The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion
Reality-Based Chat. Speak!
We just had a local Republican man here in NH call Annie Kuster, my Congresswoman, "ugly." Can anyone ever recall an incident when a man running for office was called ugly?
The flinging of revolting misogynistic comments, rather in the manner of dung, by ultra-right-wing troglodytes (I guess that's redundant) has been standard operating procedure for the acolytes of Limbaugh for a very long time, now. Early on in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh compared Chelsea to a dog (when she was 13), and in '98, John McCain told a "joke" about her which began, "why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" And Hillary's looks have been insulted by Republicans more times than can be enumerated. The Republicans are so far beyond having no shame, that they actually celebrate shamelessness as one of the cardinal virtues. (It goes so well with bellicosity and Schadenfreude. If you tune in to their talk shows, you can collect all three and own a complete set.)
There have been so many jokes made about Chris Christie's weight that he is trying to do something about it. I have also heard and read quite a few disparaging remarks about Mitch McConnell's appearance. I've even been around long enough to remember when everyone made fun of Nixon's nose, and now that I think about it, people joked about Bill Clinton's weight too. It's just that we are more offended when women are called ugly or fat because we feel that women are more sensitive about their looks. I remember how upset Chas Bono got when he was on "Dancing with the Stars" and the judge Bruno was making cracks about his chubby frame. Chas, who had been a woman, was really upset, but Bruno was used to making fun of chunky men. Chas was responding like a woman.
It just shows to what a low level discourse has sunk. A politician's - or anyone's appearance for that matter- is totally irrelevant to their public policy stance. I blame it all on TV.
Mary wrote: "There have been so many jokes made about Chris Christie's weight that he is trying to do something about it. I have also heard and read quite a few disparaging remarks about Mitch McConnell's appe..."No one survives long in politics who doesn't have a relatively thick skin, so I think politicians respond to an "ugliness" meme only if it seems to be gaining traction and affecting their political support. They're often strangely oblivious to the depthless ugliness (in terms of fundamental humanity) of the policies they advance. Christie's and McConnell's *physical* appearance (which should really be a matter of complete indifference to anyone, liberal or conservative) is not, I think, the form of hideousness that offends progressives.
Children, even those of politicians, it seems to me, would be off-limits in a non-pathological society, and if it's the case (as seems intuitively plausible, though I hesitate to make definitive empirical statements where I haven't seen sociological or psychological studies) that women have been sensitized more to remarks about their appearance, then it's a problem we have as a culture. Feminism obviously attempts to address that problem, but preoccupation with the physical appearance (both of women and of men) is just one more pathology we have that's very deeply entrenched.
Lisa wrote: "It just shows to what a low level discourse has sunk. A politician's - or anyone's appearance for that matter- is totally irrelevant to their public policy stance. I blame it all on TV."I blame it all on Faux TV. :-)
The proliferation of Facebook, instagram,selfies, UTube, and all such pictorial media have placed too much emphasis on the physical appearances of people.
Lisa wrote: "The proliferation of Facebook, instagram,selfies, UTube, and all such pictorial media have placed too much emphasis on the physical appearances of people."I think you're spot on, but this is a culture that's tended historically to celebrate superficial "beauty" (no matter what measure of vacuity, narcissism or broad-spectrum hatefulness it might overlay), while simultaneously anathematizing intelligence, decency, integrity and rationality -- all suspect characteristics either of "geeks" or of the imaginary "liberal elite" -- it's somewhat unclear. Relates, actually, to the book I mentioned to you earlier:
Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free
(my review here:)
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Lisa and Mark, I think we need to recognize how much image matters not just in politics but in our lives. Even our voices matter. I happen to be blessed with a very husky voice, so most of the time people assume I'm a man when I talk on the telephone. I'm treated with more respect if I don't give my name and become a woman. But my sister-in-law has a squeaky childish voice, and people, of course, treat her accordingly. I was talking to a squeaky-voiced woman on the telephone the other day and pictured her as young, pretty, and brainless, but of course she could have been a smart, homely or pretty, middle-aged woman.By the way, good looks can be a problem in some professions, including politics. Both John Edwards and Mitt Romney were undermined by their Ken doll looks. They looked phony. Edwards' wife, on the other hand, seemed more likable than Ann Romney because Mrs. Edwards was overweight and looked older than her husband. Mrs. Romney with her high cheek bones looked stuck up. The same thing was true of Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush. Mrs. Bush had a good sense of humor, but I think we liked her more because skinny Nancy with her designer clothes looked cold.
The point is that we read people based on their looks. I wrote a goodreads blog about that (I still can't do links, Lisa) months ago when I was discussing Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. We react to people based not only on race and gender but also height, weight, facial expression, and clothing. Politicians recognize that, which is why Gore was trying to wear sweaters,GW Bush wore jeans, etc. Of course, the President who was best at looking and acting like a President was Reagan because he was an actor. Many Republicans, including Romney, try to look and act like him, hoping they will be elected.
Hi, Mary!I think all your points are well-taken. I suppose the question that comes to my mind is whether these propensities we have to defer to conventionally "attractive" or "appealing" people (per some stereotype), and as you point out, men more than women and, concomitantly, people with deeper voices more than people with higher ones... whether these propensities are actually some atavistic, genetic property of human beings that cuts across cultures -- or whether they can be worsened or mitigated by the nature of a culture.
Obviously, it's harmful to women, and in particular to women with higher voices, if they're automatically deemed less intelligent or authoritative... and it's harmful to society as a whole. You have the advantage of being able to avoid that stigmatization because your voice is a bit lower than average... and I suppose I have enjoyed an arbitrary advantage deriving from my height. But should these reactions (which we all acknowledge are real and widespread) not be fought and suppressed to the maximum extent possible? Should we not at least try to create a society in which such arbitrarily discriminatory reactions (whether learned or instinctive) are themselves stigmatized? In which other desiderata for conferring respect and affection (such as that the recipient is actually a person of humaneness, integrity and intelligence) are strongly inculcated? In which race, gender, sexual orientation, physiognomical appearance, height, weight, vocal timbre and other such attributes are not allowed to matter?
To quote our President, Mark, yes, we can, and we should eliminate discrimination based on appearance. But we first have to acknowledge that we are doing it. We do read people based on their appearance, in other words we stereotype, but if we pretend that we don't, we will never stop doing it. I chastised myself for stereotyping the woman on the phone based on her voice, and I try to be aware of my biases. Accents matter too, of course, so I have to beware of assuming that a person with a Southern accent is racist, and I think many people assume that Southerners are not as smart as people from other regions. By the way, one interesting statistic is that the taller Presidential candidate almost always wins, which is another reason we should be suspicious of Bush's victories. He actually didn't beat the taller Gore but apparently did beat the even taller Kerry unless something funny happened in Ohio.
I acknowledge that we're doing it, and you acknowledge that we're doing it, Mary, and we're both sensitive to the issue (as are, I think, the majority of progressives), but self-monitoring is a habit that perhaps we all need struggle both to maintain in ourselves, and to persuade others to adopt. I hope it is not the case that we are fighting an intractable (atavistic) tide (pace Eliot), but let's not say the struggle naught availeth (at least, until we're beaten senseless by our adversaries determined to maintain such unfair advantages as may accrue to them). I think there's some hope to be gleaned from inspecting other democracies more sensitive to issues of discrimination (which would probably be virtually all of them :-)).
I agree, Mark. I have one last thought on our obsession with appearance. I'm not sure if this is an American thing or maybe even a California thing, but I was looking at an obituary of a former colleague yesterday and thought about our discussion. She died at 73 and was in her forties when I met her, but the picture that accompanied her obituary was of a much younger woman, so much younger that she was barely recognizable. Usually when I'm skimming the paper and see a picture of a young person in the obituaries, I will read the obit to see what happened to that young person. Frequently, the picture turns out to be dated, and the dead person was born in the 1920's or even earlier. I guess I should let my younger relatives know that if they post my obituary in the paper when I die I don't want them to use my high school yearbook picture.
Mary wrote: "I agree, Mark. I have one last thought on our obsession with appearance. I'm not sure if this is an American thing or maybe even a California thing, but I was looking at an obituary of a former c..."At least, make sure they don't use a baby picture -- or an ultrasound of your embryo. :-) I do suspect that it's "an American thing." Acceptance of aging appears to have diminished to the point at which I expect to see legislation to repeal the second law of thermodynamics (but only for rich people). :-)
Looks like the conversation is stagnating here. Like it or not, appearances do matter. Sometimes we can control our reactions, but much of it is subconscious. I don't think it is just an American thing, but it does appear to be a stronger prejudice in America than abroad. British sitcoms come to mind. The actors just look like ordinary people who have no acquaintance with plastic surgery, or even make-up for that matter. Like they actually cast actors who have talent, not just the ones who look the best.As for the pictures in the obituaries. Some people may not have had a more recent picture available.
Rebuttals anyone?
Hi, Barbara!I think you're right -- which was also what Mary was saying -- that we have a society in which we've been conditioned to react to appearances (leaving aside the issue of whether or not there may be some atavistic genetic component to those reactions). But it's a really salient insight and observation that the British do seem to be slightly different (at least in their tolerance of physiognomically non-stereotypically "perfect" actors), which may lend encouraging support to the idea that social conditioning can actually be a factor. Cultures to seem to vary in their level of tolerance for "otherness," so that's an attitude which (if we weren't utterly ravaging what vestigial remnant of public education we have in some areas of this country) it might be nice to inculcate in our children (as opposed, say, to the Randian notion that greed is the ultimate good, and our great-grandparents rode dinosaurs).
Also a good point about the availability of obit pics. Some of the tendency to use old pictures may just reflect a paucity of newer ones available (if the "celebrity" in question has been inactive or relatively reclusive in latter years, in any case). Still, we are a culture pretty intolerant of and unsupportive of elderly people (leaving aside the überrich ones).
I will throw this in. I am enjoying a political ad free election cycle. I canceled my cable subscription. Not missing it a bit. I suppose negative attack ads are less problematic for candidates in that they never have to vocalize exactly what their plans are following the election.
Any thoughts concerning college professors who are very conservative and also extremely biased in their teaching?
Hey all - I just saw a news story out of N. Carolina that liberals are outnumbering conservatives in early voting in record numbers.
"According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections: 118, 417 people voted on Day 1. Of those, 60,163 Democrats, 35,812 Republicans, 23,280 Unaffiliated and 162 Libertarians cast their ballots."
http://www.alan.com/2014/10/26/the-nu...
And on an aside - I am wondering if there are any professors of women's studies or politicals out there? If so, pleas esay hi. I do have a few questions...
Good to know! Thanks for the good news, Kimberley. I've been thinking I need to early vote as well.
Barbara wrote: "Any thoughts concerning college professors who are very conservative and also extremely biased in their teaching?"They are relatively few in number (outside of law, business, and political science) -- in the small, progressive college in which I taught, virtually nonexistent -- because academe leans left (towards reality), but they manage to be pernicious nonetheless. You'd probably find them to be most numerous in undistinguished, Southern, fundamendalist colleges (often devoid of accreditation). It's always possible for the corporations to purchase academic lapdogs to declare that smoking cures cancer, global warming doesn't exist, and evolution is a canard, though.
Kimberley wrote: "Hey all - I just saw a news story out of N. Carolina that liberals are outnumbering conservatives in early voting in record numbers.
"According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections: 1..."
Hi, Kimberley!
Thanks for the ray of light in an otherwise dark and gloomy landscape, amid dystopian prognostications for the outcome of the battle for the Senate. We all desperately need some cause for hope.
As regards professors of women's studies (and cognate areas of research), I know we have a number of them who've posted on this group in past, and I earnestly hope we'll lure some back into active participation -- which perhaps your open call will help to do. Alas, as a retired professor in the sciences, I can furnish no such relief personally (in the form of officially-sanctioned academic competence :-)), but I'd still be happy to tackle any political issues in that realm (or any other) that you'd like to address.
:) Thank you Mark - I have a book out and it's about voting & women's rights . I don't want to spam this thread but I just want to find some profs and see if I might generate some interest as well as possible speaking...
That sounds like an interesting book. My government professor wonders out loud where liberals get the idea there is a war on women.
Barbara -I lay it out. Although a person who doesn't wish to see - won't see it. :(
How about the fact that pharmacists can deny a woman a birth control prescrption because it goes against their religous leanings???That one makes me so angry and it is legal in many states.
Barbara wrote: "That sounds like an interesting book. My government professor wonders out loud where liberals get the idea there is a war on women."Has your government professor expressed wonderment recently at the delusion of liberals that the sun rises in the east? Because I am sure we are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to purvey such disinformation. I may be biased, but I really don't think government courses ought to be taught by "professors" based in the Department of Misogynistic Studies. :-)
I would be very interested in reading your book Kimberley. Just what I need. Another book on the pile!
:) Yay. Amazon reviews are encouraged. :)
Kimberley wrote: "How about the fact that pharmacists can deny a woman a birth control prescrption because it goes against their religous leanings???That one makes me so angry and it is legal in many states."
I had not heard that one.
Oh, there are plenty of hideous laws that prove there is a war. Another - in at least 30 states, a a rapist can sue for custody and visitation if a child is a result of the assault.
I wish you could come and sit next to me in my government class. We would be in the minority as this is a college in Texas you understand.
Hello. It is a long time since I have taken part here. My oldest daughter got married in Ireland this past summer, I was packing to move and put my house on the market in July and still has not sold it so I have been fretting over that. Anyway, I have also been active in the campaign here in Montana. We lost our senatorial candidate, John Walsh and although he was not favored to win, it still dealt a blow. I could rant on his selection to the senate in the first place but I will not. We have, however been very fortunate now to have Amanda Curtis as our candidate for the U.S. Senate. Amanda is a friend of mine. She teaches math at the public high school here in town, is very intelligent, has lots of energy and charisma and I know that she would make an excellent senator. Oh, and did i mention that she is a REAL Democrat? We haven't had many of those of late. She is what I would describe an FDR Democrat. Unfortunately, the national party hasn't given her a penny and doesn't seem like they will. She has traveled all over the state and defeated her opponent, Steve Daines in the only debate he would agree to- hands down. Only in Montana could you announce that Montanans vote with their guns and have very little notice taken of it. Daines is a tea party darling and an extremist and is funded by the usual Koch allies of the Republican Party. I am planning to move to Albuquerque (as soon as my house sells) but it still bothers me greatly that my state will be represented by this idiot. If you are interested, please do google Amanda. I suspect that, regardless of the result of this campaign, we will be hearing more from her.
Yeah...that would be challenging. I am sure the prof would hate me. :)
Lisa wrote: "It just shows to what a low level discourse has sunk. A politician's - or anyone's appearance for that matter- is totally irrelevant to their public policy stance. I blame it all on TV."You know that in this day and age, Lincoln could never have been elected.
Barbara wrote: "Looks like the conversation is stagnating here. Like it or not, appearances do matter. Sometimes we can control our reactions, but much of it is subconscious. I don't think it is just an American t..."I agree Barbara and it is one of the reasons that when I watch TV, it is usually British.
Kimberley - I'm new to this moderator gig, and I don't want to invite a torrent of unconstrained spamming -- but honestly, I think we're in no danger whatever of that prospect. So I appreciate your sensitivity to the issue, but I'll spare you the onus of promotion by doing it for you. Kimberley's book (she's written three, but I'm going to assume that this is the one to which she's alluding) is: American Woman: The Poll Dance: Women and Voting
I haven't read it, but it looks interesting, and of course, anything we can do to encourage women to vote in greater numbers amply justifies a little "spamming." Especially since half of them have just effectively been deprived of the right to an abortion in the state in which I live. The specious arguments presented by pharmacists arrogating to themselves the right to constrain the medical rights of women consternate me, as well. People whose religion finds odious the Hippocratic Oath ought not to be licensed as physicians, either. Soon, pyromaniacal worshipers of conflagrations will be demanding the right to work as firefighters -- but without having to dispense the water that violates their core beliefs.
Barbara wrote: "That sounds like an interesting book. My government professor wonders out loud where liberals get the idea there is a war on women."Does he say it with a straight face Barbara or is he concealing a smile? Has anyone in the class explained it to him?
She. No. This is Texas. As far as I can tell everyone agrees with her, or like me, are afraid to say anything.
Mark - TY!!! We need to educate all young people. And last lil spammy thing: Excerpts: http://kimberleyajohnson.com/excerpts...
Not to beat a dead horse but I recall reading a book by Margaret MacMillan entitled Paris 1919. Each time she talked about John Maynard Keynes she made ad hominem attacks. First she said he was ugly, then he was short and dwarf like, as I recall. I could not believe that a reputable historian would resort to that kind of infantile attack. I didn't notice her using the same method of describing other people in the book. She also dismissed his role at the conference and had nothing good to say about him. She is the granddaughter of Lloyd George and I wondered if there was some history of family animosity between her family and Keynes' family. Aside from the fact that she included no maps in the book (and they were sorely needed), I found her style of writing to be dry and almost stilted so I have not rushed back to read her latest book even though the topic sounds very interesting. People who resort to name calling, especially in a public arena, have no class and are not worthy of my time.
Once someone calls another a name, they have lost the argument.
Barbara, I'm a retired American literature professor who discussed race, gender, politics, and class in my literature classes, but my students knew that I liked to debate, so they would argue with me when they disagreed. One of my favorite students, in fact, was a Republican who would come to my office to debate me, but our debates were always lighthearted and fun. Whatever the professors' politics, I think that they have little influence on their students. In fact, I think professors who try to force their beliefs on their students will generally have the opposite effect. By the time we are in college, we have minds of our own and can't be brainwashed by a demagogic professor looking for disciples. I worry more about the politics of elementary school teachers.Kimberley and Colleen, I agree with you that ad hominem attacks are not only classless but weak. My new classroom is google+, and I keep trying to tell and show the somewhat barbaric posters on that site that they can't win arguments by calling each other morons, dimwits, and idiots. I try to show them how they can win with facts, evidence, and wit. The sober ones seem to be learning the lesson, but I suspect quite a few of the "googlers" are drunk or high when they post. My goodreads and linked/in groups are more civil, but frankly the "googlers" are more fun. I might have enjoyed teaching in a prison or a mental institution.
Hi, Colleen,Good to see you back, albeit burdened with distressing news about the situation in Montana and your friend's apparently dismal prospects in the senatorial race, though I tend to think that, ipso facto, anyone capable of teaching mathematics would be anathematized by the Tea Party for the sin of possessing neurons, even were she not (to make matters worse) an ideal prospective senator.
And yes, I emphatically agree that, "in this day and age," Lincoln would be unable to be elected president. Heck, there are about 30 states in which he'd be unable to be elected local dogcatcher. The right-wing would put up money to prevent him from unionizing the dogs.
Mary wrote... By the time we are in college, we have minds of our own and can't be brainwashed by a demagogic professor looking for disciples.The downside, of course, is that pre-brainwashed kids can't be deprogrammed. :-)
So you are absolutely right to "worry more about the politics of elementary school teachers," though I think the 24/7 ambient brainwashing from the right-wing media may actually represent more of a problem. School teachers tend, on average, not to be right-wing extremists (though I suppose it varies by region), which circumstance (in conjunction with the desire to perpetuate illiteracy and utterly obliterate the unions) is part of the impetus behind efforts by the kakistocracy to dismantle public education.
. I might have enjoyed teaching in a prison or a mental institution. This is the United States, so I think it might be argued that you have been. And having partaken of the same experience, I agree that attempting to remediate lunacy can sometimes be fun. :-) (I should correct that reference: goodreads is, of course, global, but you and I share residence in the Great Lunatic Bin of the Western World. :-))
Mark wrote: " Mary wrote... By the time we are in college, we have minds of our own and can't be brainwashed by a demagogic professor looking for disciples.The downside, of course, is that pre-brainwashed kid..."
That's what I was going to say. If you work in public school, you are working in the asylum.
Mark and Barbara, I originally planned to be a high school teacher, but after a few weeks of hall duty and cafeteria patrol, not to mention the undisciplined and occasionally high on drugs (this was 1971-72) students, I started applying to graduate schools so that I could become a professor. I lasted only one year as a high school teacher. But I was only 22 then; now I could probably handle those high school students. However, there are new distractions--cell phones and all other kinds of computer devices--and new worries--being shot. Even my last few years in the university, after that shooting incident at the University of Virginia, I worried about what to do if someone entered my classroom carrying a gun. So I guess I wouldn't enjoy teaching in a prison or a mental institution after all. I'm not intimidated by cyber bullying, but I would worry about my physical safety if I had to teach criminals and insane people in person.As I did with my students, I try to teach the googlers to evaluate their sources; I tell them to assume that all media sources are biased, and the biases aren't just political--left, right. Some of the politicians and media folks are friends. I also like to use the phrase "the corporate media" to counter that liberal media lie. Rich people and corporations own the media and with the exception of Al Gore, who is no longer in the media business, they are usually conservative.
The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
A Gift Upon the Shore (other topics)Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
Drift (other topics)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848 (other topics)
More...
Mark (your new co-moderator)
Please forgive us while we are under construction!