Category Archives: Aesthetics

UPDATE II: How Hard Is It To Stay HOT? (The Market Will Help, Not The Military)

Addiction, Aesthetics, Democrats, Feminism, Free Markets, Military, Sport

How hard is it for a “mature” lady to look beautiful?

Ask Ann Romney.

Granted, Mrs. Romney is a natural beauty. Still, she is not a healthy woman. At her age, she would have to work hard at looking like this:

We ladies know that as we age, it’s harder to look fine and stay fit. It takes an effort. We all face the same aging process, although some, like Ann Romney, have genetics on their side.

Given America’s veneration of the victim, I expect that what I am about to say next will draw ire.

Understand: No one here disputes that Holly Petraeus has a hideous husband. It should be stressed too that Mrs. Petraeus is not to be faulted for her husband’s whoring.

Nevertheless, Holly herself, who can’t be much older than Ann Romney, looks like Mrs. Romney’s grandmother.

Why is it that so many American women—so often Democratic—conflate the greying, fat and unfit look with a statement of individual authenticity? It’s as though the less feminine and more unkempt a woman appears, the more she is said to be comfortable in her own skin.

Why does Mrs. Petraeus wear those Mao suits? Why not dye the salt-and-pepper hair and get it styled? What about a lick of lipstick?

And yes, the idea that a woman should make an effort to look nice contradicts all feminist strictures, but then I’ve never professed feminism.

UPDATE I (Nov. 17): This Facebook thread is fun. Some good and funny points. My point: you are not responsible for your genes. But you can honor yourself above all by taking care of yourself. Mrs. Mao is not old. She was pretty as a younger woman. It’s my non-feminist opinion that to let your body go, above all, is to dishonor yourself. However, you honor yourself and you show respect to those around you by dressing and making up nicely. That’s all. (I’d be grey without hair color too. ..)

I have a neighbor who was an elite-unit army man. I have never seen this man (in his 60s) walk his dog looking less than spiffy. The carriage, the fitness level, the care he takes with himself—these all show a respect for self and others. When I walk around the shops, some of the girls are dressed like whores (white, dimpled flesh oozing out of short pant, crotch and cleavage for all to see). This to me shows disrespect for what nature (or G-d) gave you and for humanity. For such a vision assaults the eye and offends the sensibilities.

Mrs. Mao doesn’t work; she fiddles with charity on base. She is part of “Rome’s marching camp.” She has time to get fitter, color her hair, and dress less like a commie official.

UPDATE II (Nov. 18): The market, not the military, will help you look hot into middle-age, and beyond. Reply on Facebook thread:

Looking good is tiring? Rubbish: Stay out of the sun (Tampa tarts will look like crocodiles in a couple of years). Use a good skin cream. Get your hair cut and colored. Buy a couple of nice items online. You can find great items (made in the USA), dirt cheap. Get glorious service to your door step, b/c of the MARKET, MRS. Mao, NOT THE MILITARY.

Non-Glam, ‘Return-To-Reason’ Column Image

Aesthetics, Ilana Mercer, IlanaMercer.com, Paleolibertarianism

Two more recent images (taken in Oct. 2012) have been added to ilanamercer.com’s Gallery.

The more cheerful image is also the image now appended to Return To Reason, WND’s longest standing, exclusive, paleolibertarian column. The previous image was, well, dated.

My editor has informed me, diplomatically, that, for WND’s purposes, “glam” photos are better than the do-it-yourself kind. I know. I’ll get to it. But right now, professional images, like the one on RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column,” are expensive.

Besides, as you get older, you get more comfortable with a non-finessed look.

Katherine Fenton’s Typical Whining Womanhood

Aesthetics, Economy, Elections, English, Feminism, Gender, Labor, Republicans

Ridiculous is the imprecision with which conservatives have lashed out at the repulsive Katherine Fenton. She is the “young woman” who questioned the president and his rival, during the second presidential debate, about a non-existent construct: Pay “inequalities in the workplace.” “Specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn.”

Attack her as the specimen of whining womanhood she is, will you? Don’t call her vague names (“”Feminazi,” “Tool”).

Also, go for the execution: Without exception, the clones that keep stepping into the limelight stud their conversation with the same mind-numbing commonplaces and humbugs, delivered in grating, staccato, tart tones of speech and a truncated vocabulary.

“I feel like” is how these women—endearingly called “young women”—preface every utterance; for they feel a lot, but don’t think much.

Yuk.

Is any conservative going to point out how off-putting America’s “young women” sound, irrespective of how pretty they look?

No, because The Thing I’ve described fits most young conservative commentators too. Remember how Laura Ingraham was forced to grovel for lampooning the dense Meghan McCain’s unmistakable moronity and Valley-Girl inflection?

In any event, implicit in Fenton’s question is that the wage discrepancy reported speaks to a widely accepted conspiracy to suppress women’s wages; and that the length of time a woman has been in the work force, her age, experience, education; whether she has put her career on hold to marry and mother—do not factor into the wage equation.

Incapable as these women are of analytical thinking, they cannot comprehend how certain realities factor into the wage equation. To wit, women are more likely than men to have had an interrupted career trajectory and to opt for part-time and lower-paying professions—education instead of engineering, for example.

If your average Republican galvanized economic logic to dispel distaff America’s claims of disadvantage, this is what he’d have said:

“If women with the same skills as men were getting only 72 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. The fact that entrepreneurs don’t ditch men for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.” (From “Guys Do Double Duty For Feminist Delusions.”)

Bottoms Up,* Kate Middleton

Aesthetics, Britain, Celebrity, Ethics, Etiquette, Free Speech, Private Property

She’s a gorgeous girl. She’s also stabler than her late mother-in-law (which, I guess, is not saying much, considering that the dodo Diana was a manipulative neurotic, given to histrionics).

In any event, Kate Middleton, aka The Duchess of Cambridge, will get over the fact that images of her bare breasts and bum are already in circulation, snapped in order to feed the voyeuristic fetish of the average consumer.

Certainly demand-driven, unethical, ugly and maybe even immoral: Hounding this girl wherever she goes is all of the above. But surely only trespassing on private property renders the action of the offending photographer illicit in natural law?!

The topless images of Kate were snapped from “the side of the road between trees, around half a mile away from a chateau,” in the south of France.

Was the photographer trespassing on private property? No report seems to specify. “Invasion of privacy” laws seem to belong to a broadly defined area of law, one that has little to do with the always unmentionable rights of private property.

(Bottoms up* means “here’s to you.”)