Liberal Columnists Judge Women by Their Looks

With all of the controversy in Florida over who go more votes than who, it was a sign of how far the United States has come toward sexual equality that it was a woman, Katherine Harris, who was at the storm of the controversy with her decision on whether or not to certify the election. The amazing (or not so-amazing, depending your point of view) thing was that the same liberal female columnists who advise us to treat women and men as moral equals, immediately degenerated into comments about Harris’ looks.

Some examples,

  • Washington Post writer Robin Givhan described a Harris press conference by writing that, “Her [Harris’s] skin had been plastered and powdered to the texture of pre-war walls in need of a skim coat. And her eyesl, rimmed in liner and frosted with blue shadow, bore the tell-tale homgeneous spikes of false eyelashes. Caterpillars seemd to rise and fall with every bat of her eyelid…” How, Givhan asked, will a “woman, who can’t use restraint when she’s wielding a mascara wand, … manage to use it and make sound decisions in this game of partisan one-upsmanship.”
  • Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan argued that, “Most likely… [Harris] will be remembered for looking just ghastly Tuesday night. … Much as one would like to blame such nasty lookism on The Evil Patriarchy, I must admit it occurred to me instantly how old and hard she appeared. (Is she really just 43?)”
  • Time‘s Margaret Carlson wrote that Harris “is often compared to Cruella de Vil, snatching ballots rather than puppies…”
  • The Boston Globe‘s Joan Venocchi compared Harris to Lady MacBeth

I guess it turns out that looks do matter — at least for conservative women.

Source:

Venom directed at Harris aggravates national split. James P. Pinkerton, Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2000.

Sisterhood isn’t just powerful, it’s mean. Danielle Crittenden, The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2000.

Leave a Reply