Defending Malkin, Ingraham, and Coulter

Amanda linked to (and commented upon) this Michelle Malkin tirade about conservative women, physical appearance, and liberal hypocrisy. Here's how Malkin begins:

Liberals say they want women to be taken seriously in the arenas of government and public policy. They claim they want women to be judged based on their ideas, not their physical appearance.

Unless, of course, those women are conservative.

Case in point: the continued leftist mockery of GOP Rep. Katherine Harris, who is serving her second term in Congress. Before serving in Congress, she was Florida's secretary of state. Before that she was a state Senator, an IBM marketing executive, and a vice president of a commercial real estate firm. She has a Master’s Degree from Harvard University with a specialization in international trade and negotiations.

Despite her credentials, she has been repeatedly ridiculed--not for her ideas or record, but for her physical appearance. It started back in 2000 during the re-count controversy in Florida, when numerous columnists compared Harris to Cruella de Ville, the villain in "101 Dalmatians." The Washington Post published an entire article lampooning Harris’s make-up.

Michelle Malkin, of course, is no stranger to personal insults; like many on the right, she has been quite nasty about Michael Moore's weight.

On the one hand, I dislike ridiculing anyone for their personal appearance.   Obviously, I've risen to the defense of Michael Moore in the past; I get very angry when confronted with right-wing stereotypes about "ugly, unwashed, overweight" feminists.   As a pro-feminist, I'm troubled anytime we at any point on the political spectrum make our opponent's bodies into issues.  I've felt this way for years; I'm old enough to remember being deeply annoyed at the snarky remarks my fellow lefties made about the pearls and sweater sets worn by the godmother of today's right-wing women, the venerable Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

But it's also important to acknowledge the message sent by the appearance of conservative women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin herself.  Amanda refers to an Air America interview with Rachel Maddow:

Maddow made a really good point about the self-presentation of these women, even though she had to climb through the hosts' mockery of them to do it. Her point was that they very deliberately present themselves as almost caricatures of femininity for a very specific reason, which is they are trying to sell themselves as some sort of stereotypical "perfect" woman to a male-dominated conservative audience. Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter all make arguments that would be considered masculine--Coulter especially is good at projecting a general disdain for the very existence of womanhood. Their audience therefore is pretty much guaranteed to be the very kind of people who are most threatened by assertive women, so they dress in a hyper-feminine way to counteract that effect. It works beautifully for them.

Maddow described the way that Ann Coulter presents herself as drag. Maddow was exactly right--Coulter is female, but she is still play-acting at being female much like a drag queen does. But her goals are completely different. A drag queen does that for fun, for play, and in part to sort of fuck with gender roles. Coulter does it for essentially wicked reasons--to reinforce gender roles, to exaggerate them and to trap other women with them. It's not bad to comment on costumery in and of itself, it's just bad when you do it to hurt someone who is just being him/herself and not harming anyone else. But female conservative pundits wear these costumes with the end goal of quite a bit of harm, so I don't see the problem with criticizing them for that.

The bold emphases are mine. 

I hear what Amanda's saying, and part of me agrees. On the other hand, as a feminist, I am very wary of ascribing intent to women based on their dress!  We've fought for decades against the notion that revealing dress is always a sign of sexual availability.   We've struggled to bury the notion that a woman in a miniskirt is "asking for it"; we've been justifiably outraged when rape and sexual assault are condoned because of a women's provocative outfit.  What I object to about the Maddow/Marcotte theory is their certainty about the intent of the likes of Coulter and Malkin.  Must their feminine dress be a charade, a costume designed to send a specific message? Is it not possible that these pundits simply prefer dressing that way? 

As a pro-feminist man, I support the right of women to have sovereignty over their own bodies.  (How that sits uneasily with my waffling pro-life stance is a question I'm still struggling with).  Part of that sovereignty is the right of each woman to determine the ultimate meaning of her outer appearance.  Of course, the outside world will make judgments; that's to be expected.   But for those of us who have fought hard for women to be free to wear miniskirts or long pants, to wear high heels or combat boots, to shave their heads or have spectacularly-coiffed tresses -- and to be free to do so without judgment --  it's dangerously inconsistent to be so certain about what signals our conservative sisters intend to send to the world with their fashion choices.

I'm not certain that Malkin et al don't make choices about their appearance in line with their ideological agenda.    But I'm not certain that they do, either, and I seriously doubt that anyone else possesses that certainty.  There's plenty of ideological ground on which to critique our conservative sisters; dress and body type and hair style should be off-limits to those of us committed to justice and equality for women.

Comments

[Stephanie]

Hugo, I agree with you ... I guess part of me feels justified targeting their looks because they openly bash the way other people look. Coulter has all but said that liberal women are ugly. Also, when both Coulter and Malkin seem to believe that dark-skinned swarthy looking males deserve to be locked up, it's very difficult to then believe that their looks are off-limits for discussion.

I do think Amanda has a point too. The way Coulter and Malkin look and dress is deliberate and appeals to a conservative crowd who I doubt would tolerate that kind of punditry from an older, overweight woman.

[Hugo]

Perhaps, Stephanie. But then our task is not to bash the women who dress to accomodate the prejudices of their audience, but rather to attack those prejudices directly.

[craichead]

test

[Stephanie]

Good point. I try to do that too.

[NancyP]

You all are forgetting one thing. These women consider themselves to be In Show Biz, and dress accordingly. Case in point: Ingraham was the only woman in a group photo of "young conservatives" on the cover of a Sunday NY Times Magazine. All the men wore conservative dark suits and ties. Ingraham wore a leopard print miniskirt practically up to her crotch and fishnet hose and heels. This was a great outfit for Saturday night "clubbing" with intent to "hook up" immediately thereafter. It was not a great outfit for the work world. The male equivalent of her outfit would have been ultratight pants showing a bulge, plus a tight white teeshirt and maybe a hankerchief signalling sexual tastes - in other words, 1980 gay clones partying. In the work world, sexualized attire is considered inappropriate, and clearly the men in the photos wanted to be viewed as serious workers. Ingraham, however, positioned herself as "entertainment", and wore an outfit expected for women who comment on Entertainment Tonight or other celeb. gossip shows, but not expected for an expert on public issues, or as the lawyer she is.

I have resented these "pundettes", because they don't present a professional, sexually non-charged appearance, and thus contribute to the impression that women all use their sexuality to get ahead at work. This may be a generational thing - I am middle-aged, and remember when there were few women role models in my field.

[NancyP]

I should add that making a career in TV news and commentary requires as much youth and tits and ass for women as making a career as a Hollywood actress. So these women, although regressive, are doing the realistic thing for their careers. It's ok for Rush Limbaugh to be fat, it'n NOT ok for female commentators to appear over age 37 unless they have been in the field essentially forever and are icons (Barbara Walters). Molly Ivins, a very funny commentator, tanked after about 4 nights since the viewers or the producer were not about to put up with looking at a plump ordinary-looking 50 year old woman.

[Hugo]

Agreed, Nancy. But is the blame more rightly placed on the culture or on those women who choose to play by the culture's rules?

We've got enough ammunition to attack these pundettes, as you call 'em, without going after their bodies and their hair. Even if they reject sisterhood, they are still our sisters.

[rose]

I was offended by the comments made by the media about Harris's makeup during the 2000 recount. It seemed obvious that she had made an error in judgement. What pissed me off is that every one of these giggleheads is perfectly aware of how common the mistake is among themselves, and the learning curve they had to go through not to look like a clown. They did the same thing to Kerry about his orange makeup. I resent the feigned ignorance they show to excuse their giggling. We are not as stupid as they wish we were.

[Mr. Bad]

I had to snicker when I read this bit from Amanda: "Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter all make arguments that would be considered masculine--Coulter especially is good at projecting a general disdain for the very existence of womanhood. Their audience therefore is pretty much guaranteed to be the very kind of people who are most threatened by assertive women, so they dress in a hyper-feminine way to counteract that effect. It works beautifully for them."

Ah yes, the tired, threadbare canard that non-feminist, conservative men are somehow "threatened by," "intimidated by," blah blah blah assertive women. The kind of guys Amanda associates with (i.e., feminist men) might be so affected, but not one single man that I've ever associated with has been so affected.

I am a conservative man and I associate with conservative men. I know that Amanda is not conservative, and thus I think it's safe to assume that she doesn't associate with conservative men - or for that matter, conservative women - so it seems clear that her assumption of how us conservative men feel about various women ("assertive" or otherwise) is based on predjudice and stereotypes, therefore, I got an even bigger chuckle at Hugo's comment: "But then our task is not to bash the women who dress to accomodate the prejudices of their audience, but rather to attack those prejudices directly."

Except apparently when those predjudices are in line with your own.

Amanda is clearly predjudiced, yet you laud her 'analysis' of the issue at hand. Seems to me that you're not being consistent here Hugo.

Let tell you all how it is re. how us conservative men feel about this issue: The silly notion that men are "threatened by strong, powerful women" is a myth.

And further, after the lengthy debate over "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics (including thought patterns, which specific arguments are based on), to have Amanda so freely and easily describe the conservative womens' arguments as "masculine" - apparently with no irony intended - is, well, deliciously ironic.

Amamda continues: "Maddow described the way that Ann Coulter presents herself as drag. Maddow was exactly right--Coulter is female, but she is still play-acting at being female much like a drag queen does. But her goals are completely different. A drag queen does that for fun, for play, and in part to sort of fuck with gender roles. Coulter does it for essentially wicked reasons--to reinforce gender roles, to exaggerate them and to trap other women with them. It's not bad to comment on costumery in and of itself, it's just bad when you do it to hurt someone who is just being him/herself and not harming anyone else. But female conservative pundits wear these costumes with the end goal of quite a bit of harm, so I don't see the problem with criticizing them for that."

I can't know for certain, but it's hard for me to believe that even Amanda actually believes what she writes above. IMO she's just using this as an excuse to diss conservative women and men. After all, again, what the hell does she really about how conservatives - men or women - think and feel?

And finallly, Hugo writes: "But is the blame more rightly placed on the culture or on those women who choose to play by the culture's rules?"

Well Hugo, what ever happened to personal responsibility? I assume that you consider those women to be fully mature adults, so are they or are they not responsible for their own choices and behavior? Using your 'logic,' the behavior of the average Joe and Jane of the Jim Crow south is excusable because they were simply "play(ing) by the culture's rules."

Uh huh. Whatever you say man.

[mythago]

But then our task is not to bash the women who dress to accomodate the prejudices of their audience, but rather to attack those prejudices directly.

Sorry, can't agree. If Ann Coulter says "Listen to me! I'm a hot blonde!" then what is wrong with responding with "Hot like a swamp cooler is hot"?

That's a far cry from sneering that Michelle Malkin gets by on her tits, or that conservative women who *don't* play on their appearance should still be judged on it.

It's called "hoist by your own petard," I believe. I don't judge Maggie Gallagher or Danielle "Every woman but me ought to take her husband's last name" Crittenden on their looks, because they haven't put those on the table as a mark of their worth or credibility.

[NancyP]

If you are talking about media manipulation, you critique their dress. If you are trying to teach a teenage girl how to dress for a job, you critique their dress. Sorry, I don't see presenting yourself as sexualized as professional. At least one "pundette" is a lawyer, and knows what appropriate dress is for courtroom or negotiations with opposing lawyers. I can tell you that dressing provocatively in such situations is likely to get you a reprimand from the judge. And I would hope that the male lawyer wearing ultratight clothes showing off his well-hung-ness would also be told to go home and return in a suit and tie. Hugo, you just don't have the experience of having to prove that your general category of human is worthy of a particular job. I do, and thus I feel that it is entirely appropriate for me to slap down some unprofessional-looking woman for advertising to all and sundry, "it's not my brains that got me the job, it's my willingness to be bedded". These women are adults, and they should stand on their dignity - after all, they are supposed to have good educations.

There are also lots of policy criticisms to be made about the "pundettes" ' stances. But it seems self evident that the conservative women TV commentators are trying to sell themselves using their sexuality, and also self evident that male TV commentators don't need to sell themselves using their sexuality. Hello! The assumed audience for the talking heads shows is male, and the advertisers want male middle and upper class eyes viewing the talking heads shows. The producers assume that men want to see babes, and men who are not serious competitors for babes.

[NancyP]

All that said above, I do agree that some, mostly male, leftie blog commenters go way overboard. Calling Malkin a Filipino hooker is simply vile. Ditto the derogatory comment about Coulter being an ugly transwoman (obnoxious comment on a gay-friendly site that by rights ought also to be transgender-safe).

I think you will all agree that my calling Coulter and Ingraham unprofessional-looking and a detriment to career women is a different animal altogether.

[Hugo]

I hear what you're saying, Nancy and Mythago, but again, I don't think I've been shown the irrefutable evidence that these pundettes are dressing themselves with a specific goal in mind, beyond marketability.

Mr. Bad, I've addressed the personal responsibility issue before (see my "Sisterhood is easier in winter" post on the sidebar). I'm not absolving these women of agency; I am saying that when we direct our anger towards individuals rather than towards the systems that produce them, we miss the forest for the trees.

I'm also wary of the assumption that to be professional is to be desexualized. Somehow -- a post for another day, perhaps -- the rigidity of the formula (sexually appealing = unprofessional and not deserving of respect) bugs me.

[mythago]

I can tell you that dressing provocatively in such situations is likely to get you a reprimand from the judge.

It certainly won't get you taken seriously by any of your fellow attorneys, much less the judge. I am in a pretty laid-back and liberal legal community, and the whole 'cute thing in short skirts' is a sign of a new, young female lawyer who is still very excited about being in her 20s. It's not something that makes a judge rule in her favor or get a senior partner to give her an important memo to draft.

[mythago]

but again, I don't think I've been shown the irrefutable evidence that these pundettes are dressing themselves with a specific goal in mind, beyond marketability.

Sorry, cross-posted. I can't speak to the others, but I remember Ann Coulter hitting the big time back when I was in law school, and she very much rode on the schtick of being a cute blonde AND a brainy conservative. (She wasn't quite as much of a wackaloon back then.) There was a larger group of Bright Young Things, as I recall, so it qualified as a Trend.

And if you want 'irrefutable evidence,' would you explain to me why Coulter still, as a middle-aged woman presenting herself as an educated pundit, wears miniskirts?

Oh, and I suppose you recall the kerfluffle not long ago, where Redneckfeminist responded to a conservative blogger's whining about the loss of cute young flight attendants (and bemoaning the current non-cuteness of flight attendants) by linking to a rather unattractive photo of said blogger.

[Mr. Bad]

You all seem to think that it's only conservative women who use their sexuality to sell their political product, but it just ain't so. What about Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, or The Dixie Chicks? Or guys like George Clooney?

It seems to me that for every "hot conservative chick" you might identify, one could identify a "hot liberal guy" who delivers the left's message. Now, since I don't pay much attention to "hot leftist guys" (or "hot conservative chicks" for that matter), I can't cite all the examples, but I think you get what I mean.

[Hugo]

Well, Mr. Bad, here on the left we not only have Mr. Clooney, we have such handome progressive wags as Al Franken, Michael Moore, and my beloved Dennis Kucinich.

Mythago, I don't get it. Why can't a middle-aged educated woman wear a miniskirt? How, precisely, does it advance the feminist agenda to ridicule her for doing so? I don't recall the Redneckfeminist kerfluffle, but again, am thoroughly unwilling to make an issue out of the sartorial choices of my opponents.

I've defended Andrea Dworkin before on this blog, and long before her death considered her looks strictly out of bounds for discussion. I'll extend exactly the same courtesy to Coulter. Ideologically, I'm a good deal closer to Andrea, but I don't share her profound uneasiness with women who are apparently comfortable with public displays of sexuality.

[Mr. Bad]

mythago wrote: "And if you want 'irrefutable evidence,' would you explain to me why Coulter still, as a middle-aged woman presenting herself as an educated pundit, wears miniskirts?"

Dang myth, did you really have to do that to us?! For me, the vinyl is a lot more disturbing than the hemline ;)

That said, how do you know that's a recent picture of her. And besides, that's a photo on her website. Does she really dress like that during on-air interviews, etc.?

Sorry for the thread drift.

Hugo, I hear you, but the individual is part of the system, and IMO it's individuals who are responsible for maintaining or changing the system. To me, your response still sounds like a cop-out. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Mr. Bad]

Ah yes Hugo, Mike "Stupid White Men," and Al "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Far Idiot" Franken. What was it you were saying about conservatives picking on people for their physical attributes?

And here on the right we have George W. "Chimp" Bush, the aforementioned Rush "big, fat, drug addict" Limbaugh, et al.

What's your point?

[Hugo]

My point is that both left and right have an extraordinary number of loud MALE pundits who have achieved considerable success without being considered good-looking. I don't think one side of the political spectrum has a "better-looking" set of advocates; I do think we have very few women who are afforded an opportunity to speak on the public stage who aren't also considered attractive.

But you and I are both headed for thread drift, so let's right this ship and head back on to the subject of Coulter, Malkin, and whether or not their appearance is fair game for feminist progressives.

[mythago]

And besides, that's a photo on her website.

Exactly. This isn't a photo somebody took of her at a latex-dress party, or a social outing when she was a young'un. This is a photo (taken at a courthouse, looks to be) that she selected and posted on the 'photos' section of her website.

Of course there are liberals who sling mud at conservatives based on looks--that's equally pathetic. Though as far as Rush Limbaugh goes, it was well before his currently-lean period that he was suggesting 'hip size' be a statistic on 'feminist trading cards,' so I can't get too worked up about people dissing *his* appearance.

Does anybody pay attention to Jane Fonda anymore?

Mythago, I don't get it. Why can't a middle-aged educated woman wear a miniskirt?

Of course you get it, Hugo. We're not talking about a middle-aged woman wearing a miniskirt at a 'sexy legs' social event, but a middle-aged woman wearing a miniskirt because she's trying to draw attention to her intellectual position with the same "look! half-dressed babe!" message she used fifteen years ago. That's not sexy; it's just undignified.

[Hugo]

That's not sexy; it's just undignified.

My goodness, Mythago, maybe I should think about all of my pics on this site...  Is my credibility as a teacher compromised by this?  Or this?  Or this?  I'd like to think not.

...

I don't like the ageism I sense here.

[stanton]

I have mentioned, a number of times, how some feminists carry an unwarranted conviction that they know the motivations and intentions of persons who refuse to accept their versions of reality. Amanda is among the most vocal of these, but there are many others to be found in the blogosphere. It is interesting that they don't seem to understand how arrogant this is. (And, to be fair, it must be admitted that feminists have no lock on this brand of pomposity, and probably most feminists are not guilty of it.)

Hugo, I appreciate that you want to bring integrity to the discussions, and you would prefer that your own feminist side be the ones to claim the moral high ground. You correctly observe that such attacks as these make that impossible. I feel the same way when I see posters on MRA sites ranting and frothing mindlessly about feminists, making it easy for the Amandas out there to jump in with their own rants. This is one of the few times I have seen a feminist calling out one of their own on such behaviors, and I commend you for it. Perhaps, coming from within the ranks as it were, it will be more acceptable.

Sneering and ridicule are rhetorical tools, to be sure, but they are best left to those who have no better ones at their disposal, IMHO. I appreciate that you don't feel the need for them.

[mythago]

I don't like the ageism I sense here.

It's ageism to suggest that young professionals get cut a little slack on inappropriate dress, but by the time you're past 25 you should know better?

And Hugo, the day you start saying we should listen to you because you're a sexy Christian in shorts, I'll consider giving you a rough ride about the photos.

stanton, I don't see that turning people's own standards against them is 'low ground'. Calling Michele Malkin racist and sexist names is low. Pointing out that a conservative who rails about unattractive feminists isn't herself such a hot piece of property? Isn't that more like popping a hypocrite's bubble?

[Hugo]

Mythago, I'll be sure not to refer to myself in such a fashion.

I think we're talking past each other here, albeit in a pleasantly civil manner.

I'd also, Stanton, like to say that for the most part, I find Amanda remarkably thoughtful. I think she was out of bounds in this one particular post. Many of my feminist allies have been quite candid about taking me to task when they've disagreed with me, and I feel comfortable doing so with them. I see the feminist movement as anything but monolithic, with ample room for friendly disagreement.

I'm glad you're back, BTW.