A person in politics, male or female, is certainly not just a person, and certainly not just a friend. Whether they like it or not they are the public sphere placeholder for all those who they represent. They are, professionally, a political tool, more than an individual person. If the person doesn’t like that then (s)he shouldn’t sign up for the gig.
When describing someone’s professional qualifications in a job that does not include “attractive” in the job description, don’t talk about looks.
How’s that for a rule?
So when introducing a friend someone should not mention anything other than professional attributes at all? No joking around or humanizing the person with any mention of their hobbies or other non-professional accomplishments or your personal history with them that is not directly relevant to their job? Making fun of Jack Lew’s signature was also off limits?
Not if they are a woman, apparently. They are to be treated as political objects and not people. That’s your own argument after all.
Women ARE uniquely judged by their looks, in that they’re judged much more then men, and it’s true in politics as well as any place. This means both positively judged (FLOTUS’ arms) and negatively judged (your Janet Reno example), but I didn’t mean to imply in my post that a woman has to be good-looking to be successful.
Positive judgement can be just as harmful as negative judgement; see my earlier cite about Harris being accused of using her good looks to advance up the political ladder.
boozilu only said “looks”. Not personality attributes, hobbies, or personal history.
I don’t know why this is so complicated. You can’t go wrong focusing on things that are within a person’s control or that highlight someone’s character. You only risk offense when you mention superficial qualities that are beyond one’s control (like looks).
There are a million ways to compliment someone that have nothing to do with how sexually attractive they appear, so this should not be so hard to do.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
And an excellent use of the “singular they”, to boot!
Except Janet Reno was in many ways judged on her looks in ways that comparable male politicians weren’t.
That’s dumb. Would you say racism must be gone now since we have a black president?
I notice you didn’t answer my question about whether you had any female friends besides your mother.
In his defense, it’s not really a GD type of question.
Bolding mine. It’s remarkable that terminology normally used against the objectification of women (‘humanizing’ a person, don’t treat people as ‘objects’ or ‘not people’) is now being used in favor of objectification.
I’m having a difficult time believing that you know even one feminist who objects to having doors opened for her but expects compliments every time she changes her hairstyle. Is this woman actually a sitcom character?
The logic, as I understood it, is that looks have nothing to do with job performance so should not be commented on. That rationale is silly. Once you’ve established someone’s professional cred, establishing them as more than just an efficient machine, yes, humanizing them, is standard. That means teasing about a signature, discussing hobbies, backstory, telling a humorous anecdote, and apprently for Obama, with males at least, teasing them about being so good looking. (If they are.) He’s now learned he can’t do that last one with females. For justifiable reasons but those reasons do not include that it is not in the job description.
Do women have a history of being the subject of intense scrutiny regarding their hobbies? Or is your attempt at a parallel there just a waste of time.
I wouldn’t be personally weirded out at all if a senior manager said in front of “god and everybody” that “Una is the best damn scientist we have in the company, and she’s hot too!” In fact, I would be very flattered.
However, I also recognize it would be inappropriate. So I would have a mix of pride and shame.
Exactly.
I think very few people have ever been accused of getting a job just because they engage in a certain hobby…unless the hobby was something sexual.
On the other hand, being promoted because they engage in a certain hobby is another story (e.g. golf.)
The whole idea of “sleeping your way to the top” is almost exclusively leveled at women, that must be the only way they could be successful. A woman’s attractiveness in the professional sphere then becomes a substitute for her abilities. It shouldn’t be hard to imagine why women are harmed when the discussion about their professional accomplishments is intertwined with discussion about their level of physical attractiveness.
Bringing up Janet Reno as some sort of counter example is also ineffective because it plays into the same narrative. “Look how successful she was despite not being conventionally attractive.” It implies that she had to work against a factor that is necessary to female success.
Again the comment was aimed exclusively at the argument that the reason to not comment on looks is because it has nothing to do with the job. That argument has no validity. Other arguments do, as I have already stated in several other posts.