MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
I did not direct my criticism at either side of the aisle. Instead, I was thinking more along the lines of "requiring female candidates to be physically attractive closes the door on far too many qualified people, and is sexist because we are more'n willing to elect fugly male candidates."
It isn't so much that some of you have entertained lusty thoughts about a candidate of either gender.....it's the subtle disenfranchising of female candidate who are hot by directing attention away from their POVs, and the undue burdening or closing out of fugly female candidates.
Such discussion also slants a party/electorate in favor of younger candidates. Few women are "hot" in the 50's or 60's, but I myself prefer a graybeard in office all things being equal.
I find the "my side has better looking women" argument just bizarre-o. Who cares? How would you know? And why are you even concerned? I also resent the "straight vs gay" debate. If you are so stupid you'd vote against a female candidate because she's a lesbian, that's on you. I'm not especially interested in listening to any hateful, homophobic remarks. WTF? Are you worried a lesbian candidate will never sleep with you? Some of you need better reality contact.
As for my slamming Palin as a parent...I sure did. But the Mods have pulled that thread, and from what I understand, once they have acted we are not supposed to discuss their reasons why in public. So all y'all who did not read it can just guess why I think Palin is a sub- sub- sub-par parent. Without further permission, I am not re-introducing that topic for debate.
I come from a state that elects dog ugly women in my opinion, but that has not hindered their elections to office. Cases in point boxer and pelosi.
But then you might soon be electing a woman for governor who looks like she got hit in the face with a frying pan.