I wasn’t going to
write about President Obama’s sexist comment because it doesn’t register the
same way for me, say stripping women of reproductive rights. It is still on the
list, but further done with “bitch, cunt, whore, ugly, etc” as language used to
silence women. Because talking about a woman’s looks objectifies her and
removes her from the conversation.
However, Twitter
was invented so all the woman writing articles on how discussing a woman’s
appearance is inappropriate in a professional peer setting is getting the “stupid
hypocritical bitch” tweets because everyone is an idiot and goodness dies on
the Internet.
I favor Irin
Carmon’s piece from Salon, but there are so many good pieces out there. So,
you may not know this, but California Attorney General Kamala Harris is
apparently considered conventionally attractive; we know this because the
President of the Unites States felt the need to comment on her appearance. And
when feminists pointed out that our “feminist” President said something sexist
the Internet when “not possible” shut up you “pearl clutching” women.
You see women’s
appearances are always consumed by the public and considered public property.
So no one thinks anything of President Obama saying someone is attractive or a
cat-caller or a boss introducing an intern as young and pretty. Except everyone
should because women’s bodies aren’t public property. People (particularly men)
say things about women’s appearance all the time, sometimes flattering,
sometimes not. Look no further to see both extremes than this video by SNL on H-Rod and Palin.
However, there is another side to this as well.
In this specific
instance, President Obama’s comment stating California Attorney General Kamala
Harris is “by far, the best looking attorney general” places the emphasis on
her appearance over her work. It devalues her work regardless of what Obama
says about it because she is now the woman Obama thinks is attractive.
Carmon goes on to
point to other examples of President Obama commenting on women’s appearance in
inappropriate ways, Vice President Biden does it, and a variety of others. She
notes that women are trapped in this can’t win situation where their success
and intelligence always must follow the desires of men. Additionally, this is
true for women in public space or when appearance is completely irrelevant.
Additionally,
Carmon points out how hard it is for “progressive” men because the “pearl
clutching” women who don’t want the unsolicited feedback (good or bad), who
think we all need to chill the fuck out. After all Obama and Harris might be
friends, so we’re all blowing this out of proportion.
All that said, even
if you turn this around and point out Obama wouldn’t say this about a man that
doesn’t really go far enough because men are not judged by the same standards.
So yeah, last year, Men’s Health
did a piece on Congressman Aaron Schock running a photo of him shirtless and
discussing his physical appearance, but it was in the context of fitness. How
many articles are written about H-Rod getting old that aren’t about her health?
Carmon recommends
if this is confusing for you to borrow a term from discrimination law—“BFOQ,
which stands for bona fide occupational qualifications.” This means employers
can discriminate only if the qualities in question are necessary to the job
like models. When Carmon asks some questions to help gauge the appropriateness of
the comment:
Are you having sex
with this person you want to tell everyone is attractive?
Are you trying to
get them to agree to have sex with you?
Is attractiveness
part of their job and thus a professional attribute to be discussed like any
other?
Are you, perhaps,
the cheek-pinching great-uncle of this person and thus entitled to a little
slack?
Personally, I have a lot of attractive colleagues, any of
whom I considered friends. I would never reference any of them as attractive in
a professional setting.
“Hey, you’re looking for someone to assist on a IVP case? My
friend M is gorgeous, yeah, and a lawyer” is ridiculous because she is more
than her physical appearance. Often woman’s appearance is employed to devalue
their skill sets. Nor, would I respond to someone looking for a media person to
pitch an idea to a network with, “Hey my friend R, total hottie, and yeah he
can so do that.” Because it by the structure of the sentence places his
qualifications as second to his appearance. So don’t worry the California attorney
general is attractive so I’m sure she also
very qualified.
In conclusion, I think it is important to note the speed at
which the “progressive” menfolk have gotten real defensive. I like to criticize
Obama. I feel like I have a better chance of changing the mind of someone on
our team than the Right. However, the Obamabots are out in full force. He said
something stupid. Call him out, and move on. It is the only way they learn. If you refuse or defend him then you are part of the problem (and that problem is patriarchy, check your privilege friends).
