ani DiFranco's label that sang a song that was something like Ann Coulter's cunt smells. I was horrified. I told my boyfriend about it and he kind of chuckled, until I pointed out that it's still misogyny, even if it's from a liberal person about someone evil, and misogyny is never funny. Ugh, I just don't understand why some supposedly progressive men don't seem to understand that using the same old tools will get you the same results.

hahahaha

i just meant that dworkin was so radical i doubt she would have aligned herself whole-heartedly to either party

"I also told her she probably wouldn't think it was that funny if she tried to apply for a job and wasn't hired because the (most likely) man who was hiring her didn't like the way she looked."

...unless the job she really wants is "housewife," and she hopes to get that job by attracting a man with traits including her appearance instead of waiting for her extended family to find a match and introduce him to her during the wedding?

You know, the reason people make stupid transphobic jokes about Ann looking like a man is that she has no body fat left due to what I'm pretty sure is anorexia. (The interview in which she announced that anorexics don't have boyfriends was one in which she admitted that hers had insisted she see a doctor for her eating disorder.)

Not to justify the liberal-originated misogyny at all. I'm just sayin', I could use this poster to argue that Republican "hotties" are all miserable angry women who don't get to eat lots of delicious cake like I'm about to.

I don't like resorting to the "Ann Coulter is an ugly bitch tactic" either, except that Ann Coulter herself is always repeating the "I'm gorgeous, while liberal women are all ugly, hairy-legged hippies!" thing. While in actuality, she's an overly skinny, skanky hag. I see nothing wrong with refuting her overblown opinion of herself, since she has no problem attacking me.

If Ann Coulter is the gauge of what's hot, I'd rather be butt-ass ugly, thankyouverymuch

Actually, this list tells me that Republicans have very, very little use for women after they're no longer hot.

Given that most of the Democrats are accomplished women of power who have done great things in their lives, and most of the Republicans are talking heads, it says "If you have nothing to trade on but your beauty, be a Republican for as long as that will last you. If you have real talent, be a Democrat and continue doing work you love after you're old and your looks have faded."

It really doesn't surprise me that the party with the most misogynists has a higher proportion of "hot" women -- women who are sexually attractive, and have that sort of power under patriarchy, are less likely to figure out how we're all being screwed until they get older. In ten years Ann Coulter will be no one, and Nancy Pelosi might well *still* be Speaker of the House.

[I]"Your Women Are Ugly!" is not a political argument[/I]

It's not intended to be a political argument. It is partisan tribalism.

[I]The idea that discussing the attractiveness of women's bodies as a point in favor of or against a specific set of political beliefs is just disgusting.[/I]

There is nothing there about political beliefs. This is simply saying "our team is better than your team." In fact, there's nothing to suggest that the women in each group share a set of political beliefs. They simply have a D or an R after their names and that's all that matters to the people who post and forward these things.

My question is...have they even seen the republican MEN? They are the toadiest looking old farts I've ever seen and that's for damn sure.

I've heard way too many *liberal* boys feel the need to resort to the "Ann Coulter is an ugly bitch" tactic to get the point across they don't like her views.

Years ago when I first saw this poster on a (supposedly) Democratic message board, all the "liberal" dudes started going apeshit about how ugly Ann Coulter is and listing hot Democratic women and ugly Republican ones. When I entered the discussion and pointed out that they were being completely sexist and asking them why it's so much more important to them that women be hot than intelligent, one encrusted shit biscuit actually replied to me with, "Hmmmm, somebody sounds a little defensive!" And that was all he wrote -- because if I were unattractive, that alone would invalidate my argument. Sadly, to too many men even on our side, "You're just plain UGLY!" when said to a woman is all you need to refute her views. Which basically means that if you're a woman who's not 100% hot all the time, every one of your opinions mean absolutely shit and you will be ALWAYS be wrong simply because you're not hot.

Although then, beautiful women are often thought to be bimbos or singularly obsessed with their appearance and then not taken seriously based on that....Oh, how far we still have to go....

It really doesn't surprise me that the party with the most misogynists has a higher proportion of "hot" women -- women who are sexually attractive, and have that sort of power under patriarchy, are less likely to figure out how we're all being screwed until they get older.

I said substantially the same thing about self-identified feminists and got my head bitten off.

Unlike everyone here, I don't think it's an issue of party lines (there being but two parties, and a lot of room under both tents for a variety of people, with differing views about the size of gov't, social, and economic issues) - although the poster was presented as such.

For some reason, men are more apt to take beautiful women seriously. I read a study once where the same woman taught the same material to two classrooms of men. In one time, she dressed in boring clothes. In the other classroom, she wore a dress that showed off her figure, did her hair, and did her make-up. The men gave higher points to her when she was dolled up.

It's the same nonsense we see with those coffee shops that hire women to wear skimpy clothing and serve espressos, or those bars that require women to wear make-up, or the news stations (of all political persuasions) that only hire young, pretty women when they do hire women.

IMO, if you're focusing on the one individual who made that poster and getting upset over an entire political movement, you're wasting your time. The larger issue is that men on one side (whichever side it may be - there's too much "Ann Coulter is ugly" to believe it to be a Republican thing) are using women's looks to bash the other side, who, presumably, will find this to be a sad state of affairs.

There are more than two political parties in the United States, unless you're willing to write off the myriad other parties simply b/c they haven't the financial backing or numbers to match Republicans or Democrats. I personally identify as Green, and I know a lot of people who are Libertarians. Small nit-pick.

Secondly, I think that most people are not focusing on the one person who made the poster, since we don't actually know who made it, and are rather focusing on the greater implications for men who seem to think that ugliness (relative to how they define beauty of course) = worthlessness. Although, and I agree, Democrats are not absolved of their participation, I would venture that this poster is reason enough to get upset over an entire political movement, if one finds that it represents some of the more insidious sentiments of those propagating the movement.

I am convinced your organization could care less about women who are REALLY oppressed.

Post this video of women being oppressed on your website and prove me wrong.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXehLLcQv3U

This is where your organization should focus your attention.

Oh, Devil's Advocate. I just love it when right-wing groups use inflammatory video to justify their bloodlust. If you want to go to war with Islam, I'm sure you've got more than enough people currently in charge of the government on your side. The people on this site are justly horrified at the abuse of women world-wide, but few of us are stupid or naive enough to be so easily manipulated. I assure you, I do agitate for women's rights world-wide. I am equally sure though, that equality for women does not require the complete destruction of all Islamic nations. So take your racist tripe back to wingnut-land.

The Harridans of the right from the spectacularly unattractive Phyllis Shitfly and Anita Bigot on down have always flung the "Feminists are ugly" because we tend to not be plastic Stepford Wives with strange artificially arranged hair etc. Throwing it back is to me fair game.

As for Coulter.. Considering the type of broad band of bigotry and false accusations as well as the place she inhabits I am of the opinion that anti-semitic, racist closet transgenders shouldn't gay bash. Especially if their closets have glass doors and they are so obvious.

This is especially true considering the vicious bashing of women born transsexuals who have been rock on members of the lesbian feminist communities and who have endured all sorts of nastiness. Perhaps they deserve the treatment and respect instead of Coulter.

PS I am WBT.

What's really disturbing is the number of Republicans who will see this and think, "Ah ha, that'll take care of that pesky women's vote issue."

Sgzax, I can not understand how you could have come away from that video with those ideas.

"If you want to go to war with Islam..."
"...complete destruction of all Islamic nations."

The video asks for the downfall of Radical Islamic Jihad. It also seeks to reform Islam. That's all.

"So take your racist tripe back to wingnut-land."

I am not the smartest person in the room, so you will have to show me where the racism is. Also, why should being horrified by oppression take a political side?

Sgzax, I can not understand how you could have come away from that video with those ideas.

"If you want to go to war with Islam..."
"...complete destruction of all Islamic nations."

The video asks for the downfall of Radical Islamic Jihad. It also seeks to reform Islam. That's all.

"So take your racist tripe back to wingnut-land."

I am not the smartest person in the room, so you will have to show me where the racism is. Also, why should being horrified by oppression take a political side?

What you say is true, BluePencils and DallasSuz, but I think that we should try to be better than our enemies. :)

sgzax

You are truly pathetic. As women are being oppressed around the world with female genital mutilation, being stoned to death, wearing bee keeper suits, etc., you see this as a right-wing issue.

I'm glad my tax dollars are well spent on your education.

No reasonable person could watch that video and think that your organization is spending its resources well on this fake outrage over this poster.

Here is the video again for those who may have missed it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXehLLcQv3U

Trolls

Obviously a list with serious selection bias.

I've heard this "Helen Thomas is ugly" argument before. It's rather strange and extremely mean-spirited considering that she is 87 years old.

No reasonable person could watch that video and think that your organization is spending its resources well on this fake outrage over this poster.

This is a blog about feminist issues. There are no "resources" from an "organization" being spent. (BTW, feminism is ideology, not an organization)

You are truly pathetic. As women are being oppressed around the world with female genital mutilation, being stoned to death, wearing bee keeper suits, etc., you see this as a right-wing issue.

I'm sure you've heard this before but: We can be outraged about more than one issue at a time, it's not a one-or-the-other proposition. And, if you bothered to actually read, you would've noticed that all of those issues are addressed on this blog.

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.

Oh no! I've run out of outrage! We've overtaxed our valuable outrage resources--the outrage mines of South Carolina have been stripped bare, and the outrage rainforests of Central America have been decimated. If only we'd been more ecologically conscious, if only we'd conserved our outrage! I wasted all of mine on being outraged about cosmetic surgery and high heels, and now I have none left for the situation in Darfur. Alas, alas.

Ahem

Gawd, I love concern trolls. I also love that this one seems to think we're an "organization" with "resources." I feel shmancy!

What you say is true, BluePencils and DallasSuz, but I think that we should try to be better than our enemies. :)

Posted by: ShifterCat

There are many books and a good deal of history out ther that show the negative outcome of people who try to "be better" than their enemies.

Sean Connery in "The Untouchables" speaks real words of wisdom when he says "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

The 60s movements get described as violent and they were. The right wing murdered hundreds of dissenters. We broke a few windows and did other property damage.

Ugly homophobic misogynistic attacks on women work. They were one element in giving feminism a dirty name, not that feminists themselves didn't alienate many women with proto-feminist ideas who were sexual and beautiful in what was called reinforcing sexist stereotypes.

Want to be nice? Use Ann Coulter as an example of why protections for people with trans as a prefix for the descriptor that is always empathized would not allow a nasty racist, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semite to be discriminated against just because she is transgender.

Look... Back in 1973 Robin Morgan trashed a woman in transition. Even today left wing lesbian feminist women who are activists in the women's community regularly get trashed by the women of the Michigan Women's Music Festival forums.

But a flat out Nazi person presumed trans something or other is exempt?

That is kind of a self defeating trashing of your own. Accompanied with a refusal to trash people who deserve a righteous trashing all in the name ob being better than them.

If this is what the right is offering female voters, the question of why women are eager to consider a female candidate should be much less of a mystery to conservative pundits.

DallasSuz, what you say would make sense if the people who object to calling Ann Coulter a trannie were the same people who trash actual transpeople. But by and large, we're not.

I wouldn't call Ann Coulter a trannie because I don't think that being trans is an insult, and because transwomen have nothing so terrible to me that I should comapre them to Ann Coulter.

"I wouldn't call Ann Coulter a trannie because I don't think that being trans is an insult."

I'm a woman with a transsexual medical history.

I don't consider being it an insult either. Yanking Ann from the closet is a public service. On the order of outing all the damaging to the LGBT closet case gay Republicans.

I know; I remember you said so.

I dunno; I think outing Coulter would lower the image of transpeople everywhere.

But seriously, you honestly think that Coulter is trans? That's a different story, though, isn't it? Most of the people I've seen flinging the term around re: Coulter are doing it to emphasize that she's "ugly" or as a general insult. That, I believe, is what most people are objecting to.

Pam's House Blend has a good post on this...

I don't really mean to come across as Captain Killjoy, but, seriously, in a post titled "Your Women Are Ugly!" is not a political argument, why would anyone think that it's okay to go on about how "no, liberals aren't the ugly ones, conservatives are!"?

The point isn't that the list is wrong because, "Hey! Coulter is ugly!" It's wrong because a woman's attractiveness isn't a valid basis for arguing about the correctness of her political beliefs.

Saying "But! The women they've listed aren't actually attractive!" doesn't invalidate the point of the poster- it's not an argument against it. In fact, it reinforces the poster. Saying "our side is hotter" or "your side is ugly, too!" doesn't argue that it's wrong or stupid to discuss women's bodies as a substitute for political argument, what it says is "I agree with your premise, but disagree with your conclusion."

Turning it around and arguing that liberal men are hotter than conservative men isn't really bettter, either.

And, yeah, the "Coulter is a man/trannie" comments absolutely stink of transphobia, and they're not really helpful, either.

I'm not saying that Ann Coulter shouldn't be trashed, DallasSuz. I'm saying that we shouldn't trash her using the same sophomoric, superficial, and inane insults that she uses.

In other words, saying "Ann Cuntrag is a bony, ugly, wonky-eyed trannie!" is lowering ourselves to her level. On the other hand, saying, "Ann Coulter is an illogical, plagiarizing, shallow, intellectually dishonest, hate-mongering, misogynist fanatic" is both relevant and justified.

Tell me why every freaking photo of Hillary Clinton is of her making some crazy face? I'm not really rooting for her, but it is so unfair to see the Republican machine get away with painting her with such a brush that makes people turned off by her (and we all know that when a woman is a public figure, her looks matter just as much as her policy -- which is amazingly unfortunate!)

"In other words, saying "Ann Cuntrag is a bony, ugly, wonky-eyed trannie!" is lowering ourselves to her level."

These are your words. As one of the people said in "Paris is Burning". "If I'm a trannie and she's a trannie then my calling her a trannie isn't a read. It is simply stating a fact".

Taking it to a higher level and throwing shade would be my adamantly defending her right to her position and to ENDA protections for her being a trannie even though she is a lying racist Nazi.

As one of the people said in "Paris is Burning". "If I'm a trannie and she's a trannie then my calling her a trannie isn't a read. It is simply stating a fact".

Would you mind pointing out to me where she's come out as transgendered?

Otherwise, no, you're not "stating a fact" you're speculating.

"Would you mind pointing out to me where she's come out as transgendered?

Otherwise, no, you're not "stating a fact" you're speculating."

There was an old retort I learned as a transkid. When the bullies would call me a queer my come back was, "It takes one to know one."

We learn early on how to spot a sister. It's part of our survival skills along with having thick skins and sharp tongues.

I came out young and have been part of the feminist l/G/B/T community ever since. Back about 10 years ago I was welcomed as a person in history by the F to M community. Prior to that I was as blind to my brother as I was aware of my sisters. I was at a gathering of the F to M tribe and had several of them teach me the cues that make them visible.

This is a different form of read, a recognition of other invisible members of the tribe, in group membership in an oppressed minority that lives among the mainstream.

As for her having to out herself. Humm... That takes us into the ethics of outing. Signorelle and Rodgers us the general rule of only outing vicious gay bashers. I think Coulter qualifies on that point.

But here's where the beauty of the including of transprotections in ENDA comes in. The word "perceived". Using her as an example of some one commonly perceived to be transgender.

The song is by Hammell on Trial, and it's called "Coulter's Snatch" The lyrics are:

We’re involved in a cultural war
The country’s torn apart like never before
And try as I might, I see no end in sight

I search my soul and I roam my heart
And when enlightened know the place to start
Compassion, forgiveness and communication

That would take a bigger person than me
I’m the first to admit it you see
So you ask me what I think

I think Ann Coulter’s got a cunt that stinks
Let’s engage her in debate, let’s make her deny it

Chat on Meet the Press, announce it on Fox
Ann Coulter’s got one stinky box
It wouldn’t take much to get the country to buy it

I used to be disgusted, now I’m pissed
I’m ashamed that it’s come to this

Rush Limbaugh likes to suck pig dick
swine penis for Rush will do the trick
Everybody knows Rumsfeld forces sex with tots
God bless the First Amendment, I’d be sued for libel
George W Bush masturbates to the bible
And Condoleezza likes eating pussy a lot

There are some douches that’ll never fail ya
Lest they come up against Ann’s genitalia

You take the low road, I’ll take the lower road
You’ve met your match
I admit I get a kick out of talking
‘Bout Coulter’s snatch.

You take the low road, I’ll take the lower road
I’ll end the fight
Every time you be looking at Ann you’re thinking
“Something don’t smell right�
Right, right, right, right

I....would really rather have not stumbled across those lyrics that way. That's disgusting.

The problem with the moral high road (e.g. calling Ann Coulter "an illogical, plagiarizing, shallow, intellectually dishonest, hate-mongering, misogynist fanatic" and not something more at their level, is that those kinds of insults don't hurt them, don't piss them off, and don't convince them of anything. You wanna win, you fight their fight. Otherwise, you're playing a different game, and they win the game they're playing. Which is politics.

Sadly, the moral high road and the road to political success rarely converge.

Actually, Luna, I don't think that either "high road" or "low road" insults help us "win" against someone like Ann Coulter. She's so used to telling herself, "Anything a liberal says is worthy of nothing but my derision" that I doubt either statement hurts her feelings or causes her to concede a point.

The kind of difference that I would hope to make is in the minds of the public who aren't yet swayed one way or the other. A casual observer, seeing two groups throwing "ugly" at each other, will be disinclined to make much effort to tell them apart.

The problem with the moral high road... ...and not something more at their level, is that those kinds of insults don't hurt them, don't piss them off, and don't convince them of anything.

And you think that insulting her looks does? It doesn't. Nothing you or I can say is going to hurt her, piss her off, or convince her of anything, and, honestly, that shouldn't be your goal, anyway. If you think that you're going to somehow hurt or win someone like that over, you're punching a brick wall.

You wanna win, you fight their fight. Otherwise, you're playing a different game, and they win the game they're playing. Which is politics.

Sadly, the moral high road and the road to political success rarely converge.

I couldn't disagree more. All you do if you stoop their level is justifying their tactic. The implication is that the tactic is legitimate and acceptable. It's the same stupid tactic that the left has been trying for a while now- act like the right and you win!
Excepting, of course, that you don't. And they haven't.

It's time to reframe the debate and put the focus back where it belongs.

I can't help but laugh at that image. Clearly, Republicans prefer their women to be cute, blonde, airbrushed commentators on Faux News rather than women who've fought for their place at the table.

Personally, I'd rather hang with any one of the "Ugly Democratic Ladies" than the Republicans.