MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and
chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
"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.
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.
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!)
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
photo by splunge
photo by TheophileEscargot
photo by Kronos_to_Earth
photo by ethylene
