This is a follow-up post to the previous post on "Why America is Not Ready for a Female President."
Wouldn't it have been nice to find things different? But with the resignation of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, I've found others from the New York Times ("Postfeminism and Other Fairy Tales") to England's Guardian ("Why Does Hillary Clinton Wear Such Bad Clothes?") sounding the same notes that Hillary Clinton has been sidelined because of her appearance.
They also note others who've said, "she is a woman and therefore dangerously sexy, but also a woman and therefore a tedious maternal nag." Interesting that women and danger and sexy are all in the same sentence. Reminds me a bit of the old Medieval Catholic idea, believed by many, including Tertulian, that women sullied the world, that women were a tremendous temptation and therefore better left untouched, untasted, unhandled. Like we were some poisoned pretty apple from Satan. I believe Tertullian's words are, "Woman, thou are the devil's gateway, through you sin entered the world." I also found that other journalists were understandably outraged that white men and pretty women wield too much power. Sure it's changing, but not quite as fast as we'd imagine.
I'd like to take a moment to note that the way women's captivating powers are viewed and used and accepted (even in the church as John and Staci Eldredge's book Captivating has proved) is a relatively new idea. Women of character didn't want to captivate, that was a job for adulterous women, geishas, prostitutes, seducers. Women didn't vie for the type of power that a pretty, young thing could easily gain and easily lose. Women didn't parade porn bunnies on their T-shirts, didn't carry key-chains that read "porn star", didn't dress like what my sister calls "hoochi-mamas" on Halloween and call it a costume. And men didn't dress up like gynocologists for Halloween either. Most women knew that a man of character could not be gained with their flesh alone.
But since the early 20th century, things have changed drastically. Who has brainwashed us into believing the main thing to look for in the opposite sex is attractiveness? Is it Hollywood that's to blame? Is it movie stars? Is it fashion mags? Is it godless feminists who parade their free sexuality everywhere? Rather than blame, perhaps we ought to wonder at how we've bought into the lies.
We actually have women and men in our churches, in our homes, maybe even we believe that sex appeal is much more important than honesty, openness, vulnerability, kindness, communication. This sex-addiction began in full-force in American in the early 1900's. This is a date that is often associated with the explosion of Hollywood movies into American theaters and eventually television which pumped ideas into our homes. People grew accustomed to seeing beautiful, attractive, symmetrical people who were the heroes and heroines. We began to demand that we look that good, that you look that good. In fact, not until movies came out did you see immediate wide-spread trends of clothing, jewelry, make-up, hair styles, what's "in" and what's "out." Not until relatively recently did people start closing their eyes when they kissed because that's what they do "in the movies."
So now, because Hillary Clinton is sandwiched between commercials with stylish, white-teethed, symmetrical, full-bosomed females selling us Crest and movie stars who have more money, more sex-appeal, cuter kids, hotter husbands, we find her terribly wanting.
Note: Again, I do not support Clinton, but I do believe that short, older, regular looking women should not be automatically disqualified from power simple on the basis of looks.