Monday, 18 April 2005

Premise not computing

Normally, I’m in full agreement with TigerHawk about things, but this post on Ann Coulter will not stand:

Michelle Malkin, who certainly should concern herself with the press’s treatment of attractive conservative women, writes that it is all part of a pattern. [emphasis mine]

Of course, I don’t share my co-blogger’s apparent interest in emaciated women—not to mention his predilection in favor of Ms. Coulter’s cleavage—so I may not be an unbiased observer.


Any views expressed in these comments are solely those of their authors; they do not reflect the views of the authors of Signifying Nothing, unless attributed to one of us.
[Permalink] 1. TigerHawk wrote @ Mon, 18 Apr 2005, 9:53 pm CDT:

1. Ann is about legs, not about rack.

2. There are clearly people who think she is very attractive—I mentioned a few weeks ago that I had known her during law school, and got some extremely, er, envious email.

3. I think Ann is more dramatic than she is either beautiful or sexy. She has a fairly unique look that you either like or you don’t. I have always thought she was attractive, but not to any distracting degree.

4. Without getting into the game of defending her every word (I can’t even defend my every word), I can report that in person she is a very engaging and funny conversationalist. I haven’t had a conversation with her in 19 years—since law school we have only exchanged emails—but as a first year at Michigan she was much the way she is today. I respected her smarts and found her delightful to shoot the breeze with, even if I did not agree with her every pronouncement.


On Coulter’s rack: I said it was about proportion. I saw a picture of her a couple of years ago—a torso shot, so no legs were showing—and it was appealing. I find her attractive but can’t stand to listen to her. Her bomb-throwing just doesn’t fit with my style.


Oh, and the emaciated women bit was strictly to feed a Zydeco fetish. When they’re skinny enough their ribs can be used as a washboard.


Uh, thanks for the mental image. (Zydeco fetish? The mind boggles.)


Politics and the apparent lack of funds for fact checkers on the part of her book publishers aside, this is not an attractive woman. I mean this on two levels: 1) intelligence is sexy, therefore she isn’t. Her pronouncements show an utter lack of critical thinking and a screeching willingness to cast aside context for sensationalism. 2) She is, in no way, shape or form, physically attractive. I don’t think this matters. In fact, I find it generally demeaning that we are even discussing her “hot or not” quotient. However, it is something she plays up and plays to –as well as something her legions of acolytes obsess over—therefore, it is a point that merits discussion.

The first time I saw a photo of her (one of her press photos; i.e. in favorable lighting, etc.) Austin Power’s voice popped into my head, “That’s a man, baby!” Her equine features are totally unappealing. Further, she has the grace of a Parkinson’s ridden sleepwalker. “Gangly and lanky” do not usually go in the same sentence with “lithe beauty.”

Hmmm…bony, anorexic, awkward, and horse-faced…yeah…I want me some o’ dat!

Comments are now closed on this post.