PostAndRape

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Monday, 22 October 2012

And More About The Republican-Women-Are-Hot Study

Posted on 08:51 by Unknown

There's no such study, yells Echidne while hitting her head against the garage door.  Poor garage door.  It gets the anger others elicit.

As I wrote below, no study has found Republican female politicians more beautiful than Democratic female politicians.  Rinse and repeat.

But that's the interpretation which has stuck:

But this U.C.L.A. study contains measurable scientific data collected by actual professional scientists who have just basically given us the green light to go ahead and judge a book by its cover. And though the data offered no evidence as to the relative “attractiveness” of either party’s representatives (as the face-modeling software controlled for superficial markers like makeup and hairstyles), why would that stop anyone from conflating gender typicality with sex appeal? The answer is ha ha, of course it wouldn’t, but I adore your innocence.
I can’t figure out which part of this story is the most unforgivably retro. Is it the part where the Internet is flooded by a tsunami of bickering over which political party has the “prettier” members of Congress and/or prettier voters? Followed by smug accusations of sour grapes, actual sour grapes, and finally resentful grumbling by lots of women in comfort clogs, maybe even including me. (It’s none of your business but I require them for the back support. Take it easy, I have a doctor’s note.)
Or is it the part that suggests that a key factor in the electability and, dare I say, presence of a female politician on a national stage can be dependent on something as random as the placement of her eyebrows? Are there really subtle ways in which people would consider a woman suitable for office that are rooted in their visceral reaction to the width and prominence of her cheekbones? Well, probably.

"Visceral reaction about the width and prominence of her cheekbones" will determine someone's suitability for political office?  Well, if the study said anything about that it said that this might be the case in the Republican Party, not in general.

Then there's that silly suggestion that the party which has the prettier politicians (but only female ones!) is somehow the winning party.  If that's the level on which people operate, bring me dictatorship in the form of Havelock Vetinari. 


Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Do Not Be Afraid Of Life. Echidne's Poetry Hour.
    A musical adaptation of Kaarlo Sarkia 's poem: A rough translation of the lyrics (by me and without the rhyme): Do not be afraid of lif...
  • Speed Blogging, Monday August 12, 20013: On Media, Fracking, Gender and Death Panels.
    Today's funny cartoon .  As you may note, I'm still frustrated about the collapsed anthill aspect of public debate. But it's ...
  • Speed Blogging, Mon 9/16/2013: On Women
    Note:  Not all these are from the last few days. First , the Taliban in Afghanistan is waging a physical war against women in the public sec...
  • Yellen vs. Summers As A Metaphor
    Atrios posted on the nomination of the next chief of Federal Reserve.  The forerunners have been defined as Lawrence Summers and Janet Yelle...
  • Speed Blogging, Fri Sep 6, 2013: On Exclusion, Reproduction, Legos and Elections.
    1.  Worth reading:  How Women's Voices Were Excluded from the March on Washington.  This is not uncommon in any social justice movement...
  • A Meta-Post On Income Inequality
    Or utterly weird.  You decide.  This post is based on some pictures I have on my desktop and my desire to randomly pick two of them and writ...
  • Polling Conspiracies
    I once wrote a bad poem about Conspiracy Theories.  It began like this: There are five fat men in a secret  cave somewhere. They are naked. ...
  • Never Thin Enough? Thoughts About What We Can Sell in the Labor Market.
    Content Warning:  Body Images and Anorexia Joan Smith in the UK Independent reviews The Vogue Factor , a book about the eating requirements...
  • On Pax Dickinson. And A Little on James Taranto.
    Here's where I go wrong.  Dickinson was, until today, working for the Business Insider.  He is pretty well known as an eager anti-femini...
  • Speed-Blogging, June 27, 2013
    First, American Apparel advertises its unisex shirts rather interestingly.   Several photo series show women with bare bottoms.  Those wome...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (365)
    • ►  September (20)
    • ►  August (34)
    • ►  July (35)
    • ►  June (44)
    • ►  May (69)
    • ►  April (39)
    • ►  March (39)
    • ►  February (41)
    • ►  January (44)
  • ▼  2012 (135)
    • ►  December (41)
    • ►  November (37)
    • ▼  October (54)
      • Baumeister and Vohs Build A Market For Sex. PART 2.
      • Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs: Is There ...
      • Without Power
      • You are Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't
      • Mood: Stormy
      • On the 2012 US Presidential Elections
      • An Additional Short Post on The Wimminz-Vote-Their...
      • A Guest Post by Anna: A Feminist Literary Canon, P...
      • On Rape And Republican Politicians
      • The Tasteless New York Times
      • Women Vote Their Hormones: The Study Itself
      • The Second Bad Research (and) Popularization Today...
      • Today's First Bad Study Popularization
      • Today's Fun Table
      • About Richard Mourdock. May Trigger.
      • The Topic No-One Dared To Raise in the Presidentia...
      • Casual Sex. A Post on the Meaning of Terms.
      • And More About The Republican-Women-Are-Hot Study
      • Today's Fun Research Popularization: Conservative...
      • What War on Women? Republicans Love Women!
      • A Guest Post by Anna: A Feminist Literary Canon, P...
      • Let's Just All Get Incorporated, Then!
      • The Most Hilarious Class Warfare Piece Ever!
      • The Value of Midwives?
      • Caterpillars and Left-Handed Irishmen. The Republ...
      • Paper, Scissors, Rock
      • Telling Your Workers Which Presidential Candidate ...
      • Political Fluff in The Second Presidential Debate
      • Today's Weird Feminist Political Themes, Growing F...
      • Binders Full of Women. Or on the Second President...
      • This Is Fun. The Details of Romney's Tax Plan
      • Chrystia Freeland on the Plutocrats
      • There's Nothing Worse Than A Bunch of Mean, Hatefu...
      • Ann Coulter on Biden's Debate Performance
      • This Is Funny: Rosie Perez on The Disadvantages R...
      • A Guest Post by Anna: A Feminist Literary Canon, P...
      • Reading for Thinking, on Saturday
      • Romney v. Obama: Such Feistiness! Ryan v. Biden:...
      • Did You Sleep Your Way To The Top? And Other Jour...
      • Voting is Not Like Buying A Pair of Shoes or A New...
      • The Shooting of Malala Yousafzai
      • A Dog Post
      • Romney Leads on Women's Issues --- Back to the Nin...
      • The Polling Games!
      • Julia Gillard, the PM of Australia, Talks About Mi...
      • Truth Is Weirder Than Fiction. Or On What Some Co...
      • Conspiracies in the Labor Department!
      • Today's Funny Picture
      • I Haven't Posted This One For A While
      • The First Presidential Debate. ZZZZZ.
      • NononoNO. She Gets It Wrong.
      • What's For Breakfast? A Brand's Reputation!
      • Thanks, Distance Readers
      • Technology Sucks And Other Blog News
    • ►  September (3)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile