Memo to Hillary: Get a facelift!
Let's get real. For women, looks count. Always have, always will. Human nature made men and women from different molds. If you doubt that, just ask yourself this question. When is the last time you heard a woman comment on some guy's cute buns? Or on his rippling pecs?
Men are more visual than women. That is reality. Many men are more likely to appreciate a woman based on her bra size than her IQ size. This is the way God made them. Men, even the new, feminised, 'metro-sexuals' usually learn everything they want to know about a woman in the first glance. If they're smart, they have learned to hide this under a societally induced patina of 'sensitivity,' but you can bet your bottom dollar men's fantasies don't include long conversations, emotional bonding and sexual equality.
The picture of 60-year-old Hillary showing her age with wrinkles, crow's feet and bags has sparked a national conversation about aging. Specifically, about aging women. Men, as we all know, get better looking with age. On men, wrinkles and squint lines are a mark of character. Graying hair is a sign of maturity. Older men are still sexy. Not so for women.
Picture Sean Connery and Madeleine Albright smooching. Get my point?
My friend's son came by the other day. He saw a picture of me from my younger Hollywood days. "Wow, you used to be good looking." Ouch. Reality strikes. I'm 54-years-old now. After a lifetime of turning heads, all of a sudden, I don't turn heads anymore. Because of my age, I've had to put away forever the vixen persona, the seductive 'catch me if you can' personality that used to be second nature (and fun)! On a 54 year-old, those traits come across as Betty Davis in Whatever Happened To Baby Jane. For a woman over 50, flirtatious behavior and seductive glances evoke pity instead of passion. That's just the way it is.
Men, on the other hand, can, and usually do, continue to be boys even in their 70's. Flirtatious behavior in older men is a sign of youth and virility. In a woman, it's smirk inducing. Yes, Shirley, there is a double standard. Life isn't fair.
Feminists can go on and on about how shallow and superficial physical looks are. They have a point. The larger point, which feminists miss all together, is the effects of aging on women are a sexual turnoff to most men. And men, even aging men, will cling to their perceptions of femininity and sexuality till death. Who would choose sagging skin, wrinkles and drooping breasts over taut flesh and perky boobs? Not any men I know, unfortunately. I think it has something to do with the perpetuation of the species.
My brother Ike is a prime example. He's 50-years-old and divorced. Tall, good looking, smart and a man of few words. In other words, a catch. I asked Ike what is the first thing he looks for in a woman. He had the grace to look ashamed as he sheepishly said that for him, looks were numero uno. Based on a lifetime of experience, I know Ike is not the exception, he is the rule.
Our society expects women in the public eye to hide all signs of age. Older women who look their age are associated with rocking chairs and grandchildren, not power politics, sexy pouts or President of the U.S. Wrinkles and age spots on women remind us of our mothers and mortality. On men, they're not an issue. As Rush Limbaugh so aptly put it, "Women age, men mature."
If a woman defies societal convention by looking her age, she pays a price. One of the prices is sex, or the lack thereof. There, I've said it. And no matter how uncouth it is to mention, all of us at one time or another have looked at an aggressive woman and thought how much a good romp in the hay would improve their personalities. (Can you spell Hillary?) If a man acts aggressive, he is automatically given points for wisdom and experience. Such is life.
In this 24/7 media age, perception often trumps reality. And a perception devoid of youth and/or sexuality will always score lower on the desirability scale. By the way, when is the last time you saw a female anchor with wrinkles?
I was one of the lucky ones. Because I was a looker in my youth, I had many opportunities thrown in my lap. I didn't fool myself that it was because I was smarter or better. I knew the value society placed on youth and beauty. Ugly women had to work five times as hard to be offered the same opportunities. Not fair, I know, but that's the way the world is. For a woman, looks count.
Now I'm older and smarter. Now I have wrinkles. Now, I have to make my own opportunities instead of having them showered upon me. After a lifetime of learning to say 'no' gracefully, I find they've stopped asking. Things change. Because my looks have changed.
Hillary is now showing her age. And the same society that condemned Paula Jones for her 'big hair', Kathleen Harris for her excessive make-up and Linda Tripp for her less than attractive visage is coming full circle. Maybe life is fair after all.
Perhaps Hilliary can put the “facelift present” under the tree, that would be yet another arrow in her political quiver.
Another sad commentary on who we are and how we think. Yet there is balance in lunacy. Hillary’s age is used against her, yet droves of feminists and girly-men will vote for her anyway on the sole basis she’s the only [PC] girl in the running. So, on one side we have vacuous voters who commit to a candidate for no better reason than her ‘gender’ association, and on the other those who will vote against her for no better reason than she looks like hell? Nor do I think that kind of thinking applies strictly to women as this article suggests. Remember when Reagan ran and the media would not shut up about his age and haggard looks? This is a card played in every election to sway ‘beauty-contest’ voters, though, in this instance, it was not so much played as commented.
I don’t know who started this about Hillary, but I think we have more substantive reasons to want someone more suitable; and those are what we should focus on. Let’s talk about her non-existent credentials, her abuses of power, her vindictiveness, her endless covering up for Bill, her pettiness and manipulation, her bankrupt ideas, her historical re-writes, her greed and power grabbing, &c; anything but her looks. Getting sidelined on her looks can only rebound in her favor as ‘below the belt’.
Hillary won’t need a face lift before long; the unoriginal banality of this monograph actually makes her look good.
This is exactly the intellectual level of argument that you can expect in a place like this. What is your point? Should you not listen to Hillary because she is ugly? In that case, you are also ugly (by your own account). Why should I listen to you?
I see a lot of this type of right-wing reasoning:
-”What do you think of the latest Moore movie? Is it not interesting?”
-”Moore is fat and ugly!”
If you do not elaborate more than that, I am not surprised that all you can come up with is: “That is just the way it is” and “Such is life”.
This article is neither intellectual nor conservative. It reminds me of the unthinking feminist mantra in the 80′s that if the world had more women leaders, there would be fewer wars. A cursory look at history disproves that mantra. Likewise, a quick glance at some of the women leaders of the past (there are a few exceptions), and one will realize the double standard doesn’t really apply to women in leadership roles. Margaret Thatcher is more the rule than Cleopatra. Though we clearly like our lovers younger, we prefer our women leaders with gravitas.
Furthermore, it seems to me that cosmetic surgery, except in cases of severe burns or injuries, is an inherently progressive or liberal procedure. The more conservative approach would be to deal with the reality of aging.
I do wonder who actually finds plastic surgery and procedures like Botox attractive. I mean, who can really take Nancy Pelosi, Arrianna Huffington, or Liza Minneli seriously? Wait a minute. Is it gay men? But Hillary already has the gay vote locked.
Hillary has nothing to gain politically from plastic surgery. Therefore, she will give it a pass.
Author Nancy Morgan quotes Rush Limbaugh (perfect physical speciman that he is) as saying: “Women age, men mature.” This is generally true for the 4th, 5th, and 6th decades. However, for those who survive into their 70′s and 80′s, the situation is generally reversed. Generally, the average man of this age looks like a wizened dried up sac that would blow away in the first wind, compared to the beauty that shines forth from the average woman of the same age. I can understand that Rush Limbaugh would have difficulty seeing this, as the genetic defect of having half his brain tied behind his back has undoubtedly adversely affected his long range vision.