Woke revisited

A man told me the other day that research in Oxford University shows that men who don’t comment on women’s appearance live on average some 30 years longer than men who do. I suspect he made the whole thing up, but it does draw attention to a topic that has always fascinated me: the connection between a politician’s appearance and his or her success. The most famous example is the John F Kennedy debate in 1960 with Richard Nixon. It was carried live by radio and TV, and those who listened on the radio were convinced that Nixon had won the debate, whereas those who watched it on TV had no doubt that Kennedy was the winner. And it survives to this very day: why do you think that millionaire Michael Healy-Rae wears that ridiculous cap?

Of course, politician or non-politician, people are concerned about their appearance. Men comb their hair, get hair-transplants, shape their eyebrows and use deodorant, all with the intention of presenting themselves in the best light.  The same applies even more to women. Fashion, dress sense, make-up,  nails  – women care about how they look. 

There are some who claim that the first thing a woman looks at on meeting a man is his shoes. Maybe that’s true, although I doubt it. When men look at women…well, it gets trickier there. Most women (most men too) lhope they present themselves well and are admired. But the man who comment on about women’s appearance had better look after his health, if that Oxford study is true (or even exists).

  Seven years ago I was buffeted by a serious twitterstorm  when I talked about a female politician. My opening sentence of the blog suggested that when she appeared on TV, most people first noticed that she was overweight, very probably due to a medical condition, but that her ability to communicate with intelligence and fluency quickly pushed aside any attention to her appearance.

Yesterday I made the mistake of telling about this blog to a woman. She  hadn’t read it, but immediately said it was an example of ‘the male gaze’ and highly insulting, and I should never have said it.

Now, while I think we should all be kind to each other, I think we should be free to comment on others, especially those who serve us in politics.  Just about everyone, I think, would say that  how we look matters, and that it is of particular importance in politics. Maybe that’s a bad thing – maybe Nixon should have been elected and the handsome JFK should have lost. But it strikes me as an infringement on free speech if a man cannot comment on anything to do with a woman’s appearance. Or vice versa, for that matter. The conduct of DUP MLAs who used to make mooing noises when members of the Women’s Coalition tried to speak is, of course, rude, stupid and misogynistic.  But the woman I spoke to yesterday told me sharply that to remark on a woman’s appearance is to see that woman using ‘the male gaze’ and simply should not happen.

Verbal abuse is. one thing, but factual comment is another. At least as I see it. Anybody who wants to talk about my ridiculous bald head, knock yourself out. But to cordon off ANY comment about a woman’s physical appearance seems to me the kind of thing that gives ‘woke’ a bad name.