Attacked for their looks

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | July 27, 2005 | Cheri Pierson Yecke

[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

[Marysecretary]

Ijust wish the critics would wash and shave their legs and armpits....

[dsc]

"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.

[IronJack]

I wonder if any of those who responded to my post realize how flimsy their excuses sound. Note how many of the posts start with "Yes, but ..." A wise man once told me that whenever a sentence started with that phrase, anything after "but" was a lie.

Bottom line: if it's wrong for them, it's also wrong for us. Anything else is simply trying to justify duplicity.