Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


What do the "Gutsiest Broads" like Courtney Love and Hillary Clinton
February 4, 2001 12:00 AM   Subscribe

What do the "Gutsiest Broads" like Courtney Love and Hillary Clinton have that the "Wimpiest Women" don't? By the way who is Darva Conger?
posted by oh posey (47 comments total)

 
Google says she's the woman that married Rick Rockwell on the "who wants to marry a millionaire" show last year. Remember?
posted by mathowie at 12:21 AM on February 4, 2001


...and after that fell through, she posed for Playboy (no nudity - well, on that page, anyway). For a little while, she was even one of the most searched for people on the web.
posted by Aaaugh! at 1:02 AM on February 4, 2001


Know what they have? The support of the liberal media and the national feminist organizations who want to force women into their one-size-fits-all feminist model. For these folk, it's heresy to strike out with your own agenda if you are a woman.
posted by faith at 1:23 AM on February 4, 2001


Yeah, a lot of times I hear feminist organizations complain about women striking out with their own agendas.

I hate that.
posted by anildash at 2:29 AM on February 4, 2001


Courtney Love is being told by feminists to follow their agenda? what drivel! those who do not take to the workplace can still stay home if they so choose instead of sitting about denoucing the "liberal media"--whatever that may be (We have a GOP in power), and feminist organizations. The simplification of everything into our side/their side liberal and conservative is easy enough to use as tags to argue with but never addresses any real issue. Mrs Clinton, for example, was a practising attorney before getting to the White House; Condela Rice, a Ph.D.--advisor to Bush on foreign affiars: is she too following the liberal media and the feminist agenda?
posted by Postroad at 6:49 AM on February 4, 2001


gutsy: hillary clinton.
wimpy: katherine harris.

as far as I can see, what the "gutsy broads" have that "wimpy women" don't is liberal politics.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:07 AM on February 4, 2001


The Wimpy Women, if you're unfamiliar with who they are:posted by stevis at 7:24 AM on February 4, 2001


Debating who gets on which list is futile and makes about as much sense as debating who makes People Magazine's "Top 10 Sexiest People Alive". Being conservative doesn't keep you from the Gutsy list - look at Paula Jones. Nor does being a bimbo - see Anna Nicole Smith. There is no real logic at work here.
posted by stevis at 7:30 AM on February 4, 2001


Carnie Wilson probably qualifies as wimpy (for purposes of the article) because her dramatic weight loss was triggered by a gastric bypass surgery, and not by any particular effort of her own. From this, we can conclude that if you have your stomach stapled, you have no guts.Was that too dry?
posted by darukaru at 8:37 AM on February 4, 2001


I'd say if I needed to lose 175 pounds I'd go to whatever extreme necessary as well...but I believe Wilson was more likely to be voted wimpy because she couldn't be happy with "herself" as a larger woman. Based on that theory I'd guess Jane magazine would vote millions of women wimpy for keeping the diet industry healthy and flourishing.

So is Darva wimpy because she let herself be inticed to marry a millionaire on TV? Didn't she redeem herself later by renouncing the whole scheme?

posted by oh posey at 9:06 AM on February 4, 2001


Far from castigating her for wimpiness, I applaud Ms. Wilson for taking serious steps to get her weight down to a non-hazardous level. It's too bad that she couldn't lose the poundage through diet and exercise, but lots of people who go this route fail.

This whole "big, beautiful woman" movement really does a disservice to the grossly obese. There's nothing wrong with having a big frame and realizing that you're never going to be Kate Moss, but when someone is 175 pounds over their ideal weight, then you're talking about serious, proven health risks that must be dealt with. In these cases, being happy with yourself just the way you are is an invitation to an early death.
posted by MrBaliHai at 9:31 AM on February 4, 2001


ungh.

Carnie Wilson looks gaunt. Good for her for making a change to herself, but I also will criticize her for initially taking the idea of fat acceptance and running with it, but finally giving it up. That proved to be a huge disservice to the (still) budding fat acceptance community.

Anyway, all I will say is that it is quite possible for people to be fat and healthy, and yes, this is even possible at 175 pounds over someone's "ideal weight". Obesity does not cause death in and of itself, and there is no reason someone should be down on themselves for being 175 pounds overweight.

I will, however, agree that people who are "grossly" obese should have different priorities. 175 pounds overweight isn't necessarily "grossly" obese.

The stereotypes need to go away, and people need to get educated.

The whole Darva Conger thing was funny to watch, though. She kept saying that she wanted people to leave her alone, and kept wishing that the whole thing would go away. Then she posed in Playboy.

posted by hijinx at 9:44 AM on February 4, 2001


Carnie Wilson underwent her weight loss surgery online, which I am sure had something to do with it. Which I think puts her squarely in the media whore category with Darva Conger.

Also, I am sure there would be better discussions about this if everyone wasn't just discussing a press release and read the actual article whenever it's out, to be all "Oh they hate conservative women! Except the ones they honored! And the same thing with overweight women!" is a total easy, stupid argument with nothing to back it up.
posted by beefula at 9:55 AM on February 4, 2001


Carnie Wilson is lucky she ain't dead. I think "fat acceptance" is of no value if it discourages people from physical health in the name of emotional health.

We know that diet and exercise work for some people. We also know that some people are just naturally thin. Some are naturally pudgy. My personal point of view is that I'm naturally pudgy, but now that my dad has Type II Diabetes, I've realized I'm scarily overweight. Fortunately, I doubt I need surgery.

hijinx, read this NIH article and then get back to us on "obesity does not cause death", OK? Christ. Most of us want to live to be 40.
posted by dhartung at 10:59 AM on February 4, 2001


I think "fat acceptance" is of no value if it discourages people from physical health in the name of emotional health.

Agreed. If it does get to the point where it adversely affects someone's health, then action needs to be done. But no one but that person is to say when it happens.

hijinx, read this NIH article and then get back to us on "obesity does not cause death", OK? Christ. Most of us want to live to be 40.

That's a heck of a statement, and it sounds like you're being awfully calm about it. I read the article and, while it does bring up a few valid points, it's 16 years old! I would guess that science has come a way since then.

I'll maintain my stance, and bring up two articles about it. Read those articles and then get back to me on your stereotypes and spoonfed beliefs. Christ, some of us want to live life.
posted by hijinx at 12:35 PM on February 4, 2001


Christ, some of us want to live life.

And, not be told we can't eat a dozen krispy kremes in one sitting!
posted by Neb at 12:39 PM on February 4, 2001


It's a reader poll...It picks up the biases of the targeted audience of the magazine JANE (named after either Ms. Fonda, Ms. Pauley or Mrs. Tarzan) and feeds them back to the editorial board so they can fine-tune their focus...(Oh, they like both Hillary AND Paula, but not Monica? And Chyna's more a sports star than Venus Williams? Time to dumb down a notch...) A "Readers Digest" poll would have put Katherine Harris up there with Joan of Ark (as that Country singer called her... celebrity dumb-ness IS bi-partisan).
As for Carnie Wilson, most of the votes against her probably came from fat women who can't AFFORD a stomach-stapling (although the ad sales department may want to focus on those who CAN).
All in all, no logic... just market research.
posted by wendell at 12:52 PM on February 4, 2001


Know what they have? The support of the liberal media and the national feminist organizations who want to force women into their one-size-fits-all feminist model. For these folk, it's heresy to strike out with your own agenda if you are a woman. ... to rearrange a few words here... maybe its heresy for a woman to strike out with an agenda that does NOT include the national feminist organizations. If women started admitting that they don't feel oppressed and don't need 'the sisterhood' (in that wholly supported, codependent way) to do what they wanted... then what? What if, for at least SOME women, these groups have outlived their usefulness, and their issues are NOT as universal as once thought? What if???
posted by thunder at 12:59 PM on February 4, 2001


Jane is the eponymous project of Jane Pratt, founding editor of Sassy. Their targeted audience is women 18-34 -- think Cosmo for college girls.

hijinx, a stereotype is "she's fat because she can't control her eating". I did not engage in stereotyping.

Morbidly obese, Wilson couldn’t run. She had trouble breathing. She was always tired and sore. Her ankles and feet were usually swollen. She had high blood pressure and cholesterol, sleep apnea, and a pretty bad case of acne. "I was living in fear," Wilson remembers. "The risks for heart disease, cancer, and diabetes - it was all just around the corner. I had to do something."

Yeah, I guess those are just things we should 'accept'. High blood pressure? Who cares! Diabetes? Who doesn't love pricking their finger! Amputations? Blindness? Time to worry about those later!

I think there's a dramatic difference between fat acceptance -- which should be about socialization and self-esteem -- and disease-causing condition acceptance which is what you seem to think it means.

According to this article, Carnie has a family history of diabetes -- two grandmothers, one of whom ended up on dialysis. That's what I'm facing myself.

This article suggests [towards the end] that the "fat acceptance" movement really has a problem with this surgery, or at least with Carnie Wilson for abandoning them.
posted by dhartung at 1:25 PM on February 4, 2001


*applaudes Thunder*... exactly. I'm one of those "SOME" women. A lot of the women's groups now are not so much about the empowerment of all women but much more for the empowerment of lesbian ... ok alternative lifestyles to be more politically correct. Thats all fine and good but leave it there under that premise rather than under the guise as doing it for the good of ALL women. Thanks but no thanks.

At one time the feminist movement was a good thing but its time to move beyond...I for one am tired of being lumped into the category of being called a "feminist" when all I really want to be is feminine. At this point we seem to have a lot of confusion about how and why the sexual roles should be respected. And that seems sad to me.

Now about this Darva woman... :)
posted by oh posey at 1:40 PM on February 4, 2001


hijinx, a stereotype is "she's fat because she can't control her eating". I did not engage in stereotyping.

Aw, sure you did, right here:

I think there's a dramatic difference between fat acceptance -- which should be about socialization and self-esteem -- and disease-causing condition acceptance which is what you seem to think it means.

This continues to perpetuate the idea that fat = "disease-causing condition". You spell it out right there. The umbrella of fat acceptance includes many facets, and there is no reason a "condition", or rather the physical facet of this, is to be excluded.

The thing that supports your argument, however, does not necessarily support every single one. But I can understand why you'd want to use it; Carnie Wilson was not in good health. This guy is, for instance.

Anyway, my final words on this issue: not everyone that is fat is unhealthy, and it very much perpetuates a stereotype to do so.

((cough))

Anyway. What comeback for Florence Henderson do they speak of in this article?
posted by hijinx at 1:59 PM on February 4, 2001


Trying to figure out the meaning behind the poll results themselves is hopeless. Jane is a magazine for girls who outgrew Sassy but never quite matured enough to handle Cosmopolitan. The confusing results mirror their confused lives.

As for Carnie Wilson, everyone should realize that at the time of her surgery, she wasn't just the plump woman we all saw in those Wilson Phillips videos; she was much fatter. After the band broke up, she gained a lot of weight, to the point where the surgery was very much medically necessary, for physical and emotional reasons. That's different from some superficial girl deciding to go in for stomach-stapling just because she thinks she doesn't look so great in the mirror.

There's a difference between being overweight and being obese. The former is an arbitrary decision by society (and there can be no argument that society starts to ostracize you the moment you edge more than three pounds or so above whatever the masses currently deem "attractive"). The latter term is a specific medical problem with direct medical risks, and should only be applied to people who are quite beyond being merely a bit "overweight."

I feel the need to add one point: For a short period of time a few years ago, there was a band called "The Fat Chick From Wilson Phillips." They didn't accomplish much besides earning a place in The Canonical List of Weird Band Names.
posted by aaron at 3:02 PM on February 4, 2001



Props to Aaron for using the words "mature" and "Cosmopolitan" in the same sentence with a straight face.
posted by rodii at 3:12 PM on February 4, 2001


first off i'd like to know where some of the women who are commenting on the feminist 'agenda' in this thread are getting their definitions from. i personally tend to subscribe to the notion that feminism is the belief that women and men are equal -- of course, that will lead to crowing from those who think things are 'fine the way they are' but any restructuring of power's going to result in howls from those who are having that power taken away from them.

i should also probably add that i think things are bad for both genders right now -- i think where we are as a society's fairly grim -- but really the constant demonizing of women who want to forge ahead in their own direction, whether it's hillary clinton or courtney love (although that last hole album totally blew), is really troubling to me, and couple that with lunkhead rock, or maxim, or the two amanda peet films ('whipped' and 'saving silverman') that have been released in the past eight months, and really there's so much hatred, so much bubbling animosity between the sexes, and i think it's truly frightening not to mention more than kind of gross.

second, these lists -- especially when they come from outfits like jane that should have been euthanized long ago -- are dumb and built solely for the purpose of sparking discussions like these.

third, the media is neither liberal nor conservative, it is corporate-minded. i'd think that reading two weeks' worth of post-inaugural 'look, he pronounced that word right and showed up for the press conference on time' slobber would get that whole 'liberal media' stereotype out of this dumb country's collective skulls. jeez.
posted by maura at 3:35 PM on February 4, 2001


"but never quite matured enough to handle Cosmopolitan."
Yes, Cosmo is for mature women. Definitely. ::stifles laughter:: Why, those hard-hitting articles of theirs just scream maturity and intelligence.

There is a feminist agenda and from what I've seen it's to make women look like idiotic raving lunatics. Truthfully though, it does seem that if you at all stray from what's deemed acceptable feminist actions, you're a traitor and make a bad woman.

As for Carnie Wilson I personally think she's one of the "gutsy" women out there.

This continues to perpetuate the idea that fat = "disease-causing condition". You spell it out right there. The umbrella of fat acceptance includes many facets, and there is no reason a "condition", or rather the physical facet of this, is to be excluded.

Um...no. There is a great difference between fat and disease-causing condition. Fat acceptance should not include the morbidly obese. You would refuse to accept the women who are morbidly skinny, would you not? You would, more than likely, say this is unhealthy and you would crack anorexia jokes. Once your weight becomes a serious health factor, losing that weight is no longer an issue of being a victim to society as it is an issue of dealing with reality and trying not to die.
posted by crushed at 4:01 PM on February 4, 2001


As for Carnie Wilson I personally think she's one of the "gutsy" women out there. I just realized that sounds like either a fat joke or a stomach stapling joke. It wasn't meant to be. I meant she was on the wrong list, in my opinion.
posted by crushed at 4:07 PM on February 4, 2001


i personally tend to subscribe to the notion that feminism is the belief that women and men are equal...

Yeah, you're right that people are defining the term differently. I think that to many people, "feminism" has morphed into an ideology of hardcore man-hating, with such an extreme amount of lesbian-rights stuff mixed in that it overrides everything else that feminism used to be about (plain old fairness/equality and the like). And those that use that definition have a point to some extent, especially if you think of NOW as the center of American feminism.

third, the media is neither liberal nor conservative, it is corporate-minded.

This also is a definition problem. If you use the word "media" to mean all media, from TV shows to magazines to records and books and on and on, then sure, it's corporate. But if you define the "media" to be the news media, that's different. Journalists and their editors are, as a group, overwhelmingly liberal. And thus what gets published or aired is overwhelmingly liberally biased. This is why Fox News Channel stands out so much; it's not that FNC is conservative, it's that everyone else is so uniformly liberal in their groupthink that any mild deviation stands out like a sore thumb. (And, amusingly, gets more viewers.)

Yes, Cosmo is for mature women. Definitely. ::stifles laughter:: Why, those hard-hitting articles of theirs just scream maturity and intelligence.

Geez, doesn't anyone comprehend sarcasm anymore? My point was that while Cosmo is immature bunk, Jane is even lamer, because Cosmo is at least tongue-in-cheek about where it's coming from. Jane tries to pretend it's sophisticated while generally offering up the same crap, and that's far more pathetic.
posted by aaron at 4:13 PM on February 4, 2001



I for one am tired of being lumped into the category of being called a "feminist" when all I really want to be is feminine.Okay, after repeatedly banging my head on the table, I think I'm ready to respond nicely. I've checked my Secret Feminist Handbook, and there's nothing in there that says women can't be "feminine" and believe in equality between the sexes. (Sure, there are factions of feminism that believe differently, just as there are such factions of every ideology.) The argument that feminism makes women unfeminine lesbians has been around since bra-burning days, and is getting more than a little tired at this point.
posted by jess at 4:22 PM on February 4, 2001


I'll probably be banging MY head against the table after admitting to being an original bra-burner considering I have one of those cool feminine traits of not wanting to admit my age...but the point being the original "women's lib" movement WAS about equality. And man was it gung-ho and exciting at the time but as time passed by some of us realized it had gone way too far to the left to the point of brainwashing a lot of the younger generation.(yuck I hate to admit that.)

Being a radical feminist once upon a time I learned that some of what I believed in was getting lost in the shuffle. I started noticing some of those defining gender roles were getting confuzzled because quite frankly men just were not sure what to do. And I'm not speaking about the fact I run my own business and am quite self sufficient ... that was just a given ... but I didn't like a man's confusion on what I call the "door opening" issues. As trivial as that might seem.

Maybe its just that Southern upbringing. :)

I have a favorite lyric..."Let a woman be a woman and a man be a man."


posted by oh posey at 5:08 PM on February 4, 2001


i personally tend to subscribe to the notion that feminism is the belief that women and men are equal ... any restructuring of power's going to result in howls from those who are having that power taken away from them.

Everybody's for equality as long as nothing is done to actually equalize things.
posted by rcade at 5:44 PM on February 4, 2001


Geez, doesn't anyone comprehend sarcasm anymore? My point was that while Cosmo is immature bunk, Jane is even lamer, because Cosmo is at least tongue-in-cheek about where it's coming from. Jane tries to pretend it's sophisticated while generally offering up the same crap, and that's far more pathetic.

I understood (and liked) your sarcastic jibe, but I am now officially concerned about your level of expertise in the subject matter, Aaron.
posted by rcade at 5:46 PM on February 4, 2001


I have a favorite lyric..."Let a woman be a woman and a man be a man."
Not sure about that. Maybe someone should take the time to write a song about how everybody is a unique individual and that starting from any assumption based on gender is worthless. Letting a woman be "a woman" and a man be "a man" would depend on how you defined what a woman and a man were. Also there are plenty of men who want to be women and vice versa.
posted by davidgentle at 6:06 PM on February 4, 2001


Thank you Thunder, that's just what I was getting at.

And I didn't say "feminism" I said "national feminist organizations." There's a BIG difference in that. We can all personally define what we believe to be "feminism" but we cannot stop the national feminist organizations from defining it for "us" as the greater societal "she."

If you can explain to me how these organizations went whole hog to support Anita Hill yet scorned Paula Jones (without resort to the irrelevant notion that Jones was backed by the religious right -- which doesn't make her claims any less valid) they maybe I'd have a bit more respect for these so-called feminist organizations that purport to, but do not, represent me or my intrests. Jones was sacraficed at the altar of Bill Clinton by these organizations for the sole reason of Billy-boy's pro-choice stance. While the aborition issue is important, I sure wouldn't want to be the sexually harassed woman being sacraficed at that altar.
posted by faith at 6:29 PM on February 4, 2001


david

lol... touche'
posted by oh posey at 6:31 PM on February 4, 2001


But if you define the "media" to be the news media, that's different. Journalists and their editors are, as a group, overwhelmingly liberal. And thus what gets published or aired is overwhelmingly liberally biased.

grrrrrrroooooooaaaaaannnn.

sorry, carry on with the feminism stuff.
posted by mathowie at 7:58 PM on February 4, 2001


Journalists and their editors are, as a group, overwhelmingly liberal.

Argh! Okay, the tally of known votes from one journalist's office, people who I talk to every day:

Bush - 3
Gore - 2
probably Bush - 1
probably Gore -1
Nader - 2
Unknown - 1 (voted for Perot previously)

So I guess that's 4 conservatives and 5 liberals. But as someone who is overwhelmingly liberal, I have to say my own experience indicates that most journalists and editors are middle of the road. The other Nader voter is buying an SUV, for chrissakes.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 8:53 PM on February 4, 2001


second what Maura said, the media is "corporate minded"

that means thay're liberal on certain issues, but overall fairly conservative, unless change will benefit their corporate employers.
posted by cell divide at 9:40 AM on February 5, 2001


Bush - 3
Gore - 2
probably Bush - 1
probably Gore -1
Nader - 2
Unknown - 1 (voted for Perot previously)

So I guess that's 4 conservatives and 5 liberals. But as someone who is overwhelmingly liberal, I have to say my own experience indicates that most journalists and editors are middle of the road. The other Nader voter is buying an SUV, for chrissakes.


I'd hardly call a non-secret tally of 9 people anything close to scientific.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:07 AM on February 5, 2001


(Insert Supreme Court Joke here.)
posted by chicobangs at 11:40 AM on February 5, 2001


davidgentle wrote: Letting a woman be "a woman" and a man be "a man" would depend on how you defined what a woman and a man were. Also there are plenty of men who want to be women and vice versa.

And I would like to add: what about people who are intersex? Let them be wherever they're comfortable being, too. This whole male-female thing is a lot less black and white than it seems, y'know. It's a continuum - let each of us find our own place along the line and quit labeling things unnecessarily as "masculine only" or "feminine only".
posted by beth at 11:49 AM on February 5, 2001



I have a favorite lyric:
"Well girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world
except for Lola, Lo-lo-lo-lo-lola."

Beth: I agree. Also, the whole black-white thing is a lot less male and female than it seems.

Big rimshot to chico.
posted by rodii at 12:10 PM on February 5, 2001


"Well I'm not the world's most masculine man but I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man and so's Lola...lo lo lo lo Lola."

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
posted by crushed at 4:17 PM on February 5, 2001


I think the true measure of gender equality means bloody silly lists like this won't appear.

posted by pandaharma at 6:54 PM on February 5, 2001


How is that a valid measure of anything? All it measures is the capacity of some women (and possibly men, you never know who's reading this stuff) to be taken in by mindless gossip. If the only material legally available to a given group of people was mindless pap then that would be a situation that would indicate prejudice. Not that lists like this aren't a waste of time. It's just that people have a right to waste time.
posted by davidgentle at 8:19 PM on February 5, 2001


My point was that while Cosmo is immature bunk, Jane is even lamer, because Cosmo is at least tongue-in-cheek about where it's coming from. Jane tries to pretend it's sophisticated while generally offering up the same crap, and that's far more pathetic.

Have you actually read Jane magazine or are you simply making uniformed generalizations? Anyone who has taken the time to read Jane, might agree with me that it is by no means Ms. magazine. But compared to the rest of the "20 Ways to Make Yourself Over while Giving a Hand-Job" Cosmo-esque articles, Jane's stuff is smart, funny and self-aware. Those attributes cannot be attributed to other women's fashion mags.

posted by brittney at 5:23 PM on February 7, 2001


I haven't read JANE in awhile but I do have to agree with brittney.
posted by crushed at 7:00 PM on February 7, 2001


Have you actually read Jane magazine?

Yes.

grrrrrrroooooooaaaaaannnn.

That you for that detailed, insightful rebuttal. ;)

but I am now officially concerned about your level of expertise in the subject matter.

It was market research! I swear!

the tally of known votes from one journalist's office

One local newspaper in suburban Virginia. And the liberals were a majority even there. :) The national media, OTOH, is overwhelmingly liberal. I was at ABC during the Lewinsky scandal. I saw and heard enough there to cement the reality of this forever.
posted by aaron at 10:42 PM on February 7, 2001



« Older Safari is a new service from O'Reilly which allows...  |  Nice backgrounder for Hannibal... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments