2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

I can think of one instance in which male politicians and candidates have experienced gender discrimination, and that is in the national media attention paid to the cost of their haircuts. Both Bill Clinton and John Edwards have been publicly raked over the coals for having spent what some consider too much for hair care. I can assure you that what with regular cutting, artful touseling, and coloring, Hillary's hair upkeep runs well into the hundreds of dollars. Yet no one in the media, or outside it, would think to make an issue of it. Is this because some vestigial chivalry prevails, or is it because in our highly commodified culture a woman (but only a woman) is considered to be completely justified in spending whatever it takes in the pursuit of extended youth and good looks?

posted 5 years, 2 months ago
view in context