Clinton's boobs: the ironies abound

There are so many ironies here, I don't even know where to start...

Sigh. Okay, first, I read this article on how the Clinton campaign is getting its collective panties in a twist (sorry, I couldn't resist given the subject matter) over an article in the fashion section of the Washington Post. Seems a certain Ms. Robin Givhan (yes, _Ms._ Givhan) wrote an article on the implications of Clinton showing a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor, something she apparently hasn't really done before. Clinton's seems to think that this is part of a larger conspiracy by...the world, I guess?...to dismiss Clinton's ideas because she is a woman and, therefore, merely a sexual object.

Where do I start? I could start with the horrifying idea that we're all too busy lusting after Clinton to pay attention to her ideas. I have only one thing to say about that: *shudder*. But let's start with Givhan and her article. First of all, Givhan is herself a woman. And black. And did I mention she has won a Pulitzer Prize for her fashion commentary? Because she did. Last _fucking_ year. In fact, the Pulitzer was, "Awarded to Robin Givhan of The Washington Post for her witty, closely observed essays that transform fashion criticism into cultural criticism." So you can see why Clinton would assume that such a person talks about female politicians' boobs out of shallow, sophomoric titillation. (hee...I said "titillation"...)

So, pray tell, what was the point of Ms. Givhan's article? Well, read it yourself. Her point is, essentially, that Clinton's willingness to show a little skin is an indication that she is confident enough in her own authority, intellect, and presence to not be worried that a little air of sexuality will overshadow that. As Givhan writes,

"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."

So, let's review: Clinton's reaction to an article praising her willingness to embrace her femininity at the same time that she commands authority and insists on being taken seriously because she isn't afraid that such a display will overshadow her ideas and her message was to, essentially, freak out and immediately assume that her ideas and her message were being ignored because everyone was suddenly focusing on her sexuality.

*brain explodes*

The more I learn about Clinton, the more I dislike her. It pains me to think that she'll probably get the Democratic nomination.