“Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful”

If you’re over thirty, you remember the shampoo commercials that had the tag line “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.”  If you’ve forgotten, let me refresh your memory:

That slogan started repeating itself in my head with the attacks on Sarah Palin. I won’t repeat here (or link to) the startling savagery of the hatred heaped upon her, but I’ll remind you that it included denying that she was a woman at all, asserting that she was manifestly stupid, and calling her a traitor to her sex.

The same slogan has now moved to the forefront of my brain with the savage attacks on Carrie Prejean.  Believe me, if a less attractive woman had said precisely the same thing that brought Prejean such notoriety, the Left would have sneered and moved on.  It’s the fact that a beautiful woman had the temerity politely to state that she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman that drives the Left into a frenzy of abuse.

The flip side of this deep hatred the Left has for beautiful women with whom it disagrees is it’s fanatic desire to convince Americans (nay, the world) that its female political icons are beautiful.  Bloggers are starting to take notice of the fact that those on the Left, not satisfied with saturating the media with pictures of Mrs. Obama, are now trying to elevate her to the pantheon of Goddesses, a woman not merely beautiful, but one whose beauty makes her an amalgam of Mother Earth and Venus.  The latest to advance this notion is the always reliably silly Sally Quinn, who waxes lyrical about Michelle’s arms:

Michelle Obama’s arms, we determined, were transformational. Her arms are representative of a new kind of woman: young, strong, vigorous, intelligent, accomplished, sexual, powerful, embracing and, most of all, loving.

Today is Mother’s Day. Today we should celebrate Michelle Obama’s arms as the arms of a mother.

This is a woman who has the courage to say “I am mom in chief” and make her children and her family — unapologetically — her No. 1 priority. She is able to do this because she is so intelligent and accomplished that she doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. She is healthy enough to be able to say, this is who I am, these are my values and my priorities.

Reading stuff like that (and it goes on and on and on, far beyond what I just quoted), I’m beginning to think there is some virtue to the Roman idea of a vomitorium.  I could use one right now.

Just so we’re clear here: The Left verbally brutalized a truly beautiful woman who had reached one of the highest echelons of American politics by denying her any claim even to being female.  Now, it engages in hagiography by taking an ordinary woman who abandoned her career to support her husband and celebrating her old-fashioned role as mom.  As you know, I have no problem with the old-fashioned role of Mom, but the Left certainly has had that problem — except when it came to Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama.

As for me, when I see Michelle Obama, I think two things:  nice enough and, when her face is in repose, angry.  It’s the latter that makes her the perfect poster child for the Left, but they can’t admit that.  It would be impossible for them to elevate her to their pantheon as some sort of vengeful warrior goddess.  Instead, she must be objectified as the personification of all female virtues.  They don’t have to worry that you’ll hate Michelle because she’s beautiful — she isn’t.  But they’re going to force you to love her because she’s a Leftist female without hair in her pits.

(By the way, check out Ann Coulter talking about attacks on Prejean.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • excathedra

    It’s really quite simple.

    If you belong to OUR tribe, you are good. If you belong to THEIR tribe, you are bad.

    And if you are a natural member of our tribe, a member of one of our official victim groups (black, female, gay, Muslim), and you, by some cosmic joke, belong to THEIR tribe, then you deserve a traitor’s fate for leaving Isla….oh, I mean, the Democratic Party, home of The One.

    On the Prejean thing, my last gay nerve pretty well disintegrated. Having a, well, troll, like Perez Hilton, embodiment of every repulsive gay stereotype, become the spokesthing for “my” group…all the testosterone in my body rose up in protest.

    And then not only the silence but the enabling and outright support of this creature by the LGBTetc. “community”….If a conservative Christian judge had asked the gay marriage question and the contestant had favored it, and then he had given her a Zero for the answer, and gone on to call her a bitch and a cunt (as he did)…all gay hell would have broken loose and the Nazi deathcamps (which W never got around to) would be ten minutes away.

    Disgusting hypocrisy on one level, but actually (see paragraph 1) very simple.

  • expat

    I am still waiting for evidence of her intelligence. Instead I see political connections, affirmative action , and platitudes.

  • Mike Devx

    What allows them to truly unsheathe the knives and go after Mrs. Palin and Ms. Prejean with all possible venom is that these women are, not only conservative, but committed Christians who take their faith seriously. That is the unpardonable sin; it is what (for the left) makes every action and slur against them justifiable.

  • suek


    You don’t think that there’s a deep-seated hate for women involved? I mean women who are feminine and sexually attractive? That certainly raises the thought in my mind that there’s a connection to the muslim attitude and treatment of women.

    Really odd.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Expat, ask and ye shall receive…

    Here is the copy of Michelle Obama’s Senior Thesis. Check out not only the content but the vocabulary, spelling and grammar, and you will probably come to understand why she is angry. The term “sophomoric” comes to mind.


  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com David Foster

    Much of the rage against Palin is due to the fact that she succeeded without having a degree from an “elite” university and that she does not have the accent and use the speech patterns expected of the elite. If she had had a Harvard Law degree and spoken in the manner expected of a Harvard grad–even if she had all the same views on policy that she has now–she would still have been disliked by the “progressives” but would not have been treated in such a disrespectful manner.

    Basically, we are moving toward a historically-familiar model in which the monarchy and the aristocracy obtain the legitimacy of their rule via the priesthood. “Priesthood,” in our world, is represented by academia.

    Members of the minor, impoverished nobility…those who have advanced degrees but are working at Starbucks or equivalent…are probably the ones who show the most rage toward a Palin or a Prejean. Among male members of this minor nobility, male sexual anxiety probably also plays a role which is reflected in particular hostility toward attractive but non-aristocratic women.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    They hate beauty. The beauty of America, the beauty of hard work and its accomplishments. They hated the very thought that the Vietnamese and Cambodian people could have created something worthwhile in their lives, something of beauty, to be admired across the world as a free people and prosperous people. Freedom, security, prosperity. They hate all of those things, but above them all, they hate beauty and they love to promote ugliness.

    They love the ugliness of war, the ugliness of corruption, of illegalities and immoralities.

    They will destroy what they can never have.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    had the temerity politely to state

    Temerity to politely state

    She is able to do this because she is so intelligent and accomplished that she doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone.

    There is that word again, “intelligent”. A computer is intelligent but it is still a tool that does exactly what I tell it to. In fact, processors are often more intelligent than I am. So are idiot savants and geniuses. But are they more wise? Are they able to see a con and then figure out the con by thinking as a con man would? Would they necessarily even be self-aware of their own abilities and their own soul?

    No, it is not necessarily so. To be intelligent is not the same as to be wise. To be sentient is also not the same thing as to be intelligent. Thus the Left are fools, easily manipulated by any con man or mass hypnotist. In fact, it can be done simply with a pinky. Or in this case, with one arm. Not two, not a body, just an arm.

    The Left are full of tools. Quinn is just typical of the breed. They exist to be used, to be weapons against the innocent. They have no self-determination. No free will. They do not believe in free will. They believe in the will of the Strong. Might makes right for them. Their social hierarchy is a more primeval variety than has been seen in human affairs for millenniums.

  • Mike Devx

    I’m sticking to my guns on this one: The fact that these two beautiful women are conservative makes them the focus of the assault. The fact that they’re committed Christians is what has made the assaults against them go nuclear.

    Conservatives are targets of vitriol. Conservative Christians are targets of nuclear vitriol. They’re fair game. Even the so-called “moderate Republicans” are waging war on social conservatives, and that’s where this game is being played out. Conservative Christians are the steadfast bulwark of “traditional values”, and that is where war is. The intensity of the war is not over fiscal restraint; it is over conservative VALUES. That is why the assault on committed Christians is so intense.

    Until they attack, with the same nuclear intensity, a beautiful woman who is not a committed Christian, I’m standing by this analysis.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I learned psychological warfare under the best and the most fanatic. General Petraeus, US Marines, SOCOM, Islamic terrorists, mass murderers, and suicide bombers.

    What I learned how to recognize, how to defend against, and how to work at, is at least 4 times as destructive, as cruel, as violent, and as creative as the best attacks the Left has launched.

    While the Left uses nothing but words and slander and advertisement operations, I studied physical techniques, physiological techniques, mob techniques, mass murderer techniques, pain techniques, social-violence techniques, and anatomical failure (killing) techniques. All to flesh out the primary principles of COIN, war, societies, human nature, and all that jazz.

    But you see, people like Bush, who had the power to change things, are not like me. Nor is Obama or most of the Leftist media propagandists. They know some of what I know, for certainly I didn’t always know what I knew. and they certainly had a modicum of ruthlessness, enough to do what Bush wouldn’t and certainly they knew more about cruelty and about how to cause misery than Bush did. They are able to put into practice some or much of what I have studied, if on a more lower intensity basis.

    But it’s not enough. I strive to be better at intimidation and the installment of fear in enemies than the jihadists, the most violent and successful of jihadists. And guess what? The jihadists themselves cow the Left into submission. If I strive to be better at psychological warfare and the comprehension and execution of its principles than the terrorists, and the Left are unable to fight the terrorists or even willing to spar with them, what does that say?

    I think it says the Left truly cannot take what they dish out. Very similar to the jihadists. The infamous 9/11 mastermind put a brave front that America didn’t have what it took to get information out of him. But that lasted only a few minutes under an interrogation that was easy as pie compared to the crudity of AQ torture methods. The waterboard conductors were surprised, of course, but then again, I’m pretty sure the tolerance level of most people for waterboarding, let alone real torture, is pretty low.

    They think they have the advantage because they hate the rest of us more than we hate them. The Islamics think they love death more than we love life. People forget that it is only the love of life that gives the tools to the human race to be mass killers. Truman could not have been able to do what he did if he did not love something. Terrorists couldn’t do what they do if they didn’t love something, life in heaven if not life on earth.

    I feel contempt for the Left’s character assassination. Not because I am immune to propaganda or psychological warfare. But because I can do it so much better. And because I naturally favor more permanent sorts of assassination. And the crueler varieties as well for the truly deserving.

  • jlibson

    Mike DevX is right. The ferocity of the attack is due to the attacked party (I won’t say “victim”, since I have too much respect for Gov. Palin to call her a victim) being a committed Christian.

    I believe that the left is mostly waging a religious war. Having rejected traditional religion, they have replaced it with multi-culti-ism and (oddly enough) global-warmenism.

    So they are attacking with religious fervor.

    I would put Ann Coultier as an example. I believe that Ms. Prejean and Gov. Palin suffer stronger attacks than an openly hostile anti-liberal like Ann.

  • jlibson

    The news is not all bad!!

    The article about FLOTUS’ arms is *horrid* to read. Don’t read the whole thing, you will have to scrub your brain.

    But the *comments* are a breath of fresh air. Almost universally horrified at the vapid, sycophantic maundering from Ms. Quinn.

    It will re-affirm your faith in humanity to read the comments. :)

  • BrianE

    They also attack what they perceive as easy targets. I think they make a basic assumption that looks and brains are mutually exclusive (I think they draw that conclusion from CNN anchors).
    And the left has been emboldened by Obama’s win.
    They are careful with their attacks on the likes of Colture and Malkin.

  • excathedra

    Michelle Obama’s “transformational” arms?
    I take a very non-romantic view of human nature,
    but I still get gobsmacked all the time.

    Last summer a very intelligent and accomplished male
    psychoanalyst I know waxed embarassing to me
    over lunch about Obama’s “smile”.
    He looked like a teenage girl.

    Note to Aristotle. Rational animal? Rational animal?
    Who are you kidding.

  • Gringo

    Brian E
    They are careful with their attacks on the likes of Colture and Malkin

    Because they know that both Ann and Michelle give as good- or better- as they get. They have learned enough to realize that it is not a good idea to use a slingshot against a machine gun nest.