In a recent post on Republican Talk, I made the comment that Republican voters tend to objectify their female representatives and offered a challenge: Google "Republican women vs. Democratic women", or any combination of related keywords. You're going to get an overwhelming number of hits that compare Republican "hotties" to Democratic "dogs". Ok fellas, I know we all had a college-aged fascination with sites like Hot or Not, but this is the legislative legacy of our country. Furthermore, some women, like Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnel, and Michelle Bachmann, implicitly condone this behavior because they know in their hypocritical little hearts that they will actually eek out some votes among pubescent-minded male voters.

     During the 2008 campaign there were hundreds of different posters juxtaposing Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton saying some version of, "see what you get with the Democrats?" A coworker of mine even forwarded pictures of Sarah Palin in a swimsuit saying something like, "With this in the White House everyone will watch the news." In addition, photos of Amy Herzog, Elisabeth Hasselback, even Laura Ingraham posing seductively under "Conservative Women" labels prompt statements like this one from Sodahead.com, "Ugly and stupid must be in the same gene." (Which is like saying boy and girl are in the same person, but whatever.)  Juxtaposing a bunch of Republican TV personalities in their 20's and 30's to a bunch of Democratic women, mostly in the political arena and 20 years older (see above) makes exactly the kind of statement that characterizes much of the conservative political discourse.

     However, when the idea is applied to elected representatives who have an obligation to run our country, it becomes damaging to the national discourse and cheapens the election process. Of course, that doesn't stop the women receiving the superficial votes from denouncing the practice. Sarah Palin was privvy to all sorts of male adoration form conservative ranks, pictures of her in bathing suits on posters at her rallies, and provocative, sometimes elude remarks going viral on the internet alongside her image. However, when Newsweek published a magazine of her in running shorts on the cover (pictures originally taken for Runners World) she lambasted the publication and demanded a retraction. The difference? Newsweek is a member of that "lame-stream media" she's always complaining about, whereas if she were show any distaste for the objectification of her voters she would probably lose those votes, may even be criticized as a prude, too politically correct (grievous slander for a conservative) or even a b*tch.

     My main complaint here is that the conservative voters that participate in this kind of juvenile behavior are just further cheapening their party's credibility, as if it's composed of frat boys voting with their genitals. The female politicians that see it and don't say anything are also harming the party, proving that they're willing to sell themselves out for a few votes. Yes, I'm sure that plenty of male politicians have received some uninformed female votes (or male, whatever), but I don't see anyone throwing up posters of Mitt Romney on the beach and claiming conservative men's "intelligence and good looks must be in the same gene." (boy and girl in the same person)