"Conservative Women are Hotties and Liberal Women are Fug!"

[super skeptic]

For all her supposed admiration for beauty and femininity, Kidist is sure looking plain in that photo. But most importantly, she's ugly inside.

[thoughtful]

I have noticed the idea that people are physically ugly because they're hateful bigots, and I don't like that idea. Being a hateful bigot has nothing to do with your looks just like being liberal has nothing to do with your looks.

Yep. I mentioned this in another discussion.

It wouldn't matter to me, except for one thing. People who are on FJ, it seems to me, are already more able to see past a pretty facade, and think more about actions than looks.

So the idea that ugly lives make ugly facades, and that the inner ugliness will be visible, seems very odd to me in this setting -- very un-FJ, somehow (yes, I know we are not a hive vagina, but those opinions get posted a lot, and rarely challenged, so it seems to me that a lot of people hold to that).

Objectively, without knowing anything about them, I'd probably see these faces as attractive:

And this as a cute, happy, hippy couple:

I know, I know -- blecch. But that's because we know who they are.

Their images enrage me because I know what shit they are on the inside, but, honestly, if I didn't, I wouldn't find them physically ugly.

To go at it from the other direction; objectively, I'd certainly see these folks as not very attractive, physically:

But I admire things about their work, courage, etc.

Heredity, hard work, age, not caring for one's health, life-long squinting, not bothering with the fashion of the day -- there are a million things that go into making someone physically unattractive.

Constantly scowling could be part of it, but I don't think "hatefulness," per se, will do it. I wish it did -- life would be easier.

And what one considers pretty or ugly can be very subjective.

I will say this, though -- a dull or phony expression sure can turn me off, even if the face is pretty. I wanted to post a picture of Sarah Palin as someone I wouldn't find ugly based only on her looks, and could not find one picture of her with a relaxed expression on her face -- always that rictus. Josh Duggar's smug expressions repel me. And I had trouble finding one of Steven Anderson that wasn't either goofy or enraged. Faces that are never in repose, or never show a glimmer of intelligence, always look strange to me.

On the other end of the spectrum, a twinkle of humor or intelligence in the expression can make a person look more attractive to me, even in photos. For example, here is Fred looking much cuter - he looks bright and droll (and younger, it's a better-taken picture, etc.).

And I completely forget his face, except to enjoy the satisfied expression on it, when I see this:

DWW6QeeVzDc

In the same way, I completely forget Doug and Steve and the Evil Pearls' fairly nice faces when I look at them or think of them, because, like Fred's lovely dancing overrides his looks, their horrible actions override their looks.

I don't have to be like Kidist, and "see" physical ugliness because I disagree with the person, or because I imagine their ugly views have coarsened them.

If they are also physically ugly, I see it as mostly coincidence, or a hard life. If not, I can mourn the fact that a pretty face is wasted on such filthy people, or worry that the pretty face will take in the unwary.

I've edited this over and over, trying to make sure it doesn't sound hand-slappy, because I really don't mean it that way. It's just that the "their inner ugliness has made them ugly on the outside" thing always puzzles me.

YMMV.

[lawfulevil]

I'm weird-looking and chunky. I've been weird-looking (previously gawky instead of chunky) my whole life. I was raised by rabid neocons, got over it, but I didn't get any hawter/fuglier.

[canela]

WHY? WHY? WHY? Why do women's merits/accomplishments/accolades/sins/misdeeds..etc. ALWAYS have to overshadowed by our cuteness/perceived lack thereof? Okay, now that that's off my chest, I'll play.

Uhm...The least obnoxious thing I can say in response to this is, "Boy, are our definitions of beauty different!"

I read this passage

She is wearing the required glamor dress, a Chagoury couture, at the 2012 premier for the film The Sessions, but her face is that of an older woman who cannot (will not) make the extra effort to beautify herself. She has pretty, girlish curls (most likely dyed blonde), but her forty-nine-year-old face is pale and sallow and with no make-up. Her battle with her appearance is layered with curly girlishness and a stubborn avoidance of beauty aids, as though she is channeling some inner-child-puritan.

and wanted to scream.

So Hunt a) stubbornly avoids beauty aids while b) dying her hair blonde. I guess she likes exposing herself to the potentially toxic fumes of hair dye out of boredom.

And criticizing her because she is an "older" woman who doesn't make the effort to fit some arbitrary "standard" of beauty. Is this this moron's euphemism for calling women who are close to/at the end of child-bearing age unattractive because they no longer "serve a purpose"?

If we are just going on physical looks for attractiveness (to me, that is only one of many contributing factors), how about noticing that Helen Hunt just looks good period. I think she is lovely. And I think the fact that she seems to be aging naturally and gracefully adds to her attractiveness. To each their own, but I think mature women with wrinkles and laugh lines are much nicer to look at than women who re-create themselves as weird, plasticized versions of their younger selves.

I've noticed that in this stupid hot conservative/ugly liberal argument, there seems to be a trend to support the argument by pitting young (often blonde) women against older women. In a youth obsessed culture like ours, that will make a big difference. There also seems to be a paucity of women of color on the one side of the argument, doesn't there? It makes me wonder if the people arguing this think that there is no room for people of color on that side of the table or actually think that attractive people are overwhelmingly a certain complexion?

Yes, we are human beings and our eye is drawn to aesthetically pleasing people. But I really think that when trying to prove their point, people add to/delete from their respective lists out of ignorance or stupidity. And frankly, these hot con/ugly lib lists can be plainly racist and ageist. I mean Michelle Obama, really? Is a confident, gorgeous, sexy and SMART woman scary? Or is she unattractive because she has all that with dark skin? And Gloria Steinem? She's unattractive because she's in her seventies I guess. And women who don't participate in their very narrow version of "feminine" beauty can by definition never be attractive, right? Because obviously, the very non-stereotypically "girly" Rachel Maddow turns the stomachs of everyone in this forum.

I believe that in such a large population each side really could find enough examples of "Ours are hot, yours are not." I fully admit that I'm biased and think that my side will always have better articulated arguments.

[JesusFightClub]

I assure you, Austin, I have a dodgy looking face. :oops:

I had two mates in childhood who were both, by convention, "ugly". One was fat, although she had a lovely pretty face and I thought she looked great. I do not think she had any conscious politics at all. The other was quite startling looking and called herself a Conservative because her parents were. She was a nice, kind person despite the politics and reached out a hand to help anyone.

I have a strong suspicion politics is not anything to do with attractiveness. I would also say both my childhood friends showed their basic decency and likeability in their behaviour and their friendly natures. That can make the strangest looking person beautiful, and I think Kidist...probably doesn't get that.

(Also, why Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Of course she's not a supermodel, she was born in 1933. It doesn't detract in the slightest from her achievements.)

[JesusFightClub]

ETA (because I never work out edits) one of the most stunning women I know is an anarchist.

Bite on that, Kidist.

[desertvixen]

I don't have to be like Kidist, and "see" physical ugliness because I disagree with the person, or because I imagine their ugly views have coarsened them.

If they are also physically ugly, I see it as mostly coincidence, or a hard life. If not, I can mourn the fact that a pretty face is wasted on such filthy people, or worry that the pretty face will take in the unwary.

I've edited this over and over, trying to make sure it doesn't sound hand-slappy, because I really don't mean it that way. It's just that the "their inner ugliness has made them ugly on the outside" thing always puzzles me.

I think it's more worry that the unwary will be drawn in by attractiveness, in some cases - this has been raised many times on FJ in the context of fundie family blogs (like the Muncks) that look fun, and not scary.

For me, personally, when it's someone whose views I find really detestable, I can't find them attractive EVEN if they fit the bill because of the things they espouse. Maybe that makes me shallow.

I agree that the point of Kidist's post is to attack women who aren't doing "enough" to remain attractive - although I agree with the posters who say they prefer to see women aging as they age, and not fighting it - and therefore upholding their place in the scheme of things.

[thoughtful]

(Also, why Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Of course she's not a supermodel, she was born in 1933. It doesn't detract in the slightest from her achievements.)

Absolutely.

Not to mention that this is a lovely face:

I'm over 20 years younger than she is, and am not in constant pain, as I suspect she may be. And I don't expect people to find me "pretty." I'm busy living my life and trying to do good work.

I agree with those who have said that the focus on looks, for women, is just part of the larger, patriarchal problem of our being valued for sex and procreation.

[desertvixen]

(Also, why Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Of course she's not a supermodel, she was born in 1933. It doesn't detract in the slightest from her achievements.)

Because accomplishments like law school and being on the Supreme Court aren't IMPORTANT if you're not hot and blond to go with it. /fuck that

Pretty uniformly on these, the liberal women are almost always all older - the lineup usually goes something like Hillary, Janet Reno, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Gloria Steinem - and the conservative women are all of the Ann Coulter type - younger, blonder, more hateful. Laura Ingraham is on any number of them.

[thoughtful]

I think it's more worry that the unwary will be drawn in by attractiveness, in some cases - this has been raised many times on FJ in the context of fundie family blogs (like the Muncks) that look fun, and not scary.

But that was actually my point. I do have that worry, and that's not what I was talking about.

What puzzles me is the insistence that Zsu, for example, is repulsively ugly (speaking purely physically), and is so specifically because she is hateful.

She's aging badly, for lots of reasons, I'm sure.

I don't question the idea that obnoxious people do sometimes make themselves physically repulsive -- I found a picture to make my point above, of the Pearls looking clean and nice. But I'm also the person who made and posted this:

because he happens to look as gross as he is, in that pic.

For me, personally, when it's someone whose views I find really detestable, I can't find them attractive EVEN if they fit the bill because of the things they espouse. Maybe that makes me shallow.

Oh, no -- I understand that, and I said the same. I am disgusted when I see pics of Doug, PP, etc. because I know who they are, so I can't be objective about their faces. I was just saying that, if I didn't know their innards, I wouldn't find those features "ugly."

It's the idea that inner ugliness will make a person get physically uglier that I question.

If that were true, we'd have a lovely way to tell the nasties from the rest of us -- they would look physically ugly, and the rest of us would be raving beauties.

But life isn't like that.

[Effie]

Assuming feminists = liberal women, I would say this is a pretty-looking bunch of people.

http://teenage-feminist.blogspot.se/201 ... inism.html

[Fargood]

This is interesting. I disagree with the liberal = ugly/conservative = pretty dichotomy, but I will say that in my office, there are two conservative women and four liberal women. The two conservative women absolutely put more effort into their outward appearance. More time and money spent on clothes, shoes, make-up, etc. I think it is likely a coincidence, but the four liberal women in my office are far too pragmatic to waste time on something like the perfect matching shoe to a certain outfit. They're just not vapid enough to give a crap about the perceived importance of style.

The liberal women in my office are more worried about doing their jobs well and raising their kids to be good people. They put their time and effort into substantive pursuits like volunteering, professional development or family activities. Shopping, make-up application and Pinterest are not high priorities.

[SisiL78]

Audrey Hepburn was a total bleeding heart liberal and one of the most beautiful women I have seen.

[Esther]

Most classic Hollywood actresses - which Kidist seems to idealize here - were pretty damn liberal. Katharine Hepburn would absolutely LOATHE her blog. She's kind of nuts, but then, what's new?

Also, I really don't get why people usually hold up Hillary Clinton as the token Ugly Liberal Woman. I think Hillary is, even at almost 65, a nice-looking woman. Not that it matters or impacts her (awesome) achievements, or anything. She just seems to me like a random person to use as an example.

[thoughtful]

Also, I really don't get why people usually hold up Hillary Clinton as the token Ugly Liberal Woman. I think Hillary is, even at almost 65, a nice-looking woman. Not that it matters or impacts her (awesome) achievements, or anything. She just seems to me like a random person to use as an example.

I think some pictures of Hillary Clinton have gone around that are not flattering because she was serious, exhausted, working hard, looking down, etc.

Y'know, the stuff that happens when you are in an incredibly stressful job, trying to keep your country in good shape -- the kind of solemn picture that would probably be admired if taken of a man.

[itsnikki05]

The blog is called Camera Lucida. The person is named Kidist Paulos Asrat.

Here she is:

She was born in Ethiopia, now lives in Canada, and has myriad views that are odd and bigoted.

She fixates on the idea that Asian women are stealing white men.

She seems to believe that anyone who doesn't have her exact aesthetic has no taste.

She doesn't seem to have a social or family life.

She hates gay people.

She imagines that people in public services (like waitstaff) are silently agreeing with her prejudice, when they act neutral, are pleasant, or just continue doing their job until they can get away from her.

She hates black people -- she is from a group called the Amhara, and considers herself "of Caucasoid derivation." :roll:

amnation.com/vfr/archives/015068.html

She is one of the people discussed here about whom some people find themselves wondering whether to pity her more than scorn her, because it does seem like there's something very wrong there.

Folks, did I miss anything? :D

Ah. I don't think she's necessarily ugly in looks, but her personality? UGH.

(Also-- I think Helen Hunt is pretty. She is not "Hollywood hot", but she is regular pretty. Nothing wrong with that!)

[clicker dies]

Ah yes, calling women who do not fit into the unattainable, twisted media ideal of what constitutes pretty fucking ugly is totes mature, Kidist. Whatever the hell type of name that is. Let's judge them not by character but by how coiffed they are (because that's how the Bible says we should. Oh wait, doesn't it say to not judge at all?).

Not amused :|

[Kitty]

So, we should judge liberal and conservative men by their character and ideas, but we should judge women doing the exact same thing by their looks. God bless the patriarchy.

Anyway, conservatives are proud of how hot Sarah Palin is, but she's... less than competent, something a LOT of conservatives can agree with us on! I'd much rather take Hillary Clinton... who isn't really that unattractive, but of course she's 65 and looks the part, and who would want to vote for THAT? Of course another ugly liberal :roll:

Of course, conservative women buy into the patriarchy, and even if they're only 'fiscal' conservatives, they have to put a lot of effort into their outward appearance to be taken seriously by conservative men. Liberal women generally don't have the problem of needing to be media-approved gorgeous just to get men on their side to take them seriously. It's all about patriarchy, and I look forward to the day when no news source posts an article focusing on a female politician's appearance, even in the 'entertainment' or 'lifestyle' sections.

[caito]

lmfao

At least we don't have to claim Mann Coulter.

[JesusFightClub]

Ah yes, calling women who do not fit into the unattainable, twisted media ideal of what constitutes pretty fucking ugly is totes mature, Kidist. Whatever the hell type of name that is. Let's judge them not by character but by how coiffed they are (because that's how the Bible says we should. Oh wait, doesn't it say to not judge at all?).

Not amused :|

Her name's Ethiopian, so I don't think we can blame her for that. (It always strikes me a bit weird too, because I'm thinking "Kid-ist" and separating the two bits. :think: Strange how names don't always translate across cultures.)

Aside from that totally agree.

[mkitten]

Ah, Kidist, never change...

http://cameraluc.blogspot.com/2012/10/c ... ctive.html

Hmm, I can think of a lot of ugly conservative women, Dr. Laura, Jan Brewer, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Maggie Gallagher, Virginia Foxx...

And Kidist is no Halle Berry.

Jan Brewer. Wagging her finger at the President of the United States. Eek. She looks even scarier (personality wise, she's downright rude to her staff) in person than she does as portrayed by the media (I used to work in one of her offices right after Naplotano left.) She is just not a nice person at all.

[AmyP]

Her name's Ethiopian, so I don't think we can blame her for that. (It always strikes me a bit weird too, because I'm thinking "Kid-ist" and separating the two bits. :think: Strange how names don't always translate across cultures.)

Aside from that totally agree.

I know someone with this name. It is pronounced Keedees, with the accent on the second syllable. The t is generally silent.

[AmyP]

This is interesting. I disagree with the liberal = ugly/conservative = pretty dichotomy, but I will say that in my office, there are two conservative women and four liberal women. The two conservative women absolutely put more effort into their outward appearance. More time and money spent on clothes, shoes, make-up, etc. I think it is likely a coincidence, but the four liberal women in my office are far too pragmatic to waste time on something like the perfect matching shoe to a certain outfit. They're just not vapid enough to give a crap about the perceived importance of style.

The liberal women in my office are more worried about doing their jobs well and raising their kids to be good people. They put their time and effort into substantive pursuits like volunteering, professional development or family activities. Shopping, make-up application and Pinterest are not high priorities.

So women who appear to care for their appearance must be doing so at the expense of their jobs and kids? And are doing so because they are not noble, high minded, or engaging in substantive pursuits? Wow. Those are some pretty scathing value judgements to make based on someones appearance and political affiliation.

[JesusFightClub]

I know someone with this name. It is pronounced Keedees, with the accent on the second syllable. The t is generally silent.

Thank you! If I meet someone with that name I will now know how to say it. (I'm hoping not to meet Kidist from Camera Lucida...)

A strange thing which once happened. I taught a class of foreign students once and told them my mum's name, they were a bit confused and I translated it, they were all like "How nice". I told them my dad's name and they fell about the bit laughing. Apparently "It's a dog's name".

My dad is not called Rex or Rover. Or Fido, for that matter :lol:

[clicker dies]

^ Ah! That's what I get for not reading background info. I just assumed it was a username for somebody who was super into kids. Not in an inappropriate way, just in a quiverfull way.

So I retract my statement about her name and claim ignorance.