REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS BEAUTY ON THE INSIDE THAT COUNTED?
The above was forwarded to me by my cousin Joe recently, and I was struck by the absolute silliness of the point being made. Republicans are right because they're prettier than Democrats.
I could argue the statistical flaws of the argument (this sample is not a sample, but a biased selection made for purpose), but for the sake of causing additional trouble, I'll buy the argument. Democratic women are ugly. Republican women are good-looking.
It's an observation I've tended to make while driving and refraining from giving the finger to... um, jerks... driving expensive imported German and Japanese cars. These... um, jerks... tend to be very good-looking and tanned (because they're white, you know), and, when they're women, very good-looking and tanned and trim and blonde.
Research over the years has shown that good-looking people in general do better than less-than-good-looking people. They make more money, they have more friends, they perform better on the job, they win more elections, they aren't arrested for using their Scientologist beliefs to bed women barely old enough to have sex. When I was beginning my real estate career, I was told flat-out by one broker with whom I'd interviewed that I weighed too much to be successful.
Consequently, I believe this general trend in human affairs would mean that these successful pretty people would achieve success and then would rationalize their success by saying it came from working hard and that working hard should make it easy for everyone to succeed. They will then add the corollary that if you aren't succeeding, you aren't working hard enough.
There are many people in this country who see the fallacy of this argument. Among them are the dark-skinned, the over-50, and the overweight. Add to this the fetish for dismissing the value of having or seeking intelligence, and the entire issue becomes hugely depressing.
I would contend that, if we buy the above argument that women who have achieved great success are unattractive (and, gosh darn it, maybe it's the Democrat in me, but I had a crush on Hillary Rodham Clinton from the moment I first saw her, despite those legs), I would suggest that we pay even more heed to them, because they have clearly achieved recognition from intelligence and hard work exclusively, and not because somebody thought they had a nice smile, a taut tush, smoldering eyes, or killer abs.
Here's a story from my own life that my spouse (whose own attractiveness is not up for debate, although there are pictures that would have the Republicans calling her to sign her up) knows. In my early 20s I had lost a bunch of weight and begun to run, and all of a sudden I had the ability to call up attractive women and actually have them agree to share a meal or a movie with me. In the time before I began to date my wife, I knew this one woman whom I thought was stunningly attractive. Out we went.
Let me tell you now, I would date Bella Abzug's corpse before I would date this woman again. There was no spirited conversation, no awareness of the world beyond her limited viewpoint, no interest in anything other than herself. It was the most eye-opening of my experiences with the opposite sex. Despite a pretty enthusiastic end of date experience which seemed to indicate a real interest, I never pursued the relationship.
Of course, 25 years later I have no idea whether this woman is a Republican or a Democrat. But I can tell you that I would much rather spend any amount of time with an "unattractive" woman who can think, who is open, and who is able to think or do interesting things versus a beautiful woman who can't think for herself and doesn't understand the world enough to be at least aware of the possibility that her success may be tainted.
Sure, I wouldn't have paid to see Andrea Dworkin as a Playboy centerfold. But she'd have made a better anything than any of the women on the Republican side of the graphic above.