martha
Blue Crack Supplier
And the paranoia.
Except it wasn't for Newsweek, but for Runner's World magazine, and Newsweek ran it.
Maybe I missed it, but where was feminist-in-chief martha calling out a weekly newsmagazine .
True, but they bought the photo legally from a third person source(apparently), so how is it sexist?
Maybe I missed it, but where was feminist-in-chief martha calling out a weekly newsmagazine for using such a blatantly sexist picture of Sarah Palin on their cover. Because I don't recall such a cover with Barack (lots of lens flares suggesting divinity however), Biden, McCain, Edwards, Mitt, Huckabee or Dennis Kucinich.
I'm not sure I give enough of a damn about her anymore to really care, but I do think there are still issues with women's looks in politics. It seems to matter so much that she's pretty or that Clinton isn't. And remember when Madeleine Albright was around? Or Janet Reno? Their looks were appropriate for jokes everywhere. As long as women's looks are important in politics, then there's a sexist double-standard.
And now watch some of the fellas shit themselves because I expressed an opinion they don't like. I'm such a man-hater.
As long as women's looks are important in politics, then there's a sexist double-standard.
and Our Sarah knows this, and works this.
As long as women's looks are important in politics, then there's a sexist double-standard.
It's sexist as hell, BVS. Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing. You don't so anybody any good doing that.
It says that we can't get what we need and deserve, except when men think we're pretty enough for it.
What happens to the ones who aren't pretty enough?
I think that when women use their looks as weapon against men, or as any other kind of tool to get what they want, it puts them in a secondary position. If we want to really be equals, then we need to be equals. It says that we can't get what we need and deserve, except when men think we're pretty enough for it. What happens to the ones who aren't pretty enough?
Yes, but I still disagree with the concept. Why do I need to be pretty to have equal access to rights? Why not base what I get on my worth as a human? Why do I need to rely on someone else's perception of beauty to be worthwhile? Isn't that exact attitude killing young women and (more young men) when they start starving themselves to achieve someone else's ideals of beauty? Isn't that the climate that has created the fear of aging that's going on now?Or it says we can get what we want, need and deserve when we think we're pretty enough for it. See the difference?
That doesn't make it any more acceptable. The right to fully function in a society should not rely on how you look.The same thing that happens to men who aren't good looking enough. Matters for them too.
Why do I need to be pretty to have equal access to rights? Why not base what I get on my worth as a human?
Why do I need to rely on someone else's perception of beauty to be worthwhile?
The right to fully function in a society should not rely on how you look.
Why are you framing the concept on rights and worth?
Empowerment for what then, if not rights and the access to those rights.I'm talking about empowerment.
I see these as nearly the same.Attractive people have easier access to various opportunities but not necessarily more rights as humans.
We were talking about beauty, but you can change the discussion if you like.And attractive can mean many things and take many forms.
The Mudflats
Scroll to the bottom of the page for chapter 1. Although the next entry she makes, chapter 1 will probably be bumped to the previous page.
Empowerment for what then, if not rights and the access to those rights.
We were talking about beauty, but you can change the discussion if you like.
I still prefer my "empowerment" to be based on my merit, not on someone else's perception of my "attractiveness," whatever that may mean.
Successful people play to their strengths to get what they want. Whatever those strengths may be.