Dressed to Dissect?

Sabrina's post and the subsequent conversation about Dowd's article got me thinking again about something I saw in Newsweek last Friday* that extends this issue of physical appearance and self-presentation in another direction. The title of the Newsweek Article is "Conservative Hotties and Gender Hypocrisy: Why It's Hard to Have It Both Ways".

The Newsweek article discusses a list of the "20 Hottest Conservative Women In The New Media"** posted by the Right Wing News. The article provides names and photos of these 'top rated' women but no readily available additional biographical information (most of the photos are fairly sexual in nature, as the blog Jezebel pointed out today***).

In regards to Sabrina's question - Personally I feel as though people should be allowed to dress however they would like and that people should not necessarily have to adhere to any guidelines of conservative/creative professional dressing. Moreover, I think that in an ideal situation the focus would be on substantive qualities and ability. Of course, I am not so naive as to believe that people's appearances do not dramatically impact perception and I understand that they are inherently relevant to the decision making process.

I think the other way of looking at the question that Sabrina posed is:
Should the impact of your outfit be something you can be judged on instead of your ability? Of course this is something we discussed in some depth with regards to the articles on Elena Kagan, but what about for people who are not taking on a position of prominence? What about people who are being specifically pointed out for their "hotness"? Can "hotness" ever be a real advantage?

By focusing on the "New Media" the Right Wing News article is inherently targeting lesser known figures (Of course they did include people like Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin on their list - all relatively famous female conservative figures who are likely accustomed to the kind of intense criticism that comes from holding a position of prominence). On the one hand, being featured on a list like this is certain to generate some degree of publicity for these writers - but perhaps not the kind of critical attention they deserve.

Graham's Newsweek post addresses this question by saying:
"It’s great that there’s such a vibrant female presence in the conservative commentariat—Coulter and Malkin in particular have a stature that’s equaled only by the likes of Rush Limbaugh—but by any sensible standard, it’s clear-cut sexism: women trying to compete on the same intellectual playing field as the men being ranked for how sexy they look in their online profile, not how scathingly they dissect Obamacare."

I think Graham raises an important point -- by focusing on people who work hard to be included on "the same intellectual playing field" the "20 Hottest Conservative Women" erases any potential advantage that a list like that could provide. Essentially, it seems to be the case that no matter whether you are considered 'drab' or 'hot' - a focus on appearance that replaces a hard analysis of your work is never acceptable, no matter what kind of position of leadership you may be in. So can "hotness" be an advantage? Maybe it can be... but it should not the primary measure by which any individual should be measured.


* The Newsweek post is included in the title of the blog post.
**http://rightwingnews.com/2010/06/the-20-hottest-conservative-women-in-the-new-media-2010-edition/
***http://jezebel.com/5557442/the-persistent-perviness-of-pundits-on-pin+up-bloggers