ADDED: If the expression on her face were not grim, she would be called a lightweight who did not deserve the trust that has been placed in her. This is typical of the way women are criticized: either you're unfeminine or you're an airhead.
And, for a non-Syrian slur on Rice, here's a photo I took of a wall in Madison, Wisconsin last year.
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
"But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my shadow in the sun
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days."
A good follow-up question would have been: did you think the same of Colin Powell? Ms. Khuri thinks little of serious women, apparently.
That said, there are few images of the Secretary showing a lighter, less dramatic side. I recall the piece on her piano quartet in the Post, but don't recall many photos of a relaxed Condi. She'll have to work on that if she wants to be President.
Condi, after all, is no match for that Syrian pinnacle of both external and internal beauty...
Well, its not a secret that many Arabs are racist toward blacks. Nor are they particularly fond of women of accomplishment. So, this kind of program topic probably speaks more to their own biases than Condi's physical attributes.
And, she made the VF best dressed list. So pfft.
Didn't Phyllis Chesler write a book called Women's Inhumanity to Women?
I wonder if this unpleasentness will end when Bush leaves office - that is, is the left's hatred focussed on Bush personally, or any Republican in office? Will President McCain or whomever have to deal with the same kind of unceasing invective (and would Rice, serving in the next, non-Bush administration)?
And if our SecState were a drop-dead hot Playboy centerfold, would that matter, or would they have simply found some other way to diminish her? I could snark and say "sour grapes" (but I don't know what Khuri looks like), I could be a jerk and turn the insult back on Khuri (... so ugly, she makes blind children cry... so ugly, police artists are afraid to sketch her...), but that's just playing at their level. Or, I can realize that it doesn't matter, beautiful, ugly, handsome, hideous... no matter what, if something doesn't fit Khuri's and her interviewer's worldview, they'll find no shortage of things to criticize about the someone they see as representing that opposition. It's the same sort of petty snarking that happens between losers trying to comfort and buttress each other's worldviews when they feel they've been bypassed, spurned, or otherwise overtaken in some social aspect by the successful or popular in society. They're projecting their own insecurities on others, and while that sort of behavior makes for occasionally entertaining movies, it's just sad behavior in the real world.
On a happier note, a nice op-ed in the Telegraph over in the UK.
http://tinyurl.com/l3wgr
Oh, Simon, that's an excellent book, by the way. I recommend it to everyone. It's not a quick read, but a good one.
Simon asks "
I wonder if this unpleasentness will end when Bush leaves office - that is, is the left's hatred focussed on Bush personally, or any Republican in office?"
No, Simon, this unpleasantness will not end. In fact, should a Democrat take the big seat in 08, the Republicans will carry the torch of unpleasantness, as they did throughout the Clinton era.
Partisan hatred is now a permanent feature of American politics. It will be decades before you see a waning of it.
I agree with Jennifer. This is just the latest way to express displeasure against America. It's also pure envy. In America, most of us (except those on the left) see someone like Rice and say to ourselves..."how can I be successful like her." In most of the rest of the world such as europe and the middle east, people say... "it is not fair that she is successful, she should be destroyed."
Re: "If I were asked, as an author, to portray malice..."
Would author Colette Khuri pick:
a) actual mass murderer Osama Bin Laden
b) Iran's President Mahmoud "push Israel into the sea" Ahmadinejad
c) 20 British Pakistani Muslims about to board planes they intend to destroy, killing thousands of innocent people
or
d) the representative of the US who's vowed to fight the evil of Islamofascism?
Colette Khuri?
Paging Colette Khuri
Inigo Montoya on line one.
Virgin Mary, line 2. You made baby prophet Jesus cry.
John: "given the smile she often has"
I think references to the physical attractiveness of a female leader are cheap and say a lot more about the insulter than the insultee.
That said, Rice is famous for her perpetually grim expression not the "smile she often has." I like this little ode to Rice's pouty faces.
but don't recall many photos of a relaxed Condi.
Possibly as a consequence of selection bias in the media? Consider that at any public appearance by Ms. Rice, there are surely hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures taken of her. It defies the odds that they are all as bad as those the media selects to present to us. Or maybe I'm just wearing my tin foil hat too tight. You be the judge.
I'm with Larry K when he says:
I happen to think Condi is plenty attractive - not a classic beauty but she has an elegance and radiance that reflects a deep, and fierce, intelligence.
I think this very silly. Of course she is grim. Anyone in her position who wasn't, wouldn't be doing their job. A lot of lives are at stake here, and she is one of the big players, and so, while the blood won't realistically be on her hands, a moral person must feel some responsibility in this sort of situation, where their actions might save lives - but where a different action may save a lot more lives later.
This is not a diplomatic dinner where everyone can stand around, half-drunk, making nice. Rather, a lot of lives are at stake here, and she would be remiss if she weren't grim.
Craig said...
"[S]hould a Democrat take the big seat in 08, the Republicans will carry the torch of unpleasantness, as they did throughout the Clinton era."
The unpleasentness of some groups on the right during the 1990s - and the antics of Savage, Limbaugh and co. cannot be denied - pales in comparison to the visceral, routine, assumed and endemic hatred of this government by liberals today. Their seething contempt far outstrips anything fired by even the most obnoxious right-wing commentators during the 1990s, and while I agree that you're fully correct that "Partisan hatred is now a permanent feature of American politics [and] [i]t will be decades before you see a waning of it," that is because the liberals are now and - one must hope - will remain for decades to come shut out of government. The choice of the tone of American politics is in their hands.
Simon, you're completely right. It's all the fault of Liberals! I hope you appreciate the irony of your post.
tiggeril said...
"['Women's Inhumanity to Women' is] an excellent book, by the way. I recommend it to everyone. It's not a quick read, but a good one."
I actually just got done reading another book of hers, The Death of Feminism, which castigates western feminists for being too wrapped up in a morally bankrup multiculturalism to condemn the treatment of women in Islamic countries. As Chesler sees it - and she presents voluminous evidence in support of the proposition - Islamic regimes usually end up with "gender apartheid" at best, and "femicide" at worst. I don't think I've reacted more viscerally and strongly to any book since Naomi Wolfe's The Beauty Myth - I already had a fairly low opinion of Third Wave Feminism (which is the evil whose name the Second Wave Chesler dares not speak), but I'm afraid Chesler's book has seriously damaged my view on tolerance towards a culture which practically seems to invite Ann Coulter's assertion that "[w]e should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" - or at least, to a variant of Islam that does not require such practises. I found myself more convinced than ever that the neoconservative view of foreign policy is correct (and that the integrationist view of immigration policy is imperative) and must be vigorously prosecuted. Chesler never comes out and says it, but I think she has joined - with the exception of her view on abortion - the ranks of that most maligned of groups: conservative feminists.
(I've actually been meaning to blog about this book for a week, but I'm still seething about it, to the extent that it would be unwise to do so).
I join Ruth and Larry's assesment of Rice, by the way.
Chardin: Thanks for reminding us of the Robin Givhan column about Condi, but I can't let you reprint the whole text. I wrote about the column here.
MadisonMan said...
"Simon, you're completely right. It's all the fault of Liberals! I hope you appreciate the irony of your post. "
Fault is the language of judgement, but I implied no judgement. I'm not suggesting that the partisan atmosphere is a bad thing, and since liberals propagated that atmosphere, the atmosphere is their fault - I'm saying that the atmosphere is what it is, and that the people who have made it that way, for better or worse, are not on my side of the aisle. No matter how objectionable Ann Coulter may be, how much more so is Jane Hamsher? Or Paul Begalia? Or Michael Moore? Quite some measure. At least when Coulter - who, for the record, I think is a quite useless person whom both sides could do without - accused liberals of treason, she brought examples (periodically, Coulter has a bright shining moment of clarity and pens something transcendently accurate - as for example she did during the Miers nomination. I'm sure Michael Moore has similar moments for those paying close attention).
Your side has spent six years poisoning the well out of impotent frustration at the total incapacity to win back control of any part of the government; it's a bit late to cry foul now.
Freder Frederson said...
"So far I haven't heard anyone on the left accuse the president of being a serial killer and rapist"
That's quite true - they prefer to use the "Bush lied, people died" meme, and leave it implicit that they think the President is a serial killer and a rapist. Or there's the conspiracy theory held by many on the left that Bush planned and/or permitted 9/11. Or there's the conspiracy theory that Bush is responsible for Hurricaine Katrina, and that he didn't evacuate New Orleans because he hates black people. We know the left doesn't hate black people, by the way, because they photoshopped a picture of Joe Lieberman in blackface - clearly, they must super love black people, something evidenced by the respectful way in which they politely express their political disagreements with Justice Thomas or Ken Blackwell.
You know, Freder, now I come to think of it, you're right - the left have nothing but love and admiration for this President and conservatives in general. Why, on any given day, one can dip a toe into the left-wing blogosphere and see nothing but love, kindness and caring.
Condi has had some things to say about Syria they obviously regard as threatening - no wonder they think she is ugly, but then they really are not an advanced society so it should not be surprising.
Simon... in addition it's the level of folks who do the commenting. Besides a few Congressmen, most of the "Clinton was a murderer" crowd were not mainstream Republicans or all that important in the Conservative.
Despite Liberal fear (or hope)-- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are not all that important to most conservatives (and not that many Christians either). Selection bias at its worst by the media. Most (not all) of the anti-Clinton bombs were being lobbed by fringe conservatives.
On the other hand... Liberal bomb throwers get seats of honor at the Democratic National Convention, make commercials for Candidates, are in Congress and the Senate and have names like Kennedy, Dorgan, etc. or sell millions of records or movie tickets. Both sides say awful things, but the left's awfulness is spouted from a much higher level of power within the Democratic structure.
Simon, the well was poisoned long before six years ago. And by whom?
Simon, this unpleasantness isn't a Democrat thing, nor an anti-Bush thing. Hillary is scrutinized for her hair, whether her expression is warm enough, what she's wearing...every woman in public life gets the same treatment.
Elizabeth said...
"Simon, this unpleasantness isn't a Democrat thing, nor an anti-Bush thing. Hillary is scrutinized for her hair, whether her expression is warm enough, what she's wearing...every woman in public life gets the same treatment."
Well, that is patriarchal sexism, not partisan intrigue, and it is practised by both parties towards Hillary in particular, and to a lesser extent, against other women in the public eye (a point that should be driven home by the very subject of this thread, Dr. Rice).
Troy, I like your user icon - what's that from? It looks like it could be a film poster for a notional film version of The Prisoner or something of that nature.
Simon... It's called "The Voice of Space" by Rene Magritte. I'm not exactly sure what floating jingle bells says about me, but I was putting together a lecture on Surrealism and the image struck me.
That "Black Hawk Down" thing is disgusting. Funny to think the person who did it undoubtedly considers themselves liberal and peaceloving.
Funny to think the person who did it undoubtedly considers themselves liberal and peaceloving.
Ann Coulter undoubtedly thinks she is patritotic. Does it matter what such types think of themselves?
Troy - I wasn't familiar with that, but I know some of Magritte's other work. When I was very much younger, my art class was learning about surrealism; the project for students to be graded on was that we should come up with a surreal painting in some format or another. Since I was interested in locomotives, I thought that a train emerging from a fireplace might be an interesting idea, something that my art teacher did not entirely agree with. Many years later, I discovered that Magritte had much the same idea (although I did it in single point perspective) - I guess my art teacher either didn't like Magritte, or assumed that I did and was conciously plagiarizing!
For starters, the "Bush lied" meme might carry more weight if there was the faintest scrap of evidence that he specifically and intentionally distorted the truth. He may have been wrong, he may even have been too credulous of the intelligence he was given, but that doesn't mean he lied. Moreover, I fail to see how your argument that liberals think Bush is a high criminal rather than a common one advances your defense.
By comparison, Clinton committed perjury. If it makes you feel any better, I agree with what you leave implicit, which is that he shuld not have been asked that question under oath (and, as you'll imagine, I agree with Justice Scalia that there should never have been an independent counsel - the position was no less an unconstitutional infringement of the unitary executive when it was investigating Bill Clinton as it was when investigating the Reagan Administration). And having been asked, he should have refused to answer it, regardless of what the answer was. Yet he was asked, and he did answer, and what came out of his mouth was a lie (and let's dispense with the highly dubious idea that southern baptists don't consider oral sex to constitute sexual relations - even if it's true, which I doubt, it's not an excuse). And a lie, when said under oath, is not just a lie, but perjury. (If you're going to argue that it isn't perjury to lie to the grand jury, remember to explain why Clinton is innocent but Scooter Libby is guilty - it seems to me that I must condemn Libby because I condemned Clinton, but feel free to distinguish the two cases).
"how about Ken Mehlman labelling the Democrats "Defeatocrats". He's got nothing to do with the Republican party, does he?"
Given that the liberal strategy for Iraq - and one suspects, for the GWOT - is unilateral surrender, I think "defeatocrats" is perhaps the nicest thing that could be said about your party. "Quisling" (or Pétainites) might be a more descriptive alternative, although a gentler term would perhaps be Malkin's favorite - "dhimmicrats" (in reference to the Bat Y'eor book). Y'all have brought this on yourselves. I'm a moderate, and I used to have a fairly good impression of the Democratic party, even if I didn't support them. Or put another way, there was a presumption of good faith. That's pretty much wiped out now, something increasingly common over here, and it's because of policy choices and conduct choices made by Democrats. Four years ago, your party were just wrong; now, I find it increasingly hard to believe they're not a thoroughly dangerous cabal that must be kept out of public office. More and more, it really does become hard to see how the Democrats are not willing to do absolutely anything to claw their way back into power, which hardly bespeaks the prospect that they will conduct themselves any better having attained office. I rather doubt that having won office on an explicitly "surrender now" platform, Lamont would suddenly turn around and change his mind. He may be an idiot, but he's sincere.
Does it matter what such types think of themselves?
It absolutely matters, that's what allows them to so easily justify their behavior.
The racial component of that charicature of Rice is especially repugnant and inexcusably hypocritical.
I found a video (French newsxast) with a Colette Khoury and I would only describe her (if I were being kind) as an Arab-looking version of Madeline Albright.
I wonder what race the artist is.
Fault is the language of judgement, but I implied no judgement.'
Wow, that's not how your post reads at all.
Disparaging remarks about woman's looks is sadly common place in human politics. Everyone, including women, continue to do it. It's often the last recourse in a discussion and never has anything to do with the individual's abilities or issue at hand. Hilary Clinton, Katherine Harris, Condi, Madeline Albright, Thatcher, Barbara Boxer, the list is endless.
Frequently I've been in meetings where a woman has spoken passionately against an issue, only to have someone comment out of her presence 'ugly bitch'. Had she been a man making the same argument someone might say say 'bastard' but never 'ugly bastard'.
geoduck2 said...
"Feminist non-profits have been trying to help victims of sharia for years."
And that is to be admired, but what there is not is a wholesale movement to condemn not only the individual atrocities, but the culture which supports and promotes them (and certainly, says Chesler - who is in a position to know - the feminist academy is even less interested in such matters). Focussing on individual incidents misses the point; individual incidents of spousal abuse take place in the west, and sometimes, the men who do it get away with it. But there are significant legal consequences for those who are caught, and there is a social opprobrium on such behavior, while - Chesler contends - in Islamic regimes, there are not only not significant legal consequences for such actions (indeed, there are frequently significant legal consequences for being their victim - being raped can get you stoned to death in Iran), but there is a set of social imperatives which not only justifies such behavior, not only excuses it, but in fact mandates it and teaches it as the status quo.
I don't believe that all cultures are equal. Our culture may have some problems, but a culture which permits the systematic degredation and subjugation of women is not the equal of ours, it is inferior to ours, and a fortiori, to paraphrase FDR, a culture which which makes such practises integral to its existence has no right to continue to exist anywhere, at any time, for any reason. That in the west, spousal abuse takes place and is not always caught and punished does not make the west the moral equal of a culture in which spousal abuse is tolerated, encouraged - expected, even - and endemic. We have too much tolerance. We have a surfeit of tolerance. There is far too much horror being tolerated. I think we need a little less tolerance, and a little more outrage. And yet western feminists are more interested in being outraged against America and America's foreign policy than they are about the fact that this country is as far advanced as almost any other in terms of women's freedom, and the foreign policy that neoconservatives have argued for - and which the Bush administration has grudgingly adopted in part - will do more for the freedom of women in the muslim world than the entire and combined efforts of the third wavers (to the extent that any such action - as opposed to apologism - exists).
geoduck2 said...
"it is very common and unfeminist to critcize women on the basis of their looks. Janet Reno was also a victim of such behavior"
That's very true, and it was always stupid because there were WAY more important things for which Janet Reno could and should have been criticized. And let's not forget Rush's comment's about Chelsea from the early 1990s while we're at it. I'm certainly not going to deny that the right has been guilty of some absolutely egregious and indefensible statements, and those must be condemned roundly and fully too.
These posters are ripoffs of agitprop leftist art from 20 years ago: Men With No Lips
Hmm, looks to me like their appearance and especially their ethnicity is being maligned.
Another "Men With No Lips" link that works.
Conal describes his 1986 Archimedes moment: "I’d just stare at Reagan, Regan, Weinberger, James Baker III, Shultz and Casey. Suddenly, I found myself making nasty little portraits of ugly old white men with pursed lips — okay, no lips. And it came together — this tight little club of power-mongers were: MEN WITH NO LIPS."
Condi Rice ugly?
No way!
Condi may not be Hollywood beautiful, but few politicians are.
While we are on the subject, I have never understood those who think that Hillary Clinton is not prettier than most women her age.
I think that such harsh judgments on the physical appearance of political women over 40 are usually sexist.
I remember going to my first ABA meeting in 1980 and listening to the scheduled speaker, federal judge and former Senator Howell Heflin, tell one Eleanor Roosevelt joke after another, every one about how ugly she was.
jim Lindgren
Actually, just a few days ago I saw stuff on feminist blogs about the girl who was hung in Iran for "crimes against chastity."
I believe her crime was being raped. As I recall, she threw back her veil at the judge, too. Not a smart move, but she was only 16, if I'm remembering correctly. What teenager is smart?
Geoduck -
Oh, good! Well, I - and Chesler - stand corrected. Presumably, all those nameless multitudes in Feminist acadæmia which you identify not only fully support our efforts in Iraq, but actively support regime change in those countries which impose these barbaric practises?
In fact, come to think of it, you'd pretty much have to go further than the present Bush administration line, since islamic gender apartheid does not just spring from the regime but from the culture - you'd have to be willing to advocate all-out change-by-force, otherwise that support is essentially ephemeral, right? After all, women in Syria are not going to be freed from their chains by a faculty production of "The Vagina Monologues" at the University of Chicago. If the question is "how could America's foreign policy better serve the cause of women's freedom around the world," it is hard to imagine how that question could be answered with a policy that is less assertive than that proposed by President Bush. Indeed, surely, the only criticism of Bush's foreign policy that could be advocated by feminists who are genuinely concerned with the freedom of women oppressed under Islamic regimes is "why aren't you doing more?"
MadisonMan-
One of the crimes against humanity Chesler recounts is the sentencing of a fifteen year old girl by a Pakistani judge. The girl was sentenced to be gang raped. Were that not horrific enough, can you imagine what terrible, ghastly crime she must have committed to merit such a sentence? Well, her ten-year-old brother was raped by their tribal elders you see. Obviously, the only way to mitigate the family's shame was for the sister to pay the price of that shame. Tell me again how our culture is equal to such barbarians. Tell me again how we would be wrong to impose our cultural standards on such people. Tell me again how America is not better than such monsters.
Now consider that when the abuse of children by catholic priests in America came to light. How many people suggested that we punish the victims? Worse yet, how many suggested we punish the victim's sisters for the same of their brother's rape? It is not hard to imagine the reaction of the New York Times if even the worst of society, having committed the worst of crimes imaginable, were sentenced to be gang-raped. We would balk at imposing such a sentence upon John Wayne Gacy, let alone on a female relative of one of his victims, yet to hear the liberals tell it, it is the Bush administration which is the enemy of women and of the world. Such statements cannot be taken seriously.
Simon, the Bush Administration is not in Iraq and Afghanistan out of concern for women's rights. That was never proferred as a reason for entering those countries despite the horrendous conditions for women (especially under the Talliban). The reason Bush offered for engaging in war in those countries was to stop them from harboring terrorists and developing weapons which could be used to attack the U.S. and our allies.
Joseph Hovsep,
What are you talking about?
Spreading freedom was definitely one of the goals of the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Remember all that talk about liberating Iraq?
"Simon, the Bush Administration is not in Iraq and Afghanistan out of concern for women's rights."
And I did not buy this can of soup out of a desire to contribute to the profits of the Heinz corporation, but none-the-less, that is what I am doing by eating it.
See clip #1224 of the beauteous Colette trashing Condi.
Elegance
Congress and the American people did not support sending our troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to liberate Muslim women from oppressive sexism. However noble such a goal might have been, the country never would have sacrificed so many American lives and tax dollars for that. The Talliban had been abusing women for a while before Bush staked out his firm opposition to any kind of "nation building" in the presidential debates preceding the 2000 election. Saudi Arabia and any number of other fundamentalist countries have regimes that are much more oppressive of women than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Its simply wrong to say that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan to save women. Its just not true. We went to stop the training of terrorists and the production of weapons of mass destruction. Suggesting that freeing women from Islamic sexism was the goal of our Middle East adventures is revisionism in the extreme.
Can someone post a link to a picture of this beast: Colette Khoury.
I want to mock her even harder than Sippican can.
So some Syrian tool says Condi is ugly? That reminds me of a racist I had the misfortune to work for many decades ago who insisted that all black people are ugly.
Not that such filth is any surprise: Hate is, after all, the region's largest export--even in spite of the fact that the bulk of that product is produced for domestic consumption.
It's hard not to look grim when all you think is "What the fuck is wrong with you people?!"
Presumably, all those nameless multitudes in Feminist acadæmia which you identify not only fully support our efforts in Iraq, but actively support regime change in those countries which impose these barbaric practises?
So, to be a good feminist, I should support our efforts in Iraq? That's shifting the goal line a bit, Simon.
You might not have noticed, but the bearded guys are out in force now in the streets of Iraq, making sure women are wearing head scarves, keeping to their place, and generally seeking to turn Iraq into another Iran. We were too stupid to plan for this on invading, too busy expecting the flowers in the streets and too busy putting our eggs into Rumsfeld's leaner military approach to give a crap about the likelihood that an Islamist majority would shove aside the secular Sunnis and establish another theocracy in the Middle East. An elected one, so bully for us, I guess.
It's hard not to look grim when all you think is "What the fuck is wrong with you people?!"
Thanks for that laugh, Aaron!
That's part and parcel of the sexism, too; women shouldn't look grim and serious. You should smile more, dear, it makes you pretty!
'You should smile more, dear, it makes you pretty!'
Ooo snap! You'll never get a husband that way.
http://apnews.myway.com/image/
20060811/UN_MIDEAST_FIGHTING.sff_
NYFF104_20060811201434.html?date=
20060812&docid=D8JEHRAO0
Not grim, but serious with a killer outfit. Very nice.
Sippi,
Darn, no way I'm going to beat that, what with the "halberd" and all.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा