Katherine Harris, women, age, sex, and some perspective (please)!?

[Sparkly]

Please forgive ONE more post on this topic, but I really think we could use one that takes a different direction. Could we get some perspective?

I understand why people can't stand Katherine Harris -- I can't stand her either. Beyond her politics (and complicity in the theft of 2000), I think we can pretty much agree her behavior has been weird at best. But it's about her behavior -- it about how she seems to be trying to exploit her appearance, in blatantly sexual ways, in a political campaign.

It should not be about her appearance, imho.

Why do we jump so quickly to judgmental discussions of women's appearance (especially older women)? We're not long past the days when EVERY woman in public was described by her appearance ("Mr. X spoke in strong terms... "Ms. Y was wearing a yellow suit..."). We don't seem to be far past the beauty pageant mentality much of the time, where any woman even slightly attractive gets judged.

Some men are ridiculed for their looks too, of course. I call Bush "Chimpy" all the time, although it has as much to do with his behavior -- expecially his palms-back walk -- as his simian face.

So why is there so much discussion, even here, about Harris' age? What's that got to do with anything? Why is she criticized for being "old," "dried-up," or a "hag?"

Why do her attempts at flirtatious sex-appeal -- totally inappropriate, I agree -- make her a skank, a woman with issues about fading youth, or raise discussions about who would and wouldn't want to have sex with her?

She's far from the ugliest politician out there. (I love my senator Babs Mikulski, but by cultural standards, she wouldn't win any beauty contests.) Harris has great skin and a nice figure; no doubt there are a lot of women her age who wouldn't mind looking as she does.

There's "ugliness" in the eye of the beholder -- people we hate often look unattractive as a result. Let's see that for what it is.

There's "ugliness" that betrays what's inside -- the way Michelle Malkin can look ugly, while wrinkles or "flaws" on a much older, kinder face can look lovely. Dick Cheney is a perfect example of a face hardening into one's inner disposition. Jimmy Carter's sparkling eyes and sweet smile show the opposite. Let's see that for what it is, too.

And there's a real absurdity to Katherine Harris' behavior on the campaign trail, NOT because she's old, NOT because she's ugly, but because it reflects errors in judgment or character. For example:

- If she wants sex, as some have suggested, fine -- but she's being awfully indiscreet for a political candidate.
- If she thinks the media will give her favorable coverage if she flirts with young reporters, shows off "Spunk and Moxie" on Hannity & Colmes, or otherwise exploits her sexuality and/or physical assets, she's incredibly misguided.
- If she thinks people will vote for her based on sex appeal, I HOPE she's wrong! (Doesn't seem to be a winning strategy so far.)
- Above all, if she thinks she NEEDS to be exploiting sex appeal, she's got a problem. She's in a position, as an accomplished woman, to be taken seriously without that. As I said elsewhere, whether it's right or wrong, some people DO use looks and sex-appeal as "power" (not saying it's good, or even effective) -- generally when it's the strongest power they have. It's possible she's grown so accustomed to thinking of physical attraction as her main strength, she can't get past it.

Your thoughts?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Her appearance?

She has a very strange idea about what men consider as "sexy". The only photo I've ever seen of her where she was at all physically appealing was the photo-op where she was mounted on the horse -- and that wasn't a close-up.

If anyone is stupid enough to vote for a candidate based on their looks -- Democrats included -- they need to do some serious "reflecting" on political reality.

Sexual attractiveness is like the rain in the proverb -- it falls on the good and the wicked alike.

--p!

[Sparkly]

5. She's definitely making a fool of herself

and as I said, I HOPE nobody votes based on looks...

But let's not pretend it doesn't matter at ALL (male politicians get themselves coiffed, fit, etc.); and let's not pretend there aren't lots of 49-year-old women who wouldn't mind looking like her.

[Skittles]

16. I am 49 and I would not want to look like her

not at all

[Sparkly]

17. Well, neither would I.

I'm 49 too, and I think I look better than her, if I do say so... But I'd still dare say there are a lot of women our age who wouldn't mind looking like her.

[orwell]

10. She mounted a horse?

...I guess those websites are blocked on my computer...

(It's Friday...I couldn't resist) ;)

[area51]

15. LOL, you're bad.

:spank:

[aquart]

2. She committed treason.

Nothing she thinks or does is going to make sense to people who don't commit treason.

Don't worry about it.

[Sparkly]

4. Then that's her crime

as I said.

[spooky3]

3. thanks for posting this

[Dora]

6. Thanks, Sparkly!

This is one of the subtler ways that sexism rears its ugly head on DU.

I have little interest in participating in any of the threads that have degenerated to that level.

I haven't been posting too much lately. :eyes:

[Dogmudgeon]

7. This one, I thought, made a good point

Using one's sexuality like this isn't just mercenary, it's usually absurd, too. And there's a whole list of un-wonderful things that can be said about it, even before the subject reaches sexism.

Even if it's merely a case of Harris using herself as "eye candy", it would be "A Spoonful of Sugar helps the Arsenic go down".

As I said, it's absurd. Anyone who votes for people strictly (or even primarily ... or secordarily ... or at all) based on looks is looking for trouble. But then again, millions of voters wanted "to have a beer" with Bush. Even when they knew he had a drinking problem.

--p!

[badgerpup]

20. I wondered about this...

If the genders of the players here were reversed...if the politician was a male of the same age, and the interviewer was female, and the politician was playing footsie, and doing knee-presses...
wouldn't that sort be like sexual harrassment?
All I know is that it would make ME extremely uncomfortable to be in that position, whether the person was 'attractive' or not.

[Sparkly]

21. Completely inappropriate imho, roles reversed or not.

I THINK (lawyers correct me here) the legal definition of "sexual harrassment" involves ongoing behavior, making work difficult, providing or withholding jobs or promotions in return for favors, etc... (Which is why the Paula Jones case was thrown out -- even if everything she said was true, it would have amounted to an awkward pass, not "sexual harrassment.")

In any case, it sure looks like ridiculous, offensive behavior. And yes, if a prominent male congressional candidate was photographed playing footsie with a young female reporter, it'd probably be all over the news, imho. But the discussion would -- I HOPE -- be about his terrible behavior. Somehow I doubt it'd be about objectifying him (discussing the length and width of his penis or whatever).

(Think of Clinton, Gary Condit, Gary Hart, or others involved in sex scandals. They were pilloried for their behavior -- despite the fact that it was consensual -- but nobody talked about them as "dried up" or mentioned "nursing homes" or compared notes on whether they were sexworthy or not... At least not that I recall.)

So I think there are double standards both ways.

[badgerpup]

30. I'm right with you there...utterly inappropriate.

Not sure if it fell under the definition of 'harassment' or not, but yeah, it was completely unprofessional behavior on her part.

[spooky3]

32. generally agree, but a quibble and a q.

edited to correct my misinformation and add a link

I'm not an attorney and like you I'll invite them to correct me :-), but I understand that courts have ruled that one extreme incident can suffice for SH, though this is the exception rather than the rule, obviously. For example, a workplace rape would likely constitute SH.

According to Wikipedia, the PJ case was dismissed at the lowest level but her attorneys wanted to appeal it, and consequently it was settled, with BC compensating PJ $850000, plus paying a fine for contempt of court, but not admitting guilt. I suppose one of the issues on appeal would have been whether this one incident, if proven, was sufficiently extreme to meet the SH standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

Does it make any difference to you whether the reporter--unlike workplace SH involving employees--is not a KH employee or otherwise under her power and could have expressed his discomfort and left? I am not excusing what appears to be (based only on the picture) unprofessional and inappropriate behavior on her part. It's just that if the student reporter did have an easy and penalty-free (e.g., by his boss for not completing the interview/story) escape, I'm a little less concerned about it than if he were trapped as employees are.

In any case I totally agree with your larger points.

[Jade Fox]

39. Yes....! n/t

[acmejack]

8. I am with aquart on this

Doesn't matter what her physical attributes are in reality, I'm going to mean mouth her for her role in the travesty of 2000 when she was instrumental of robbing us of our Democracy. As far as I am concerned, if the she escapes from this sordid affair only being called a few mean names she will be fortunate indeed. Her reprehensible conduct might be considered high treason by an individual less charitably inclined than myself.

[Sparkly]

12. Who said "Don't mean-mouth her?"

"Mean mouth" her all you want for her role in the theft of 2000 (which I brought up in my OP).

"Mean mouth" her as a partisan hack who's making herself a laughing stock.

"Mean mouth" her as self-serving Bush sycophant.

I have no problem with that. I do the same.

But when you "mean mouth" her for being an unattractive middle-aged woman, you "mean mouth" all other unattractive middle-aged women. Again, let's be clear about what her crimes actually are.

[acmejack]

29. Ugly is as ugly does!

[jbnow]

9. Agreed

Her ugliness has nothing to do with the physical. She was ugly to me when she cheated Florida voters from having their votes fairly counted.

I didn't sense she was trying to be sexy with that reporter but she might have been. She wasn't exposing herself, she has legs. Legs happen.
I am one who doesn't sit "normally" so the way she sat didn't look that odd to me, though I like to think in such a situation with a dress on I would be more careful of appearances.

(Sort of funny, it turns out I have something called neurally mediated hypotension. When I read about it several articles mentioned that people who have it often naturally sit with their legs up or crossed or other such postures automatically. They don't know it but it's to raise their blood pressure. Maybe she has it to.)

[Sparkly]

13. Hm!

"Neurally mediated hypotension" -- I read that while sitting with my legs all pretzeled up, as always. I have super low blood pressure -- is that what it means?

[Clark2008]

31. I'll have to look that up. I cannot STAND (no pun intended)

to sit the normal way. I always sit "Indian" style or with one leg under.

Thanks for the tip.

Now.... back to your regular discussion.

:hi:

[Silent3]

11. The best reason to make fun of Harris...

...and the way she looks and acts is the hypocrisy of courting the Christian Right while at the same time (to whatever degree of success) trying to play up sex appeal, and perhaps even find herself a bit of non-sanctioned pre- and/or extra-marital sex.

Then again, the Right loves Anne Coulter too, leaving plenty of hypocrisy about "moral values" to go around.

[0007]

14. Argh!!

[McCamy Taylor]

18. She played "dumb blonde" in Florida 2000. She reaps what she sowed.

[Sparkly]

19. And she should be called out and criticized for that.

Not only for playing "dumb blonde," if you think she did, but moreover for having the GOP operating out of her office, stopping legitimate vote counting, and certifying an election that was faulty to say the least.

I'm not defending her in the least.

But it has NOTHING to do with being middle-aged, being female, having tits, etc...

[Jade Fox]

40. "Playing dumb blond".....

is your interpretation of her behavior in 2000, based on sexist stereotyping. Mine would be that she played "shameless Republican hack willing to do anything for those in power" in 2000.

[McCamy Taylor]

73. It's based on being a blonde female who is pissed at being labeled

"dumb" because of all the women like Katie Dearest who try to get away with criminal activity/incompetence/laziness on the grounds that they are too cute to have a brain. And pissed at all the people out there who let them get away with it and who look at me and assume that I am just like all those women who play that stupid game.

Sometimes I wonder what my life would have been like if I had been born brunette. I know I would not have spent as much time proving my intelligence to morons who are not nearly as smart as I am.

Note that when Kattie Dearest ran for Congress the first thing she did was go brunette.

[freethought]

22. I think it's just "knee-jerk" reaction

Everyone here on DU hates her. That's just a fact. They hate her for Florida 2000 and her victory for the House. As far as her legislative effort, what exactly has she done except "rubber stamp" the Chimp's agenda? Anything at all? People will express that with knee-jerk reactions and generally making fun of K. Harris. What else would you expect?

I posted in another thread that I didn't think it was a big deal that Katherine Harris chases after younger guys. You did make the point that her behavior is very indescreet and I would tend to agree. The cameras are watching her closely and her she is coming on to some reporter! This does not speak well for her or her campaign.
As far as I know Bill Nelson is still crushing her in the polls.

One could argue that Bill Clinton had a certain amount of sex appeal, however it was subtle. Katherine Harris' behavior is blatant and crude. If this is all she has to run for Senate on, then her campaign is a lost cause.
Look, if Harris wants to fool around with younger men she would be far better off taking that $10 million inheritance that she said she would throw into the campaign, and head back to Florida. Likely there will be plenty of young gigolos who would be happy to oblidge her.
You made the point that her blatant use of sexual appeal speaks to lack of charecter and judgement. I would tend to agree entirely. What I would add is that she thinks this is a winning strategy. To that I would say she thinks we (the public) are that stupid and we won't see through it or she's not nearly as smart as she thinks.

[leftofthedial]

23. I think she's a sad, middle=aged skank

who used to be a babe

but isn't any more

with big fake tits

and no sense of propriety.

I think it's sad.

but considering the magnitude of the evil she helped to perpetrate on America

I'm disinclined to cut her the slightest slack or to refrain from hitting her where it hurts--her vanity.

[noamnety]

37. This makes you part of the problem

What you are saying is that if you disagree with a woman's politics, an acceptable way to express that is to reduce her to a sex object, and attack her ability to "properly" function as one, in society.

You're justifying objectifying women. As I woman, I am offended.

As a human, I am offended.

[leftofthedial]

43. SHE reduces herself to a sex object

are you paying any attention at all to anything except your lame agenda?

[noamnety]

46. Here's what I'm paying attention to

Harris is a deeply corrupt individual who undermines our democracy.

Folks seem to think an acceptable way to counter that is to talk about her as a sex object. Do I need to know who on DU would volunteer to sleep with her?

Do I need to know what you think of her breasts?

If I ran for office, would I be pissed off if I went to the freeper board and saw that every thread where my name came up, someone felt the urge to comment on my breasts?

Would that be a deterrent for me running for office?

I don't care to have people commenting on my body, thank you very much. Even if I flirt with a guy, that doesn't give YOU permission to publicly comment on my breasts. Even if I rub my foot against another person's leg, that doesn't give you permission to publicly comment on my breasts. Even if I wear a push up bra, that is not an invitation for you to publicly comment on my breasts.

There's a good article on alternet about this at: http://www.alternet.org/story/10592/

<snip>
"L.A. Times columnist Mike Downey (11/22/00) compared the abuse to media personalities' mean-spirited savaging of Janet Reno's height, Monica Lewinsky's weight, Hillary Rodham Clinton's legs, Paula Jones' nose and Linda Tripp's body. "Why are only women fair game?" Downey asked. "I don't hear a lot of comedians saying on TV: 'And then did you see what that bald-headed Bill Daley did?'" This sort of media treatment may be a barrier to women vying for office, Downey wrote: "Wonder why more women don't run for president? How would you like your physical appearance ridiculed seven days a week, for four to eight years?"

<snip>

"When George W. Bush tapped foreign policy expert Condoleeza Rice to be the first female National Security Advisor, a front-page New York Times story (12/18/00) reported that "her dress size is between a 6 and an 8... because of 'muscle mass.'"

<snip>

In a study called "Framing Gender on the Campaign Trail: Women's Executive Leadership and the Press" (10/99), the Women's Leadership Fund (WLF) quantified this double standard. After evaluating how several statewide races were reported in 350 stories in nine major dailies, WLF found that while male and female gubernatorial candidates received about the same amount of coverage, "newspapers paid more attention to female candidates' personal characteristics, such as their age, personality and attire," while they "received less coverage outlining where they stood on public policy issues."

<snip>

Certainly male politicians' attire or appearance are rarely the news peg for an entire story -- unlike a Larry King Live (6/1/99) panel discussion about whether Hillary Rodham Clinton could be an impressive campaigner for the Senate despite being "bottom heavy" with a "bad figure." (Extra!Update, 8/99).

Bottom line. If YOU are discussing her as a sex object, YOU are the one doing the objectification. You aren't her helpless victim, powerless to control your comments because of her chest or the angle she stands at.

My "lame agenda" is that people treat women politicians as people, not sex objects. No matter what party they belong to. Radical, I know.

[leftofthedial]

47. In this thread, I advocate treating her according to how she acts

We all--male, female, young, old, attractive, ugly--ARE objects the moment we package, display and market ourselves. Especially when we pose and preen for the cameras, go on TV and thrust our enhancements out in grotesquely exaggerated profile, flirt, act suggestively and behave the way she behaves.

This thread asked not about her policies or her record, but specifically about her use of sexuality. You jump on me for responding to the actual topic instead of your "objectification" agenda. Treating one another with the respect we deserve is not a lame agenda. Trying to cram every square peg in your own subjectively defined round hole is.

Do you also criticize the countless posts lampooning king george for wearing the codpiece for the "mission accomplished" photo op, or for his exaggerated faux masculine swagger, or for his messed up droopy "two-faced" face, or for his chimp-like appearance? Or do you reserve your "outrage" for those who use the phrase "fake tits" to describe, well, fake tits?

[noamnety]

48. "But it happens to men, too"

reposting:

"In a study called "Framing Gender on the Campaign Trail: Women's Executive Leadership and the Press" (10/99), the Women's Leadership Fund (WLF) quantified this double standard. After evaluating how several statewide races were reported in 350 stories in nine major dailies, WLF found that while male and female gubernatorial candidates received about the same amount of coverage, "newspapers paid more attention to female candidates' personal characteristics, such as their age, personality and attire," while they "received less coverage outlining where they stood on public policy issues."

[leftofthedial]

49. the world would be better and safer if politics really was about policy

but it ain't.

They sell us the President the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars

--Jackson Browne "Lives in the Balance"

Politicians are packages, just like the boxes cereal comes in. Harris apparently realizes the facts you cite above and has used her sexuality as a marketing device. Which is, I believe, what this thread is about.

I didn't make sexuality an issue in her case or in this discussion, SHE did. And the OP did.

In her case, I find it pathetic. I find that it in no way mediates her evil record. If anything, it reinforces my disgust for her and her evil party. If I saw her in a bar, I might look twice, but not for the reasons she might hope.

If you would rather have a discussion of her policies and positions (no pun intended), start a thread and let's talk.

[noamnety]

52. You did make her sexuality an issue in this discussion

The OP asks a question, basically, of why we reduce the discussion to one of her sexuality, you reply with: "I think she's a sad, middle=aged skank who used to be a babe."

This thread was not "What do you personally think of Harris's sex appeal?"
It was "Why is her sex appeal a topic of discussion?"

The OP wasn't asking for your rating system, although it appears in thread after thread, for so many people, that's an autoresponse to female politicians - something that has to be stated up front before moving on to any argument of substance.

"considering the magnitude of the evil she helped to perpetrate on America I'm disinclined to cut her the slightest slack or to refrain from hitting her where it hurts--her vanity."

Is it okay to reduce women to sexual objects, if you think their politics are hurting the country? Even with the worst of dictators and tyrants throughout history, that's not how we define them, if they are men. Chimp and cod-piece comments notwithstanding, the defining question of 2004 was "who would you rather have a beer with," not "who would you rather have sex with."

Why is it that nobody asks if I'd rather have a beer with Rice or Clinton? When am I going to hear that question?

[leftofthedial]

53. "Katherine Harris, women, age, sex, and some perspective (please)!?"

my perspective is that she's a sad, middle-aged skank who used to be a babe

Am I allowed to post only when my perspective coincides with yours or that of the OP?

Katherine Harris appears to have learned early on to use her sexuality as a way of selling herself, her ideas, her candidacy, her policies and her record. I didn't. SHE did. (A fact I have raised several times now and to which you are apparently incapable of responding.)

Then, at a certain age, it appears evident to me that she began using artificial means to perpetuate her sexual appeal for crass marketing purposes. I find that doubly pathetic.

I haven't "reduced" anyone to anything. In fact, by focusing on her impressive boob job instead of her treasonous acts in 2000, I'm elevating her if anything.

Did you complain about objectification when DUers "reduced" king george to a strutting codpiece or not? If not, then I have a hard time taking seriously your outrage about equal treatment for an equally false woman.

You may want to live in a sexless world and a world in which no one is allowed to make judgements. I don't.

I don't want to have a beer with any of them. I just want them to do their jobs, to be credited for their accomplishments and to be held accountable for their crimes. If they make asses of themselves, I reserve the right to point it out. I don't comment on Senator Clinton's body or sexuality because she doesn't make it part of her "packaging." Sec'y Rice has made unfortunate sexually suggestive comments about her relationship with king george, which I have no qualms about lampooning. Senator Orin Hatch dresses like a fop. I have no problem making reference to his occasionally absurd fashion choices. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[noamnety]

56. That's alright

The other side will take care of commenting on Clinton's sex appeal. Rest assured, it will be taken care of.

I haven't restricted your right to post in any way. I'm trying to tell you that this is what EVERY woman is up against, perpetually, from the day we hit puberty. I'm trying to explain that it's a reason that many of us won't even consider entering the field of politics. I'm trying to explain the EFFECT your posts have on other women, besides your intended target.

It's up to you to decide if you want to create an atmosphere where women feel welcome to participate in that world, or if you want to contribute to an environment that is substantially hostile to women in politics. In other words, I can tell you the effect of your words, but I can't force you to care. So I guess we're at an impasse on that.

I'm not asking you to live in a sexless world. I'm asking you to make a distinction between your own sexual relations or desires (not my business), and a patriarchal stance that says it's your ENTITLEMENT to put everywoman's body on review. Cat call syndrome, if you will.

As far as the codpiece goes, nobody that I recall turned that into a discussion of Bush's genitals themselves. It was a discussion about the uniform, the ignorance in not undoing some of the straps before walking about, and possibly attempts on his part to draw attention to his masculinity. But what I didn't see was people on the board describing in detail his genitals themselves in thread after thread, or him being reduced to basically nothing more than his genitals as a result of that incident.

If comments on Bush's cod piece have contributed to an environment that is substantially and overwhelmingly hostile to men entering the field of politics, if it has contributed to men in politics collectively feeling like they have been reduced to sex objects, I am unaware of that impact.

[leftofthedial]

57. Katherine Harris's choice to objectify herself was hers.

My choice to comment on it was mine.

I repeat--I did NOT objectify Ms. Harris. She did.

Other than the occasional sophomoric dig or double entendre about Coulter or Condi, I don't objectify women or "contribute to an environment that is substantially hostile to women in politics," although if my little insults in this case keep some future Harris from helping repukes commit treason, I'll consider it a victory.

king george's sexuality, along with his fawning supporters most certainly WAS objectified here and elsewhere. Then there was the Gannon story and more rampant objectification of men and innuendo about male sexuality in the administration. Then there was Ahhnuld and his body and sexual exploits (not the fondling accusations, which are relevant and fair game)--given much mileage here on this board.

Yet I don't recall you or others decrying the objectification of males.

The political world has become so fouled, so corrupt and so poisoned by the post-Atwater machinations of the repukes that ANY sane person, regardless of gender, surely must be discouraged from participating.

[Sparkly]

60. Why not separate behavior from age, sex and appearance?

Perhaps there are rightwingers who disagree with Nancy Pelosi. It'd be out of bounds, in my view, for them to say, "I think she's a sad, middle-aged skank who used to be a babe."

Heck, if the standard is being a woman and disagreeing, a lot of us could be called "middle-aged skanks who used to be babes."

I addressed the issues about her behavior in my OP. It's weird, inappropriate, unprofessional, unnecessary, counter-productive, and may well reflect some problems with judgment, character, or self-image (who really knows).

But it is NOT weird or inappropriate for women to be vain about their appearance in middle-age, to be sexual in middle age, to have wrinkles in middle age, etc.

That is what I'm objecting to. Words like "skank," applied to a flirtatious woman, apply to other women who flirt. Words like "hag," applied to a middle-aged woman, apply to other middle-aged women. Same goes for words like "dried-up," "ugly," and "old."

Same goes for discussions of whether one would or wouldn't have sex with her -- and not just because she's an evil person, but because her body is old, her face is wrinkled, her boobs are implants, etc...

I think we should stick to her BEHAVIOR -- which can include both her political malfeasance and her weird tendency to exploit her sexuality on the campaign trail.

As for objectifying men, I don't recall any discussions of whether or not women would have sex with Arnold, whether he's too old to get it up, whether we'd look at him in a bar, what the dimensions of his penis are, etc... Even if such remarks occur from time to time, but the sheer number of such comments on threads about Harris indicates the difference.

Please keep in mind that there are other women, too, who are vain, have wrinkles, have breasts, feel sexy, and resent the ease with which women are called "dried up skanks," etc...

[leftofthedial]

62. Nancy Pelosi doesn't pose herself like a wannabe sex kitten

during TV nterviews, flirt with reporters and try to seduce college students during campaign events.

Pelosi is not an example of the same thing. If people here, me in particular, would have brought up the issue of Pelosi's sex, age or looks, you'd have a case--weakened somewhat by your failure to protest the objectification of men--but a case. For example, if I suddenly wnet off on how homely Olympia Snowe is, you'd be right. (I don't even know what Ms. Snowe looks like. This is just an example.)

In Harris' case, though, she has made her sexuality (which necessarily includes her sex, looks and age) part of the "package." It is part and parcel of her participation in the political arena. She thinks she's a sexy candidate. I think she's a skanky candidate. I don't see how that is an invalid observation. "Skank" is not a synonym for flirtatious. Look it up. In Harris' case, I believe I used the correct word and used it correctly.

In my recollection, when Arnold ran there was considerably MORE discussion of his looks, age, sex and sexual history than there have been with Harris. There were even nude photos of Arnold linked to in DU threads and lots of discussion about how badly he's aged, commentary on his apparent facelift(s), and speculation about his sex life. What any of that has to do with running for governor, I don't know.

I'm 50. I LOVE middle-aged women. Smart ones, with a sense of humor, sexy ones, tall ones, short ones, thin ones, big ones middle-sized ones, overtly sexy ones, bookish ones, wrinkled ones . . . I am exceedingly catholic in my tastes and my circle of friends reflects that. I do not make sexual judgements until and unless sexuality becomes a relevant part of the relationship. Believe me, I have no objection to sexual women. Often, nothing is sexier to others than just feeling sexy oneself.

I don't know where this is headed. I'm entirely against reducing anyone to a catalog of physical attributes and against avoiding substantive dialog by focusing on the superficial. I believe that in Harris' case, her use of sexuality is much more than superficial. I think it's who she is.

I'm sorry if my use of phrases like "skank" and "big fake tits" is offensive, but I try to say what I mean.

[rocktivity]

72. DING DING DING! LeftOfTheDial, you're our grand prize winner!

Katherine Harris's choice to objectify herself was hers. My choice to comment on it was mine.

And regardless of her age, gender, or party, her "behavior" is TOTALLY inappropriate for someone who is trying to win a public office. If she wishes to prostitute herself by melding her sexuality with her political being, why SHOULDN'T she held accountable for the consequences?

:headbang:
rocknation

[Sparkly]

75. Rock...

I put behavior in bold in my OP for that reason; and I used the word "inappropriate."

I'm talking about slams at women for being what MANY women are: old, ugly, middle-aged, past 49, "dried up," etc...

I'm trying to say separate behavior from appearance. It insults many OTHER women to make age and appearance an issue.

I'm trying, but I must not be explaining myself well. :shrug:

[rocktivity]

83. Harris isn't separating her behavor from her appearance.

She must know perfectly well that if she REALLY looked "ugly" and "dried up," she COULDN'T get way with "behaving" the way she has. If anything, she seems to believe that her appearance justifies it.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Sparkly]

86. But since other women share aspects of her appearance, WE should.

Criticize her behavior, not her looks. That's all I'm saying.

There are others of us out here who share some of the physical characteristics being used to insult, deride, or ridicule her.

As I posted to someone else below, imagine we were criticizing Clarence Thomas -- there are plenty of reasons to do so. But throwing in racial characteristics as pejoratives would be over the line.

Leave sex, age, body characteristics etc. out of it, because many of us share those -- and we do NOT share her crimes and outrageous behaviors. The two are separate things.

[leftofthedial]

84. thanks, rocknation.

[spooky3]

58. You've made a terrific effort, lwfern, but sometimes I think

some people simply do not want to listen and fully consider even the most eloquently stated argument, nor do they want empirical evidence in which various factors are controlled to overwhelm their anecdotes. Thanks very much for raising excellent points.

[leftofthedial]

54. sex objects are people too

especially willing sex objects

is objectification a problem? yes.

Am I objectifying Ms. Harris? no. SHE objectified herself. I am commenting on HER actions.

[Sparkly]

87. '"I am commenting on her actions" -- Then do just that!!

Her USE (or misuse) of her physical characteristics is one thing -- the physical characteristics themselves are another.

[Jade Fox]

41. So, using your logic...

if she were a young, good-looking babe you would like her better??

By the way, how do you know you are "hitting her where it hurts--her vanity"? Do you know her? Or are you just assuming all woman are vain above all else?

[leftofthedial]

44. that has nothing to do with my logic

I'd hate her no matter how she looked. She's fucking evil.

But how she chooses to look and act is part of her and is fair game. Watch how she acts. Constantly preening and posing. Look at the obvious signs of plastic surgery. In every appearance of hers I have ever seen, SHE--not I--has gone to absurd lengths to make sexuality part of her persona. I am perfectly justified in commenting on it.

"Or are you just assuming all woman are vain above all else?" Bite me. Your agenda is trumping your brain.

[Jade Fox]

51. So answer the question.....

How do you know you are "hitting her where it hurts: her vanity"? If you don't know her personally, that's quite an assumption.

[leftofthedial]

55. To the extent possible with any observaton of any other person

she appears to me to be excessively vain. I think probably 99.9% of all people would agree with me.

We all make assumptions about people we don't know personally. Nearly every political post on this forum (millions of posts) make assumptions about people's motives, personalities and agendae.

[Bushy Being Born]

24. Good post, and good point.

Why is sexism ok when it comes to conservative women?

[RebelOne]

25. Great post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

I am so sick of everyone dissing the looks of females in the political world. I think some of the posters should look in the mirror themselves.

[cboy4]

26. This is the bitch I can't stand. I think Harris has mental issues....

But this Jean Schmidt lying "Marines don't cut and run" bitch pisses me off a thousand times more than Harris acting flirtatious.

[seaglass]

27. Nice post Sparkly. Harris is meaningless to me, I mean I think

she's pretty much over. I will never forgive her for 2000 and I think it is becoming clear to more and more people that she is a woman without principle (this is related to her lies about ties to lobbyists - not flirting).

So, I haven't read the threads about her flirtations because other than being slightly amusing that she got caught, I really don't care.

A woman with issues about fading youth? Doesn't everyone, at some point in their life, realize they are getting older and learn to adjust to it? I believe it's called a mid-life crisis and we all handle it in different ways. Perhaps because I am close to her age (I think - I don't know how old she is) I can have empathy for someone trying to come to terms with it.

I'd probably be more judgmental about it if it was extreme, like a woman who leaves her husband and abandons her children as one of my daughter's friend's mom did. Or a man who does the same. Only because I believe once you become a parent, your needs are secondary to your children's until they are of age. But flirting with someone? Nah, I just really don't think that's such a big deal.

[Totally Committed]

28. I highly commend this post! Thank you, Sparkly!!!

The Republican Party is full of men Harris's age or older, whose shellacked Ken Doll hair could be said to qualify them in much the same way as Harris's hair and make-up seems to qualify her. But, it doesn't. And what about all those he-men Republican hunters and brush-clearers and horsemen about her age, or older? Nope it's never about those things when the criticism starts.

I detest Katherine Harris. I detest all she stands for. But, not because of the way the looks. But, because she colluded with and abetted a coup d'etat in 2000 for which we and the world have suffered for greatly ever since. I actually think it's comical that she's not letting the Republicans sweep her under the rug now that they're done with needing her. I hope they choke on her!

Dislike her for what she is, and what she's done, yes. But, to allow her appearance to be the sole focus is shallow, misdirected, sexist, ageist, and SOFT! You are allowing her to get away with having helped deliver George W. Bush to the Presidency illegitimately by saying she's a skank? By criticising her make-up? Aside from being more than slightly mysogynist, it totally misses the mark. Don't let her off the hook so easily. SHE'S EVIL. SHE'S A HYPOCRITE. SO IS EVERY OTHER REPUBLICAN.

Until we are prepared to call every over-the-hill Republican Ken doll who nails every staffer he can get his hands on for the same things, nailing her for them is just a disservice TO US.

And, we should be above this all anyway.

TC

[Clark2008]

50. Well.... to be honest:

The Republican Party is full of men Harris's age or older, whose shellacked Ken Doll hair...

I know a few Democratic males who fit this description, as well...

But that's another thread.

Keep commenting, all. It's interesting.

[skids]

33. Because...

...if we concentrated on her behavior, that would involve a whole lot of use of the S and W words. And we know what flamewars result from that.

[ananda]

34. totally agree

Looksism is one of women's worst enemies.

Sue

[Canuckistanian]

35. Women with ugly ideals are all ugly to me

When I know that a woman supports behaviour that harms people, lies, cheats and acts like a hypocrite, then she is ugly through and through.

And I don't give a damn how "attractive" she appears.

Just beneath that paper-thin veneer of beauty is ugliness worse than the oldest, morst horrid hag.

[Sparkly]

36. Yet we don't see a fuss over Rummy being "old," "dried-up," ugly, unsexy

I wrote about the ugliness you're describing. She's contemptible.

But making "old" an issue is an insult to ALL women her age and over. Talking about her in terms of sex, age, beauty (or lack thereof) ignores the real problems -- her behavior -- and perpetuates stigmas about women as a whole.

[JI7]

61. i mention Rummy's ugliness and Bush's simian feautures all the time

alhtough i agree that overall , judgement on looks is more focused on Women than men.

judgements on Bush's simian feautures are usually accompanied and focused on the issues with the comments on his look just an add on.

while when it comes to Harris it's often the only thing that is commented on.

[elehhhhna]

38. fact is she's a beautiful woman BUT it's valid to criticize her choices

like Blue shiny eyeshadow, cherry red rouge, etc. It demonstrates either 1) poor eyesight or 2) scary, erratic, reality-denying decision-making skills.

It's rather like making fun of Trumps hair or the fact that Scalia bears a strong resemblence to Fred Flintstone...

[gardenista]

42. You go, Sparkly!

I couldn't have said it better.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Looking at those photos yesterday . . .

. . . one might wonder if she's given up on getting a seat in the US Senate and is looking for a spread in Playboy as a consulation.

What you're saying, Sparkly, is quite true. Her flirtatiousness simply comes off as bizarre. It is not appropriate for a US Senate candidate. The young reporter appears to have been more embarrassed than anything else.

It is this behavior -- along with her role in the 18 Brumaire of G. W. Bush -- that invites words like "hag." Even those who don't mind that she helped Bush steal the election or are still deluded enough to think he really won honestly and agree with Ms. Harris' politics have got to be a little uncomfortable with her. That may be why she can't her campaign off the ground, in spite of the fact that Bill Nelson isn't terribly popular in Florida according to the figures I've seen.

I had to check and note that Katherine Harris is 49 years old as of ealier this month. Somewhere in the last five years, she's learned not to use too much make up and may have had a face lift. She doesn't look like Cruella de Ville any more. But these are not important matters in a Senate campaign.

I don't know anything about Ms. Harris' personal life and I don't want to know. Her part in the 2000 coup d'etat, in my opinion, merits her a term in prison, not the Senate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Agreed. It's her behavior and the hypocrisy they imply.

She is a skank, but it has little to nothing to do with her appearance.

[October]

63. I think it's the plastic surgery

I agree we shouldn't bring a person's "appearance" into politics, however, there is a bizarre look to Ms. Harris what with all that plastic surgery. It's sometimes difficult to get past her appearance because it is cartoonish and unnatural.

[file83]

64. Do you want to know the ironic part?

Katherine Harris stated on Hannity & Colmes during her "campaign announcement" that:

"It's not about appearances, it's about effectiveness."

That was so ironic coming from her, that I made a parody video about it.

[Sparkly]

76. That IS ironic!! nt

[DemoTex]

65. Her sister alum at Agnes Scott don't think much of Harris either. LTTE:

The article by Katherine Harris in the Winter Edition of the Alumnae Magazine should never have been published. The attempt to rewrite history is an embarrassment to me and to most of the Agnes Scott alumnae I know.

The article was a blatant attempt to “whitewash” the disgraceful conduct of Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state.

The entire world was aware step by step of the events in Florida during the Presidential election. It was a travesty on the election process.

At present, even the claims of “great civic reforms” have not been met. As reported by the Knight Kidder Press Association, the Civil Rights Commission has given the so called reforms the grade of “F.” Katherine Harris has refused to meet with this commission.
Agnes Scott College should be completely free of partisan politics.

Bertha M____ H____ ’38

Agnes Scott College Alumnae Magazine

I know of no women from Dr. D's class ('72) at Agnes Scott (Decatur, Ga.) who can stand Katherine Harris. Likewise, our younger friends from Harris' Class of '79 loath her, too. Some of the older, retired alum are the most vocal against Harris.


Groves of academe.

[0007]

67. This confirms our suspicions but doesn't surprise anyone, eh?

[fishnfla]

66. How is she "an accomplished woman"

"to be taken seriously"? She inherited a bunch of money and has never had a real job in her frickin' life.

She is a RW caricature in every way and should be treated as such.

acomplished woman, give me a fucking break

[Sparkly]

77. She was Florida Secretary of State.

If you'll read my OP again, I was saying that some women use looks, flirtation, or "sex appeal" as power, but generally only when they feel it's the strongest power they have. So when you've accomplished a position like Secretary of State, you've already got professional stature -- so it's bizarre that she even feels any need to pose in tight clothes or act like a sex kitten.

See what I'm saying?

[mac56]

68. I understand your point of view

and I respect you for bringing it up.

Only one point: Do you think "the other side" is spending even a millisecond on debating whether a particular attack on a Democrat or liberal is fair or unfair?

I think not.

You may reply that their ruthlessness is what makes us better than them.

It may also be what keeps them winning, and us losing.

[Sparkly]

78. Good question -- and here's your answer...

I do NOT think the other side debates whether attacks on Democrats are fair or unfair.

But this isn't about Katherine Harris -- this is about ALL women. Let's use my example of Barbara Mikulski, my great senator from Maryland...



There are many, many, many women who share traits with her. Let's say they read, as INSULTS, words like "middle-aged," "wrinkled," "prune," "hag," "dried-up," "over-the-hill," etc... "I'm middle-aged and have wrinkles," they might think. So how is this a pejorative?

What about young women reading these things? They aren't easily forgotten.

So while I could care less about Katherine Harris' feelings, I would like to see her behavior separated from her physical characteristics -- characteristics that many other women do, or will, share.

[mac56]

80. You are blessed with a sense of fairness.

Whatever similar feelings of fairness I may once have had, are long gone.

You conjecture that this is "about all women".

I suggest that, instead, it's "about all Republicans".

I can't say how young women reading these things may feel. I hope they'd have the ego strength and good boundaries not to internalize it. I feel badly for them if they do.

Still: let's not bring a knife to a gun fight. Let's not be lotus-eaters. Otherwise we'll end up the noblest, most fair people in the dustcan of history. Because, as you know, the winners write the history books.

Just my .02

[Sparkly]

81. Again, it's not about Katherine Harris. It's about others who are women.

Here's a quote from Michael Musto, speaking on Keith Olbermann's show, about Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct II:

The thing is what ruined the movie is Madonna beat her to the 48-year-old vagina thing. And now the tragedy is no “Sliver 2,” no “Quick and the Dead 2,” no “Intersection 2,” no “Cold Creek Manor 2.” This is a tragedy. There will, however, be a “Basic Instinct 3,” and I hear it‘s going to—the camera is going to zoom in past the depends and you will see a very hot shot of the catheter...

This "humor" is based on apparent "common knowledge" about how "gross" 48-year-old women are -- even if they look like Sharon Stone! Even Keith, much to my disappointment, described its premiere saying, "...a little more than $3 million gross. And we do mean gross as thousands in the stands pleaded, please keep your legs crossed, please keep your legs crossed."

This is what I'm talking about; it's quite like criticism of Harris for the crime of being 49. She has REAL CRIMES to criticize her for -- why criticize her for traits shared by most other women?

It's not about being fair, noble, or lotus-eating to HER -- it's about being fair to people who are like her only in that they happen to be women.

(Link to quotes:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x6755#6767

[mac56]

82. Well, you and I may never agree on this.

I don't understand where Keith is coming from with this. As far as I'm concerned, "gross" never even entered the discussion.

I don't believe Harris is being bashed for the crime of being 49. I think she's being bashed for attempting to portray a sex kitten, while seeking votes from rock-ribbed traditional-values Bible Belt Republicans. In other words: hypocrisy - which as we all know, doesn't bother Republicans as much as it bothers normal people.

There's no way I'd ever accuse "all women" of doing what she's doing.

Just the same, I commend you for bringing it up.

[Sparkly]

85. But we're getting really close -- so let me try from a different angle...

I AGREE Harris is a hypocrite, and I AGREE she's acting inappropriately or worse.

Here's an analogy. Let's say we're talking about Clarence Thomas. He shouldn't have been confirmed, he's a Scalia "me too," he's a biased rightwinger, etc... FINE. But if posts came up criticizing him for how dark his skin is, how full his lips are, conjecturing about his penis size, etc., OTHER Blacks would have a right to say "Now wait a minute..." And that's what I'm doing as a woman.

Read my OP again. I'm distinguishing between criticism of her *behavior* and criticism of her for being a middle-aged woman.

[Imagevision]

69. Harris says NO to purchasing drugs from Canada while some seniors choose

between buying food or medications - Harris says it's because the drugs from Canada aren't safe? like she has done some research other then quoting Bushco...!

[Sparkly]

79. She's a rightwing sycophant, no doubt about it. nt

[WCGreen]

70. Next time you take a look at Mike Dewine....

That guy does everything he san to look good.... Blow Dried hair....

Then the macho crap.... Plaid Hunting Shirt....

Remember Lamar Alexander and the Plaid shit....

A lot of them are phoney to the core....

She's just another in a long line of mediocre people who are ambitious and have no other way to distinguise themselves....

Madona comes to mind...

As does Keana Reeves......

[PurityOfEssence]

71. people who use attacks based on looks have problems

Okay, most people have problems, but the ugliness of citing physical characteristics against those one dislikes is a sign of deep, deep shallowness.

Now when physical characteristics are a result of one's turpitude, that's one thing, but to dismiss people for having narrow-set eyes or something like that, it's just the grade school ugliness that most people never quite escape.

Appearance issues that spring from activities are one thing, but those that are genetic should not be called into account.

Let's play with some examples. Don Rumsfeld is short. That's not his fault--as if such a thing is a fault--but it does probably explain many of his needs to dominate. Still, to use this as a dismissal is out of line because it's not something he caused. Ann Coulter is shockingly thin. This probably isn't just an anomaly of metabolism; it's more likely an eating disorder based on her need to be appealing to men. Okay, such things are in the realm of addiction, but she also deserves to be slagged for her aggressive subservience. Katherine Harris was born phenomenally wealthy and denies she's ever had any advantage from it, even though her whole life is a continual gravy train of privilege. When she was finally called into account for her wickedness, she did a sloppy job of trying to be unassailably pretty. (Within the idiocy of the human race, if one is "pretty", one is good and therefore immune to criticism.) This is a fine line. To call her out for her stark roadshow makeup is laden with male dismissal of women, but to ridicule her for being an appearance-based user is more than fair game when she's trying to suck pity as she seizes more control for the monied elite. (Things aren't always that simple.)

Slamming someone for being bald is unfair, unless their drug use or other habits contributed to it. Criticizing for being short, facially unappealing or disabled is also wrong for the same reasons. People who make their way by posing as things they're not ARE fair game. Thus, it's very important to remind people that Condi Rice is a mediocrity; she's not very smart, yet NEEDS the approval as a major intellect. Dick Cheney is not that tough a guy, so as he plays hunter and reminds people of his past football glories, it's important to show that he's a doddering old asshole who dreams of nothing so much as bullying others and killing inferior creatures for "sport". Tom Delay (who is gone and will never have any influence again) is another short male with a need to be the big guy; his blustering is now shown to be nothing but backroom arm-twisting, and his craven retreat in front of trouble is an embarrassment. George W's imbecilic and indecisive response to Katrina shows that he isn't the forceful, all-powerful leader that he claimed to be, and for this bungling and cowardice, he deserves all the pain he'll get.

Using cheap physical dismissals are tiresome, yet some are very fair. Cheney looks old beyond his years because he's a drunk with shitty eating habits. Powell affects propriety with his perfect comportment and grooming. Karen Hughes tries so hard to have a soft side, even though she's a battle-axe by any measure and it can be seen by the fixed look on her face. Scott McClellan feigns intellectuality and propriety, when he's a stuffy little nobody who looks like he's been caught by the principal. These physical insults are fair, but ones that aren't people's faults should be off limits. I don't make fun of Grover Norquist for being a creepy little plump troll, I make fun of him for trying to be a twinkly little bon-vivant when he's knotted with hatred.

Oh, well; 'nuff said.

[KingFlorez]

74. She's not really ugly

It's her ideology and criminal acts that make her ugly.

[Sparkly]

88. Thank you! nt