feminism

Dis Appearance

“I just don’t think she has a presidential look and you need a presidential look.”

 
One way or (and) another, Donald Trump dissed Hillary Clinton’s appearance. Of course he’s not the first or last to dis HRC’s appearance, but he used it as a disqualifier for the presidency of the United States.

Whether he was being sexist (he was), or just a jerk (he was), we often talk about looking presidential, as opposed to a presidential look. “Looking presidential” implies that a person exhibits certain qualities with a demeanor of distinction: authoritative (not authoritarian); intelligent (not ignorant); well informed (by reputable resources and critical thinking); diplomatic (not wheeling and dealing); cordial; articulate…

Other qualities such as charisma may be highly regarded, but ultimately seriousness is preferable for a job that demands gravitas and clear thinking. Strength is another quality that is difficult to define, but purposeful beyond self would be respected. Oh, and then there’s respectable…. I guess there are varying definitions of looking respectable, but presenting (not exclaiming) oneself as decent, reasonable, of substance…these seem to comprise an expression of respectability.

It’s amazing how much we disregard, disqualify, disrespect, distrust, dishonor, and even just dis people based on appearance. We assume a tremendous amount based on appearance. Even those who prefer to minimize an appearance of effort in their appearance, are conveying something through their appearance, namely: I’m not shallow; I’m interested in more than my appearance. Likewise, we often assume that those who have sartorial interests or accessorize are making a different sort of statement, and that those interested in presenting themselves more materially are therefore shallow and/or materialistic. Beware— sometimes appearances can be deceiving!

As we are all always concerned about looking good (whatever that may mean)—of a certain type or status—even if that means modest—we are always aware of when others look bad. Looking good or bad goes way beyond our physical appearance. It’s what we do and how we are. We use external appearances too often as assessments of character—that which really defines whether or not we look good.

And yet, everyone has a look. We can change our look through hair, clothing, glasses, etc., and we tend to think of this as expressing our selves and/or our position. Some of us, however, only know how to look one way. Our look hasn’t changed, but have we?

So what about that presidential look? What does that even mean? Looking presidential is more significant than a presidential look, although a presidential look should reflect the qualities that have one look presidential. A presidential look (or any look) is one’s superficial (external) appearance. Looking presidential is one’s demeanor.

Trump does not look presidential; nor does he have a presidential (modest and distinguished) look. Why would he dis appearance? Because it’s the lowest common denominator. It’s broad enough to include the most base of his base, who have difficulty with race and gender (as they are understood first by appearance). Because if anyone is shallow, it’s Trump. And those Trumpeters want simplistic, caustic, anti-, because they regard their blowhard as strong.

Why dis appearance? Because it immediately attracts the disgruntled.

To me, that doesn’t look very good.

The Man Who Sold the World

Michael Stipe:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF2ed7ouU3o

Nirvana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fregObNcHC8

Lulu: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8ywV7KwSI

David Bowie:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSH–SJKVQQ

 

 
Over the last 24 hours, I have been inundated with videos of Trump and Stipe, with headlines about the most incredible audio from these men.

Trump managed to suggest that women who get abortions should be punished, and when the backlash was immediate and fierce, he backtracked and suggested that doctors who perform abortions should be punished, not the women who undergo the procedure.

Even abortion foes reacted strongly against Trump’s comment. John Kasich tweeted: “Of course women shouldn’t be punished for having an abortion.” This from a staunch opponent of abortions. Really? Since when have women who are pro-choice, much less suffered through an abortion, not been punished? Granted, the punishment is not prison or a fine, but the endless shaming and aggression against those who are pro-choice has always trumped (pun intended) compassion or concern or even curiosity about alternatives.

Whether Trump’s latest belch will affect his polling remains to be seen. After all, he’s the man who sold the world. He says what some think. He’s a zillionaire, so he must be the most capable and smartest in the world. He wrote The Art of the Deal. He’s bought and sold so much, you won’t believe how much. He’s the man who sold the world.
As all the media, social and anti-social, were broadcasting and posting Trump’s comments—about punishing women or physicians, the media was also sharing a rebroadcast (you-tube) of Michael Stipe, former frontman for R.E.M., singing a haunting cover of “The Man Who Sold the World”, by David Bowie. He performed it on The Tonight Show the other night, in advance of his “Music of David Bowie” tribute concert. His haunting rendition hardly conjures The Donald, but captures the personal searching for ourselves that Bowie’s version, and Nirvana’s unplugged version, also evoke. Yet, Stipe puts his own stamp on it, as did Bowie and Nirvana (Kurt Cobain, especially).

Art speaks truth to the human experience, and individuals find their specific identifications with a work of art. The style of Bowie’s 1970 song, and Nirvana’s 1995 Unplugged cover, and Michael Stipe’s 2016 rendition are each artist specific, yet the song seems timeless.

Demagoguery and hate are also timeless. There are always those who would sell the world for power. I couldn’t help but consider this song that was being posted everywhere yesterday in the context of the events of the day—namely, Donald Trump’s latest. The interesting thing about “The Man Who Sold the World” is that it is both the demagogue and us.

If the original intent of the song was to meet and “shake hands” with our “other” (lesser) selves, its meaning extends to a societal level. We not only have tremendous economical, social, religious, educational, cultural differences among us in the U.S., but we somehow have to shake hands and meet. We can’t merely sell the world and think we will continue to be successful.

I know that the man who sells the world, i.e. Donald Trump, is far from the guy Michael Stipe, Kurt Cobain, or David Bowie were evoking, but there is something quite amazing about The Man Who Sold the World. It is fitting that Stipe’s affecting rendition was being played everywhere the same day that Trump’s “punishing” comments were everywhere.

We passed upon the stair,
We spoke of was and when,
Although I wasn’t there,
He said I was his friend,
Which came as some surprise.
I spoke into his eyes,
“I thought you died alone
A long long time ago.”

“Oh no, not me,
I never lost control
You’re face to face
With the man who sold the world.”

I laughed and shook his hand
And made my way back home,
I searched for form and land,
For years and years I roamed.
I gazed a gazley stare
At all the millions here:
“We must have died alone,
A long long time ago.”

“Who knows? Not me,
We never lost control.
You’re face to face
With the man who sold the world.”

“Who knows? Not me,
We never lost control.
You’re face to face
With the man who sold the world. —David Bowie, first released in the US, Nov.1970

 

 
I just discovered Lulu (To Sir With Love)’s version of the song from 1974. Perhaps this version, albeit 1974 pop, is the most appropriate version. Women still feel face to face with The Man Who Sold the World. Of course, the more versions, the more we each recognize The Man Who Sold the World. We’re face to face with him.

Miss Spoke

It was a YUUUGE night in little New Hampshire, after a spectacularly crazy week of words heard everywhere.

Prior to the primary primary, Madeline Albright, campaigning for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, declared, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

Gloria Steinem, when asked why Hillary does so poorly among younger women said, “When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’ ”

HUH??

That even trumps Trump’s repetition of one of his supporter’s sentiments that Ted Cruz “is a pussy”.  Trump considered the impact of those words before quoting his supporter. He knew he wasn’t supposed to say that! Eh….what the heck….

We hold Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem to a higher standard (and they are not contenders for POTUS).  I was cringing when I heard each of them. These are public figures who know the impact of words. They have forged not only careers, but changed the landscape through their words that inspired actions. They understand consequences–intended and unintended. They are seasoned. They have contended with difficulties and experienced breakthroughs and tremendous success. And they are merely insulting now.

I read an article about how we shouldn’t diminish Albright and Steinem based on this past week’s comments. Their long and distinguished lives and careers are testaments to their iconic statuses, and their work has been profoundly significant, not only as feminist leaders, but as principled, inclusive, democratic, encouraging women whose influence is (was) global and intergenerational.

Well, sorry….that all ended rather abruptly. Shaming women (or anyone) into voting for a particular candidate is shameful. And it is a losing strategy. Younger people are generally more attracted to idealism. In general, people want leaders who inspire. Even Bill is beginning to repeat the 2008 over-the-top attack dog bit that bit the Clintons in the behind. Hard to see how their being offensive while feeling defensive will win hearts or minds or votes.

The obvious reaction to Albright’s admonition is: REALLY??? Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachman. Carly Fiorina. Because they are women?

And Steinem….the ulitmate Feminist icon…sounding like Connie Francis: Where the Boys Are. My brain still hurts from trying to figure this out. It’s actually rather tragic. These two (3?) ladies seem so sadly out of touch with not just this generation of female voters, but with the last few decades.

And the response to the justified outrage and backlash? Steinem said that she misspoke.

No. Miss Spoke just didn’t consider that idealism is more interesting (especially to youger people) than pragmatism; that women and any other demographic group are not necessarily homogenous; and that thinking critically means evaluating beyond gender or race or generation or any other category.

Miss Spoke was not only insulting, but inaccurate. Trump’s appeal to many is that he is acutely aware of his rhetorical choices, and disregards accuracy or respect with the intention of garnering support by appealing to baser instincts and emotions.

There seems to be a different set of rules for the one who claims Miss Spoke (whichever one): we expect a different sort of discourse and program–one that appeals to our aspirations with critical thinking; our better angels and productivity. Miss Spoke needs to think and speak more broadly. And we know more than one Miss Spoke recently.