I know what your thinking.
As I’ve made crystal clear many times, judging a book by its cover is foolish.
Only those exhibiting poor judgement and severely arrested emotional development make this mistake.
Simpleminded snap judgements based on appearance damage depth of understanding.
Allowing our eyes to form the basis for discernment of valuable, constructive ideas is shallow.
Looking past the temporal and seeing the eternal in another is a supernatural gift.
Determining the value in another’s character while overlooking the outer covering is gracious.
Recognizing the person is not the skin and bone, but rather a spiritual being whom resides therein, fosters an appreciation beyond looks that reflects a maturity seldom realized.
However, just because you’re not easy on the eyes doesn’t mean you don’t hold to some really, really bad ideas.
February 6, 2007 at
Well, Republican women take better care of their appearance. We also don’t think that long hair or make-up means that we are submitting to outdated patriarchial stereotypes.
February 6, 2007 at
Beauty is from the inside out — and we Republican women are just gorgeous on the inside. It cannot help but show through to the outside.
February 7, 2007 at
Janine Turner is a Republican? Cool.
Since even good pictures of me don’t look that great, I’m glad no one is out posting bad pictures of me on the Internet.
February 7, 2007 at
LOL. Politics is not beauty contest.
February 7, 2007 at
If I had created the poster myself, I would have used conservative and liberal rather than party affiliation as a label.
I tend to agree, those more left leaning tend to eschew the trappings of primp, perhaps matching emotionally the inner sense of struggle and unwillingness to place the individuals wants and needs above the “greater good” and the state. In this way, you show yourself to be part of the great class struggle, ever vigilent with the party agenda and clearly morally superior to the stylish.
Then again, some people are just slobs.
I also agree, inner beauty shines through in many ways, and in Neils case and mine, thats a good thing.
Thank you Bromo, Tammi, Neil and QB for commenting.
February 8, 2007 at
Brilliant commentary.
February 8, 2007 at
Interesting perspectives, everyone.
With the exception of the old photos of Laura Bush and Peggy Noonan, to me the photos show the contrast between women in their 30’s or younger, smiling sweetly in portraits, against photos of women in their 50’s or older in various accidental snapshots of emotion.
The point of is…
Pretty is better?
No… No… No…
I got it!
Thinking makes women ugly?
February 8, 2007 at
Ann Coulter, in that photo, is being interviewed (probably by Fox News). I think the point of the over-emotional Democrat women was to imply that they are shrill and not in control of themselves; often, conservative women are very forceful but have the Southern manners thing going on.
Dr. Laura is one nice-looking lady:
http://www.kugn.com/images/Dr_Laura.jpg
Phyllis Schafly is in her 80s and still a really stunning woman:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://phyllisschlafly.com/gif/ps/phyllis-300dpi-d.jpg&imgrefurl=http://phyllisschlafly.com/&h=350&w=276&sz=22&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=CBLm89Ga7hzSZM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dphyllis%2Bschlafly%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX
(Icidentally, she looks better in person. Her pictures don’t do her justice.)
Kerry Healey, Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Brown Clement, and Sandra Day O’Connor are all really classy looking ladies (yes, even the old ones!).
For fun, see:
http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life/part_3/
Then again, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a cheerleader, so I think the other side gets at least a dozen points for that one. :)
February 8, 2007 at
Hi Kit,
“No… No… No…
I got it!
Thinking makes women ugly?”
Kinda funny. And, maybe true. Not of all women, but obviously some.
You have a nice sense of humor. It’s a shame you can’t disagree with another and maintain that.
Your welcome back.
Thanks
February 8, 2007 at
You know, at the risk of appearing any more “bigoted”, “sexist”, “racist” and homophobe than I already do, maybe a reason some age better than others has to do with self indulgence and personal choices at an early age, with some damaging habits carried into adult life.
Clearly smoking, drinking alcohol, drug use of various types, inner anger and frustration, maintaining a vengeful spirit and self loathing generated by false guilt and shame all, eventually, mess with our appearance.
Not to mention the eternal truth, that whatever is in your heart will, sooner or later, make it’s way out of your mouth.
Personally, I’ve never indulged and never had an evil thought. Therefore, I will always look 3 years old. =;-)~
Thanks!
ps I thoroughly enjoyed zombietime, btw. Thanks
February 8, 2007 at
What I plainly see is that someone has an agenda, and it shows a mile wide and six feet deep. The pictures of the oh-so-wonderful Republicans were obviously chosen from “photo ops”, with the women wearing (probably professionally applied) makeup, carefully posed, and smiling. Whereas the pictures of the oh-so-dangerous Democrats were carefully selected from candid shots when the subject was not prepared to have a camera shoved in her face, was not posed and smiling, was not even given a moment to paste on a smile.
I also note that the faces of the Democrats show real emotion — they’re passionate about something (most of them), and it shows on their faces. Unfortunately, an instant of deep feeling, caught and frozen in time, is rarely attractive — but it is real, and honest. Whereas the faces of the Republicans show nothing more than, “Do I look okay? Is this light flattering to me?”
However, just because you’re not easy on the eyes doesn’t mean you don’t hold to some really, really bad ideas.
The corollary is also true — Just because you ARE easy on the eyes doesn’t mean you don’t hold to some really, really bad ideas.
February 8, 2007 at
Oh gawd.
Listen, I’ve never said I’m intelligent or even possess a humour of any worth but Political Correctness aside, this poster just made me laugh!
The cheek of it.
Now yes, I can (and alrighty, probably should) drag forth my feminist side and get all irrate… just let me get over the giggles and I’ll be right there.
- Solo xx
February 8, 2007 at
Hi Starwatcher,
I’m new at producing satirical posts.
I meant every word I wrote, and I also thought the corollary was obvious and that was the joke.
Of course, appearance has absolutely nothing to do with either validity or substance of one’s ideas.
The fact that I tend to agree with the attractive women postered here is not based on sexual attraction or stylish appearance.
Your comment reflects an ability to transcend difficulty and make the best of a tough situation. Well done.
Thanks for commenting.
February 8, 2007 at
Hi Solo,
Im pleased you were entertained. Anything that adds a little lighthearted humor to life has got to be good.
Come back anytime.
February 8, 2007 at
I was commenting on the message the art gave me. My impression of the message, not at all about who is more beautiful. There are plenty of beautiful women of all ages and thought.
February 9, 2007 at
Kita,
Yes, of course. That would be the appropriate view and the proper words to use so no one is offended. Well done.
I thought I read a little light hearted humor, but no. Oh well.
February 9, 2007 at
This is just dumb. Why, why, why, why………?
February 9, 2007 at
And your not even a radical feminist..
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/
=;-)
February 9, 2007 at
Hah, I was one…….. in a former life!
February 9, 2007 at
Of course… I was being a drama queen about it! Every day deserves a little horsing around, don’t you think.
Why are you always testing people?
February 9, 2007 at
Hi Kit,
Using my least paternal, capitalist, imperialist, sexist, white male voice, I’m not sure what you mean by testing. But, assuming it’s some fairly harmless, engaging, interesting tactic to draw out emotional responses from others, then, yes, I’m a tester, but I just didn’t know it.
If, however, it’s code for an evil, misogynistic verbal molestation of the embattled, victimized suffragettes, then count me out.
I’m just a dottering old fool attempting to spread sweetness and light at every turn. You can call me Gramps.
Feel tested? =;-)~
February 9, 2007 at
“You can call me Gramps.”
There’s little ole me cruising nonchalantly through my comments and replies, calm and peaceful until I get to this comment of yours.
The laughter was spontaneous and loud enough to startle the cat :-)
So Gramps - you rock :-) - in a sweet, light way of course.
- Solo xx
February 9, 2007 at
Hi Solo,
That’s twice now you’ve brought a smile to my face as well.
The world needs many more gentle souls like you, quick with a smile and able to laugh.
You rock too,
Gramps =;-)~
February 9, 2007 at
Wow - this is turning into a blog war.
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2007/02/08/republicans-as-misogynists-todays-award/
I’m a SnoCaps fan, but can’t seem to find them in California. Does anyone have popcorn?
Thanks, Gramps, for the sweetness and light for the day. :)
February 9, 2007 at
Hi Bromo,
I’ve learned something.
There exists an alternative universe of womens groups living a healthy, vibrant life in the blog arena. Some dead white guy asked” What is originality? A fresh pair of eyes and ears.” or something like that. Clearly, I was unaware of the intense, vibrant exchange of communication that takes place and how extensive this network proves to be.
I was pleased that the woman who used this post to diplay on her blog was even handed in her commentary regarding my words, carefully and accurately separating the language and her disdain for the poster.
I also learned that there really are people paying attention to what you have to say and prepared to make their agreement, or disagreement, known. I suppose that’s the whole point in taking the time to do this.
The Gramps thing is something I’ll need a little time to grow into, but it seems I fit the profile, and I’m just a little bit younger than the average grandparent.
Without gratuitous flattery, I enjoy reading your work.
Thanks for stopping by, again.
=;-)~
February 10, 2007 at
It’s nice when someone agrees, but much more fun if they respectfully don’t. I love investigating their point of view and sometimes/often I end up modifying mine to some degree.
When my first grandchild was born I wanted them to call me Granny… But my kids refused, claiming that I was too young for that. Being a grand parent is something one has to settle into… Especially if you aren’t retired yet.
February 10, 2007 at
Wow — I’ve been out of town for a couple of days and you are still busier than ever on this blog! Congrats on keeping the discussion going. I’m glad to see you have some grammar police that comment to help keep you on the straight and narrow. I have Tieki Rae for that it doesn’t cost a dime :)
February 10, 2007 at
Hi Kita,
I agree that detractors heighten enjoyment to a degree.
On the other hand, I seem to attract way more than my fair share of disagreement. Since I have a melancholy/depressive style of writing, that certainly isn’t the draw.
I also agree an ability to modify opinion is the bare minimum for enjoying discourse. Otherwise, exchange of ideas is reduced to argument.
=;-)~
February 10, 2007 at
Welcome back Tammi!
Thanks for your help with technical support and advice. Everything you suggested worked for me.
=;-)~
February 10, 2007 at
LOL! :)
Cannot believe that y’all are so old. Kita’s a grandma? Tammi has kids? (Welcome back to cyber-world! :) )
I was, ahem, moderated out of the womensspace for daring to suggest that it’s nice to have powerful women role models who are not allowing themselves to be masculanised. Appaerntly, the ladies over there get the vapours at the idea that women can be attractive and smart, having missed Legally Blonde and all. :)
February 10, 2007 at
I am seldom amazed that the simple act of allowing controvertible evidence, as is often done by our liberal brethren, if only witnessed by common sense, is rejected in favor of the severely limiting and dangerous silencing, even threatening, of those with whom they disagree.(see Global Warming)
You would think welcoming dissent and responding with reasoned counter-argument would more accurately reflect a liberal
thinker, and add the “fairness” that is so diligently sought.
Instead, refusal to consider differences of opinion and active disdain flows from the very ones pleading for understanding and support.(substitute demanding for pleading is probably more accurate)
I once had a muslim man dress me down for questioning Islamic ideology and the abuse of women. He explained that I didn’t “posess sufficient understanding or the higher spiritual insight that muslim men do.” Therefore, shut up and mind your own business.
His attitude is shared by others, it seems.
At least he heard me out.
=;-)~
February 11, 2007 at
Sadly, I’ve met very few liberals my age who are capable of engaging in reasoned debate. I really do want to meet people like that - those who can articulate a position - but they are so used to being a majority on campus that they act with impunity and assume that everyone else agrees with them.
I’ve had some pretty ignorant things said to me. “You’re a Republican? So you don’t care about the environment.” “You’re anti-abortion, so you just let men in the patriarchy/God/the Bible think for you.”
Thanks for the food for thought.
~Bridget
February 11, 2007 at
Aphra,
Conformity in looks - i.e. grooming - is NOT limited to women. Men who do not groom themselves also look scary. (Anyone else get creeped out my some men with moustaches or huge beards? Seen guys with sweat stains under their arms?)
I remember one of my crim law professors talking about preparing clients for court. He said that you make sure they are clean-cut, washed, and wearing their nice shirt - not the Metallica one. ;)
Men who are not well-groomed face social pressures as well.
I completely agree that people who don’t feel pressure to conform are few and far between. As a raging individualist, I make non-conformity more comfortable by seeking out people who are like me, and shaping a world into something I’m comfortable with.
February 27, 2007 at
[...] Never Judge A Book By It’s Cover: Democrat women are ugly! Ha ha! For Republicans, this sort of thing passes for wit. The pettiness and stupidity of this post is made even more pathetic by the blog’s name. (The joke in this post parallels the Jimmy Kimmel anti-trans bigotry linked to above, further proof that banal minds think alike.) [...]
February 28, 2007 at
You don’t know very much about punctuation, do you? Twice you use “it’s” when you ought to use “its,” and you have “your” when you ought have “you’re.” This leads me to believe you’re not very smart, and the rest of your post proves I’m right.
Incidentally, it wouldn’t be hard to counter your stupid post by naming scads of ugly-ass Republican women and hot Democratic women as well.
February 28, 2007 at
Hi Helen,
It seems you’ve missed the point.
Looks don’t matter in the realm of ideas, not even a little bit.
I really appreciate the grammar criticism, and offer to correct my not very smart mistakes. Nothing like having a deeply critical person around to point out the stupidity of other people.
Thanks,
Hank
ps you don’t really need proof that your right, do you? I’m guessing your politically correct even while brushing your teeth.
February 28, 2007 at
Liberal women
Conservative woman
Case closed….
February 28, 2007 at
Hi Hermit,
When I saw the links, I was hoping for something really nice, an expose of nasty looking, brain dead conservative women.
Not to mention Liberal women fit for a beauty pageant.
Oh well…
February 28, 2007 at
Always nice to have Ms. Grammar Person on staff to help out, isn’t it?
February 28, 2007 at
Kind of like having a secretary to edit your correspondence…? ;)
February 28, 2007 at
No, kind of like having a liberal around to point out the many compositional errors conservatives make when they try to write like adults. You fuckwits can’t quite pull it off, but it’s cute that you even try.
February 28, 2007 at
Helen,
You don’t seem to grasp the pettiness of pointing out grammatical error as opposed to ideas.
I trained with the finest, widely available tool for teaching youngsters grammar, Hooked on Phonics. And, I’ve just one thing to state about that:
hukd on fonix wrkd fer me
August 30, 2007 at
Jessie
I actually have sent out re-thank you cards. When I thanked people right after my wedding, I really
March 12, 2008 at
Not really. I’m thinking why the hell is Ann Coulter on that list? I’m also thinking someone as big a dipshit as you who’s a Democrat could do the exact same thing.