Originally posted by dadipentak I share a low opinion of her as a "celebrity" or whatever (and even lower as a political player), Fontan, but I think that sort of comment is really inappropriate--especially here.
To be honest, Dadi, when it comes down to it, the Religious Right's 'tokenism' repeatedly appeals to just such base stuff, even when trying to claim that repressing others somehow makes for any kind of good government.
It's clear that she's not the only one seen as 'attractive' on mere physical attributes, combined with, what, agreeing with guess who when it comes to taking the rights away from other women, complete with frissons of moralistic control.
Over women.
If they'll indulge my bluntness, here, she's supplying the B**** in 'The B****es are asking for it.' If not the 'asking for it.'
And prudery, isn't 'respect for women.' Nor is saying, 'Fundamentalist former weather-readers can succeed, too, as long as they don't show a brain in their heads, look good, have babies, and attack other women, and call it 'success,' when they're applauded by guys who, do, yeah, attack Democratic women for not fitting that model while praising *that* as 'A model woman.'
*Especially* not when the difference between, "Show us your t**s" and 'Somehow Presidential Material' is all about obedience *to* misogynistic ideologies, *not* reading books or knowing anything but snark and coy smirks, and playing to some whacked-out fantasies. From Ann Coulter to Michelle Bachmann to Christine O'Donnell.
Notice a similarity there?
Compared to how they treat women who *are competent,* about physical attributes?
Speaking of nostalgia for past times, this is *late-80's-early Nineties stuff, here, kids.*
If for some reason *I* found myself in elected office and someone said, 'Show us your breasts,' I'd have half a mind to tear my blouse open and say, "OK. Seen it? Now can we talk about the metrics of social and economic policy, or do you boys need some private time?"
Where a lot of *that* goes, really, is *tokenism.* If you look at nearly any Republican candidate that's not an old white guy, be they a woman, a black man, someone whose ancestors were from India, anyone, they *are only allowed to be taken seriously if they perform in certain Religious Right party-lockstep ways.*
This includes this certain breed of 'sex-appeal' 'MILF' type women. They *like* em rabidly-ideological, whatever passes for 'sexy' and... Not too bright. Or at least freakin' crazy and willfully-ignorant.
Look at who they choose to represent them, ...it's not Olympia Snowe, or some very respectable Congresswomen who, despite not being people I agree with any more than the *average* Republican, run to the competent. And also aren't always so easy to control. They choose 'M. I. L. F.'
Expand the last three letters of that and just meditate on that as a criterion for governing this nation. 'I would vote for this woman and call it 'the new feminism because, I. L. F.'
Winning equation,, there?
Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 03-21-2011 at 10:29 AM.