Posted on 03/01/2009 3:46:20 PM PST by presidio9
Why do we -- men and women, gay and straight -- find Rachel Maddow sexy? Daphne Merkin's "Butch Fatale" about the newly minted MSNBC icon, hidden among the overpriced handbag porn and fluffy profiles of last weekend's New York Times T style magazine, is more complicated than it appears.
As Merkin writes, it isn't often that mainstream culture celebrates the attractiveness of butch lesbians. Sure, we admire femmes like Portia de Rossi and Lindsay Lohan. But for the most part, lesbians who wear suits, cut their hair short or otherwise don't conform to traditional standards of beauty -- the Ellen DeGenereses and Rosie O'Donnells of the world -- have to remain culturally neutered in order to participate in public life. Though we find classic representations of gay male beauty in the films of Luchino Visconti and the writings of Oscar Wilde and Thomas Mann, says Merkin, "It's much harder to envision a lesbian icon without coming up against Fran Lebowitz, looking surly and bored."
The problem with lesbian archetypes, according to Merkin, is that "both categories -- butch and femme -- borrow from gender-influenced dichotomies of beauty." And this is where Rachel Maddow, supposedly, is a revelation. "She may not be one of Hefner's Girls Next Door, exactly, but she is no bare-faced, unstylish dyke either, however she chooses to characterize herself," says Merkin, going on to coo over the way Maddow combines a light dusting of makeup with "Poindexter glasses, Jil Sander pantsuits and Converse sneakers" and concludes that "she's willing to prettify her image sufficiently to endear her to male viewers."
Here's where I disagree with Merkin: I don't think Maddow's TV appearance is particularly calculated to attract male viewers. The makeover doesn't seem like a ploy to sex up Maddow; rather, it's a concession to appearing on television, where everyone has to wear makeup and dress like a professional. According to a New York magazine profile, Maddow's partner, Susan Mikula, is responsible for her wearing makeup: "Without it, 'she looked like a dead person,'" Mikula said. And as for the designer suits, it's not as if MSNBC was going to let Maddow -- or Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, for that matter -- go on the air in a ratty button-down and carpenter jeans. Meanwhile, Maddow makes no effort to hide her casual, butch off-screen appearance, either. In this pre-New Year's video, also for New York magazine, a bare-faced, hoodie-clad Maddow gives a lesson in mixology.
It's true that while the butch-femme dichotomy has already broken down among many younger lesbians -- I'm hard-pressed to categorize any of my mid-20s lesbian friends as either -- Maddow is still a butch in my book (and her own). And besides, I think Merkin misses something major about what makes Maddow sexy: the nerdiness! From the "Poindexter glasses" to the Oxford Ph.D. to her perfectly crafted sarcasm, Maddow is as geek-chic as she is lesbian-chic.
Unlike Merkin, I believe Maddow when she says "she has no interest in the issue of physical appearance -- her own or anyone else's." And as much as I would love her to herald a new age of lesbian beauty, it seems to me that viewers respond more to Maddow's non-physical qualities -- intelligence, charm and, above all, authenticity -- than to her looks. But I'm interested to hear Broadsheet readers' take, too. What do you think makes Rachel Maddow sexy?
MSNBC = Malicious Sexually Neutral Barackophile Channel. Maddow and Olbermann are interchangeable. Chrissie’s sexual fantasies extend to both sides of the chromasomic aisle.
Sex symbol?
She may call herself a lesbian, but she is figuratively sucking Obama’s d*** on every show. Probably would love to give it a try in reality.
This article is written from a place called Never Never Land, the place where teenage boys and female wannabees who never want to grow up live, write, and God knows what else. The latest cultural outpost of the “Peter Pan” Syndrome.
This odious Rachel creature spews nothing but trash as she vilifies, night after night, George W Bush, his administration, policies, WOT, and on on on. She is living in a NeverLand where the most important topic is Bush.
Literally talking out of the side of her sideways slanted mouth, she aims to appear brilliant and wonkish, She uses the same annoying inflextion, expressions and tones in every statement.
While this might be cute on a teenage boy, or just plain obnoxious, she continues on.
There is an equally, if not more sycophantic profile by someone called Rebecca Traister, a trash columnist for Salon.com.
Poor Rachel, her ratings just couldn’t be lower. Drudge has statistics showing her lower than Olbermann, Matthews and all the rest of the losers at MSNBS
You are what you eat.....
I'm not here to defend Maddow, but since this thread is being monitored by people from DU who think we are as dumb as they are, I have to question if Maddow has lower ratings at 9:00ET than Matthews has at 5ET. Doesn't sound logical. I also wouldn't get especially caught up in the whole ratings thing anyway, because liberals have two cable news channels to choose from, while conservatives have only one. As much as it pains me to say so, 9:00 on Fox has been far less entertaining ever since Colmes left for that top-secret new show that will never happen.
You are probably right about the ratings. But Rachel Maddow started out beating Olbermann’s numbers.
I think Matthews is getting killed by being up against Glenn Beck. His show has really taken off through the roof and is really interesting.His ratings are through the roof ( for cable, that is).
Did you catch Glenn Beck on Red Eye last night? He is perfect for that show.He fits right in and it shows off his zany side.
Chris Matthews is not the worst of the lot. If he would get over his man crush on Obama, he is one of the most knowledgeable political people around. Whereas the others on MSNBS just rant, he actually has years of actual experience as Chief of Staff to former Dem leader Tip O’Neill, and a long career as a print jounrnalist.
On your other point, I don’t miss that liberal weasel Alan Colmes at all. Sean Hannity’s new show needs work, some of the segments, like “liberal speak”, are dreary, but he has great potential. And the absence of Colmes allows him to have on guests from the other side who are far more interesting and entertaining.
I do agree that Colmes’ new show will be dreadful, and no one will watch. The Libs hate Fox and won’t watch it; everyone else finds Alan less than thrilling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.