Carping
Small point. Very small. Small, picky, fussy point. Obsessive point. Small, minor, not that important in the great scheme of things point. So sue me, I make small points sometimes. So I’m not cosmic.
Guy named Sebastian Rotella in the LA Times, an article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Minor point.
Working into the evening in a well-guarded office in parliament, Ali retains the elegance and charisma that propelled her from refugee to political star. She wears a black pantsuit and sweater on a small, slender frame. She has oval eyes in a long, delicate face set off by pearl earrings.
Okay okay okay, it’s a minor point, I’m sorry, but god it sounds so stupid. And in sounding that stupid it also sounds patronizing and point-missing and trivializing and – just plain fokking stupid. It should go like this:
Working into the evening in a well-guarded office in parliament, Ali retains the elegance and charisma that propelled her from refugee to political star. She wears a black pantsuit and sweater on a small, slender frame. She has oval eyes in a long, delicate face set off by pearl earrings. So I asked her to go out for a drink with me, and when she declined, I tried to stick my hand down that sweater I mentioned, and when she told me to stop it, I tried to push her against the wall, and those guards I mentioned threw me out. So much for that interview.
And then a word connoting a female dog, if not a word for the female genitalia.
I mean – come on – how much smarts does it take to interview a woman MP with strong views on women’s rights without going into dribbling raptures on her frame and the shape of her face and her earrings?! I ask you! I know this is a familiar, yawn-inducing question, but all the same, it does kind of jump out at you – would anyone describe a male MP in such a ridiculous way?
It’s a good article otherwise, so it is a small point. Good luck with the work, Ayaan.
As I sat down to talk with Mahatma Gandhi I couldn’t help noticing how his slender yet shapely buttocks were just discernible beneath those elegant robes that he draped so casually about his lithe succulent frame. He struck a “humble” pose that nonetheless suggested just a soupcon of insoucience and bad-boy naughtiness. Later on during the talk, when he adjusted those elegant spartan robes about his hips, one couldn’t help but notice (as we were obviously meant to) that he wasn’t exactly lacking in the more masculine attributes either. Yessir, he definitely had it all. What an absolutely scrumptious little package. Oh yeah, something about India and independence, too.
You know, this kind of stuff is such standard operating procedure for even the most serious masintream media that I have to admit that I just glanced over it-but you’re right, it is silly, patronizing, even offensive.
Karl, as always, you crack me up.
Brian, who needs to read more perceptively
LOL, Karl! Leave the poor, succulent(???!!) Mahatma out of your fantasies.
Seriously, a quick physical description to flesh out character, lifestyle is okay.The mahatma’s ascetic body, scant clothing and props like the walking stick are often mentioned. No one (but Karl) is objectifying or fetishing him when they do so.
I do think that descriptions of Hirsi’s clothing is in itself not inappropriate – imagine the surprise if a muslim feminist came to the interview swathed in a burka- if it is relevant to establishing her persona.
It is just that when it comes to pretty women, some male writers lose the plot. Probably, it happens almost unconsciously, but every decorative detail is noted. It is distracting and irrelevant but does it really diminish Hirsi to note that she is good-looking woman?
Karl,
LOL…
This writing accurately reflect the situation business women speak about, where the process of meeting a person even on business at a high level will include the handshake AND the male eyes flicking down, followed by a silent approval and categorisation going on so transparently that she can hear the gears turning while it completes.
It is really ordinary journalistic writing, not to be excused but it reflects the reality – that attractiveness matters for all people. With men it can be coded as ‘charismatic’, ‘engaging’, ‘handsome’ and negatively loaded with ‘immaculately-groomed, Armani-suited and extremely plausible’. I remember reading a liberal hit-piece on an NRA official, female; the description of her in her business suit included the intellectual information that she was ‘heavy-breasted’.
“AND the male eyes flicking down, followed by a silent approval and categorisation going on so transparently that she can hear the gears turning while it completes.”
Ironically, muslims see this as problem too. They think ALL men ‘see’ ALL postpubescent women at ALL times like this and have prescribed a corrective for all this lewd eyeballing: drape the woman up in drab robes. Muslim ‘feminists’ who have covered up indeed gush at their relief at having reclaimed their ‘dignity,respect, self-worth’ from men. I suspect, they may also tut-tut over descriptions of pearl earrings as having ‘trivialised’,patronised and even ‘offended’ Hirsi.
Me, I am just wary of any formulation (dress, pc language)that seeks to asexualise or hypersexualise (sides of the same coin)male-female interactions.
Completely cracked me up, Karl. Probably because it’s so true. True in the sense that men often really can’t help it (looking and noticing) and while they should be more aware when writing about it afterwards, the fairest thing to do would be to give us our own medicine back. The LA Times guy could have noticed and noted, but without going into what OB called “dribbling raptures.” It’s not so much that it’s a small point, but can anyone objectively adjudicate where the boundaries are or should be? The question that should also then be asked is, to what extent do female journalists go into physical descriptions of their female interview subjects? And male, come to think of it.
And, for the record, I did read the whole piece before OB commented on it here and I did notice that he’d been so attentive to her looks and I did wonder whether this was the right place for it or had been overdone.
Extract from the recent interview with Chomsky
“He works here as a professor of linguistics, a sort of Clark Kent alter ego to his activist Superman, in a nubbly old jumper, big white trainers and a grandad jacket with pockets designed to accomodate a Thermos. There is a half-finished packet of fig rolls on the desk”
Spot the difference.
Afterthought: And there’s also the “sad but probably true” aspect that what will go through some people’s minds, reading about a campaigner for Islamic women’s lib, is the question of whether she’s campaigning from inside or outside. Not inside or outside Islam, but inside or outside female sexual competition. And in that “sad but probably true” scenario, the answer to that question will affect people’s perception of her, no matter how wrong we may all agree that that is. Remember how the Andrea Dworkin obits couldn’t keep themselves from indulging in the negative physical descriptions of her?
The Chomsky bit makes me think, first of all, that what is being done here (and probably in many other cases – shit, just realised it’s been done to me, too) is that after the journalist decides what his basic approach to his subject is, he (yes, or she, I meant) puts in certain physical markers that go with that approach, that physically, more tangibly, back up what is being said elsewhere more intellectually. Some may be more ideologically neutral than others, but I don’t think we should hold our breath waiting for journalists to swear off physical descriptions in doing their job, which is to provide a kind of picture in words. And I insist, my shirt wasn’t that tightly stretched over my stomach!
Well, if it makes some of you feel better, I remember an article in one of the Boston papers shortly after the Chuck Stewart incident (he murdered his pregnant wife and blamed it on a “nigger” carjacker) in which a female reporter interviewed Chucky’s younger brother and spent most of the article gushing about how handsome he was with his tall muscular physique and shy winsome smile and big soulful puppy-dog eyes…never mind that he’d had a hand in his sister-in-law’s murder.
Dreamboat!
See, this is exactly why women shouldn’t be allowed to write for major newspapers or conduct interviews for television news programs. They just can’t keep their hormones under control and remain objective.
Glad to see you this pointing out, OB. I think I was struck with the same in a lot of Hirsi Ali interviews and the like – OK, she’s pretty, we all know that she’s pretty, but she’s an activist/politician, for goodness’ sake, let’s stick to the politics.
“She wears a black pantsuit and sweater on a small, slender frame. She has oval eyes in a long, delicate face set off by pearl earrings.”
I think you have overreacted to this statement.
I have a few points. Firstly, does this description appear heroic? Of course not. She wears a black flak jacket on a muscular frame. She has a stiff upper lip over a square chin, set off by the 9mm pistol in her shoulder holster. Now that’s a picture of heroism! The description highlights her courage – a vulnerable ordinary human being, staning up to some swaggering, bragging bully – the best type of hero.
Secondly, why draw the conclusion that this is sexual attraction. Yes, it can be seen as patronising to give the description of women’s dress and looks, if this journalist does not also do the same for men, but how do you know that this journalist does not do that? Or that he is straight, or that slender women are his type?
Thirdly, why draw the conclusion that this is sexual attraction. This could be an aesthetic judgement. Again this can be seen to be patronising or trivialising, but perhaps not. Of course it could be mixed sexual attraction with aesthetic judgement.
Fourthly, even if it is sexual judgement, is it not patronising on your part to assume that he cannot interview her intellect? When you deal with a person you are attracted to, can you not do that?
I normally find that you are a very level headed person, that is, I normally agree with you.
I look forward to your reply.
OB: If you want us to take your opinions seriously, you must first post some glamor shots of yourself on your blog. How can we evaluate your thinking if we don’t even know what you look like?
‘Despite her busy morning of meetings with NLD party members, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi looked vibrant and full of energy when she met with me at 1:30 this afternoon. The fresh flower clipped into her neat bun suggested her unfailing optimism….
Suu Kyi glides into the room, like a cat. Her movements are graceful, elegant. The woman who challenges one of the world’s most repressive military regimes stands only five-foot-four inches.
..”That’s my favorite flower,” she says of jasmine. She rarely appears in public without a bundle pinned behind her ears, adding to her fragrant appeal.”
Another serious woman whose physical beauty is invariably noted, by both male and female writers. A lot of it is silly (non westerners offer the exotic angle too), some of it is embarrassingly over the top, and yes, Karl, all of it should be irrelevant to her cause (though a dramatic face change through poisoning like the Ukraine president’s will certainly up the ante)but some of it undoubtedly helps to add to Aungsan Suu Kyi’s charisma. It offers people an easy and familiar literary cliche that arouses compassion and protectiveness towards her. It is not quite right but it doesn’t seem terribly wrong either.
It is when the physical portrayal is relentlessly negative and intrusive as with Dworkin, the injustice of it all hits home. I’m afraid that I am the sort of compromised feminist who would pick a battle with the second case before the first.
When a politician starts wearing a clownsuit, is it not his intention to make us laugh?
This is just another man charmed into a state of semi-erective abidance when confronted with Hirsi Ali’s primary weapon of purposeful post-feminist (pre-feminist?) sexual compulsion. She’s quite something, is she not? :)
snicker, Karl.
“Ironically, muslims see this as problem too.”
I know, I know – and I even agree with them. Also agree that the hostile versions that Dworkin got are a worse problem. But – I do think the journalist could have been just a little more…hmm…grown up. Aware. Not clueless.
Mike, no, of course, I don’t know. The sexual stuff was mostly sarcastic. But surely it is most unlikely that a male journalist would talk about a small, slender frame or oval eyes in a delicate face set off by earrings, about a male politician (except as a joke or a tease). Perhaps you’ll say ‘no, of course not, people don’t talk about men that way’ – well that’s the point. Then again perhaps you won’t say that – anyway it’s still my point. Women get different treatment. That different treatment is also (arguably) subtly (or not subtly) demeaning. Women are subject to constant reminders that their first duty is to be attractive, and that everyone everywhere has the right and even the duty to grade them on their performance of this duty. That can be a problem, for a lot of reasons.
“But surely it is most unlikely that a male journalist would talk about a small, slender frame or oval eyes in a delicate face set off by earrings, about a male politician (except as a joke or a tease).”
In the event that the male politician was a small-built crossdresser with a partiality for pearl earrings, all journalists would note that down, pronto!
Seriously, though cesperugo appears a windup artist, he is partly right: you often get what you put out. Koizumi, the Japanese premier is noted for his physical appearance- his hairstyle and clothes are obsessively noted down- because he quite obviously is looking to make a point with it. I think we have moved on from expecting only women to look decorative; we now expect all public figures to look good and male politicians are certainly judged on their appearance. Hence the much publicised clintonian (bill) battle with the bulge and Berlusconi’s plastic surgery.
“..and I even agree with them”
You do? I admit I am slightly surprised.
I actually don’t.Goodnight.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with them about the solution. I don’t think there is one – I’m pretty sure there isn’t. But I do think it’s unfortunate (at least in some ways) that males tend to focus on women’s appearance (to put it tactfully) and that women tend to play up to that. I wish girls weren’t hypersexualized at ever younger ages – and so on.
C’mon, Ophelia, don’t be such an ideologue! You know that a male MP or congressman or male senator can and probably has been discribed in such frivolous terms in a public venue.
Most of us probably agree that it seems shallow to focus excessively on externals. But, certainly in the private sphere, who would ever think of denying that physical attractiveness (on a personal level, not in the sense of slavish adherence to standards set by the mass media) plays a part in things like choice of mate? It’s a two-way street, though it’s clear that one lane is much, much wider than the other. Where, and how, does one draw the line between issues of personal preference influenced by looks and where the same impulse has gone overboard in a public arena?
Maybe this is an appropriate link:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Men-See-Women-as-Walking-Hormones-11491.shtml
“You know that a male MP or congressman or male senator can and probably has been discribed in such frivolous terms in a public venue.”
I know that one can and probably has been. Okay – that’s a qualified enough statement that I can agree with it. But so what? It’s not routine, it’s not normal, it’s not the way everyone describes every male MP or congressman or male senator in every article. My point is that that kind of drivel is routine for women.
Let’s see…
Working into the evening in a well-guarded office in parliament, Frist retains the elegance and charisma that propelled him from doctor to political star. He wears a black pantsuit and sweater on a small, slender frame. He has oval eyes in a long, delicate face set off by pearl earrings.
Next time you see a male MP described that way (not in the Onion or Private Eye) please do share.
“I think we have moved on from expecting only women to look decorative; we now expect all public figures to look good and male politicians are certainly judged on their appearance.”
And so much the worse for us. As numerous commentators have pointed out, Abraham Lincoln would never get elected President these days: too “untelegenic”!
I’ve seen a number of articles that concern themselves with the fitness of Gordon Brown to succeed Tony Blair as Prime Minister – every one at some point talks about his appearance (“untelegenic”,”rumpled”,etc.) and usually compares him negatively to Blair. In the age of the sound bite and the staged media event appearance alone becomes even more important for many people.
More important for the people like Rove staging the events, that is.
‘Striding purposefully into the office in parliament, Frist retains the magnetic presence and boyish charm that propelled him from doctor to political star. He wears an expensive black suit that sits well on his broad shoulders and still athletic frame. He has piercing eyes in a square-jawed face set off by a neat haircut.’
Okay, I admit it, a bit purple but not uncommon at all if Frist was indeed an attractive man. Hell, he could be Imran Khan whom the British press used to drool over regularly.
I think we are wired to notice the especially attractive and the especially freaky. That Kim fella from N Korea gets it rather bad over his appearance, and he knows it, despite the non-stop adulation from an entire captive country.
And so much the worse for us. As numerous commentators have pointed out, Abraham Lincoln would never get elected President these days: too “untelegenic”!
I certainly don’t think it is a good thing that image is deemed all that matters by the arbiters of what ‘sells’ but ol Abe could always have the last laugh over the media pundits: people often make shrewd choices.
Yes but the point is that the “striding purposefully” version is less condescending and less infantilizing. Yes, all pols have to be attractive now, I don’t dispute that, but I do dispute the idea that the situations are exactly equivalent.
‘I do dispute the idea that the situations are exactly equivalent.’
No they are not equivalent, women have it worse generally, to much greater harm. But maybe not in this particular case. Infantilising? Because of the focus on the small build? I think you are reading too much into it.
On all of it – all the bits you took out of your version.
Sure, I may be reading too much into it – I said that at the beginning. It may be unimportant. But unimportant is not the same thing as not there at all – I do think it’s there. What’s there? Differential treatment of and attitude to women.
“but ol Abe could always have the last laugh over the media pundits: people often make shrewd choices.”
And they often make idiotic choices. But hey, sometimes things turn out well despite their idiocy, so let’s give two cheers for idiocy.
And in case you’re wondering if this is just sour grapes on my part, I should inform you that I’m a strikingly handsome fellow with a winning personality.
“I’m a strikingly handsome fellow with a winning personality.”
says post-extreme-makeover-Karl
Would you believe scary-looking and obnoxious?
I’ll take scary-looking with a winning personality, Karl.
As I wrote my last comment during lunch break and was interupted, I forgot to make a point that Ms. Ali as described comes across as dressing ordinarily (if smart and businesslike) for Europe and North America. She does not sound glamorous.
I agree that her appearance is irrelevant regarding her opinions, which should be assessed objectively.
At the risk of causing everyone to fall over laughing, I might offer a suggestion that comparison of article purpose, context and intention might actually show that the authrors are not being as complete prats as we assume.
Magazine-style articles in weekend papers have more words to fill out, and ‘atmosphere’ typically includes everything form physical appearance to the family cat. The context and ‘angle’ are generally very stereotyped, and it seems to me that journalists often go out of their way to use positive angles about female public and business figures – UNLESS they are idealogically uncool.
Muslim women who point out the anti-freedom implications of the PC multicultural view of muslim female roles are possibly worse (in PC eyes) than black republican politicians.