xenophanean: (Default)
[personal profile] xenophanean
I am currently wondering: If I think: "Louise Mensch: so attractive but so evil" is this misogynistic?

I would certainly be capable of thinking this of someone male, but does the fact that she's a politician mean that I'm inappropriately sexualizing her? She's certainly a very attractive woman, and clearly presents herself as one. I'm also perfectly capable of thinking men are evil, and I don't think the fact that she's good looking makes her in any way less dangerous, or a less serious politician. 

Date: 2012-05-03 01:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] cairmen.livejournal.com
I don't see how it's misogynistic, no. She's a person. People have physical appearances.

Date: 2012-05-03 04:47 pm (UTC)
andrewducker: (Default)
From: [personal profile] andrewducker
Yes, this.

If you saw her as being -only- a creature of attractiveness (positive or negative) then that would be objectification, which is a big step towards misogyny. But if you see her physical appearance as just one of her many facets then there's nothing wrong with having an opinion about it.

Date: 2012-05-03 04:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marrog.livejournal.com
I think it's a complicated question. Coming from you, I don't find it offensive. But comments like that in general come from a certain frame of reference for politicians where the men are politicians, and the women are interesting objects. For reference, list as many of the Coalition movers and shakers as you can remember, and see how it comes out. Do you think for example:

Cameron, Clegg, Alexander, Cable, Hunt, Theresa, Osbourne...?

If so, yes, you're treating female politicians with a lack of respect. And this is standard practice across the media that is only slowly beginning to change, and you can still catch TV personalities and journalists doing it all the time. So don't feel bad it you do it. Just fix it.

That being said, if politicians are funny lookin' (or in the case of Ed M, Jewish Looking) we seem to get endless mileage out of commenting on it, male or female. So there's that.

Date: 2012-05-03 05:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xenophanean.livejournal.com
Interesting, no, it's not:

"Cameron, Clegg, Theresa, Osbourne, Hunt" (Don't really know Alexander)

It's:

"Cameron, Clegg, Theresa May, Osbourne, Hunt"

Why not "May"? I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it's so much that I give her a different name-form because she's a woman, so much as it's that we pick up names from other people.

Theresa May is never called just "May", thus it's not her name. "Thatcher" is definitely "Thatcher" though.

This may be an example of the spreading of sexism, but that said, it's also definitely "Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone". I'd use "Boris and Ken" before "Johnson and Livingstone".

Date: 2012-05-04 11:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] red-phil.livejournal.com
As so often is the case. It comes down to intent, conscious or otherwise.

for reference, if I was asked to name the top political movers and shakers I get

Cameron, Nick Clegg, Osama, Clinton, Thatcher, Tony Blair, Dubb'ya, umm, Salmond, umm, yeah, I'm not good with politicians.

Profile

xenophanean: (Default)
xenophanean

May 2017

S M T W T F S
  123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930 31   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 04:48 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios