In the tradition of objectifying women sexually, male artist Daniel Edwards sculpted a buxom Hillary Rodham Clinton to present, as his describes, the "first" presidential portrait of Hillary:
"I've depicted Hillary Clinton in the traditional manner as befits the head of state -- with head held high and face matured with wisdom," says Edwards, "but with unmistakable 'sexual power' as a nod to Sharon Stone." The bust prominently portrays Mrs. Clinton's cleavage spilling from a lacy, low-cut inaugural gown with her bare shoulders enhanced by a "delicate" nape.
Head of state...sexual power...Sharon Stone...huh?! Stone said, "...a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening." Isn't it sad when women parrot patriarchal poppycock?
I bet Nixon, FDR, and maybe even Lincoln had some fierce man bosoms and, um, sexual power. How did they get elected? Let's talk about how sexy JFK was. Where are the topless busts of male heads of state? I truly think Bush has too much sexual power...and way too much of another kind. He led conservatives to discriminate against a sexual minority.
Hat tip to Pam who entitled her post, "sHillary..." which I take to mean that the bust is a stunt for attention. Quite possibly.
Seriously, though, what is it with men and boobs? Envy? Possessiveness? Immaturity? Objectification? Male entitlement? All of the above? Sheesh. What a world.
2008 UPDATE: Apparently, Pam's use of "sHillary" isn't what I thought, instead a smear against Hillary. Gawd! Took me a bit to catch up to her hatred for HRC, unthinkable to me as a lesbian feminist. It's not like Hillary Clinton is a colonized acolyte of male entitlement like Phyllis Schlafly, one of the Women of the Poison Peds.
|