Oh Joel Stein, you're so adorable, trying to goad us into anger with your little "humor column" talking about how "whatever wave of feminism we're on in 2008 demands that I objectify Palin." I know you've said before that you're "horribly jealous" of Ann Coulter because her deliberate attempts to piss people off work, while your own idiot screeds are mostly ignored. Well, like a toddler throwing a particularly snot-filled temper tantrum, with your column about Palin's sexiness today you have our attention. While 95% of your article is not funny and completely sexist in a painfully unoriginal, Benny Hill kind of way, you make a single, salient point. But we'll get to that at the end. Let's start with the new-asshole tearin' first!First of all, you think it's absolutely hilarious to call attractive male politicians gay! In today's piece, you say, "American men know how to deal with male politicians. When they're good-looking, we call them gay. When they're not, we call them 'distinguished-looking' or 'Joe Lieberman.'" Such rapier wit has seldom been found outside a vomit-stained frat basement. What's even sadder is that this isn't even original hackery from you. When you wrote about how to make fun of Obama, you said, "He's well-dressed…He may only be half-black, but he's three-quarters gay." ROTFL indeed! Okay, now let's get to the meat of your assertions about Palin's sexiness. Stein says, "In fact, what's sexist is men's fear of sexualizing the women we take seriously," which would be a good point, if you didn't preface that statement by writing, "When she posed for Vogue last year, Palin said of the media, 'I wish they'd stick with the issues instead of discussing my black go-go boots.' A good method of getting reporters to do that, of course, is to not pose for Vogue or talk about your go-go boots. Still, I understand her point. Which is that she wears go-go boots." Oh Joel, you clearly take Palin incredibly seriously…as an object. Then there's the flat-out-insulting pretending to be "funny." "In the last few years — for reasons I assume have to do with either yoga, organic food or advice from Dr. Oz — women in their 40s and 50s have gotten truly, deeply hot. Madonna hot. Demi Moore hot. Stifler's mom hot. In 1990, the only way a woman could have had five kids and still look like Palin was to have been knocked up in high school with quintuplets," you write. It's a double whammy of ists! Sexist and ageist! Well played. So now is where I will say one thing in defense of this mostly-fucked up attempt at funniness. "I would like to live in a world in which young men dream about sex with a woman who is vice president instead of whatever job it is that Kim Kardashian holds," Stein writes. And to be honest, we'd like to live in that world too! A woman can both be attractive and powerful, and we'd love to live in a world where the highest levels of success add to a woman's allure, instead of subtracting from it. Unfortunately, just as you said up top, you're far more focused on Sarah Palin's go-go boots than you are on her fiscal policy (even though you claim to be a fan of the latter as well!). And that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this campaign: people are far more concerned with all the superficial trappings of Palin than they are with what's going on behind those rimless glasses. Real Vice Presidents Can Have Curves [LAT] Earlier: Joel Stein: American Original And Now All The Bloggers Hate Joel Stein Every Day Is Slutoween
"In fact, what's sexist is men's fear of sexualizing the women we take seriously"
I just came up with so many nebulous thoughts about how this ties in to how women shouldn't have to be masculine to be as powerful as men, and how Obama's kinda hot, so should I be afraid of that?
Whatever. All my Friday mind knows is that my husband takes me seriously AND sexualizes me as often as possible, so they can't be mutually exclusive.