WTF?
So a friend e-mailed this to me last night as a joke...and I gotta say, I'm still thinking about rinsing my eyes out with bleach.
I just don't know where to start. This is just wrong on so many levels.
Girls, help me rip this one to shreds!
1
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: WTF?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10638
there are so many elements to this that are really gross. Politics aside, these glamor shots promote the fur industry, which is cruel, in humane and wasteful, not to mention a tasteless reflection of the classist policies of modern conservatism. And then just the idea that these pundits, as women, also have to be some kind of models. how embarrassing.
We can look forward to this kind of thing now that Sarah "I can field dress a moose" Palin is the poster woman for conservative females.
Hilarious!!!! You made me laugh out loud with that comment
It is also very indicative of the right's tendency to use its female stars as hood ornaments.
I completely agree that the conservative right tends to use its female stars as hood ornaments. Obvious examples: Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and every female employed by Fox News...
It really upsets me when the attractiveness of a woman in politics is considered more important than what she has done and what she has to say.
However, for the sake of argument, I want to make a point in favor of the slideshow: not all of the women are conventionally attractive. Some are older. Some are overweight. Some have kind of funny looking faces.
I probably wouldn't have thought about that if not for the recent community post which pointed out that lists of sexy women never include women who are sexy for what they have done and only include women who look like super models.
This list, while still objectifying, is somewhat of a counter example because these women didn't just get on the list for being hot; they all seem to have actually done something worthwhile. They're being celebrated as beautiful and, as far as I can see, their resumes are considered part of that hotness. Women who don't fit the conventional standard of beauty are still being glammed up as babes.
I appreciate that. The part of me that likes to look for the positive really appreciates that.
That doesn't change the fact that you would never see conservative MEN being profiled in a series of glamour shots. It would be considered absurd and irrelevant to spend even an ounce of time discussing their appearances. So why is it relevant for women? It isn't!
So, I am not supporting the glamour shots (I didn't even get into the animal cruelty issue, which I agree wholeheartedly about), but I will say that I was glad to see that the definition of beauty was not as narrow or exclusive as it could have been.
Not that I needed any excuse to take conservatives less seriously.
Oi, tell me about it. Whenever I point out the hypocrisy of being a "pro-life" carnivore, I'm met with excuses. "But animals exist to be eaten by humans! C'mon. Check the Bible, son, we got dominion, we can do as we please.*" "Oh, but we need meat, how else could we get our protein?" "If we stopped eating meat, many species of animals would be overpopulated." Never mind that not everything has been placed unto G-d's green Earth has been placed their for human consumption; never mind that humans can get absolutely everything they need from plants only; never mind that we currently have a growing overpopulation issue among humans, and legal, stigma-free abortion would help this issue significantly.
* Credit goes to Nellie McKay, writer of the song Colombia is Bleeding from the album Pretty Little Head.
Eww. That's just hilariously gross in many ways.
Be sure to pass the bleach this way when you're done.
can we shred this book specifically?
http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Psychiatrist-Political-Correctness-Profession/dp/1595230254
it caught my eye because it's written by a quack doctor, and the description of the book online is just horrifying. i'm not going to waste my time reading the book - i know everything i need to know from the author's viewpoint that women fall in love after having sex which is why a casual sex life hurts us. in addition, all the reviewers who are gloating about the book say that there is no such thing as safer sex, and church attending has health benefits so medicine should now incorporate "faith" as if it's "science."
perhaps this doctor would prefer to see young women educated as bristol palin was educated, and end up pregnant at 17, then married to her dumbfuck baby daddy.
I really don't get why the fur industry is still around...I honestly thought it was gone since you can get really good synthetic furs now.... seriously why would anyone buy real fur anymore?
People buy fur because it's luxurious, warm, soft and a way to display wealth. It's a way of saying to the world, "Yes, I can afford this $30,000 chinchilla coat". And yes...a full-length fur coat can cost more than a car.
While I dislike fur and the fur industry, however, I also find synthetic furs problematic. Their production, much like the production of all synthetic fabrics, produces a significant amount of pollution, thus hurting the environment.
Animals are certainly not less important than the environment (I work for a conservation organization, so believe me when I say that I care about both!), I don't buy into the "fake fur is OK" idea either - because it's generally made of all sorts of petroleum-based nastiness, and harms the environment.
I mean, really. Save the animals but hurt the environment they live in? It's kind of screwy.
Pretty much, we should stop promoting the LOOK of fur as fashionable so that both industries falter.
What bugs me more than the pictures (which are still terrible in their objectifying and glamorizing of the fur industry) are the descriptions accompanying the pictures. I don't know which would scare me more: the thought that those descriptions may have been provided and printed without question, or the thought that ABC News may have written those descriptions.
Clarification: "...objectifying of women and glamorizing of the fur industry..."
... WTF indeed
Did anyone else notice the description next to Mary Katharine Ham?
"A regular on the Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, Mary Katharine Ham is the online editor of The Washington Examiner. Formerly the managing editor of Townhall.com, O'Reilly is wearing a green three-quarter length sheared mink coat with laser grooving from Miller's Furs."
I just love picturing O'Reilly in a mink coat.