Its style over substance but what does anyone else think of this topic? Sometimes I do think that the left wing does have an image problem.

Any chance you could put a bit of meat on those bones Lark?
'Babe Theory' isn't something I've encountered before, though the style over substance in modern politics is all to apparent!

Its an idea which came out of the right wing scene a while ago, some of Ann Coulter's fans made comparisons between herself and liberal women on demonstrations, its an image thing, more celebrities and "babes" seem to be in the right wing camp than the left wing one and its the latest way of drawing support, to me it seems just like politics are becoming even more like the a high school election with the cool or attractive kids winning a popular vote.

Although if you consider the Protest Warriors latest pop-politics book its totally based on a criticism of the left's image rather than its substance but then I do think its not something that registers so much on the left of the spectrum were some people think that being scruffy is showing solidarity with the poor or making a statement about being non-conformist.

The whole topic of politics and protest as a lifestyle intrigues me, I think that the protest warriors themselves are part of that, its like politics has become a sort of recreational pass time or consumer choice, I'm not altogether critical of it however, beats apathy.

i think its indicitive of society as a whole, on this side of the world at least, and the embrace that the mainstream public has on the idea of bad news being delivered by beautiful people, makes it more palatable... Look at the bobblehead newscasters that make up the MSM's front - people...

However I have serious issues with the idea that coulter is a "babe", or that somehow the right has more physically attractive people in their camp... in fact, the majority of those that have their jobs BECAUSE they are beautiful (Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, George Cloony, Sheryl Crow... etc) are pretty drasticly left-leaning.

So, it's just some vacuous tripe spouted by Coulter fans? Pay it no never-mind I say!


Maybe because we busy with the substantive issues? No?


Personally, drop dead gorgeous as I am, I spend next to not time on my appearance. I wear the clothes I like to wear, regardless of what anyone else is wearing, I hardly ever wear make-up because I don't need it (none of us do!), and my hair pretty much does as it pleases until I'm forced to harness it!.
It (my over-all style) has nothing to do with solidarity with the poor - I am poor!

I think I'm fairly representative of most left-leaning women my age and social class - I can't really bring myself to waste time worrying about my appearance. Were all created beautiful/perfect and it's about time we stopped letting the media and commercial interests tell us otherwise.

Perhaps it's just their last gasp. Fear isn't working anymore, so they are trying sex. Conservativisms have a bit more attraction for males, they say, and maybe these Luntz types think if they can get a little natural competition going between the women for all those hunky, gun totin' redneck males in their camp, they'll draw some of them in as well.

C'mon Lark. If yer gonna start a discussion, can you give it a bit more of a jump?
What do you think and why? Got any source material (Links) to back your self up with?


BTW, the thread topic, "Babe Theory" is a bit sexist, dontchu think?

Sounds almost tribal: "Our women are better looking than your women." If Ann Coulter represents their perception of a babe, heaven help 'em. This silliness might be reinforced by the fact that real female reporters in our conservative biased mainstream media have been replaced by vacuous "babes", more than happy to ignore (and be ignorant of) substantive topics in favor of celebrity foibles. I think it's much too shallow to rise to the level of political theory, altho anyone gullible enough to take Coulter and these airhead seriously might be vain enough to think it is.

I thought maybe I'd just steer clear of that issue, but now that you mention it...

why are we using women as our yard stick?

Considering Coulter's view of women, I wasn't surprised that she was trying to peddle this ridiculous tripe. In general, people that would be swayed by the attractiveness of an ideology's female figures probably weren't going to gravitate to the left anyway.

If people are attacking the image of the left, it's because of their difficulty of attacking them over substance. The majority of people are now in favor of better labor standards, national health care, and withdrawing from Iraq, so what talking points is the right going to retreat to? They will maintain their faithful dittoheads, but their days of controlling the national dialogue are numbered.

Because you can't use yard sticks on us any more??

Chunk of firewood's just as good.

I think this is interesting and true but I think that the right wing are likely to remain dominant regardless because they can count on the left being anathema to popular taste most of the time.

I dont know if its ever been the same in the US but I'd say it was but the labour government around about the time the cultural shifts infavour of conservatism were taking place fielded candidates who didnt care too much about their appearence, like Michael Foot, guys a complete socialist hero but he was aged and campaigned with a walking stick and donkey jack (same sort of jacket that public works construction workers used to wear) the conservative biased press tore him to shreds.

People who really wanted to elect king like states people were going to vote for someone else, now I can consider that view wrong headed but while its popular holding out against it from perpetual opposition will change very little.

The Father Disciplinarian -vs- the Mother Nurturer.


One reason I don't consider myself Christian, because of it's dominant male viewpoint.

Dont underestimate the diversity within the Christian tradition.

Underestimate? I give enough credit to allow others to make their own decisions.
Me, I decided long ago that Christianity is AT BEST, to restrictive.
At worst? Possibly the single most negative aspect of humanity, imo.

I'll send you a copy of the Nag Hamadi Library if you'd be willing to read it with an open mind.

This isn't an attack, nor an acceptance of the christian "traditon" as it stands today.

the Nag Hamadi library contains enlightening codiecies from before the cannonization of the bible, and include different views that ebrace the concept of daulity in conciousness...

The Nag Hamadi is a part of the source of Christianity.
However, it's not Christianity, and not it's complete source.

Read any Joseph Campbell? Christianity is not an original expression.


BTW. I am not against spirituality. In fact I consider myself very spiritual.
I'm just not a Christian, even though SOME of what is considered Christian is part of my spirituality.
This is partly why the statement of why I consider Christianity is too confining or restrictive.



what this has to do with the so called "babe theory" I have no clue.
But here it is.




Oh, and By the way....





This statement makes me more inclined to ignore you, rather than encourage me to discuss the issue with you.
You do seem to assume a lot, yes?