Katrina Vanden Heuvel - ooh la la!

[Rabrrrrrr]

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:pant::pant::pant::pant::pant::pant::pant:

ga-OOOOOO-ga, ga-OOOOOO-ga

:hitsselfwithhammerrepeatedly:

:tonguefloppedout:

[NewJeffCT]

1. she is attractive

and, very intelligent & well spoken. Great on TV for the good guys.

[sarcasmo]

2. Horse Face, IMHO.

[WCGreen]

3. Ehhhhh... I wouldn't say no.... But I wouldn't chase her either

[Radio_Lady]

4. You guys make me sick. Is that all you can think of is physical

attributes -- faces and such and whether you'd chase her! I'm about to puke! Katrina v. is making more sense in a calm and interesting fashion than many GOOD LOOKING MALES and FEMALES. What about her brain?

Put your prick-level comments back in your pants. You are disgusting. I have to remember you are in the DU Lounge and that's OK with me.

[evil_orange_cat]

5. God made us this way...

personally, I can't help it...

I look at a woman, and I either say, she's hot or okay or not.

It's the way Jesus Christ made me.

I find your comments sexist :thumbsdown:





(and please, don't take this too seriously)

[Radio_Lady]

7. Your comments are not being taken seriously.

I have no idea what gender you are, but you belong with lower animals without brainpower and just driven with sexual hormones. This has no place in a sensitive and difficult time like this.

And I don't think GOD and/or JESUS CHRIST had anything to do with it. Just your gonads.

Good luck to you. Don't take that too seriously, either.

[evil_orange_cat]

8. sheeeessh

some people take themselves waaaaayyyyy too seriously

:eyes:

edit: btw, women aren't any different' from men when it comes to looks, so don't kid yourself

[Misunderestimator]

10. Pardon? I beg to differ. Women are MUCH different than men in judging

people by their looks. MUCH.

[evil_orange_cat]

14. whatever

this is why all I see is Brad Pitt, Jude Law, Orlando Bloom, etc?

or how about the popularity in recent years of guys with "six pack abs"...

or how about the emergence of "metrosexuals"... straight guys working hard to look pretty for ladies. And what about the "queer eye for straight guy" TV shows? It's about making men look better for women.

look at male models in advertising...

The only difference between men and women when it comes to judging looks is that men are honest about it.

such hypocrisy

:eyes:

[hfojvt]

18. I have friend who comments on the fact

that you see alot of unattractive guys in ads and on TV. The men of Seinfeld were not nearly as good looking as most of their girlfriends. But alot of the Brad Pitt, et. al. is driven by teenage girls, rather than about women.

[Dora]

24. What you see in the media isn't a reflection of what women want.

It's the goddam liberal media, trying to convince Americans everywhere that all women want is a hot man with a flat stomach,

when what we REALLY want is an average joe who will listen, and talk, laugh at our jokes, understand the meaning of a mood swing, and be really really good in bed.

[Radio_Lady]

38. Do you even take into account the differences in sex drives as a

person ages? Oh, I'll mention than I'm 66. Since I review movies and have been doing that for several decades, I do like to look at Brad Pitt, Jude Law, Orlando Bloom. However, they're the ages of my son and stepson! What would someone my age do with them if we had them? Fuck them -- and then teach them history -- music -- philosophy -- drama? Naw, I'd rather do the fucking with, say, Christopher Plummer, age 78. Or Sir Anthony Hopkins (ageless...).

Give it a rest and stick with your evil kitties.

Besides your illogic, you must be very young to post these odd and inappropriate statements on a day like today. Did you even listen to Ms. Vanden Heuvel? She had quite a few fascinating things to say.

I guess you'll mature as you age (maybe...).

[Misunderestimator]

40. You go, RL!!

:bounce:

[evil_orange_cat]

44. okay :rolleyes:

well I find your comments sexist :thumbsdown:

Of course men are driven by hormones, but according to you, we are all mouth-breathing neanderthals.

and it's distasteful that you are hiding behind the Katrina tragedy because you cannot support your argument

I mean no offense about your age, but perhaps you are out of touch with the younger generation. I'm 25 and women my age and younger (let's say 18-28) are completely superficial. Have you been to a bar lately?

As for my own personal tastes in women, looks are important, but aren't everything.

What annoys me about this whole situation is that I made a smart-assed comment in jest and you are on here acting all holier than thou.

And aside from your anti-male bias, it appears as if you also have a bias against young people as well. :thumbsdown:

[Misunderestimator]

47. Surprise. It's too bad you judge all women by who you meet in bars.

Pretty funny though. You'll understand one day, maybe... take heart.

As for throwing in Katrina and anti-male bias and the fucking kitchen sink... man... you are really REACHING for justification aren't you? :rofl:






:thumbsdown: :rofl:

[evil_orange_cat]

55. did you actually have an argument?

didn't think so...

[hfojvt]

16. not all women, in my experience

and men are not going to get upset if a woman starts a thread about how handsome Eric Alterman is, or David Sirota, as has been done before.

[Misunderestimator]

21. of course not all...

[jpgray]

19. Based on what?

People date based on two factors--social attraction and physical attraction. In other words, someone socially or physically attractive will rarely if ever be seen with someone who is both socially and physically unattractive. Cindy Crawford, for example, will not date a 300 pound impoverished Samoan from the Bronx even if he's the sweetest, most intelligent male in the universe.

[Misunderestimator]

22. Women base it less on physical attributes than men do in my experience.

And I've seen PLENTY of beautiful women with ugly men... Julia Robertson and Lyle Lovett... Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy even. Yes, I'm generalizing.

[evil_orange_cat]

26. since we're throwing around sexist generalizations

in my experience

beautiful women with are with a lot of ugly men... that are rich...

I'm not saying... I'm just saying ;)

[jpgray]

27. Right, but those are/were rich, powerful, socially attractive men (nt)

[Misunderestimator]

29. And I also know plenty of non-famous women who are with less-attractive

men... Please... come on! Don't tell me you really believe that women per capita and to the same level are the same as men insofar as they judge them by appearance. Come on! Whatever.

[jpgray]

32. Appearance or social characteristics--sure

Appearance alone, I'd say men have the edge. But a poor guy who looks great will still get plenty of dates. A rich guy who looks ugly can still pull plenty of dates, but a poor guy who looks ugly is going to have a tough time. And in those examples personality, intelligence, all those deep values don't even enter into things. Bad appearance or bad social standing is usually a deal-breaker for either sex. That's superficial, but it's the way it is.

[Misunderestimator]

34. What does that prove?

A rich guy who looks ugly can still pull plenty of dates, but a poor guy who looks ugly is going to have a tough time.

A rich woman who looks ugly probably has a hard time getting dates, and a poor woman who looks ugly is going to have a worse time.

See the difference?

All you are saying there is that rich guys attract a certain type of person who will overlook their bad looks. Why can't rich women attract men who will overlook their looks as easily? Because looks are more important to men.

[jpgray]

37. That everyone is superficial when it comes to dating

That all the non-superficial factors in the world won't help you if you fall below someone's standards in appearance and/or social status. It isn't just men. Men do it more in regards to appearance, I'll give you that, but it isn't just we who have superficial criteria when it comes to dating.

[Misunderestimator]

12. LOL! You can't help it. Poor boy... you can't help but to judge women

by whether they are hot or not. You are entirely helpless. How sad for you to be so controlled by something so ephemeral. Really kinda pitiful.

[Fight_n_back]

49. Why do you despise beauty?

When I see Van Gogh's "Lillies" its not just the lonlieness of the painting but the colors, the texture and the history behind it that moves me. It is a beautiful painting. I guess Im shallow.

I can get lost gazing at a Blue Morph Butterfly as it shimmers. The deep azule that fills out its wings. It fills me with wonder and optimism that such glory can exist in the world. That must make me just another stupid male.

But when it is a person, when it is a human being I am suppossed to ignore the aesthetic? I am not allowed to marvel at how so many people can be so attractive in so many ways? Queen Latifah's strength of spirit dancing perfectly in tune with her strong body, Paulina Rubio's shyness and exuberance competing to escape from her tiny frame or the seeming perfection of Brigitte Bardot. Katrina Vanden Huevel is attractive, with a a symmetrical face and an aqualine nose. Her hair falls gently tossled around her face highlighting, seemingly accidentally, her high cheekbones. And then she speaks and her words are filled with intelligence, thoughtfulness, restrained passion. She is all the best of the Progressive movement.

And if I ever meet her husband I am going to poke him in his eye.

[Misunderestimator]

56. That's pretty funny... This is not about appreciating beauty... it's about

judging people on their attractiveness alone, and about the fact that generally, men tend to judge based on looks more than women. Funny that I have to keep repeating that.

Beauty is a wonderful thing... I'm glad I'm not ugly... I'm lucky. But I don't want to be judged by my looks above all else... I don't want my intellect to be dismissed because of my looks. If every man could admire women the way you did in that very respectful paragraph, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'm curious how you turned my words into saying males are stupid. I don't think that, and I didn't say that. What I did say is that generally, men tend to judge women by appearance more than women judge men. Are you pretending men don't? How do you explain the market for pornography, strips clubs? Certainly you can't pretend that women objectify men as much as the reverse.

[Fight_n_back]

60. And thats why Brad Pitt gets no work

When there are Ruben Studdard posters on teenage girls walls then I'll listen to you.

Women objectify men in other ways and not healthy ways at that. Are you pretending that most women don't care primarily about a man's "accomplishments" (i.e. bling)?

As far as men caring more about looks than women, I have no way of knowing because I have only been one gender but I know that when I weigh 205 i can get any woman I want but when I weigh 225 I am limited to women my own age.

Katrina Vanden Huevel is not being admired solely for her looks. Her looks just make her an irrestibal package of progressiveness. But lets get that "Men are shallow, women are deep" bullshit out of the conversation. Men talk about things like how a woman smells and laughs and how funny she is when they are in love. When they are talking about what a woman looks like it is much more clinical than you can imagine. I have yet to meet a man who wouldn't go out with a woman because of the car she drove or the job she has. Men are actually concerned about who the person is. Women seem pretty obsessed with what a man has.

That's shallow

[Misunderestimator]

61. Are you even reading my posts...or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?

Who said anything even remotely close to "Men are shallow, women are deep" ?? Who? I've made one point throughout this thread, that you only prove in your post... that more men place more importance on appearance than women do. I can't believe that this keeps getting twisted into "men are stupid"... "men are shallow"... what-the-fuck-ever. If that's how YOU interpret... that's your gig, not mine.

As for this little gem: "Women seem pretty obsessed with what a man has" ... that's what's shallow... you saying that about women. I, for one, don't give one shining fuck what any man has.

And by the way... this all started with a man upthread saying she has a horse face, followed by another saying he wouldn't chase her, and another saying, God made him that way... "I look at a woman, and I either say, she's hot or okay or not."

Just to get some perspective here.

[Fight_n_back]

62. Denial is a powerful thing

You have placed a value judgement on men placing value on attractiveness. I don't think you can even prove your thesis. When scientists do studies on what humans find attractive they don't get wildly different data from men than from women. Both men and women have strong biological responses to people of their preferred gender that have symmetrical faces and strong bodies. What they see is who will give them a good baby.

Anecdotally I can say that I see very little difference in how much either gender places on looks on an initial meeting. Most couples I know are pretty well matched looks wise and I don't know ANY guy who would put looks over personality for a long term relationship. When first hooking up looks and charm is all you have to go on. that and lifestyle choices like clothing and hobbies.

Why do you think you can make sweeping generalizations about men and get away with it? Do you think all men look alike as well?

[Misunderestimator]

63. I don't care if you think I can prove my thesis.

I posted originally in response to someone saying that men and women are exactly the same. My opinion is that they are not. I think most men and most women share my opinion, but you're not the first man to twist it into an accusation and vociferously deny ANY knowledge that men might actually care more about appearance. Weird... but you're definitely not the first. Why deny it? I'm not insulting you!

My "thesis" was proven in my life for the past 43 years and evidenced in hundreds of women's lives I've seen.

Yeah... men all look alike... :eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Fuckin' right on!

I love her delivery - calm, measured, speaking the truth, without hyperbole, and giving excellent rebuttals to the nutcases, especially that nutcase woman from Wisconsin. The only disappointing moment was her response to the guy's questioning of the 1776 cartoon - I think she totally dodged it, and then rambled on without making much sense. Otherwise, though, she's spot on.

I especially loved her denigration of Rush Limpdick.

Looks are irrelevant.

I wish our ploiticians and other public voices would be so calm and measured and reasonable.

[Radio_Lady]

9. Thanks, Rabrrrrrrrrrrr (you deserve many more 'r's' today).

This woman has more brains and credentials than most people I know. For those of you who aren't familiar with her, here's some information. (Shove this into your limp dicks and wonder whether she would call out a bodyguard if you tried to "chase" her):

Katrina vanden Heuvel
editor

Katrina vanden Heuvel has been The Nation's editor since 1995.

She is the co-editor of Taking Back America--And Taking Down The Radical Right (NationBooks, 2004).

She is also co-editor (with Stephen F. Cohen) of Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev's Reformers (Norton, 1989) and editor of The Nation: 1865-1990, and the collection A Just Response: The Nation on Terrorism, Democracy and September 11, 2001.

She is a frequent commentator on American and international politics on MSNBC, CNN and PBS. Her articles have appeared in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Boston Globe.

Her weblog for thenation.com is "Editor's Cut."

She is a recipient of Planned Parenthood's Maggie Award for her article, "Right-to-Lifers Hit Russia." The special issue she conceived and edited, "Gorbachev's Soviet Union," was awarded New York University's 1988 Olive Branch Award. Vanden Heuvel was also co-editor of Vyi i Myi, a Russian-language feminist newsletter.

She has received awards for public service from numerous groups, including The Liberty Hill Foundation, The Correctional Association and The Association for American-Russian Women. In 2003, she received the New York Civil Liberties Union's Callaway Prize for the Defense of the Right of Privacy. She is also the recipient of The American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee's 2003 "Voices of Peace" award. Vanden Heuvel is a member of The Council on Foreign Relations, and she also serves on the board of The Institute for Women's Policy Research, The Institute for Policy Studies, The World Policy Institute, The Correctional Association of New York and The Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.

She is a summa cum laude graduate of Princeton University, and she is married and lives in New York City with her husband and daughter.

[Misunderestimator]

11. Radio_Lady... Thanks for your comments on this thread.

Saved me the trouble ;) :thumbsup:

[hfojvt]

13. but they included a picture anyway

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?bid=7

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. So?

Like The Nation is the only publication that includes a picture of the person writing an article, and like Katrina's is the only one at The Nation who does get a picture.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[hfojvt]

20. it's on top of my head

I just wanted to include the picture and the link to her blog for those, like me, who did not get to see her on TV and who might want some good reading.

[jpgray]

15. Well, that thought process is the reason we all exist

Superficial examination of appearance is something all men do, but that doesn't mean we are incapable of observing intelligence or other non-visual characteristics--we can do both at once.

[Misunderestimator]

23. Many men ignore everything else if the visual characteristics don't

interest them.

[jpgray]

28. Many women ignore everything else if the social characteristics don't

interest them. I don't find that behavior any more appealing--I met a girl at a party a few weeks ago who said she would never date somebody seriously (now that she is looking for a husband) who makes less than $60k a year. That's just as superficial to me as a guy having some set of physical criteria for a date. But I'd say if someone is not attractive to you, no amount of objective evidence will convince you that you should be dating that person--an attraction has to be there for whatever reason. There's nothing unnatural or wrong about that.

[Misunderestimator]

30. We'll never agree if we talk about exceptions...

I am talking very generally... and after 43 years of witnessing it... nothing you say to convince me is going to change my mind. Men, by and large, judge women by appearance more than women judge men. That's all.

[jpgray]

35. That's true

I probably didn't make it clear, but what I resent is the implication that only men are superficial when it comes to judging potential partners, or that men's judgment of women is somehow unnatural and evil when compared to women's judgment of men. That just is silly to me--we're different as you say, but we have the same capacity for superficial behavior. At this time, women focus more of it into social status and men focus more of it into appearance, from what I've seen. But the superficiality remains--go under someone's standards for appearance or social status and odds are you won't net a second look.

[Misunderestimator]

39. You should resent it if I said ALL... I never did.

I agree with you about standards, but that's the thing with standards.... going under them is a subjective thing, since we set them ourselves. All I'm saying is that you will find more men setting a higher standard for appearance than most women do.

But then I'm gay, I don't really have to deal with it on a personal level. :) :shrug:

[jpgray]

41. Then I agree with you

Maybe I just misread what you were saying.

:dunce:

[Misunderestimator]

43. :)

[WCGreen]

25. She does make sense But frankly

a lot of my aversion to her stems from the way she was running the Nation before 9/11....

If you go back and read the Nation from back then, the whole liberal movement had been reduced to a pissing match between who was more liberal... Kind of Like GD on a bad day.

So, perhaps I should have made myself more clear, but this is the Lounge after all and I am a man and think a lot, but not always, with my penis.....

[Lilith Velkor]

66. I feel the same way

But I'm a woman, so I won't be accused of thinking with my gonads whilst ignoring her other attributes. Neener neener neen-er! ;)

[Misunderestimator]

42. Let's see your pic now.

[alarcojon]

31. I'd put it this way

Yes, both men and women notice physical attributes of other people. And I will grant Misunderestimator's observation that women do this far less than men. Of course, you have to remember that the cultural space men and women inhabit is completely skewed to the benefit of the male gaze. Men grow up with constant messages that "that model is attractive" or "that woman is too fat" or "that woman is too brown," among others. It takes conscious, hard work for us to come to understand how hurtful this landscape is to most women.

On the other hand, not all men just turn off their brain and emotions and listen only to their "little head" when they see an attractive woman like Katrina Van Den Heuvel. We can appreciate her good looks while admiring the work she has done with The Nation and elsewhere. I remember a panel about the Iraq war with her, Joe Conason, Joe Scarborough, and Tweety, and she and Conason just blasted Bush, as he so richly deserves. She puts together good, fact-based logical arguments on the fly and won't apologize for being a liberal.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: We can discuss important, interesting, intelligent, and yes, attractive women without having to refer crudely to their body parts, their sexuality, etc. But we need to focus more on their other attributes. For me it has always been an active intellectual curiosity that first drew me to the women I've been in relationships with. Not that I didn't notice their physical attributes, but as a part of a total package.

[Misunderestimator]

33. Very nicely said, alarcojon.

:thumbsup:

[alarcojon]

36. Thanks, Misuuu

Right back atcha!

:thumbsup:

[khashka]

53. I think I might disagree

I'm not really arguing with alarcojon.... the total package is, in the end, the best thing of all.

But I'm bothered by the idea that sexuality (or sexiness or however you want to describe it) must be secondary. It's real, it exists and it does matter. Thankfully, we all find different things sexy.

But to deny that or denigrate it is simply a denial of reality.

I love Joe Conason for his mind and his words - he's also very sexy and it does play into my appreciation of him.

Linda Ellerbee - probably the sexiest woman journalist of all time. And it mattered.


It does effect us... to deny that, to denigrate that, to pretend that it doesn't or shouldn't count.... well, it flies in the face of the facts. Rather than dismiss this issue we need to head it face on - and deal with it as a fact of life.

There is nothing wrong with feeling a sexual thrill. Or not feeling one. I have a problem with sexual attraction being a bad thing....

Khash.

[Misunderestimator]

57. But no one is saying that.... Jeesus

Believe me... I'm a very sexual being. But I don't want to be seen as that above ALL else, or to be dismissed one day when I don't have any appeal... or be dismissed by someone now because I don't "appeal" to them physically. That's MY point here. Women are too often judged first for their appearance. Men are judged first for their abilities.

Meh....

[WCGreen]

64. What doesn't appeal to me is how she handled

The Nation during the Clinton years...

Really, that's what turns me off...

I couldn't read it. It had no relevance to day to day living. It was a circle jerk of psuedo intelectual Liberals who were all trying to drink as much scotch as Chritopher Hitchens... And she let it happen....

I listen to her now, with reservations.....

[khashka]

68. I couldn't say it better

That's when I quit subscribing to the Nation.

Khash.

[khashka]

67. I can't argue with that

You are right. Women are judged differently. I see it every day in the women I love and care about. As a gay man, I have to deal with something similar.

But that's not really sexuality.... it's women being sold as a commodity. And that's ugly.

I'm not saying it should be the most important thing about you, or me, or anyone. But it's real and it's there and to say it shouldn't exist or count is simply false. To deny it is simply running away from reality.

The media and culture present a (rather stupid) version of what makes a women desirable. More and more it does the same with men. And it bugs the fuck out of me.

I've expressed myself badly (I haven't found the right language yet).

But it's important. It's not negligible. We can't escape it and nor should we try to. We should take it back and own it. And not let anyone define it for us.


(Gods, that was so badly expressed it makes no sense, but it was passionate)

Khash.

[Rabrrrrrr]

51. But Katrina's lucidity, intelligence, passion, and liberalism cranked up

her attractive factor by about 5000 percent.

Yes, she's great looking to begin with, but without the brain and the fact that she uses it, she would only be physically attractive, and that would never rank a hubba hubba or a ga-OOOOOOO-ga, ga-OOOOOO-ga (ala Tex Avery) from me.

[Misunderestimator]

58. Exactly... I completely agree with you!

As a package, she is hubba hubba hubba!

[Blue-Jay]

45. Thanks, DU! This thread has made me LMAO!

:rofl:

[SOteric]

46. Okay, but...tell us how you ~really~ feel.

[Rabrrrrrr]

50. I feel . . . like I like her.

[Fight_n_back]

48. Makes me feel kind of shallow

watching her on CSpan as she is so thoughtful and compsed and all I can think is how great it would be to kiss her...and what not.

[miss_kitty]

52. Flame war on Katrina Vanden Heuvel Appreciation thread

who knew?

:popcorn:

[baldguy]

54. She's sexy

Because she's smart.

[SunDrop23]

59. Me personally, I'm digging Contessa Brewer on MSNBC.

[KeepItReal]

65. Alison Stewart is the one for me on that network...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

71. Contessa is definitely nice

but i mean that in the strictest intellectual, non-misogynistic terms ever seen on the face of the planet called Earth.

[Redstone]

69. I don't think she's very attractive, but she gave

a good account of herself this afternoon, I'll grant her that.

Redstone

[the_spectator]

70. She's not bad -

I also feel sorry for her; she'll probably have to change her name at some point.

But I still say Senator Landrieu beats all the rest of them hands down. A DINO? Perhaps. A world-class hottie? You betcha! Dammit didn't I envy Anderson Cooper last night when that thread first popped up. You know, the one about him nailing her in public on TV. Way to score, Andy!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

72. i agree, Katrina is hot.

speaks Russian too. nice touch.

saw her in shiny leather boots once on some show - forgot the show - remembered the boots.