TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Media attention on Rice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Media attention on Rice

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
I find myself increasngly irritated by the media's attention on Rice's "fashion sense". She's on a whirlwind tour of the world's capitals, and is holding her own, and although I don't agree with many of the policies she advocates, as a woman, I find all the comments on her "appearance" demeaning. I'm probably as bad as the media, as I'd get rid of the "flip", and go for a tapered nape (I've got "problem hair", too), and wince at some of the shoes she wears (don't her feet hurt?), but find that few media outlets would spend as much time commenting on a male Secretary of State's wardrobe. Is anybody else, regardless of partisan positions, disgusted at the way she's being treated by the media, simply because she's female? I love the way she's managed to neutralize Wolfowitz and Bolton - Go, Condi, Go!
post #2 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I find myself increasngly irritated by the media's attention on Rice's "fashion sense". She's on a whirlwind tour of the world's capitals, and is holding her own, and although I don't agree with many of the policies she advocates, as a woman, I find all the comments on her "appearance" demeaning. I'm probably as bad as the media, as I'd get rid of the "flip", and go for a tapered nape (I've got "problem hair", too), and wince at some of the shoes she wears (don't her feet hurt?), but find that few media outlets would spend as much time commenting on a male Secretary of State's wardrobe. Is anybody else, regardless of partisan positions, disgusted at the way she's being treated by the media, simply because she's female? I love the way she's managed to neutralize Wolfowitz and Bolton - Go, Condi, Go!
I can't stand her. I blame her, NOT the media. They are getting this stuff paraded in front of them by her. She dangles it like red meat. Did you hear how she wore high top boots to meet the troops. What is she, a ding a ling sister (you have to be over 40 to get that...they were on Dean Martins show)

I think she is bringing women down by all this, it's back to the 50's with
Jackie O being brought to events to turn men's heads.
post #3 of 19
Sorry Marge, but I have to disagree (well, not about the part where you don't much like her). While obviously there are professional standards for dress, I don't think she has crossed the line into unprofessional. People should be able to wear what they want, even if others don't like your fashion sense. I have noticed a tendency of the media to focus much more strongly on what a woman wears or looks like than they do on men in such high-profile positions. And I don't like it at all. Nor do I like it that if a woman looks attractive people think that gives them permission to make sexual or provocative comments, or to obliquely degrade her intelligence by making comments about her appearance. As if an attractive woman, or a woman not dressed in more gender-neutral clothing can't be as intelligent.
post #4 of 19
Speaking for most of the men in high power positions that would be compariable.. they wear suits. There really is not a lot you can say about a guy's suit or shoes in comparison to the endless choices of dress available for a woman. Unless the guy shows up in a lime green leisure suit or something not the "standard" but when is the last time you saw the President's advisors dressed like that?
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirque
Speaking for most of the men in high power positions that would be compariable.. they wear suits. There really is not a lot you can say about a guy's suit or shoes in comparison to the endless choices of dress available for a woman. Unless the guy shows up in a lime green leisure suit or something not the "standard" but when is the last time you saw the President's advisors dressed like that?
Oh, absolutely, in terms of clothing. But what about personal appearance? You don't often get comments on talk radio about men in political office being unattractive, not like you do with women, and comments about men being attractive are considered positives, rather than the negative it tends to get for women (like I said, like a woman can't be both attractive AND intelligent). Sort of like men who have many sexual partners are typically considered "studs" and women who do are considered . . . ..
post #6 of 19
Well speaking only for myself.. I think I would say that I hate the guy's hair.. because I really do hate that new "messy hair" style. God men (and women) comb/brush or somehow do something with your hair, dont just stick your head in a toliet and flush!

But your very right.. in that respect of even just if the person is attractive or not.. usually women do get more comments directed their way. I guess you really don't hear a lot of "Gosh that guys got a big belly" or "did you notice his bald spot?" on the news.
post #7 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obi
Sorry Marge, but I have to disagree (well, not about the part where you don't much like her). While obviously there are professional standards for dress, I don't think she has crossed the line into unprofessional. People should be able to wear what they want, even if others don't like your fashion sense. I have noticed a tendency of the media to focus much more strongly on what a woman wears or looks like than they do on men in such high-profile positions. And I don't like it at all. Nor do I like it that if a woman looks attractive people think that gives them permission to make sexual or provocative comments, or to obliquely degrade her intelligence by making comments about her appearance. As if an attractive woman, or a woman not dressed in more gender-neutral clothing can't be as intelligent.
My point is I think Rice is a hollow person, got to where she is by being a yes woman. What do yes women do? They look good. So she wears the heels and the go go boots. I have no respect for her.
post #8 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I can't stand her. I blame her, NOT the media. They are getting this stuff paraded in front of them by her. She dangles it like red meat. Did you hear how she wore high top boots to meet the troops. What is she, a ding a ling sister (you have to be over 40 to get that...they were on Dean Martins show)

I think she is bringing women down by all this, it's back to the 50's with
Jackie O being brought to events to turn men's heads.
Do you remember all the media criticism of Albright's appearance ("messy hair, dowdy outfits")? Or the discussions of whether Maggie Thatcher's hair color was "too brassy"? The "ding-a-ling boots" are all the rage in Europe right now (ouch). Why aren't there similar media reports about what Jack Straw and Joschka Fischer wear? Rice has been wearing dark, businesslike skirt suits, most of which look good on her, as she has a trim figure. Why is that suddenly an issue? I don't believe it has anything to do with her politics, but with the fact that she's female.
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Do you remember all the media criticism of Albright's appearance ("messy hair, dowdy outfits")? Or the discussions of whether Maggie Thatcher's hair color was "too brassy"? The "ding-a-ling boots" are all the rage in Europe right now (ouch). Why aren't there similar media reports about what Jack Straw and Joschka Fischer wear? Rice has been wearing dark, businesslike skirt suits, most of which look good on her, as she has a trim figure. Why is that suddenly an issue? I don't believe it has anything to do with her politics, but with the fact that she's female.
You know when Cheney wore green to a funeral people noticed. Also there were always Reagan "does he wear rouge"? comments. I dunno, I never cared about Albreight comments, in fact i liked them.

I amgoing to get in trouble here I know, but when women are paraded as objects as they are in this administration it's always a sign of the general attitude. You put the chicks up front to please and then the big guns show up. I heard that Rice was using this flirty language with the Pres of Mexico
RIce knows her place and her role or she would have been shown the door a long time ago.
post #10 of 19
Thread Starter 
I have to disagree to some extent. Colin Powell, a person I respect, was constantly backstabbed by civilians at the Pentagon, or hardline neoconservatives at the State Department. No sooner was Rice appointed Secretary of State, and the worst offenders were shifted off to positions where they could cause less national damage, or facing SEC investigations (Perle). That leads me to suspect that she has far more clout than I previously thought. I wonder if she'll manage to neutralize Cheney?
post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I have to disagree to some extent. Colin Powell, a person I respect, was constantly backstabbed by civilians at the Pentagon, or hardline neoconservatives at the State Department. No sooner was Rice appointed Secretary of State, and the worst offenders were shifted off to positions where they could cause less national damage, or facing SEC investigations (Perle). That leads me to suspect that she has far more clout than I previously thought. I wonder if she'll manage to neutralize Cheney?
I am not fully clear what you are saying here. You mean some of the folks who were giving Powell a hard time were reassigned after Rice showed up?

I do have respect for Powell and I don't doubt he isn't there because of his
basic disagreements with the policies.
post #12 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marge
I am not fully clear what you are saying here. You mean some of the folks who were giving Powell a hard time were reassigned after Rice showed up?

I do have respect for Powell and I don't doubt he isn't there because of his
basic disagreements with the policies.
That's exactly what I mean, and that has caused me to reassess Rice, even though I still don't like her politics.
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
That's exactly what I mean, and that has caused me to reassess Rice, even though I still don't like her politics.
Ummm. why do you assign that to Rice? It could mean a lot of things.

you know i have read a heck of a lot about her and know people from stanford who know about her. She was very "go along with the status quo" at Stanford too. I don't even think she has politics, just ambition.
post #14 of 19
Thread Starter 
I can't come up with any other explanation for Wolfowitz's and Bolton's appointments, so I think Rice is playing power politics, and neutralizing potential opponents. Notice what a low profile Rumsfeld has at the moment, too. As you know my opinion of Bush, you'll understand that I think she's calling the shots, not he.
post #15 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I can't come up with any other explanation for Wolfowitz's and Bolton's appointments, so I think Rice is playing power politics, and neutralizing potential opponents. Notice what a low profile Rumsfeld has at the moment, too. As you know my opinion of Bush, you'll understand that I think she's calling the shots, not he.
Oh gosh, I think Wolfowitz wanted that job. I don't think Rice had anything to do with it. I think he gets what he wants. the world bank makes total sense after I read about it. He wants to control funds that rebuild poor countries, so you know where a lot of the funds will go to...and he has designs for restructuring the whole ME. I suspect he wanted that job a long time.

Bolton, oh gosh he is a reformer tytpe and the Bush administration has made no bones about it's issues with the UN. His appointment made total sense to me.

Why do you attribute these moves to Rice? I don't at all.
post #16 of 19
Thread Starter 
I'm going by the interviews both have given - they are very much attempts to "save face", and given the conclusions drawn by the Congressional 9/11 Report, I assume that they've been "demoted", meaning Bush (or whoever is pulling the strings) has decided that they're liabilities. I'm also watching the power struggle between DeLay and Bush (G.W. and Jeb) in the whole Schiavo mess. Distraction from questions of ethics, or indications of who will be the next Republican presidential candidate?
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
I'm going by the interviews both have given - they are very much attempts to "save face", and given the conclusions drawn by the Congressional 9/11 Report, I assume that they've been "demoted", meaning Bush (or whoever is pulling the strings) has decided that they're liabilities. I'm also watching the power struggle between DeLay and Bush (G.W. and Jeb) in the whole Schiavo mess. Distraction from questions of ethics, or indications of who will be the next Republican presidential candidate?

They said that in interviews?...I dunno I would suspect of what either of those gentleman said.

DeLay is I am sure distracting. Jeb I haven't figured out yet
post #18 of 19
On the View, they were saying how "sexy" she looked when she was showing knee cap. Can we focus on her job rather then her fashion please!!! I don't care about what she is wearing, is she doing her job to the best of her ability? That's the important thing that many are missing.
post #19 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess
On the View, they were saying how "sexy" she looked when she was showing knee cap. Can we focus on her job rather then her fashion please!!! I don't care about what she is wearing, is she doing her job to the best of her ability? That's the important thing that many are missing.
This is a very style of substance time. I do think that will shift, I really do.
But for now it's all flash and deficits and "leave it to our kids". Arnie fits in to all of this. Damn I hope he loses if he runs again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Media attention on Rice