So what’s it called? A “flipoffian tube?”

Misogynistic public discourse around Conway doesn’t harm Conway. It seriously benefits her because it makes her look to many like a scrappy victim and her liberal critics look like hypocrites. It harms women and girls as a class, though. Either women’s value is in our appearance and youth or it isn’t. Either our…

But also I think it’s important that we remain consistent if we want to see real change.

Trump gets more than normal and I dislike Conway but his other mouthpieces don’t really get much about their appearance. Spicer says dumb things and has a ridiculous spray tan but you don’t hear much. One of the Steve’s looks like a Jeff Dunham puppet and has a horrible bald spot but people never complain about it…

Oh, come on, isn’t this just a little bit rich? Conway is a fucking snake, but that doesn’t mean that none of the criticism against her is sexist. And for the sake of maintaining our own integrity, I think we need to err on the side of not even mentioning Conway’s looks. (And maintaining our integrity is important.…

This! And my reason for objecting to looks-based criticisms of her isn’t even about her. It’s inherently problematic and toxic to make fun of women for how they fail to meet patriarchal standards of beauty and/or femininity. That is why we should object to it. It has nothing to do with protecting her.

I kind of am disturbed though by anyone setting standards of behaviour they don’t abide by. Quite frankly its one of the worse things that Trump does. People were calling Kellyanne Conway a slut and all this crap because she dated an old dude in her thirties. That really isn’t a policy issue to be concerned about and…

The same thing feminists “owe” every other public figure such as Conway?

Right, if someone is a crappy person then our criticism of that person should about that. It’s never appropriate to sink to bigotry. Just like it would be wrong to make racially charged criticism of Ben Carson, it’s wrong to make sexist/gendered criticism of Conway or any woman. It’s not so much as what we owe Conway…

We don’t owe Conway anything, but we owe it to ourselves to live by the standards we believe in. Cheap shots are for conservatives who have nothing meaningful to say.

This. Criticizing KAC may feel good, but it reinforces the patriarchal norms we as feminists want to tear down. When people talk about internalized sexism, this is exactly the kind of shit they’re talking about.

I said it upthread, and I’ll say it again here: There’s a difference between saying, “She looks like she’s in the chorus of Les Mis,” and “She looks like a corpse,” or “She looks like a hooker.” I think you’re right that focusing on a conscious decision a person has made about their appearance is a different thing…

He is unprincipled because in the past, he applied one standard of conduct to Bill Clinton regarding perjury, and is applying another to himself.

I’m not convinced that we owe Conway anything at all, but that’s not the primary reason not to criticize her appearance. Attacks against her appearance don’t just affect Conway, they contribute to an environment in which other women will be judged unfairly. It’s the harm that will be done to other women that should…

She certainly doesn’t deserve Skeletor memes, because Skeletor memes are awesome.

We don’t owe Conway a defense of her politics or her person, but we do owe ourselves not reinforcing sexism by going to appearance* to critique her. As you document, there are plenty of actual issues, statements, and actions to criticize Conway for.

* Although I make an exception for the critiques of Conway and Spicer…

Yup. The Wet Bandits have more deceptive prowess than these assholes.

A lot of fair criticisms, obviously. And overall it would’ve been a really good piece if it didn’t so badly misjudge the electorate, this past election, history, and the Democratic Party.