Recently, upon hearing that donald thought it would be funny to ruin the career of someone who disagreed with him, Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach tweeted out:
“Hey @realDonaldTrump I oppose civil asset forfeiture too! Why don’t you try to destroy my career you fascist, loofa-faced, shit-gibbon!”
I commented: “I do not support appearance-based attacks. I do support calling donald a fascist shit-gibbon.”
I find myself doing this a lot lately. I hate this regime and everything it stands for and I’m committed to resisting, and I’ve seen lots of appearance-based attacks being made, and lots of justifications for why it’s ok. In my most recent piece for Ravishly I make the case for why it’s not:
You can read it here!
If you enjoy this blog, consider becoming a member or making a contribution.
Like this blog? Here’s more cool stuff:
Become a Member! For ten bucks a month you can support fat activism and get deals from size positive businesses as a thank you. Click here for details
Book and Dance Class Sale! I’m on a journey to complete an IRONMAN triathlon, and I’m having a sale on all my books, DVDs, and digital downloads to help pay for it. You get books and dance classes, I get spandex clothes and bike parts. Everybody wins! If you want, you can check it out here!
Book Me! I’d love to speak to your organization. You can get more information here or just e-mail me at ragen at danceswithfat dot org!
If you are uncomfortable with my selling things on this site, you are invited to check out this post.
Dances With Fat 
I really wish people understood this concept. I really wish they understood that they’re not just insulting Donald (I LOVE how you don’t even dignify his name with a capital), but also insulting those who are bullied and disenfranchised by his regime. I hate that if you call it out people think you’re defending him. I really wish this concept was better understood.
Among my circles, some of the same people doing this were the ones who were outraged and horrified when the republicans made reference to Hilliary Clinton’s “cankles.” How can one be outraged by that, but not insulted by the appearance shaming going on now? And no, I am not defending 45 in any way, shape, or form. i want the irrelevant body snarking to stop, and the focus to stay on policies, procedures, and the real politics of the moment. Is that too much to ask? Perhaps.
It is far more important to tackle the issues than waste time criticizing appearance.
Hear! Hear!
I really appreciate that you wrote this because, before this, my brain didn’t compute that the appearance based attacks on him were, well, appearance based. It has bypassed my brain because people are stating them as facts, with analogies that I’ve never heard, and aren’t saying he’s ugly, or that he needs to change something. It’s one of those moments where you realize you’ve overlooked something that is normally extremely obvious.
If for no other reason, giving Trump appearance based remarks only reinforces his idea that those remarks are ok to say. When you think about that way, the way his brain is receiving the information, it’s much easier to see that it’s wrong.
>
Thank you for what you wrote about appearance shaming people you disagree with politically. Ideals, fine. That’s our right as Americans. But making fun of someone’s looks, or clothes or children is always useless. I don’t like it when either side partakes in that kind of immaturity.
I agree 100%. A person’s appearance is not the issue. The issue is whatever they’re doing that’s wrong or hurtful. Concentrate on fixing that.
Yes this. And other than the Donald, this almost exclusively happens to women in power. Michele Obama. Hilary Clinton. Kellyanne Conway.
Don’t make it about how they look.
Me and my friends were just complaining about this the other day. Remember how Rosalynn Carter was a trashy bumpkin for buying clothes off the rack, but Sarah Palin was an indulgent Marie Antoinette* for getting hers from designers, or how Michelle Obama and Melania Trump are vain evil queens for wearing clothes in trendy cuts, but Hillary Clinton is a frumpy mumsie hausfrau for wearing jackets and slacks? Gee. It’s almost like they don’t actually have a problem with the clothes but are just trying to knock the people wearing them down a few pegs.
*Yeah, I know, Marie Antoinette wasn’t even Marie Antoinette; the debauched party girl was an invention of the libelles. According to most modern historians, she never even said the “cake” thing – that had been a popular quote to attribute to unpopular politicians for several decades before it finally stuck to her.
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake
“irrelevant body snarking” is right. Stick to the facts name calling is playground behavior and these issues are more serious than recess time! If you think he is an a hole and I do, tell us why ad not how or in descriptive definitions of his physical being. It is the choices he makes that are the issue not the size of his hands or penis or hairstyle.
I’m a bald man who simply thinks i appears better with a “comb over” even if it’s obvious what I’m doing–so the attacks on his hair don’t help me at all. I would imagine Donald loves it when people attention to his appearance because it delacts from his trying to take our healthcare away and give money back to ultra rich people.
“But X is really horrible and I want to express my feelings by saying the worst possible thing about them!”
So you think the worst thing someone can do is be physically unappealing to you in some way. Got it. Of course, that tells me nothing about them and way more than I wanted to know about you…
Yes, please, let’s not judge our politicians on their looks, but on their character and ability to do their jobs.
Some of the nicest, kindest, smartest, and most competent people I know (not necessarily all these qualities at once, but sometimes, yes, all of them) are, shall we say, “unprepossessing.” They do not fit society’s dictates of what is conventionally attractive. And because of that, they are too often overlooked, or even put down and willfully ignored.
I know someone who made a “Trumpkin” for Halloween, and said, “Terrifying, isn’t it?” Yes, it was, but not because of what he looked like. It was terrifying because of what it stood for.
I completely agree. Parody of a public figure is one thing, but when it comes to more normal discourse we should leave appearance out of it. Even if it is Pres. Trump. Besides, there are SO many more avenues of attack when it comes to Pres. Trump.