Skip to comments.Attacked for their looks
Posted on 07/27/2005 4:24:28 AM PDT by rhema
When I was a seventh-grade teacher, I confiscated a note written by a girl named Jennifer. It was titled "Everyone Hates Melissa," and Jennifer was collecting signatures.
Melissa, a quiet and gentle girl who was the smartest in the class, was described as "a nerd,"ugly" and "weird." Her hair, her clothes, her looks were brutally criticized -- but not her demeanor or her academic skill. After all, there was nothing to criticize there.
Too often we see this same seventh-grade behavior among adults. While healthy civic discourse involves disagreement on issues of policy, too often people are prone to bully and harass their opponents with attacks on physical appearances when they are unable to articulate a valid and logical opposing argument.
Consider the criticisms of the president's new nominee to the Supreme Court. John Roberts has impeccable legal credentials, so what can the pundits attack? Why, the clothing of his wife and children, of course. A fashion maven in the Washington Post looked down her nose and mocked the family as "a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers." They were then duly admonished with a sniff: "Please select all attire from the commonly accepted styles of this century."
Condoleezza Rice, our dignified secretary of state who started college at age 15 and earned a doctorate in her early 20s, is one of the most powerful women in the world.
Nonetheless, she has been mocked and ridiculed -- not for her intellect or knowledge of international diplomacy, but for her hair. It has been likened to that of June Cleaver, but her critics are not content to stereotype her as a dowdy relic from the supposedly subservient '50s. She has also been criticized as a "dominatrix" who oozes "sex and power" for wearing
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.
Let's no forget the abominable skewering of Katherine Harris by the Washington Post's "Style" section reporter Robin Ghivan back in 2000, all because she did her job.
We can see that one party is focused more on form than substance.
We knew that the party of diversity does not extend to diversity of thought. We now know that it does not extend to diversity of appearance. Not really.
If they're fair game, so are we.
. . .whom you'll never find criticizing the appearance of any pro-abort sister, even a Republican.
And because of the party with which she was affiliated. ;-)
Well, yes, we FReepers do that (and I'm guilty as charged), but how many times do you see the media commenting on their looks?
Does anyone remember how this woman was attacked (and still is to this day?)
Look at this garbage.
True, but our comments are for the most part the equivalent of email exchanges. How many conservatives have launched appearance-denigrating salvos in syndicated columns or on national news broadcasts?
"Does anyone remember how this woman was attacked (and still is to this day?)"
I sent her an e-mail during the attempted election by recount, and got a very nice reply.
I expect leftist swine to act like swine; what upsets me is the GOP's failure to support her properly.
If it hadn't been for her, and her alone, Comrade Gorsky Gorovich would be premier of the Supreme Soviet of North America today. She stood like a stone wall and stopped it from happening. And I don't think she's received anywhere near the payback she deserves.
And that's from somebody who objects to women in public life on principle.
Kids sometimes like to be plain mean. If they can get the nerds to cry, they feel they have really scored something.
The left/MSM disgust me.
The positive lesson in this for kids and adults is "take your own counsel and live your life your own way. If you need the approval of others to be happy, chances are you'll never be happy."
The whole idea of a pubskewl is unnatural. Home schooling, where the participants are all family, is the Thing.
If they didn't stand up while Schiavo was publicly starved by her slimebag husband, what makes you think they'll stand up for this.
Where have they been while all these young girls continue to get snatched, raped and killed by repeated sexual predators?
That's a criticism? >>>>veg<<<<
"Eliminate, eradicate, and stamp out redundancy!"
Yeah, yeah, everybody's all fired up about redundancy, but where's the outrage over polysyllabificationizing?
Does this mean we have to be nice to Old Crusty?
"How many of US have slammed Hillary Clinton for the extra helping of butt she has?"
Butt? I can't get past those demonic eyes.
I can't understand what anyone could mock her for.
And always remember to eschew verbose articulation.
I completely agree! Home schooling integrated with the internet is the future. Kids learning at their own speed without idiotic teachers holding them back. I suggest there is going to be a revolution shortly in this matter of education.
"And always remember to eschew verbose articulation."
Aha! Caught you red-handed in a blatant act of sesquipedalianism.
Yes, but sometimes I think they try to tempt us ... like releasing a flock of wild turkeys over a skeet shooting range. There's no way Waxman isn't an intentional plant. And what about Reno? Pelosi? So many Turkeys ... so little time.
I'd like to see some pics of the people who write these things. Bet they are not supermodels!
I was the one who was though most likely to end up in prison for the rest of my life. The true Charlie Brown of my school.
No secret that Liberals are immature, shallow, selfish children that never grew up.
Yes, but "WE" are not the MSM or represent the GOP.
The media and RAT politicians never mock the appearance of Thomas, Hillary, Kennedy, etal. as they commonly do with Republicans and conservatives, while the GOP never childishly reciprocates.
THey mock her for being pretty. They mock her for being feminine and heterosexual. They mock her for having a beautiful figure. They mock her for being that most charming and gracious of all creatures, a Southern lady. They despise the very concept of being pretty and pleasant to men, and the classic idea of being a "lady"--noble, strong, courageous, honorable, and sweet--is horrifying to them. They mock her because she stands for something they are doing their best to destroy, traditional Judeo-Christian values. So they make fun of the fact that she uses makeup to enhance her appearance and feel superior, from the pit of their craven hatreds.
The difference is that we are criticizing Albright and Thomas and Hillary between ourselves. We are not writing articles for the consumption of the masses in major newspapers or on broadcast television. People tend to say a lot of things in a just-friends atmosphere that they would not say before 300 million fellow citizens. If we can't speak frankly before our friends, where else can we voice our opinions?
That said, a gentleman does not comment negatively or in a sexual manner on the appearance of a woman, unless he's going to do so in the most oblique, subtle, Christopher Hitchens type of way. Which is really far more satisfying and clever than doing it straight out!
Single gals like that, don't stay single long.
And men married to women like that, need to let other men know that they own loaded guns.
Yeah - but can I do it until I need glasses?
There ought to be more like her.
Ijust wish the critics would wash and shave their legs and armpits....
"Yeah - but can I do it until I need glasses?"
No, no, sesquipedalianism doesn't make you go blind. It turns you into a liberal academic.
Bottom line: if it's wrong for them, it's also wrong for us. Anything else is simply trying to justify duplicity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.