According to some in the liberal media, it’s perfectly fine to publicly lust after attractive politicians, provided, of course, they are lefty dreamboats.
On Sunday over at the Daily Beast, writer Tim Teeman wrote an article that not only tried to defend, but justify why it was ok to view the newly minted prime minister as a sexual object, and that we “should grow up about why we’re doing it.” [Language warning: Teeman's use of a derivative of the F-word appears below unredacted]
Simply put, “sexual objectification shouldn’t have the bad rap that it has,” according to Teeman.
Teeman approvingly quoted the lefty e-rag Jezebel on the political scion being “non-controversially fuckable…because of his views on marijuana and abortion.” He then decided to tell us the difference between a “non-controversial fuckable” politician, to that of a “controversially fuckable” politician:
“Controversially fuckable” would, presumably, be all those right-wingers who are sexy, but have awful views about LGBTs and a woman’s right to choose. Except: a) they don’t exist, and b): if they did, their repulsive views would immediately put those people who prize personal politics alongside good looks, off sleeping with them. A “controversially fuckable” person’s politics would make them unfuckable, unless it was a self-loathing political fuck we’re talking about.”
Speak for yourself.
Acknowledging the fact that all hell would break loose if a male journalist had called a female public figure “fuckable,” Teeman still thinks it’s OK to objectify Trudeau because “well, it’s fun to watch men be put under the pressure of society’s sexual gaze; it’s payback for all the various, sexist renderings of the male gaze on women.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. Sexually objectifying men is completely different than sexually objectifying women. For instance, if a female public figure performed a “half-hearted, but still hot strip tease” (like Trudeau did at a Ladies Night fundraiser), she would not be taken as seriously, or looked down upon. It would be scandalous! Yet it’s all fun and ok for a male to do it. I actually can’t believe Teeman wrote such a thing. Could anyone imagine Michelle Obama doing such a thing? Or how about Nikki Haley? Of course not!
Teeman explains that “finding somebody sexy, or noting their sexiness isn’t to reduce them. Yes, judging someone solely on their looks is shallow, but allowing their looks to factor into your judgment of them is natural. Their brains, wit, and skill will usually trump their hotness in the long game,” and then went on to gush “No matter how sexy Justin Trudeau is, if he leads Canada’s economy off a cliff, or behaves like an oaf with a foreign dignitary, or says something ridiculous about the police, he will be judged on that…”
Teeman shouldn’t be so sure, after-all, President Obama job performance and weak approval ratings are wildly disjointed from the still-fawning media coverage he receives from a media that was infatuated with him from the start. The white-hot lust may be gone, but there’s plenty of affection still there, plus an unwillingness by many in the media to change course now and admit they were blinded by their puppy love.
Here’s an idea: how about we stop objectifying everyone in politics, male or female, and instead look at the substances of their ideologies and policy positions. It may not appeal much to the generally-liberal “low-information” crowd the Left wants to energize come election season, but it is a mature way to conduct political journalism.
