- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think the kids will be fine. As the children of brilliant parents, well cared for, they should have no problem processing this when the finally have to study the history of their parentage...And I will go on record as saying that I think that the obsessions with Jackie's figure, clothing and actions while a political figure were incredibly damaging to feminism as a movement while she herself was not.
Jackie O obsessions were damaging, possibly. Ridiculous, definitely. I just think public obsession about female body parts in general has a negative impact on young girls.
The author didn't have to imply that someone with a naturally small body type was responsible for a "treacherous path" in American femininity. She also didn't have to bring the other two in, since they have nothing to do with a Jackie O comparison. I mean come on, they don't represent the average woman's build no matter what your race.
You can't do anything about your body type except care for it to the best of your ability. Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin have plenty of other negative attributes, but don't deserve to be complimented or insulted on features beyond their control.
