I waited for the furor to die down before I chimed in on this ridiculous piece of "news".
By way of introduction. Here is a copy of the, by now infamous, Twitter photo of Meghan McCain, her book, and her boobs.
Second, what's the big deal? As we do in law school, let's break this down into its elements.
Meghan McCain. Love her. Hate her. Don't care either way. I give the woman credit for at least having a voice and using it. One might not always agree with the things she says but at least she is articulate enough to express her thoughts into words that are not coated in the media news or political candy shell covering. I'm not saying she is the "be all and end all" but at least she tries to contribute to the world in a positive way - with her thoughts and her words. For those who might not know, Meghan is also a contributing writer to The Daily Beast. She is known for being a bit outspoken, notably with her "Pro Sex" views that seems to send the conservatives into a tailspin.
But here's the thing that I find interesting...she is contributing in some positive manner. By comparison what are some other women constantly in the media doing to contribute? Driving drunk through an In-and-Out drive-thru (Paris Hilton, I'm talking to you), "leaking" a sex tape (Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson, Vanessa Hudgens, shall I continue....?), or confusing their acting roles with the real world (Martin Sheen, just because you played the President on TV doesn't mean you actually were, or are, the President).
This world has been turned upside down that the media whores get themselves into a frenzy because a woman posted a picture of herself wearing a tank top that had a bit of a "push up" effect. But because she has large breasts - in her own words "bigger than some other women, not as big as others" - she is a slut looking for media attention. There were many who responded to this picture by calling her a "slut". Why? Are we so insecure that we , as a people, will throw anyone under the bus just so we can feel good about ourselves.
In her own words, she was wearing sweatpants and a tank shirt and posted the picture to highlight she was being a "dork" by staying in one night reading (Andy Warhol's biography). From a purely physical perspective Meghan is a healthy size 10. What I want to know is this: When did a women being a size 10 be considered "large"? An example by comparison, Marilyn Monroe fluctuated around size 14/16. Today it seems no one would pay her any attention unless she was a contestant on "The Biggest Loser."
I have women friends who range in size from 0-16 and there is an interesting shared trait amongst all of them when it comes to clothing, and a trait that the "offending" Twitter picture seemed to highlight: the way tank shirts are cut seem to add a "push up" effect to a woman's cleavage. It happens. Men have shrinkage in cold water, women have "breast enhancement" in tank shirts. It's not fair. Get over it. Move on.
It seems to me that if you are an attractive woman, by all that is holy in this world, cover up those legs and those breasts. Unless you are putting them out there "for sale" (see aforementioned celebrity references) and are willing to close the deal, cover them up! How ridiculous is this? In rebellion against our Puritanical roots we have become so sex obsessed nowadays that we see it in everything, including pictures taken by parents of their young (at the time of the incident, the girls were 5, 4 and 1 1/2) children taking a bath. Wal-Mart of Peoria, Arizona, I'm talking to you!
I am not a feminist in male clothing. I don't care. Man. Woman. White. Black. Yellow. Polka-dot. All I've ever cared about is "can you do the job you've been hired to do?" That's it. Everything else doesn't matter. What I care about is whether or not you have something to add that is of value. Does your presence or input make the world a better place?
For the record, I happen to think Meghan McCain is attractive. When I saw her on The Colbert Report I thought "Wow! This is a woman who knows how to carry herself. She is confident." See, to me, a confidant woman is sexy. A confidant and smart woman? Hell, I'll marry you right now.
Which brings me to what I found more of interest in "Twittergate". While the media boobs were obsessing over, well, boobs, did anyone really happen to take notice of the book she was reading? Andy Warhol's biography. Andy Warhol was a person of depth and dimension. From Wikipedia: Andy Warhol was an American painter, printmaker, and filmmaker who was a leading figure in the visual arts movement known as "pop art". Andy Warhol was someone who contributed to the world, and it wasn't with a sex tape, reality TV show, or some grand Hollywood staged event, he did it with his work. There is much today that can be attributed to Andy Warhol, even the very "15 minutes of fame" that everyone seems to seek was codified by Warhol.
What interests me about Meghan McCain and this book is that she was expressing a curiosity about the world in a manner that belies a desire to seek a deeper understanding. It wasn't some Hollywood daughter's [auto]biography, or the latest issue of People, or US Weekly, or some other print media that could be considered a crime against nature for its very existence. Don't get me wrong, I like good brain candy as much as anyone else but I don't let it consume me and become my very raison d'etre. To me, current events are about what's happening in the world, not Lindsay Lohan's latest DUI, or who Paris Hilton's best friend of the week happens to be (is there a club requiring membership dues, like a book-of-the-month club or the like?), or whichever celebrity is famous for doing whatever it was she did to be famous to begin with. I wonder how many of these "celebrities" or other persons of notoriety would actually read a book. I mean, a book has words requiring the use of one's brain. Generally a book has no pictures, perfume samples, or gossip.
I like a woman with a brain, and who not only knows how to use it, but isn't afraid to use it either. If I had a choice of a woman who wearing a little black cocktail dress carrying a martini glass in her hand but nothing to say or a woman in sweats reading a book, I'd take the latter every time. To me, the second is the sexier of the two options without question. But that's the thing, that's "to me". Others have their own preferences and desires. Good. No where in any writings through the years has it been written we should be lemmings and follow one another over the edge of a cliff. We're supposed to have independent thoughts and ideas and we shouldn't be chastised for expressing them. Just because we, as a people, might not like what we hear, we should still listen, because next time, maybe we will like what we hear, or we might even learn something (this fact alone could bring the end of the world to some).
As for Meghan McCain, her book, and her boobs. I'd love the opportunity to have dinner with all three. Maybe we can exchange ideas, have good conversation, and while we might not agree on all things, maybe, just maybe, we might at least agree on some good books to read.
No comments:
Post a Comment