Ok, I've had it. Can Arwa Damon of CNN please (mini-rant)

[Subdivisions]

take a shower. Sheesh!

She looks oilier and oilier everytime I see her. You would think that she would at least groom herself even just a little. Instead, she comes on the screen looking like she just got finished oil wrestling.

Ok, I feel better now and I'm suiting up.

[leftchick]

1. she is going for the female Michael Ware look

been with the US troops all day knocking down doors and workin HARD! :shrug:

[Subdivisions]

3. I know she works hard and she is one of their better

reporters. You can't take that away from her. And I would tend to give her a pass, but even when it's obvious she's at home base, she still looks like she hates water.

Yes, Michael Ware is rough too. But men are notoriously dirty and unkempt but teevee has conditioned me to see women looking their best and, despite my mini-rant, I do admire Damon for her otherwise professional reporting and delivery. She is certainly no shill.

[noamnety]

2. Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2470561#2470607

[Subdivisions]

4. I'm not "judging" her...I'm simply making an observation and

I could make the same observation of men on CNN...like Richard Roth, who goes on screen looking like someone just smacked him upside his head.

I'm overweight and could stand to lose 10 or 20 pounds. Don't be so sensitive. Just because you are women doesn't exclude you from critical observation. Sorry.

[noamnety]

5. A couple of points

First one up, "don't be so sensitive." A first cousin to "lighten up" "can't you take a joke" etc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=341&topic_id=7654&mesg_id=7747#F.

The implication is that if a person speaks out about racism or sexism, they are by default, the ones at fault.

The second point is that, while you COULD have made the same observation about Richard Roth, you didn't. And that's the norm. Sometimes we see the occasional "bush looks like an idiot" "he has beady eyes" or a criticism of their weight. But it's unique to women that their criticisms of their looks become the key identity of them. Yesterday, someone observed (paraphrasing, but not by much - only cause I'm too lazy to go to the link): "even if (she) were Mother Teresa, if she were that ugly, I couldn't bear to look at her." In other words, the bottom line is that looks trumps all else.

The last point, which is related to the second one, is the historical (and current, sadly) context of such comments, and the idea that if you make a footnoted comment about a man who you don't think is attractive, it excuses a vitriolic and unprovoked rant about a woman's looks, and the outrage you are apparently feeling at having to look upon a woman who doesn't meet your beauty standards. Coincidentally, Stan Goff's been ranting about this this morning, although in terms of race, not gender.

If we can use this distinction, system = white supremacy, and racist = individual behavior, then we need to make one more point to re-connect them; and that is that power/privilege still matters. White animosity directed at Black-qua-Black, in other words, is not morally or socially equivalent to Black animosity directed at white-qua-white. The bases of those animosities are qualitatively different. African Americans, as a people, are a colonized people within this system; and white folk, as a people (of all classes), have the privileges of the colonizers. Anecdotal exceptions do not disprove this claim. It is a tendential claim, that is well supported by a host of empirical-statistical indices. Oprah don’t make it not so. Prison and poverty and toxic waste dump demographics do make it so.

http://stangoff.com/?p=389#comment-33851

[A-Schwarzenegger]

6. "Don't be so sensitive."

Don't be so shallow. Oh my God, a reporter who cares more about the story than about his/her make-up! Landsakes, what's the media coming to!