Bloodless Coup: Why does it always have to end up here?

February 19, 2006

Why does it always have to end up here?

Generally I like Wolcott, and criticism of Matalin's defense of Cheney is understandable. However, when it's a woman, why does it always come back to her appearance? [emphasis mine]

Mary Matalin's pout-fest (I'm sure Arianna will issue a full forensics report later), but she made quite a petulant spectacle of herself, shaking her head from side to side in silent, lemon-puss disagreement whenever Maureen Dowd and David Gregory made mildly critical comments about Shotgun Cheney. ... Even without the immature pouting and pissy expression, Matalin would have been a car wreck in repose: With a bad haircut topping a mistaken facelift and a ghastly floral pin that looked like spray-painted aluminum, she looked like the Beltway's Madwoman of Chaillot.

MoDo was on the same panel, and she has been the target of a lot of this from both the right and the left, though not from this Wolcott post. It's a cheap shot. There is plenty of material for criticism, but it gets old to focus on women's appearance, and to infantilize their behavior.

Posted by binky at February 19, 2006 06:07 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Gender and Politics

Comments

Even when I agree with Wolcott, I generally end up feeling like I want to fly to NY and flail at him with a sjambok until he bursts into tears. He's such a snot. I bet even his therapist is sick of him.

Posted by: jacflash at February 19, 2006 06:30 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that's kind of what I like about him. He is very snarky. It's like the guy you want to have skewering someone else at your dinner party (but never your food or entertainment). That's the thing though, he's good enough at it not to resort to the cheap (gendered) shot.

Posted by: binky at February 19, 2006 06:43 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking as someone who's known to enjoy snarky ...

I think in this instance you are pointing out more supposedly "appearance" complaints than actually exist. The first four strike me more as disposition matters than appearance matters. And the last - which is by far, I think, the most troubling - is more a gender thing than an appearance thing.

And of course it's also true fact that many men get similarly disparaged for their appearance (the president's smirk, Biden's hair, Tim Kaine's eyebrows).

So both in this instance and generally I think the "appearance expectations" side of the gender disparity might be a little overblown - since I think it usually is covering up matters of disposition and demeanor where expectations of celebrities more clearly (I think) differ depending on the celebrity's gender.

Posted by: Armand at February 19, 2006 07:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'd argue that often the dsposition and demeanor are gendered as well.

Posted by: binky at February 19, 2006 07:27 PM | PERMALINK

Well yeah I totally agree. That's what I was trying to get at in that last sentence. I think those expectations are HUGELY gendered. But I also think a lot of the appearance stuff is simply used to get at that in ways that are viewed (for some reason) as more legitimate - and/or to imply things that are otherwise hard to get at (or completely inappropriate to say) about dispositions.