MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

RSS

15 February 2010

I don't get the point of this. We all look better with our hair done and accessories and make-up (for women anyway, but don't kid yourself that male politicians aren't wearing make-up when they appear on TV). I am no fan of Sarah Palin, but no one would do this with a male politician.
posted by amro 15 February | 14:08
Yeah, I hate the way stuff like this is always done to women in the public eye.
posted by BoringPostcards 15 February | 14:17
Well, I thought she looks better plain.
posted by Joe Beese 15 February | 14:24
Perhaps you do, but the website seems derisive to me.
posted by amro 15 February | 14:29
Yeah. I think it's legitimate to talk about how people look (I'd love to see a discussion of Hillary's fashion with photographs etc.) but the context has to be really carefully set to put people in a 'trustful' mindset about one's intentions.
posted by Firas 15 February | 14:35
I didn't look at the rest of the website, but I agree with JB, plain Sarah looks better than librarian-fetish Sarah.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 14:36
The short hair looks good in some of them for sure.
posted by Firas 15 February | 14:42
I don't get the point of this. We all look better with our hair done and accessories and make-up (for women anyway, but don't kid yourself that male politicians aren't wearing make-up when they appear on TV). I am no fan of Sarah Palin, but no one would do this with a male politician.

Bears repeating.
posted by crush-onastick 15 February | 14:44
I think it's interesting that she's labeled as "plain Sarah", but she is clearly still wearing foundation as well as blemish and wrinkle concealer. Not to mention the fact that the artist did sort of a poor job picking hair and lip color - I have a pretty similar skin tone to Palin and my lips are not that uniform nor that taupe - it looks more like she is wearing "neutral" lipstick. In several of the pictures, the artist didn't even go through the trouble of "removing" the very obvious blush and bronzer!

So I guess I don't get the point - is this, "What if Palin had an incompetent stylist?"
posted by muddgirl 15 February | 14:55
the website seems derisive to me

That's interesting. Because there's literally nothing derisive in the framing on that page. [I didn't look anywhere else on the site.] All it says is "This is what she looks like without makeup." And, as we've seen just in this thread, some people find it an improvement.

The reason I don't think this page can be compared with, say, Hillary Clinton getting mocked during the campaign for her pantsuits is because Hillary didn't achieve her public position through her attractiveness to anyone but Bill Clinton. To focus on her looks is to slight her genuine accomplishments.

In Palin's case, the looks are the story. As long as she works to remain a public figure, I think they're a legitimate subject of commentary.
posted by Joe Beese 15 February | 15:01
In Palin's case, the looks are the story.

I doubt that she would choose for that to be her story. She is a politician, not a model or actress. I imagine that she would feel that "to focus on her looks is to slight her genuine accomplishments." (I don't think she has any genuine accomplishments, but she thinks she does.)
posted by amro 15 February | 15:07
I didn't know she has a hairpiece weaved in. Sarah looks nice; but when she speaks it is a mess of one and two syllable words in a middle school level of context. No changing that.

I can't listen to her for more than a moment or two before I tune out. I really don't know if she really has a hairpiece or not because if I can't listen to her; I'm not going to go far enough to pay attention to her appearance.

I thought it was an interesting visual compare and contrast. As far as makeup and females go; I see a gal with too much ?decoration? and it always makes me wonder what is really underneath and on the inside. With Sarah I usually picture something like Doonesbury's rendition of Dan Quayle.
posted by buzzman 15 February | 15:14
So she's basically a brunette Hillary...
posted by Madamina 15 February | 15:31
That was my thought as well, Madamina.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 15:33
As long as she works to remain a public figure, I think they're a legitimate subject of commentary.

She is a politician, not a model or an actress as amro says.
posted by jessamyn 15 February | 16:15
She may be a politician now (if we allow a loose definition of politician), but she was a beauty queen (rather than a model) and a television sports reporter (rather than an actress). She understands image.

Why does no one do this to male politicians? Because male politicians have one generic look, a suit and freshly barbered hair.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 16:29
Why does no one do this to male politicians? Because male politicians have one generic look, a suit and freshly barbered hair.

That's an annoying way to put it though for someone who's sensitive to the issue because it scopes the issue to cut out men altogether.
posted by Firas 15 February | 16:35
men from that type of scrutiny..
posted by Firas 15 February | 16:36
There's really more than enough reasons to make fun of Palin other than the way she looks.
posted by octothorpe 15 February | 16:41
Would scrutinizing men similarly add anything to the issue since it would primarily be speculation? Male politicians do not enjoy the privilege of choosing from a broad range of fashions, so they have already been cut out altogether.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 16:49
Now I see what you're getting at. But I don't see what Palin wears/does to her face as essentially 'inorganic' any more than men choosing to wear a suit (and picking the cut, texture, style etc.) or styling their hair a particular way is inorganic. Looking good for women involves looking feminine to some degree. Looking feminine involves doing elaborate things to one's body. Turning around and saying that's artifice is a bit of a catch-22.
posted by Firas 15 February | 16:53
Would scrutinizing men similarly add anything to the issue since it would primarily be speculation?

No, and no one is suggesting that it would.
posted by amro 15 February | 16:55
"... no one would do this with a male politician."
posted by amro 15 February | 14:08

You suggested it yourself.

"Looking good for women involves looking feminine to some degree."

That depends on context. If I knew nothing about Palin and was only presented with pictures, I would vote for Plain Sarah.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 16:59
Ardiril, I did not suggest that we scrutinize men in addition to women, I noted that we would not do that to men. Your argument is a strawman.
posted by amro 15 February | 17:03
Then I did not understand your intent. I have not been offering an argument, I was rebutting yours.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 17:06
If I knew nothing about Palin and was only presented with pictures, I would vote for Plain Sarah.

That don't matter though! Which Palin is more attractive is kinda dropping the point about whether men's limited fashion choices invites less of this lens being placed upon them naturally apart from a societal construction right? Anyway I'm gonna eject from this convo now coz I'm trying to avoid these kinda subjects in general these days..
posted by Firas 15 February | 17:08
Perhaps I should drop it as well because I don't think I am tuning in on the correct wavelength.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 17:13
I guess the question is (a) Why do you get a vote, ardiril? and (b) Why is "plain Palin" any less a construction than "Politician Palin?"

I argue that the representation of Palin in those photos is intentionally constructed to (1) reveal the "similarities" between Palin and her "plainer" contemporaries (ie, Hillary Clinton), and (2) further the false dichotomy between "natural"-looking women and "made-up" women, in a way that utilizes a still-made-up-woman.
posted by muddgirl 15 February | 17:13
"Why do you get a vote, ardiril?" - Because I am a registered US voter, and Palin is a potential 2012 Presidential candidate.

"Why is 'plain Palin' any less a construction than 'Politician Palin?'" - It takes less time in front of a mirror. (Just guessing on that one, since I don't know what "true Palin" looks like--"plain Palin" may be an even greater construct.)

"intentionally constructed to (1) reveal the 'similarities' between Palin and her 'plainer' contemporaries" - Perhaps, in which case, what is the issue?

"intentionally constructed to ... (2) further the false dichotomy between 'natural'-looking women and 'made-up' women, in a way that utilizes a still-made-up-woman." - This phrasing is confusing, and I don't know what it means.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 17:25
Not that kind of vote, ardiril :) Why do you get to "vote" on which Palin you find more attractive? Putting aside the fact that one of those Palins doesn't even exist...

This phrasing is confusing, and I don't know what it means.

I'm trying to say that, often times, people just don't recognize what a person (who usually wears make-up) looks like without make-up on. We've been so trained by movies and television shows that depict people with "natural-looking" make-up that we think these sorts of photoshops of Palin are even close to "what she really looks like". So when this artist set out to present a Palin 'without make-up', zie really just presented a Palin made up by a different stylist. Perhaps Hillary Clinton's stylist.

So by voting for the "more natural" Palin, you're really just picking one constructed form of beauty over another constructed form. And that's fine as an aesthetic choice, but as a deeper conversation about the role of feminine beauty in politics, it's sort of hollow.
posted by muddgirl 15 February | 17:56
OK, I understand your point now.
posted by Ardiril 15 February | 18:16
Ack, not that I meant to particularly pick on you! It's something I've been sort of thinking about recently (as I've started wearing makeup and talking to people who have, for example, never seen their wife or close female friend without make-up on and didn't even realize it!)
posted by muddgirl 15 February | 18:33
Why does no one do this to male politicians? Because male politicians have one generic look, a suit and freshly barbered hair.

But how could one forget Tom Daschle's fetching ruby spectacles? Or John Boehner's youthful Oompa Loompa glow? Or post-primary loss Joe Lieberman's brief flirtation with Pagliacci?
posted by Rhaomi 15 February | 21:46
So-called "plain Sarah" is so photoshopped, she looks odd to me. She is, with or without makeup, a relatively young, attractive woman politician. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with her capability as an elected official.

Women in politics have an extra handicap; they have to spend time on hair, makeup and wardrobe, and wear shoes that hurt. I think Palin is staggeringly wrong about most things, has sketchy ethical practices, and would be an uncommonly bad elected official. None of my opinions about her has anything to do with how she looks. I would speculate that her looks might have swayed McCain to choose her as running mate, and that his choice didn't help him much.

John Edwards is nice to look at, has great hair, and a rather casual attitude towards the truth. Dennis Kucinich is really short, but an incredible orator. When women can be in positions of authority and not have their looks be a big deal, that will be a fine thing.
posted by theora55 15 February | 23:38
I agree with everyone that it's annoying and demeaning that we focus on the superficial appearances of women in a way that we just don't do most of the time for men.

But, that said, I find these pictures fascinating.

In several pictures, she actually looks like a decent, sincere, earnest person that I'd want to vote for. It's scaring me that I find myself almost liking the woman in some of these pictures, even knowing that she doesn't really exist.

And the rollover increases the creepiness. Roll over to get the original Sarah back. Devil. Roll cursor away. Angel. Devil. Angel. Devil. Angel. Devil. Angel. Devil. Angel... Arghhhhh!!!!
posted by marsha56 16 February | 00:51
There was a recent study claiming (rather dubiously) that you can tell Republican from Democratic political candidates from their faces.

So, I'm wondering if makeup may be a factor in this: if there are Democrat and Republican styles of makeup. Or possibly coastal/inland or rural/metropolitan styles that give you clues.
posted by TheophileEscargot 16 February | 02:18
I can vouch for differences between rural and metro styles as well differences depending on age or class. Of course, like most things, this is a bell curve and not black and white.
posted by Ardiril 16 February | 02:34
Ask MeCha: I have a problem ... || So I'm in the shower thinking of Joyce Carol Oates

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN