Some silliness aforethought

Jon Carroll on, ostensibly, the book, "Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflection by Women Writers" . but it's really an article about male canditates and their trousers:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/18/DDFRUGG1J.DTL



Jon Carroll
Friday, January 18, 2008

So now there is a book called "Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflection by Women Writers," in which women who write consider Hillary Clinton's womanliness, as opposed to, say, her voting record on tax cuts. Her womanness is of vital importance, I guess, because a book publisher agreed to pay someone money to edit an anthology in which female writers write about womanitude.

One writer wonders whether Hillary is a dog person or a cat person, and concludes that "animal-wise, she remains a cipher." There are no easy answers.

But I'm thinking, has a male writer ever had the courage to discuss any of the male candidates in terms of their manliness? I think not. I do not mean manliness in the sense of being a take-charge, stand-up kind of guy, but manliness in terms of their ability to wrestle with the challenges of manitude, the essence of the Y chromosome, which is so very different from, well, the other thing. Can a man ever be elected president? Well, yes, every time. But is that really the point?

All the male candidates have had to wrestle with the trousers issue. Female candidates can wear dresses or skirts or twin sets or pantsuits or even, in some cases, designer jeans. Male candidates never have the luxury of a frock. Let Mike Huckabee appear in public in an off-the-shoulder flowered party dress, and his poll numbers would plummet. Even a kilt-like garment would cause unrest.

(To be fair, Clinton probably couldn't get away with an off-the-shoulder flowered party dress either. At least 30 female writers would deconstruct the party dress, using it as proof that Clinton is purposely softening her image to appeal to traditional Christian women, or as proof that she's toughening her image by pretending to soften her image, thereby appealing to career women who understand all about compromise and sympathize with her attempts to keep her femininity in a world largely controlled by men, while other ... I'm boring even myself here.)

But, you know, on a hot day, a cotton or linen dress is just perfect. It has scientifically proven ventilation superiority. And yet men must always wear the pants - indeed, that's a phrase synonymous with masculinity, "wearing the pants in the family." How has each man dealt with his own personal trouser issues? Rudolph Giuliani has been photographed on numerous occasions wearing women's clothing, which should make him endearing but doesn't. Perhaps he's really gay, and all this stashing a mistress out on Long Island stuff is overcompensation. But at least he's confronted his trouser demons. Can the same be said of Ron Paul?

Huckabee has a whole other trouser problem. He recently lost 110 pounds, meaning that he has had to readjust his internal trouser mapping model. Before, trousers were to be feared; the rolling waistband, the popping seams, the terrible belt line-dropping-below-the-belly scenario, which can occasionally result in the pants-around-the-ankles look more generally associated with bedroom farces. Now his trousers are his friends. They proclaim his dedication to self-discipline. And yet he rarely flaunts his waistline - he's the "old Mike" trapped in the body of the "new Mike."

Obama's problem is that he looks good in pants; he's always looked good in pants. He looks even better when he takes his coat off. Will male voters 34 to 65 resent Obama's trim sex appeal? Will they wonder whether there's something wrong with a guy who can look that good that easily? Should he perhaps purchase a prosthetic paunch for swings around the chubbier states?

I know many men would resent someone who's never had a trouser problem. Let me put it this way: I resent a person like that. Can a man really govern a nation if he hasn't had to worry that pants don't come in a 39 waist? What is Obama trying to tell us, anyway, with his blatant pandering to women 16 to 65?

Ron Paul is tiny and Dennis Kucinich is tiny. We haven't elected a tiny man president since the mid-1800s. (James Madison was a shrimp, but, back then, who knew?) By contrast, both Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi were tiny women. Tiny guys don't really stand a chance in presidential politics. Is this fair? Of course it is. If they were real men, they'd be taller.
No one talks about John Edwards' trouser issues. It's all about his hair. Of course, he brought that on himself by having that hair. What's the matter with a buzz cut? That would prove his moral seriousness. He's a good-looking guy, but in a boyish way. Clinton (Bill) and Kennedy (John) were both boyish, in looks and in actions. Not that it's fair to draw any conclusions from the Edwards boyishness thing. One can make innuendos, though - that's always fair. I speak here as a male who understands the eternal mystery that is man.

Sure, they have positions on issues, but how are they doing as men? I, as a man, look at John and John and Ron and Mike and Mitt.

[] [email protected].