Sure, but that’s not the point I’m making here. As I noted above, I think anybody who finds Kagan physically unattractive is fully entitled to their opinion, and entitled to express it in public as well.
I’m just pointing out that a lot of people seem to have a lot more interest in publicly expressing their negative opinion about the physical attractiveness of a woman in politics than publicly expressing their negative opinion about the physical attractiveness of a man in politics. Moreover, their opinions about the unattractive women seem to be expressed with more hostility and rancor, on average.
I think you’re perfectly entitled to that opinion, and perfectly entitled to express it. But I suspect that if you saw pictures of a male Supreme Court nominee as ugly as Kagan, you probably would not have considered his ugliness comment-worthy.
That doesn’t mean that I think you are being unfair to Kagan’s qualifications as a Supreme Court justice, or that you’re letting your opinion of her looks affect your opinion of her qualifications. It just means that I think you probably share the common bias that a woman’s looks are automatically and intrinsically a more appropriate subject for public comment than a man’s looks.
I think you’re being a little oversensitive on this one, Chessic Sense. AFAICT, Brother Cadfael was apologizing to ElvisL1ves not because he actually said anything smeary (and I think we all agree that he didn’t), but because he had appeared to be trying to weasel out of answering Elvis’s question about his use of the term “smear”.
It is appropriate to apologize to another poster for having inadvertently failed to actually answer their question when you responded to them. No “offenderati”-pandering was involved.
Actually, I do remember some articles on Obama’s fashion sense. Part of it being on how he looked very good in quite inexpensive suits. And shoes with a hole in them.
Kagan looks like a man dressed up as a woman. I have been reading she isn’t out of the closet? This is a huge win for gay rights to have a Lesbian, out or not sitting on the supreme court especially with gay marriage on the agenda.
The US is obsessed with looks but what we should be looking at is who is Kagan and what does she stand for. Why was she picked?
No, this would be a huge loss for gay rights. If she is in fact a lesbian, what message is she sending, to be at the pinnacle of her career and a potential role model . . . and yet still hiding her identity? We have more than enough “role models” like that.
If she said “Yes, I live with my partner Susan . . . now let’s get on with the business at hand” . . . now THAT would be a huge win for gay rights.
If Obama refused to be seen in public without wearing skin-lightener, would that be a huge win for the rights of Black people?