Earlier this week I asked, mostly in jest, if Saturday Night Live planned to stump for Hillary Clinton on every show from now until the end of primary season.
Judging from last night’s SNL broadcast, the answer to the question is: YES.
As expected, the opening skit was about the presidential primaries. But, what was not expected, instead of taking swings at both candidates (or all three), evenhandedly—as they did brilliantly in 2000—once again the show’s set piece was shamelessly pro Hillary. Masquerading as a segment slamming Clinton’s 3 a.m. commercial, the skit relentlessly pounded Obama, portraying him as a callow idiot who needed mommy Hillary’s help in dealing with everything from foreign affairs emergencies to finding the reset button on the White House heating system.
And in case we missed the point, there was one more little poke at Obama in Weekend Update.
So what’s the deal? Was Lorne Michaels so frustrated by being shut out of the dialog during the writers’ strike that he now wants to control it? Not cool, Lorne. Not cool at all.
(SIDE NOTE TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN: You need to get your candidate’s butt on to either the Daily Show, SNL or Letterman immediately. And, no, it isn’t going to hurt his gravitas factor, in case that’s what you’re thinking. If anything, it’ll help it.)
If the press were ever coddling Barack, they sure ain’t anymore. The profile of Michelle Obama in the most recent New Yorker is a nicely-worded hit piece.
In contrast, the story on Obama on the front page of this morning’s New York Times, while critical, seems well-researched, and even-handed.
When I watched the opening SNL segment, I was pretty upset about the unfairness. However, it eventually revealed, after what seemed like an eternity, that it was a segment from a Clinton smear commercial–but, the greater damage was against Obama. For the first time, I think a lot of liberals are seeing and experiencing the bias and unfairness of media and television that conservatives have been complaining about for years. Welcome to the club.
With an unwatchable retread of a show like SNL gaining traction from Hillary’s campaign, I think it’s time for Fleetwood Mac to regroup and write a new campaign song for her. I’m also looking forward, should she be the nominee and get elected, to Barbra Streisand singing the National Anthem at her inauguration. And we’ll get some of that great poetry that Maya Angelou’s been penning for her line of Hallmark cards. Her campaign slogan should be “We’ve had 8 years of the 21st Century under GWBush and they’ve sucked. Help me build a bridge back to the 20th.” At least with John McCain you get an authentic geriatric case who’s not pretending to be “with it” via recycled cultural artifacts of the ’60s and ’70s.
Also while we’re on the subject of SNL and John McCain, Lorne Michaels has been a consistent donor to McCain over the years (he also gave to Chris Dodd and Al Franken’s Senate race) and McCain’s daughter was an intern at the show. He hasn’t donated to either Hillary or Obama. The guy who’s been writing these skits, Jim Downey, is a Republican and apparently a friend of Ann Coulter’s. Take that for whatever it might be worth in trying to figure out the significance of any “spin” coming out of this tired show.
Thanks for the info, reg, particularly about Downey.
I wish SNL didn’t matter, but it does. As the guy from Time Magazine said on Warren Olney’s To the Point this week, the affect of these shows are, to a great degree, based on a “bank shot.” It’s not so much the viewers who are affected; it happens more on the second bounce, when the sheep-like press and pundits watch SNL, dimly contemplate the two skits that hammer at the message: “you’re mean to Hillary and coddling Obama,” then turn and go after Barack in full attack mode.
Let’s see what comes of the callow inexperience theme of this week’s show.
The thing I noticed about the SNL video, is that, it’s very long for a typical SNL political skit.
What is odd about Hillary’s surge to me; is that I never personally find any of Hillary supporters. I find the Republican Mc Cain crowd, and the Democratic Obama supporters, the Independent Obama supporters. At work, parties or gatherings, I never find a Hillary fan. I guess I will have to go directly to a Hillary fund raiser, to actually see a Hillarista with my very own eyes.
I’m doing a “Reg”. I remember this guy who was on 60 minutes last week; he will probably think the SNL parody is real. At least the SNL skit didn’t continuously use Barack “Hussein” Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/02/ohio-voter-on-60-minutes_n_89476.html
Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, has a dead-on and wryly amusing opinion piece on Hillary, “Go Away? Why Should She?” about the toxic misoginy she’s been subjected to. Not just from Rush Limbaugh, who had the lack of tact to say what lots of people are thinking: Would the country want to watch a woman aging, shriveling into wrinkled ugliness? While men become more dignified and authoritative as they age, women become, well, just old, ugly and things not meant to be seen. (He’s also torn into Pelosi for her presumed facelift, saying the old witch should have just let everyone see her saggy face as it, what is she trying to be, young forever? ) McCain, a dozen years her senior and already old-looking, does not bother Limbaugh or the Republican establishment too much. (But McCain has been knocked around in the press, too, and has shown he can take it with wit.)
Bennetts is absolutely right, that the media and opponents on the right and left, and society in general, thinks it’s just plain unseemly that the old hags won’t just disappear into the background as they’re supposed to, but actually dare show their ugly, wrinkled faces and fat asses in public and raise their shrewish voices in favor of Hillary. These stubborn old hags actually think they have a right to defy the annointing of Obama? When an attractive young women presumes to take authority, men can just brush her off with bemusement, and at least enjoy looking at her: but an old hag nagging at you, you don’t even want to look at? Ugh.
Democrats and the press shilling for Obama have been just as bad. The “monster” who will do anything to win, label from his “rock star advisor,” would have been inconceivable directed to Obama. He’s been painted as glamorous and “the future,” even though he’s said nothing of substance, has no experience (sorry, it’s laughable to claim that living abroad for a few years as a child constitutes “foreign experience” and makes him sensitive to other cultures, bla-bla…), no substantive track record or accomplishments and is basically just a smooth orator peddling “hope.” Hillary has spent the last decade quietly reinventing herself from the combative zealous liberal image she acquired fighting for her healthcare bill in the early 90’s.
What about her “ballbuster” with a spike between her legs “gag” items — can you imagine someone parodying Obama’s anatomy that way, playing on the stereotypes of black males? Or doing anything which remotely touches on his race? As for Michelle starting to feel a little heat, well, welcome to the club, honey — maybe Bill and Hillary can give you some pointers on how to survive. If a white wife had said this was the first time in her adult life she ever felt proud of America, it wouldn’t have been allowed to die.
Like Bennetts says, Hillary is like some doll that keeps getting knocked down with a bat but refuses to stay down — why, that old witch has to be evil, doesn’t she? Shades of the inquisition: if a witch got thrown into a lake and didn’t drown, that was proof positive she was a witch. Anyone not a witch would have just drowned/ gone away already, like all the other old hags in America.
(I KNOW I’m going to get the slings and arrows from others on this blog, which might as well be called an Obama campaign blog these days, but I’m going to dare state the obvious, anyway.)
As for the SNL skit: I did catch it live, and thought it was a parody of their own show, of the way they’d presented Hillary vs. “soft pillows” Obama in the first place. They weren’t really saying that Obama is a whiny little wimp without a road map in need of mama — they were playing with that image.
But frankly, it’s about time to see what Obama and Michelle are made of when they’re not getting the kid gloves treatment. Don’t we want to know that about our prospective presidents?
L A Res: You probably never “see” the Hillary fans, or “Hillaristas,” because either the old hags are obediently staying invisible so as not to upset the sensibilities of men or the young, or you just don’t “see” them because they’re old hags to you.
However — her popularity isn’t based solely on these women of invisible age. There are those who remember and appreciate Bill Clinton’s trail-blazing in souther race relations (they’re on the older side, too), and handfuls of young people who can see through Obama and actually value the specifics of her campaign.
I’ll give one piece of advice to her camp, though (to offset Celeste’s and everyone’s to Obama): by harping on “my 35 years of experience,” she emphasizes her age to young people and it’s a turn-off. I’ve had experiences like where I’m talking professionally to a young man or women, and mention something I did 20 years ago, and get a response like “Wow, I was like three years old then, and I thought you were so much younger, like I wouldn’t have imagined you’d been in college way back in the 80’s!” And then they look at me more closely, amazed and confused… Which is Obama’s gen, so he’s not seen as “young” by the young either, just not old and obsolete yet. The press harping on Hillary being 60 doesn’t help, either — it conjures up an image that makes her sound older in mind and spirit than she actually is.
And what do you guys have against music from the 60’s and 70’s all of a sudden? That’s the “Golden Oldies” stuff you offer up on this blog — and it’s pretty cool. Really young kids, like tweens and teens, are into that music again. (Barbra Streisand, though — glad she retired. Finally.)
WBC, you bring up some good points. In truth, for a lot of us other old hags (even those who edit this Obama campaign blog and insist on going out in public—in tight-ish jeans and/or high heels even, when the mood strikes), Hillary presents a horrid conundrum. I loathe the sexist attacks on her—and they are, as you’ve pointed out, rampant and entirely unlike what would be leveled at men. (Although McCain is definitely the brunt of non-stop age jokes, to my ears anyway, they have a different, less vicious tenor.) And yet, while I admire many things about Hillary, I am deeply upset by way too many of her stands and strategies—both now and in the past— to want to vote for her.
My like-minded friends and I often feel whipsawed by the fact that, on one hand, we have the first woman in American history to a have a genuine shot at the presidency, and one who is clearly extremely intelligent, capable—and, at moments, quite likable. Yet, because of her downsides, many of us feel honor bound to speak out against her because we believe her Dem opponent will make a much better president. I wish it were otherwise.
PS: Don’t agree with you about the SNL skit. I think the view you outline is what they WANT us to think on the surface, but the overall and entirely intentional emotional message is much different.
They never go away. Never, never, never…
WBC came out with both barrels blasting, she should change her moniker to Gloria S. Girls get the lighter fluid; we are burning some bras tonight. I am going to get me a Hillary Nut-Cracker, to peel pecans, when my wife bakes my favorite desert, Carrot-Cake.
Admittedly, I work in engineering/construction, which is like James Brown sings “This is a Man’s worldâ€Â. So maybe I need to go search out the “old hagsâ€Â, to actually see who is supporting Hillary.
Ms Comprehension, listen to all the words of the song. (it wouldn’t be nothing without …….)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fd8_gojNXc
‘
Guess this is something else you guys and Woody can agree on.
I admit that there’s something a little unnerving about how tough Hillary has had to become to slug her way through life, and the old-style feminists in general (Betty Friedan comes to mind, Gloria S not quite so much), are too unattractive to be role models for me or women younger than me. In fact, they’re probably responsible for the backlash that’s creating idols out of the Britney/Paris/Lindsay airhead, slutty photogenic fools crowd.
But if Hillary and her Hillarist “hags” can get into office and irritate the shit out of all the guys over 40 and forge a path where it’s so normal to see a woman President that the rest of us won’t have to try so hard to kick ass to get respect, more power to her. Personally, I’d prefer to be able to look like the bimbo brigade but not relinquish the smarts of the feminist gen — that will be the next phase. (Besides, it’ll be worth it just to watch Limbaugh implode.)
L A Res, yeah, James Brown is cooler than Helen Reddy with that crappy feminist anthem of hers, but I don’t buy it.
Witch, Terminator shapeshifter, whatever, get up, girl!
“Personally, I’d prefer to be able to look like the bimbo brigade but not relinquish the smarts of the feminist gen  that will be the next phase. (Besides, it’ll be worth it just to watch Limbaugh implode.)”
HA! Agreed.
Now, with that idea in mind, time to go run with the dog so that bias-cut dresses featuring fabrics with high-Spandex content are still a remote possibility.
Go, girl! Maybe if poor Hillary had still been able to pull that off, maybe if she was a Lauren-Hutton 60, she wouldn’t be considered the witch that wouldn’t drown/stay down…
WBC, it’s not Hillary alone, but it’s her in combination with her whitetrash husband that I can’t stand. Call it Clinton Fatigue or what you will, it’s just too much to think of Bill running loose with nothing to do and chasing interns around the White House while Hillary “stands by her man” and turns our nation into a nanny state–while they cleanup financially and dishonestly.
BTW, in the SNL spoof, note that it’s 3:00 AM and Bill Clinton hasn’t gotten home and into bed yet. That phone call could just as well have been from the police telling her to pick her sorry husband up from the station.
In this morning’s news, I see that “future Secretary of State Al Sharpton” (according to SNL) is stirring up things in Florida over the delegates.
Lawsuit Eyed by Sharpton Over Florida
Seen as Maneuvering To Aid Obama’s Campaign
BTW, in the SNL spoof, note that it’s 3:00 AM and Bill Clinton hasn’t gotten home and into bed yet. That phone call could just as well have been from the police telling her to pick her sorry husband up from the station.
I am going to guess, Woody is not a Bill Maher fan. So I’ll provide Woody with this video, to go along with his
previous comment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_XZN0f4-zg
‘
That was good, LA Res. Rush Limbaugh treated us to Hillary reading that portion of her book, but you probably remember hearing that. I can’t stand Bill Maher, but I’ll also give him credit for giving Terry McAuliffe a hard time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTWumj6qpmI
I see that Gov. Spitzer, Superdelegate and Hillary Clinton supporter, couldn’t find his own intern.
Woody, there’s a Depeche Mode song, something with “Zombie Room, in the Dead of Night,”… If you could ever find that on video, it could be your theme song for the Clintons. Actually I’m sick of the whole gen of baby boomers with their knee-jerk bleeding-heart liberal takes on everything, stemming from the Vietnam War and the days of segregation, Civil Rights marches, and bra-burning… There’s so much narrow-minded self- righteousness that goes along with this. I just don’t see Obama as all that different from Hillary, except with a lot less experience, and a lot of feel-good rhetoric built on hope and faith.
My sympathy for Hillary comes more from the unfair way she’s portrayed compared to him, where he’s always made to look photogenic, saintly, calm and authoritative — and her on the verge of being unhinge, loud, shrill, hectoring, with her mouth open. All the comments about her fat thighs stuffed into dull pantsuits, butch hair, un-lady-like voice, being old, shrill, etc. — are definitely misogynistic.
It’s true the older women she’s usually surrounded by in photos don’t do much to make the “ought to be invisibie hag” designation go away, but these are real people, often working class — and their beer-bellied, burping men are no better, but society isn’t suggesting they stay out of sight for fear of offending our sensibilities. And Hillary speaks and holds her own in lots of more upscale surrounings, with “better-preserved” older women, but she’s never featured in the media in those settings. (After all, those $450-silver soup ladles she got her friends to buy when she set up a new household after the White House, are more indicative of the world she wants to be in — but we never see her that way.)
WBC, there are a lot of older and less than attractive women whom people respect and don’t ridicule for their looks. Take Celeste, for instance. (Okay. Okay. I’m just kidding.) The difference between a woman repected and Hillary Clinton is that Clinton is a pathological liar intent on destroying our nation with her brand of socialism by gaining power through hook or crook. Because of her goals and methods, she’s set aside a defense of being a woman. Hillary’s rear end should get the same treatment as Obama with his big ears and Jimmy Carter with his big teeth.
WHAT older and unattractive women Hillary’s age do people respect and not ridicule for their looks? The only ones I can think of that are shamelessly out there in public are more attractive than usual, Leslie Stahl, Diane Sawyer (an amazing- looking 60, but ironically she loves to point out how old her inteview victims, er, subjects have gotten), Barbara Walters (though Rosie O’Donnell thinks she’s too old to be out there), Goldie Hawn/Susan Saranon… all women with unusual bone structure and hence tv/film personalities.
When Madeleine Albright was in the first photos with the Clintons, everyone promptly hid her away. Maybe you can think of some academic somewhere? But they’re expected to look bookish and invisible in general, in tweeds and baggy sweaters. No one talks about their butts or looks anyway. Who else?
Now, tell us what you really think about Hillary…(joking)
Mother Teresa, Maragret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, everyone’s mother….
An older or unattractive woman can be beautiful with her countenance. There was a friend of mine who had everything in the beauty department going against her–hairlip, crossed eyes, etc., etc, but she had a special inner beauty. She had my friendship and my admiration, and I never considered her looks in my view of her.
Please note, however, that liberal, radical women lose their femininity.
Academic liberal women….
one giant leap for personkind
when they aren’t attending masturbation workshops and orgasm awareness festivals on unc campuses, our feminist “scholars†are usually thinking of new words to ban in order to make womyn feel more comfortable in the workplace. recently, one of the sociologists at unc-wilmington actually banned the use of the term “mankind†because of its “sexist†overtones. ….
BTW, I can’t stand Jane Fonda, but I wouldn’t make fun of her looks.
Bhutto, Thatcher and Nancy Reagan were all attractive women, who aged with the benefit of good bones and didn’t get heavy. Barbara Bush was definitely among those who’d have been considered a hag if she wasn’t the wife of a (very good- looking) President. Golda was ugly and mannish and tough, the most like Hillary — but those qualities were valued at times of war (not that she didn’t get her share of barbs for her looks). Mother Theresa may have been “saintly,” (although discouraging birth control amidst poverty did a lot of harm), but few women would opt for being called a saint with her looks, over being attractive. (Which is why Princess Di, who made a couple of foreign forays into good deed-ism, was almost instantly compared to Mother Theresa — she was someone girls coul emulate. Paris Hilton’s brief vow to take up good works getting out of prison, was modeled on Di, not Mother Theresa.)
As for Fonda, some people and blogs have indeed called her a brassy old broad no longer young and pretty enough to get away with the four-letter word she used recently (as synonym for the one in a play, not even profanely). If a young, attractive woman had done it it would be fine — Sarah Silverman, who’s not even that pretty but is young, is a foul-mouthed, boorish cultural icon. Fonda was definitely made to know that at her age, she ought to have what you call a “beautiful countenance,” that is, keep her mouth shut, do charitable work, and fade into the woodwork. (What do you think of your homeboy Ted Turner? He was even more leftist and pro-Castro than her, a socialist capitalist.)
Thatcher was called all kinds of names despite her good looks for being too hawkish and “loud,” (she sure wasn’t a radical liberal) but once she became a “Lady,” she seems to have started acting like one. Presidents and Commanders in Chief can’t always be ladies. (Besides, I was making a general comment about Hillary and her whole gen, women in general…never mind. But by saying uglier old women should be radiating purity and tranquility from within, if they want to be endured an even respected, not getting out there stirring things up, you’ve agreed with me.)
If you could only lock up all the ugly, loud radical conservative men, starting with Rush Limbaugh — virtually all the conservative talk show hosts are old, ugly and hurt the eyes and ears with their shrill braying and misogynist assaults. Wish they’d develop that “beautiful countenance.”
Maxine Waters, Bonnie Raitt, Isabel Allende, Jane Smiley, Sandra Day O’Conner, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Kathy Bates, Vanessa Redgrave (who was on screen in Atonement all of 7 minutes and still got some big British award for it) Meryl Streep (beautiful, yes, with great bones, but not a conventional beauty really, and certainly no longer thin) Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who caused Jon Stewart to have a “cougar” moment….and on and on…
Really, there are a lot of great women out there who aren’t relegated to hag-ism. And, with mother Theresa I think it was less the saint thingy as that she had a great, passionate face.
I could go on and on listing—especially novelists, musicians, film producers…politicians….etc. As with men, hot women are hot women. (And I mean that in the broader not the sexual sense.) They don’t necessarily have to be young or beautiful. (Although, admittedly, it helps.) Ditto men.
BTW, Jane, who is I think 70 this year, was entirely sexy (and hilarious) on the particular Colbert Report show where she unexpectedly kissed Stephen. Even my 22 year old got it.
Take heart.
Maxine Waters? Ginsberg? Kathy Bates? Vanessa Redgrave? A scary-looking bunch you conjure up there, and I grant they’re all trailblazers, but I don’t know how many support Hillary, but definitely they wouldn’t do anything to dispel the notion that Hillary is leading an army of old “hags” who would be better off quietly disappearing… Who’s Kathleen Sebelius? (I hate the term “cougars,” yuk, there’s no comparable term for men, except “virile” or “lucky?”)
I’ve noticed that Geraldine is being called the usual names in various irreverent blogs: “old, haggard has-been…”
When she was younger, she was “the bitch,” to Barbara Bush and more. Until yesterday, she was a respected trailblazer.
Don’t worry, I’m not losing sleep over it for myself, but I do think it’s an unfair double standard for Hillary and her Hillaristas at this point in time. Look, I’m a workout fanatic and have taught yoga and aerobics and ballet since college p/t — I don’t believe in getting old!
WBC, I was trying to list some women who didn’t start out as beauties. Now I’m no longer sure I get your point. I can list the 60-year-olds who are lookers, but I figured that wasn’t what we were going for.
Kathleen Sebelius is the Governor of Kansas. If Wikipedia is correct, she turns 60 on Sunday. She also supports Barack Obama and is nobody’s hag.
http://www.ksgovernor.com/ShowPage.asp?page=default.asp
There are quite a few more like her.
With age should come a graciousness that overcomes looks–with either sex (or all of them in the case of liberals.)
But, if women want to complain about not getting some sort of respect when they are older, then they can quit using their looks to get what they want when they are younger.
I’ll admit to hiring good looking women, simply because they usually have some self-confidence and, if you have to work with them all day, who wouldn’t rather look at someone who is attractive?
I can’t stand Ted Turner any more than Jane Fonda.
I guess I disagree that that group of older women prove the exception to the rule, that unless you’re unusually attractive as you age, you should not be seen or heard except in certain proscribed roles. Most of these women have gotten treatment similar to Hillary, just not as visibly because they’re not on the same national stage. Although of course they’re adore and even revered by those idiologically like-minded. (Allende, Streep, O’Connor, Smiley started out and are a lot more attractive, and I’ve never hear the same kinds of things said about them.) Point is, beauty does make a difference in how older women are perceived, whereas for McCain and Huckabee, Fred Thompson (well, he did get compared to a sheep dog etc., but it wasn’t much or mean) or Bill Clinton and their older male followers, their looks aren’t a big issue, and political passion not “shrill” and unseemly.
And in newscasting too, there are plenty of old, unphotogenic guys (Hal Fishman til he was maybe 70) but they’re alongside attractive women. Why doesn’t Regis Philbin get older women partners, instead of ever-younger, cute ones? Lou Dobbs’ stern certainty is “fatherly” and even those who hate his politics, never say, how dare that old guy tell us how to think? Because he’s acquired “authority.” Woody is just being an honest, typical male when he admits that “if you have to work with them all day, who wouldn’t rather look at someone who is attractive?” Or be one of these women, instead of one of the vast ignored.
There’s still a double standard, WBC, agreed. But I believe it’s changing. (Just not fast enough to suit any of us.) I don’t think, for example, anybody disses Sheila Khuel for her looks any more than they dis Henry Waxman. (Okay, the Daily show does dis Henry Waxman for his looks, but you get my point.) They’re both about the same age and not exactly the greatest in terms of looks, but both respected.
Anyway, it needs to improve. We can agree on that. Much as Hillary bugs me, I resent the misogyny in a big way.
Yes, we can agree on that — this is one of those issues which started out simply, so I thought, but the more I try to explain and we drag in examples etc., the more muddled it gets.
This double standards is very unfair and shouldn’t be part of how we assess Hillary for President, though they are. (Good looks help men, too, or can maybe keep them from being nominated for Pres., but not nearly as much — Waxman has been pretty much in the b.g. for all his years.) Hillary is brave to take all the personal insults, and shouldn’t just go away, any more than her “average” followers. Because she’s running for Pres where she’d be “the face of the country,” she seems to be getting more of it and meaner than these other pols who wouldn’t win (or want to enterP) beauty contests either. Hopefully they’re making it easier for those who follow. I guess I’m just not as brave as Hillary or all the other women who commit the crime of getting old and losing their looks, and getting stared through or ridiculed. Just thinking about it is awful, and I feel for her. (We all know how differently we’re treated when we rush out of the house hoping to be unseen on an errand, vs. when we look good.) I’d like her to be out there in everyone’s face for years, though, defying this prejudice until people get tired of it.
Ok, I’ve maybe confused the issue all I can for now.
Wasn’t it women who thought that Jack Kennedy was so handsome and voted for him for no better reason than that? Women are also attracted to the wealth and power of men more than their ideas. Also, women fall for their lies in looking for love and security. None of those reasons are valid for choosing a country’s leader, but women use those criteria. The Presidential election is just a big high school popularity vote.
Sure, it’s always been a truism that women are attracted to men with wealth and power, even if they’re not terribly good- looking, and I’ve always had friends who were young, pretty, well-educated and dated old guys like that, especially top Hollywood producers and CEO’s. They’ve done this even when the guys are married, and there’s no likelihood of nabbing them. Some still hope — for others, the glamorous perks and trips are enough. Based on that, Spitzer should have been able to get some shallow young thing without leaving a paper trail. He seems especially stupid and creepy.
(To drag this back to the male/female dichotomy: sure there are “cougars” yuk, often with money, but however much power or wealth women have, if they’re older and breaking scales and mirrors, they’re not going to get a good-looking guy willing to be seen with them in public. There seems to be much more of a negative stigma to being with a “hag” than for a pretty young girl to be with a powerful old geezer.
On the other hand, cute young guys often pursue attractive older women who aren’t wealthy or powerful. — Does this just mean women are more attracted to power and money, and men to looks and their hormones? Is that anything new?)
As a P.S. to tie up this double standards thing, today’s L A Times Op Ed has Meghan Daum weighing in on what Spring Break these days says about American youth and women in particular: things just haven’t turned out as the feminists hoped.
She paints an unintentionally hilarious picture of herself going down to Cancun for one spring break to get to the bottom of why young women are so intent on letting themselves get used as sexual objects and getting drunk as an excuse to do so: like a cultural anthropologist, notebook and pen in hand, she goes around interviewing young women in bikinis and heels, getting ready for the night’s “debauchery.” She learns that they’ve trained for this for months in the gym, sometimes gotten breast enhancements, gotten waxed and tanned and toned: why? To develop self-confidence, “because of we can be hot here, we can be hot anywhere.”
Their life goals aren’t to become brilliant lawyers and prove how smart they are, rising above being judged for their looks: they want to be “hot” forever. Daum is dutifully horrified by this, but this is just how things are, as she’d have known hanging around any college gym or pool — don’t have to go to Cancun to interview them to find this out. Sure, they study, about as much as ever from what I can tell, but to young women, becoming one of those smart old crones, heavy and homely, is a fate as bad as death. Such women group together in professional support groups and reassure themselves, but to the visually-dominated world we live in they’re invisible outside a professional context, and to young girls, more a nightmare than an aspiration. No, this isn’t how the feminist/boomer gen expected things to be.
I’m hoping that IF Hillary and her followers take office, and attract smart women who are also pretty enough to be “hot,” that younger women will see that they can have both.