Friday 16 August 2013

Unexamined Prejudices and Things Best Left Unsaid

Years ago I heard someone who claimed to have been a test tube baby talking on the radio. She said the best thing about being such a person - apart from actually being alive, of course - was that you never had to accept that your parents might actually have had sex. I think most people would agree that acknowledging to yourself that your relatives have been involved in Ugandan activities (a Private Eye phrase that Wikipedia claims was invented by James Fenton) is something most of us would rather not do.

Similarly, the majority of people would very much like never to have to think about their politicians in any state but fully dressed and working hard at dull, government affairs. As far as I am concerned, it was this - the introduction of the subject of sex into the arena - rather than the issue of whether or not he was showing respect to a woman that bothered me about Australia's Leader of the Opposition's idiotic decision to mention a candidate's supposed 'sex appeal'.

Of course, the possession of sex appeal is not something that has any bearing on whether someone will be competent as a politician. On the other hand, it is dishonest to pretend that a woman's good looks are not noticed by those around her. I don't believe anyone in Australia who's seen her has not immediately thought that Kate Ellis is far and away the prettiest woman in the House of Reps. What is more, I bet her life is a great deal easier than it would be if she was short and fat.

In fact, I believe the worst sexism in political life is not to be found in the utterances of well-meaning but nittish men in their fifties who haven't yet understood that they are supposed to pretend they don't notice when a woman looks attractive. I believe the worst sexism in political life actually resides in the scorn that people - particularly those on the left - feel free to heap on unattractive female politicians, especially if those female politicians commit the sin not just of being unattractive but also of being on the right.

For example, when I lived in Britain, I was astonished to realise that, of all the ludicrous politicians on offer, Anne Widdecombe - (I was going to put a link under her name, but all the ones I found were so unbelievably foul about her, using combinations of 'fat' and the c*** word lavishly, that I didn't want to give them space) - was singled out as someone who could be routinely scoffed at with utter impunity. She was the regular butt of jokes, involving little more than the mention of her name and a sneering tone, by such 'comedians' as David Mitchell and Marcus Brigstocke. She was an absolutely routine object of mockery on programmes like the News Quiz and the Now Show on Radio 4. There seemed no limit to the verbal cruelty she was subjected to, and it seemed to me that this was, ultimately, because she committed the sin of making no attempt to be a woman interested in attracting the opposite sex. She enraged people by being a dumpy virgin and not having the decency to be ashamed of it.

Here in Australia, Sophie Mirabella is another rather rotund, not enormously attractive woman. I am not suggesting that she is particularly charming. However, I bet she is no less charming than many of her colleagues on both sides of the House. Somehow though, she gets pilloried far more than any other member of the federal parliament. I believe the intensity of venom she attracts is due to the fact that she is a conservative woman who doesn't have a pretty face or a good figure - and yet still has the audacity to assume she has a right to be heard. Were she a man, or a woman who had 'sex appeal', I don't believe her political opponents would dare to be so rude.

Mark Latham's hilariously point missing response to Tony Abbott's 'sex appeal' comments seems to support my theory about the expectations of those on the left. His objection to Abbott's remarks was not that he shouldn't have made them but that the person in question wasn't good looking enough. 'I had a good look at Fiona Scott [the candidate in question]', he told the nation, 'and she doesn't have sex appeal at all.'

Ideally, discrimination based on looks would disappear forever, but humanity is irrationally attracted to beauty. To my mind, the sin of expressing admiration for someone's appearance is a great deal more forgiveable than the sin of dismissing someone because, to quote Latham, they're 'not that good of a sort'.

7 comments:

  1. Back about 40 years ago, a politician in the Buffalo area was abused for explaining Jack Kemp's election by saying that a lot of women wouldn't mind having his shoes under their beds. Kemp was a handsome, athletic man, just retired from professional football. And in general looks are an obvious asset to male politicians. You would have to go back a long way in US politics to find a president who was not fairly, sometimes very handsome--Calvin Coolidge or Taft, perhaps. When Taiwan had an election a few years ago, a co-worker born there remarked that both candidates were very good looking.

    The whole practice of dismissing a woman because of her want of looks is alive and well here, and you can expect to hear plenty of it soon if Hillary Clinton decides to run for the presidency. As you say, it is obnoxious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been so very slow to come round to feminism, because the issues pursued under feminism's name were not ones I was interested in (principally having a career in an office building). However, I have finally recognised (and am now furious at the fact) that women deemed unattractive are given about the same respect as people with disabilities - and, unlike people with disabilities, they don't even get lip service, because no-one yet has acknowledged that they are at present treated pretty much as second-class citizens. The advantage of looking decent is, I'd bet, pretty nearly equal to the advantage of being born with parents who care about your education and have the money to ensure you get a good one.

      Delete
    2. Really interesting re presidents being good-looking, by the way - it's true, now I think about it (with the exception of Carter and LBJ and Nixon - actually is this coming apart at the seams, or merely suggesting that looks have become more important as we've entered an increasingly visual age?) And are you implying Hillary Clinton's not attractive? She seems reasonably attractive to me, apart from those awful trouser suits.

      Delete
    3. LBJ was tall and lean, which often will serve as looks for a man; Carter and Nixon were at least not ugly in their younger days.

      I have no strong opinion one way or the other on Hillary Clinton. But I guarantee that there will be offensive jokes about her looks if she runs.

      Delete
    4. You're right, I'm sure. The big revelation for me though is that unattractive women tend to be regarded as having no right to expect to be heard. Simply because Hillary Clinton is a woman, her appearance will be discussed, that goes without saying. However, she is not tubby or ugly - what I've suddenly realised is that if a woman is tubby and ugly most people quite unthinkingly also believe she has no right to be confident or to expect attention when she wants to express her views. A tubby, ugly woman is, it seems to me, considered to be a legitimate figure of fun, and that is as unfair as making anyone with a disability into a figure of fun.

      Delete
  2. What about that truly cardinal sin that is death to any woman's hopes of making it right to the top - that of being too beautiful? Dare I rake out all the old prejudices that I rather think haven't gone away?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, tell me about it, Denis: I could have ruled the world, (hem hem)

      Delete