The Ugly Effect of Physical Insults
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Debates can get, well, ugly in Congress, but rarely do they descend to the level of physical taunts. Yet that is exactly what happened on Thursday during a meeting of the House Oversight Committee .
During a discussion about whether Attorney General Merrick B. Garland should be held in contempt of Congress, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, told Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas, “I think your fake eyelashes are messing up what you’re reading.”
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York whose own signature red lipstick has become something of an online lightning rod, then leaped to Ms. Crockett’s defense.
“How dare you attack the physical appearance of another person,” she said.
Further name-calling ensued, culminating in Ms. Crockett’s covertly returning the insult by asking the chair, James R. Comer, “If someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody’s bleach blond, bad-built butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?” (That description being a not-entirely-implicit reference to Ms. Greene.)
As much as anything, however, the makeup vs. body image brouhaha reflects not just the way Capitol norms have changed over the last six years, but the way physical appearances have become weaponized against all genders since Donald J. Trump first took office, bringing with him his penchant for costumery, casting and playground insults.
Whether it’s calling Stormy Daniels “horseface,” saying Rosie O’Donnell had a “fat, ugly face,” anointing Marco Rubio “little,” comparing his former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman to a “dog,” dismissing E. Jean Carroll as “not my type,” or criticizing Nikki Haley’s dress choice , the former president and current presidential candidate has made an art out of the playground insult. With these barbs, he attacks not policy positions but rather shared insecurities, rooted deep in old gender politics and stereotypes. It’s like a wormhole back to middle school, and everyone can relate.
Which also makes it particularly effective. After all, few forms of ridicule are as belittling as being reduced to a body part, or being called out for your beauty choices, especially in the context of a public career. It’s the essence of objectification.
This scrutiny is even more loaded when it comes to women, who have historically borne the burden of surface evaluation. Indeed, it’s hard (though not impossible) to imagine Ms. Greene’s fellow committee member Jim Jordan being jeered at for his receding hairline, or someone slagging on Chuck Schumer for his wrinkles.
The rare times appearance has been raised in the recent past, it most often has been used as a form of humor — by the person involved. Hillary Clinton , for example, joked about her own hair color when she was running for president. “I may not be the youngest candidate in the race, but I have one big advantage: I’ve been coloring my hair for years,” she said in 2015. “You’re not going to see me turning white in the White House.”
It’s a different story, however, when the jab comes from someone else. Not long ago, the comedian Michelle Wolf was castigated for a set at the 2018 White House Correspondent’s Dinner in which she mocked the eye shadow of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the press secretary, saying, “She burns facts, then uses that ash to create the perfect smoky eye.”
At the time, her comments provoked criticism from both sides of the aisle. Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of “Morning Joe” and a woman Mr. Trump had once described as “bleeding badly from a face-lift,” said she could empathize. “Watching a wife and mother be humiliated on national television for her looks is deplorable,” she said.
Apparently, that truce no longer holds. Now it appears Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress, such as Ms. Greene, are simply following his lead, in this way as in so many others. Their opponents, meanwhile, are lowering themselves to the occasion. In which case, who really wins?
Tags
Who is online
141 visitors
These folks are well paid for this sophomoric shyte. I'd do my unbounded Phd Principal shyte here for free.
You are especially worth every free cents you bring us! I have (quietly) laughed at your (SHARP) wit when you are 'on.'
mtg proves just how prevalent inbred neanderthal DNA is in the deep south.
We’re not exactly sending Washington our best.
Agreed, which in a way is kind of surprising. People tend to gravitate towards money and how many politicians get elected as regular people and are multi-millionaires when they are done? Seems an easy way to a rather cushy retirement plan.
I always thought I was never squeaky-clean enough to be elected to office. Maybe what I really need is to be the biggest asshole in my district. Seems to work for a lot of them.
I bet you are more squeaky clean that a lot of them folks up there
I'm sure that's a good bet.
that door is wide open now ...
if you can add something to that list, you should definitely go for it. do you live in a conservative xtian district?
very fckd up list, of what Trump and his middle school mean girl posse of pussy catz wit rabid feats that somehow(Trump) now got elected and have infected our hallowed halls, with lucky charms maid magically delicious due to them being all so pathetically partisan cause not you, nah nah na nah nah can often be heard in the your rubber i'm glue, well in Trump world, off wit the rubber , goo in the poo, cause this is what you get, when you don't allow Trump to get the word out, about guzzlin bleach, cause think of all hiss supporters he could teach and reacha round, asz he disses and affects all that he injects with his unequalled disgrace , he has left on our country, and too many to/and face
what a major maga it
LOL
So now congress is getting its 'ghetto' on and no it has nothing to do with minorities in congress. . . it is Donald who has taught anybody who comes into his sphere to never let an opportunity to fight go by without a 'punch' or 'kick,' or 'slap.' I even see it in myself! I have changed and it ain't necessarily for the good. (I have started cussing at my television and have become more coarse as I interact with others who make me repeat myself, and have little patience for 'fools' these days.)
Now we are getting a taste of how one man, or woman, can 'sat' on the culture and effectually change it for good or ill!
That said, I do hope I have the discipline to just walk away from social media before I began belittling appearances or general intelligence of others. EXCEPTION: A fool needs to be called out from time to time if only so that he or she can reflect on it.
Have to disagree here. The 'culture' happened well before Trump. Washington has been going downhill for a good many years, it's just that most politicians have been much better at presenting a "public" face and hiding what they do behind closed doors.
I am not negatively digging into Donald just to be partisan. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a symptom of a larger problem for our country: Takeover culture. Donald is the ring-leader for that cause with his personal and public extreme magnification of DEFIANCE and disaffectation for the people and government that he once swore allegiance to serve as its president.
Marjorie Taylor Greene has been trash-talking, at the least, since back in the 'day' when she trolled and trailed a young gun-control activist across the capitol square area (on camera) peppering him with questions as he ignored her. It was a disgusting moment for grown women and a shocking display of her ability to be crass as a member of the sitting congressional body of politicians.
I am not being unfair to Donald. He wants to go down in history as uninterested in compromise, but entrenched and embedded on takeover of all he surveys (and desires) in and out of government. Marjorie T. Greene is attempting a go at a 'mirror image' of Donald's successes in ramming himself down the throat of this country whether the country likes or dislikes the 'thrusts.'
I'm not disagreeing that Trump is the current 'face' of the issue and there are those in government (like MTG) who continue to push that. But the problem has been with us much longer than Trump has been in politics. The difference IMO is that in the past most politicians were much better at their public face but if we saw all that was behind closed doors we would see it. LBJ was one hell of a racist but in public he was careful to say the right things to paper it over. Today's politicians no longer care to paper it over, they let it all hang out.
I believe this is also a symptom of the general public as well. The country is more divided than ever and these people are playing a part in a Kabuki play designed to keep the pubic divided and at each others throats, in order for the political class to remain in power. Afraid I don't see this problem ending either.
Have to disagree here. The 'culture' has been lowered to the lowest of the low, the most deplorable, thanks to the former 'president' and his deplorables, the magats, and the endless defenders of the indefensible.
LBJ was a racist. However, he did change and brought those whom he had racial differences with into the 'fold' through solid actions of inclusion. LBJ spoke to Black Americans where they 'were' and uttered the slogan at the time: "We shall overcome!" No self-respecting racist against Blacks would have done the amount of national policy changes for minorities at the risk of losing his base voters—which did happen as he predicted he would lose them.
Yes! division in politics can end. We would be a more productive country. . .when those dividing us stop.
After signing the Civil Rights Bill, LBJ went on to win in 64, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
I think LBJ just hid it better but really didn't change. He was after all a successful politician. LBJ championed the Civil Rights Bill because he saw there were more votes to win in the country than would be lost in the South with the bill.
Agreed with your last statement, we can be a more productive country when those who try to divide us stop. Problem with that is it's the political party's that have the most invested to divide us because it suits their purposes. There's too much money and power in politics. And we have too many sheep in this country that can only follow the party lies. That won't change until people can stand up and think for themselves, and people are way too focused on what's directly in front of them to see the bigger picture. Until the majority of people can put the public before themselves, we will not see growth and change and will continue down this path we are on.
Shouldn’t rely on my memory. LBJ also won FL, WV, AK for a majority of the South. But the legend about the Civil Rights Act and Southern voters lives on.
I have no idea what point you are sharing with me. Please elaborate.
See 3.1.8.
I suppose you are right. Change has to begin somewhere. . .and have "sponsors," team-leaders, team-players, facilitators, and achievable goals. I accept a man who can change and go in a different, better, direction. LBJ did his part to fulfill the legacy of President Kennedy, it was an outstanding moment of achievement and respect.
That Johnson kept most of the South and won in a landslide in 64. The Civil Rights Act didn’t hurt his political future. Vietnam and guns with butter did.
Try '68.
LBJ didn’t run in 68, Vietnam caught up with him.
Lots of issues (low popularity) caught up with him of which Vietnam was one. With that I don't want to dedicate myself to a makeshift discussion about LBJ. It was just something Snuffy and I were temporarily visiting.
Yea, riots at home and Vietnam brought his popularity down.
You may mean AR...
I believe this quote was the source of the "Legend"
Marjorie Taylor Goon. Talk about artificial intelligence.
ZERO intelligence
Here's a thought, the next time a big issue is hung up in a House committee by partisanship - dispense with the haggling, name calling and lack of progress
A WWF style Cage Match (no holds barred, no rules) between Greene and AOC to decide the issue
Joking of course, but it would be fun to see and the two of them would finally being something the American people would watch with at least a little interest
I think that it would be better to have MTG and Representative Jasmine Crockett. Crockett seems a better weight class match. But I don't know, never having seen the women together or having met them individually.
Prior to the incident Greene asked a very important question: She asked which democrats on the committee received help from judge Merchan's daughter.
There was a long silence.
Then the nastiness began, and we shouldn't forget that there was a lot of angst among certain members because that hearing was held about 8 PM because members were returning from the NY "hush money" trial.
Which republicans received help from judge Thomas's wife. Don't you just love a stupid game?
Justice Thomas isn't constantly judging bogus cases involving Joe Biden and his associates.
Evidently the state of New York only has one judge.
I'm betting zero on the Democrat side and ginni, I mean clarence, is bought and paid for by white supremacists such as Harlan Crow
We have at least two.
That many!?!
Are you serious? Judge Merchan is not adjudicating a case that involves Biden and his associates.*
And how is asking about Merchan's daughter have anything whatsoever to do with Garland? It certainly wasn't an important question
*I can't believe I'm the only person on this forum that saw this egregious error
I don't why the former 'president' thug and his gang of thugs/goons are being allowed to get away with intimidation by proxy.
I forgot - it's a two-tiered justice system skewed towards Democrats
Gotta love the passive voice. Nothing else is so useful when it’s important to deflect attention to responsibility.
The honest description is: Marjorie Taylor Greene began the nastiness. As per frickin usual.
Very well put Tacos and that was exactly what the dems were doing in that hearing they want to obstruct.
I notice you missed the part about MTG starting the nastiness. Would it kill you to acknowledge that?
Look back at the tape: MTG asks the Chairman a question about who took help from the daughter of judge Merchan and Jasmine Crockett interjected with "what has that got to do with Merrick Garland."
Clarify your point. Because it reads like you think the “nastiness” began with an interrupting question that was on-topic, and not with a personal attack? Is that what you think?
Ms. Crockett is right. What does this hearing have to do with Merchan's daughter?
Absolutely nothing
So? What about Kushner and 2 billion dollars?
New York law says that Merchan must recuse himself.
That's what's so.
That's what Trump's lawyers say, so we know it isn't true.
I posted that law earlier. Too bad you missed it, however you can find it anywhere.
The Appeals Court has already denied Donald's request to compel Judge Merchan to recuse. Also, state appeals court denied Donald's request for lifting of the gag order. So SOL. The judge and jury are almost finished with Donald now. Good, bad, or indifferent.
Not if it doesn't exist.
It doesn't
No kidding.
Could you imagine a Congress and Government made up of Newstalkers members? We might not get much done but the proceedings would be amazing.
Insert Trump quote here....
Wanna arm wrestle?
There would probably be less comment moderation, so yeah.