I think it is a great line of reasoning, "Well, ya she's got a great set o' knockers, but I ain't gonna f'n vote for her." I think that plays in middle America, with blue collar union voters.

On the other hand, I can't help but think there is something particular about our system of gov't that doesn't jibe well with evolution. Then again, the founding fathers didn't ever intend for anyone that wasn't a (wealthy) land owning (property actually, often including slaves) male to ever hold office, let alone be president, so the fact that you have to be at least 35 (coincidentally also the age you can become a freemason) wasn't a slight on women by the founders (not that they weren't misogynists, I'm sure some were and some weren't like with any large enough group of people, culturally relative I'm sure). I just don't buy the argument that gender bias is old and feminism is new.

Catherine the Great certainly had more power in her day than most female politicians today. Then again, perhaps no one person should have that much power.

I don't know quite how to say this without ending up sounding misogynistic myself, but it seems like in our culture Paris and Britney and Lindsay have a certain power (over men) that is a combination of their fame and sex status and celebrity, and it is deemed part of the frivolity of the arts.

I just think somehow it has to do with the way our gov't is run, the way our news functions, more so than something inherent in humanity. There have been powerful women throughout history that both gov'd and were attractive. It is a function of our gov't that by the time a woman is powerful enough to have gained respect, she's a dried up old prune like Margaret Thatcher or Elizabeth Dole.

Of course there are always guys (and prolly women too) who are gonna say no, women are just the weaker sex and shouldn't govern. Or others who believe that somehow beauty goes with brainlessness, the dumb blonde syndrome. John Edwards and Mitt Romney both rub me the wrong way because it seems like they are style over substance, I'm not sure this is soley an issue with women politicians.

That said, I don't think that beauty is in any way in and of itself a qualification for office, just that I don't think it should be or is mutually exclusive from intelligence. And if anyone is afraid of this line of reasoning because then they think it somehow gives ammunition to the republicans, then they prolly need to re-investigate their own faith in Barack and Biden if attacking Palin and McCain with only this line of reasoning is their strong suit, or only for that matter, when there are so so so many others.

I don't know, Palin is pretty good looking, she's no Marilyn Monroe, but ya, sure I'd hit it. If she weren't married and were interested or something, but the reason I don't want to vote for her has nothing to do with her tits, it is cause she is in bed with Big Oil, seems to have been picked ONLY because she's a woman, and doesn't really seem to have enough experience.

I don't want to open up a can of worms here, but I find Michelle Obama attractive, I'm not sure everyone does, and after hearing her speak and reading her resume, I honestly think she might be more qualified than Palin. Of course this will just feed the flames of anyone who already dislikes Michelle and everyone who hated Bill and Hillary and thought Hil over-reached and are afraid that Michelle might follow in her footsteps.

Whatever you do, don't click this link (studies show you're more likely if you shouldn't)

by tiggerporn on 08/31/2008 08:28:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]