quote:

---

Academics and politicians are blasting Canadian environmental groups for a "sexist and gratuitous'' critique of the federal environment minister that suggested she spends more time on her hair, than she does on the job.

---

But seriously, I would have rather Greenpeace avoided this sort of controversy, it detracted a little bit from the point they were going to make.

One must also consider David Suzuki's aging hippy 'do and his laid-back dude body language.Does it adequately reflect his position or does it presume that while he publically castigates others for excessive consumption,the excessive pollution caused by his own weekly air flights,three homes etc is above reproach?

Macleans article

Yeah, I know, it's Macleans, but I'm linking to it for the factual reference to what happened:

quote:

---

In an interview with the Toronto Star, Ambrose exudes optimism about next week's visit to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Nairobi: "It's an exciting time for Canada to be able to share with the international community our commitment to this global challenge and this global effort. … They will be very impressed to see that we're moving ahead... It's a strong commitment."

Ambrose's opening remarks are delivered electronically in Nairobi.

The Climate Action Network distributes a newsletter to delegates at the Nairobi conference taking Ambrose and the Conservatives to task for their "contempt for climate protection." It reads, in part: "She might have the best hair of any COP President, but she will be remembered as the worst COP President in the history of the climate convention." The hair theme continues throughout: "Since assuming the presidency, Rona found time away from her hairdresser to show up for about 24 hours in Bonn in May this year for the SB24 meeting, but not enough for the pre-COP 12 meeting in Geneva or the G8+5 meeting in Mexico… We were however impressed with the hair. Good hair, some might say even exceptional hair."

---

Honestly, what the hell are they thinking? Why do some people think it's okay to be sexist as long as they don't agree with the politics of the woman in question?

Now, it would be different in a different context. If it were, say, a program like the Air Farce or some other comedian making the comment, okay, political satire, ha ha. For instance, I read a Hill gossip column in Macleans written by the former editor of Fab Magazine, Mitchell someone-or-other (sorry, I forget his last name!) where he makes a joke about how Rona Ambrose wore a green dress to something or other, and that at least it was a start when it comes to her new responsibilities. I laughed at that, because the whole column was gossipy about male and female politicians. That was the point.

quote:

---

The Climate Action Network distributes a newsletter to delegates at the Nairobi conference taking Ambrose and the Conservatives to task for their "contempt for climate protection." It reads, in part: "She might have the best hair of any COP President, but she will be remembered as the worst COP President in the history of the climate convention." The hair theme continues throughout: "Since assuming the presidency, Rona found time away from her hairdresser to show up for about 24 hours in Bonn in May this year for the SB24 meeting, but not enough for the pre-COP 12 meeting in Geneva or the G8+5 meeting in Mexico… We were however impressed with the hair. Good hair, some might say even exceptional hair."

---

Well that's way over the top.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
I can however, still make some fun of Ambrose right?

She kind of sets it up for herself in this Rick Mercer segment, when she is very concerned about killing or hurting maple trees when asked to spike them for syrup. It's painful to watch.

---

I think we all know that Greenpeace was making a connection between the superficiallity of the Consevatives environmental "plan" and the current Minister of the Environment's obsession with personal appearance, the suggestion being that if she spent more time on policy and less in the hairdresser, there might be something of substance as a result. not very hard to parse that one.

Pierre Pettygrew was regularly refered to as having "fabulous" hair, but full of hot air. Brian Mulroney's penchant for expensive suits and immaculate grooming was used to illustrate how out of touch with the average person he was. Peter McKay is referred to as a handsome guy in nearly every article about him, usually followed by critique about how much of a lightweight he is. Jack's mustache is regularly the subject of derision and ridicule usually when the commentor has little of substance to say in critique of him.

Not once have i heard that any of these examples are sexist. Could it be that it is because they are men? That's just the "rough and tumble" of politics? When someone enters political life, everything they do or say or present will come under some form of scrutiny, critique, or ridicule. It is not always sophisticated or polite. Women and Men recieve equal treatment in that regard. It is the debate that is unequal.

I think the Greenpeace comments are not sexist. They do not denigrate her hair. they actually compliment it. but people who obsessively maintain an elaborate appearance, yet can't actually do the job they are ponitificating about, are just asking for comparisons. It is a common form of critique regardless of gender.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
i don't see how the Greenpeace comments are sexist, unless of course any comment about a female politician's appearance is by default sexist. Sort of like how any negative comments about Isreal now automatically generate accusations of anti-semitism.
...

I think the Greenpeace comments are not sexist. They do not denigrate her hair. they actually compliment it.

---

It's not about whether it was a compliment or not. It's about commenting on her appearance while critiquing her job performance.

Here's a little test for you. Do you think this would be sexist?

i should have noticed that i was in the feminist forum before i posted. i return to my lair.

edited to add: to answer your question directly, yes. absolutely that example is sexist. and illegal under the Labour Code in each province, federally, and under Human Rights Commision legislation, and likely the Charter too. The Greenpeace comments, while you may not like them and they may be in poor taste according to some, they clearly do not fall under any of those catagories.

Try this. Substitute Stephen Harper's name, he of hair helmet fame (yar! sexism!) for any time Rona's name is mentioned in the article or press release. Now, if that was the case, would we even be having this discussion? i think not. likely men and women the world over would be chuckling to themselves and saying "oooh, nice one".

[ 12 November 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]

Okay, let's try another example:

"Hey Michelle. Let's talk about the work you've been doing on the such-and-such file. I think you've been slacking off on it, and I'm not happy with the work you're doing on it. Oh, by the way, you have gorgeous eyes. I mean, those are some really pretty green eyes you've got going on there. But you know, I think maybe you need to stop thinking about your eye make-up - which, by the way, looks fantastic! - and start thinking more about the such-and-such file. You've been doing a terrible job on that file and it needs to improve. Well, I'm glad we've had this little chat. See you later, get back to me when you've made some progress on the file. Oh, and just to reiterate - what gorgeous, come-hither eyes you have!"

They're critiquing her job performance by saying she should spend less time on styling her hair and more time on doing her job, when it's not clear in any way that her hair has anything to do with her job. And they're going over the top in complimenting her hair - as if it's the only quality about her worth mentioning.

If you think a woman's doing a crappy job, then say she's doing a crappy job. Don't rely on "bimbo" stereotypes about her pretty hair to get the point across. Her hair and her looks have nothing to do with her dismal performance on the environment.

[ 12 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

The hair comment might have been in bad taste, but that is not the same as sexual harrassment.

A more apt analogy may be if an employee who feels his female counterpart is not pulling her weight makes some comment about spending too much time on her hair and not enough on her work. Then again the female could turn around and make exactly the same comment about the man. I admit to having thought almost exactly that about some very well toned men at my office who seem to spend more time at the gym than working...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Summer:
I know one of the commandments here is thou shalt not criticize the mods,

---

Since when?

BTW, I take your point on the sexual harassment thing. In my defence, I wasn't claiming that Ambrose was being sexually harassed. I was just drawing a parallel between two situations where a woman's appearance is being brought up for no good reason when her job performance is being assessed. But you're absolutely right that the comment made about Ambrose does not have the same power dynamic as a boss-subordinate relationship. It IS a bad analogy that way.

I've met feminists who do less than I do and more than I do on the personal appearance front. Some women don't feel like they're dressed if they don't have make-up on when they leave the house. Other women like me don't care, but we don't feel comfortable wearing shorts if we don't shave our legs first. Other women don't bother shaving.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
I think the point is, would you find it sexist if comments were made about Stephen Harper's hair, and how he has such an "obsession" with his hair that he is unqualified for his job?

---

quote:

---

Why does everybody think we long-haired beauties spend loads of time and money on our hair? I spend about one minute in the morning running a wet comb through my flowing chestnut tresses, and go to the hairdresser twice a year. How hair-obsessed am I when it's the short-haired people who are always running to the barber/stylist to get a trim?

---

Maybe in an alternate world, you can only speak out against one thing at a time. Feminists have long supported progressive causes. That doesn't mean we have to sit back and say, hey, that's just fine for progressive organizations to act like sexist boors, as long as it's against women we don't like.

Maybe you should blame the environmental group for writing such a stupid and sexist letter and giving the Cons that kind of ammunition instead of blaming feminists for speaking out against sexism. It would have been really easy for the environmental group to make sure the focus stays on the environment - they could have written a letter that wasn't full of sexist remarks about a female politician's looks. It's really just that easy.

The Conservatives were given a gift. And it wasn't feminists who gave it to them. It was the environmental group. It's pretty crappy to choose to blame feminists for speaking out against sexism.

Don't expect us to sit still and shut up just because we're supposed to be on the same side as that environmental group. They attacked women; it wasn't the other way around. Feminists shouldn't have to take that shit "for the team".

[ 13 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Are you implying that those of us who are concerned about blatant sexism directed against female politicians are concerned about it at the expense of our environmental activism?

---

[ 13 November 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

There's a really easy way to make sure sexism isn't divisive - progressives should stop making excuses for sexism by other progressives. It's just that simple.

[ 13 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

[ 13 November 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]