Why Obama’s Comment about Kamala Harris’ Looks Is Not Sexist (But Still Problematic)

[Author’s note: So, this is not the epic blog update that I have been picking over for the past couple of weeks. Instead, this is a quick-and-dirty visceral reaction to a recent news event that practically wrote itself after I caught up on all the news from yesterday. Real post to come.]

So yesterday, it was revealed that Obama called Kamala Harris, the California State Attorney General, the “best-looking attorney general in the United States” to a group of wealthy donors. Some in the social media universe and news media called Obama sexist for pointing out her looks, because women are not solely ornamental and Kamala Harris is really good at her job and women should be valued for brains over beauty, etc. etc. etc. There was a big to-do and he eventually apologized to Harris for the distraction that his comment had caused. The full quote:

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country… It’s true! C’mon!”

Sigh. Oh, Barry.

I don’t think the comment is sexist. To me, sexism is stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of sex, and I don't think Obama's comment falls under that heading at all. I also happen to think Kamala Harris is very beautiful, and anyone who suggests that Obama thinks that her beauty is more paramount than other qualities that make her good at her job clearly didn’t read the full quote. New York Magazine, via NPR, also points out that Obama has commented on the looks of several prominent men, as well. I don’t think mentioning her good looks necessarily reduces the value that she holds as a successful attorney general or as a woman, and I don’t think Obama’s intent was to diminish her abilities, either.

I also think there is also something inescapable about the fact that Harris and Obama are both part-black. I don't necessarily feel like I can speak to that, but I will say that American and/or Western standards of beauty rarely include women of color. For Obama to specifically point out her attractiveness could be a way to challenge those standards (maybe? If you squint?).

Further, in a fundraising setting, politicians make jokes, flatter those they introduce, and will generally say things as if they are amongst friends, so to speak. In a room full of Democratic fundraisers, they know who Kamala Harris is – she’s a rising star of the party. Everyone knows her bio and the fact that she’s very intelligent, which is why they can laugh at the part where he comments on her looks and he has to defend his claim. This isn’t something he would say at a public event, and I think context matters.

Still, I am bothered by the fact that Obama mentioned Harris’ looks in addition to her other, more substantively excellent qualities. To me, this is problematic in three ways.

First, Obama is essentially saying that being good-looking is another bullet point on her list of achievements – another feather in her cap. My response, in all-caps: BEING CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE IS NOT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. The fact that her looks are being trumpeted as another positive attribute is a depressing reaffirmation of the importance that society (American, Western, human: take your pick) places on looks. When Obama called Harris brilliant, tough, fair, dedicated, and pretty, which quality took no effort to obtain? Let's celebrate actual work and achievement and not equate it with things that have nothing to do with them.

Second, here is where the feminist perspective comes in: Women already have it tough in the workplace, particularly in male-dominated fields, and specifically when separating job performance from appearance. Obama’s comment tied the two together for Harris. Given that being attractive depends mostly on genes and societal norms and other ridiculousness that nobody has any control over, it should merit zero comment when discussing actual work-related accomplishments or positive attributes. I thought that the discussion of her looks in a comment otherwise focused on her work was borderline disrespectful.

Finally (and this one is maybe a stretch), the type of flattery I read into Obama’s comment was almost a type of surprise: “She’s all those things, AND would you believe she’s attractive too?!”, as if one might not expect someone who is attractive to have such excellent qualities. Once again, that’s problematic: Why is it surprising that she’s attractive in addition to, say, brilliant? Do we expect less of beautiful people? This is the flip side of the same issue, where people who are conventionally attractive might be advantaged in some areas, but also might not taken seriously in a professional context or are somehow automatically thought to be dumb. I know several beautiful, smart women who unfortunately run into that problem frequently; although eventually people get the point that they are incredibly intelligent, it’s a barrier to overcome that shouldn’t exist at all.

In sum: People are judged based on their appearance, and that sucks. Obama (and everyone) should be actively resisting that notion rather than endorsing it, and should know better.

Michelle, go kick his ass.

Stolen from totallytransparent.tumblr.com