Thick Skin or Thick Ankles?

by Emily Stephens

As November 2008 approaches, politics is on everybody’s mind, particularly the Hillary vs. Obama democratic race. I’m a little behind the times, so it wasn’t until last Monday that I first heard commentators criticizing Hillary Clinton, not for her rhetoric, health plans, or foreign diplomatic agendas, but for her “tree trunk ankles.” Jokes about Hillary’s monstrous synovial hinge joints have spread faster than Britney-Spears one-liners across 24-hour news broadcasts, late-night tv and internet websites. In fact, Google “Hillary Clinton” and “ankles”, and you’ll come up with approximately 203,000 hits. While it is an entirely new and admittedly fascinating phenomenon to watch a woman run for the oval office, I find it nauseating that such a defaming and utterly ridiculous “cheap shot” keeps America laughing.

Although the term is not included within Webster’s Dictionary, The Urban Dictionary defines Hillary’s condition as “cankles”: “The area in affected female legs where the calf meets the foot in an abrupt, nontapering terminus; medical cause: adipose tissue surrounding the soleus tendon, probably congenital, worsened by weight gain and improved in appearance only by boots (1).”

We’ve all seen cankles, some of us have them, and most of us know someone who has them. Pop culture’s “ideal woman” rejects the look, and when applicable, goes to great lengths to hide them. It is rumored celebrity Jennifer Garner only poses for photographs that conceal her exposed, embarrassing cankles. Whether or not this is true remains unknown, but the stigma of such body parts remains disturbing. Since when did our politicians, who are commonly average-looking people to begin with, have to be physically attractive? If our prerequisite for election includes ‘supermodel,’ then we might as well say Heidi Klum’s Project Runway tagline, “Auf Wiedersehen,” to the greatest of them: Washington and Lincoln, just to name a few. If the corporeal is considered top criteria for presidential worthiness than how in the world did James Monroe with his butt chin, Grover Cleveland with his obesity, or Martin Van Buren (2) with his fly-away hair ever take office? Should the public react to McCain’s "chipmunk-looking" cheeks? Sure we might exaggerate certain body parts of political leaders in cartoons, but why aren't afternoon broadcasts dedicated to President Bush’s ears? Do male candidates receive the same kind of scrutiny as female?

In my opinion, this is blatant disrespect towards women’s bodies. I’m sure Senator Clinton is thick-skinned enough to brush off such inappropriate criticism, but one might question the subconscious effect this will have on her psyche. According to Hillary, "I am surprised at the way people seem to perceive me, and sometimes I read stories and hear things about me and I go 'ugh.' I wouldn't like her either. It's so unlike what I think I am or what my friends think I am (3)."

To be honest, the situation reminds me of elementary school arguments, when my intellect was so unsophisticated that I resorted to name calling and pointing out the physical imperfections of my enemies. Quoting Shallow Hal (2001),"She's got cankles! It's like the calf merged with the foot, [and] cut out the middleman.’ If we resort to that mentality, than Hillary could fairly argue the tree-trunk girth of her ankles actually provides her with a firm foundation all other politicians should envy.

Perhaps this entire situation could be rectified if Hillary refused to wear dresses, thus hiding her legs underneath pants? Others jokingly suggest that she uses her health care plan to surgically correct what mother nature intended. This poses a question. Can cosmetic surgery fix cankles? Dr. Robert Schwartz write’s within his private blog, “Some women are genetically predisposed to have more fat in their legs and ankle… We do this procedure [liposuction] all the time, and have had great success with it. But it’s not for everyone with cankles. If the problem is excess fat, liposuction can give your ankle the attractive, natural appearance you’re looking for…because ankles are mostly bone and muscle rather than skin and fat..it is also critical to avoid damaging the veins in the ankle. This means that if you opt for this procedure, you should definitely choose a board-certified plastic surgeon (4).”

However, he warns that in some cases, cankles aren’t caused by excess fat, but larger than normal bone structure or muscular calves. The condition could also be symptomatic swelling due to a medical condition such as diabetes. “All of these possibilities must be ruled out before considering ankle liposuction (4).”

Where does that leave us, barring major surgery?

To wear a skirt or not to wear a skirt? That is the question. What a sexist dilemma. All in all, I’d say these stereotypical jabs have exited the realm of politics and transgressed into gender bias. I am not alone in thinking this. Feminist blogger, Brigitte L. Nacos, discusses her repulsion that Carl Bernstein, the author of A Woman In Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton, was disgusted by Hillary’s ‘thick ankles (5).” Robin Morgan , co-founder of The Women’s Media Center, writes,“This is not ‘Clinton hating,’ not ‘Hillary hating.’ This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans? (6)”

I admit that I remain undecided in my vote for who should become president, Hillary, Obama, or McCain. But, one thing is for certain, cankles will hold no part in my resolution.

1. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cankles
2. Martin Van Buren courtesy of PNC Bank Archives
3. Marian Burros, Hillary Clinton Asks for Help in Finding a Softer Image, The New York Times, January 10, 1995.
4. http://www.rsplastic.com/archives/169
5. Hillary Bashing: It’s About Male Supremacy, Stupid. Blog by Brigitte L. Nacos.
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/02/hillary-bashing.html
6. http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html