RSS Feed MenuSarko’s legendary insecurities over his 5’5” frame reached new heights this past Sunday when he requested that a taller, “beefier” bodyguard not apply for the position.
The French blogosphere is abuzz with stories about the President’s uniquely designed, height-enhancing shoes, his tendency to stand on tiptoe while posing for pictures, and – of course – his 5’9”, ex-supermodel wife, Carla Bruni.
A French news site notes that while speaking to an audience of factory workers in September, “Sarkozy was ‘the tallest’ in the crowd because the people around him had been chosen from among the factory’s shortest employees.”
The French President’s approval ratings have recently dipped to below 30 percent.
No one likes an egoistic, insecure, petty person. And people especially don’t like leaders who routinely exhibit some – and in Sarko’s case, all – of these qualities.
Though few things could salvage Sarkozy’s woeful approval ratings, standing confidently next to his towering, Louboutin-wearing wife would probably only help him; “there’s a man that’s comfortable in his own skin!” we would think to ourselves, rather than “there’s a man so insecure he forces his ex-supermodel wife to wear flats.”
As a 5’9” woman myself, I would just like to request that all of you less than “statuesque” men out there let go of the anxiety over your height and let us wear heels. We’ll think you’re the bigger man for it.
ottovbvs // Jun 12, 2010 at 8:07 am
……..whatever his height most of the women I know think Sarko is a fairly sexy guy
rcwhite364 // Jun 12, 2010 at 10:38 am
Don’t paint with such a broad brush. At 5′4″, I rather enjoy my height. I am who I am, and my height was limited by genetics so no fussing about not being able to dunk a basketball. Being the same height as James Madison has its perks. When I was younger, it put me at the perfect height with taller women. I am sure you understand why. And okay, maybe I DO still considerably enjoy that aspect.
Unfortunately, I know quite a few men (but definitely not “all”) who are bothered by their lack of height…but I also know just as many women who are bothered by a man their height or shorter.
sinz54 // Jun 12, 2010 at 10:52 am
A new medical study, just announced this past week, showed that short men and petite women have a 50% higher chance of fatal heart attack than a taller person of similar medical history.
msmilack // Jun 12, 2010 at 6:20 pm
“No one likes an egoistic, insecure, petty person.”
I agree. I think that is the perfect description of a person who thinks this is a story worth reporting.
msmilack // Jun 12, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Elaboration on what I meant: I just read your bio and see you are a student and a young writer and as I always want to encourage writers I feel I should explain my earlier comment: your topic, in my opinion, was not worthy of this blog; I found it insensitive, unkind and unthinking of how it might make other people feel and the earliest responses to it show you that. So while it may be an interesting tidbit to you personally, please recognize that it is not of historic value and further, it makes you seem petty for having focused on the subject (it’s the kind of subject someone like Ann Coulter would write about); my unsolicited advice is to try picking out important subjects that have universal meaning and not ones that hurt people’s feeling for no reason other than because it sounds a bit clever; cruel is never clever.
blowtorch_bob // Jun 13, 2010 at 2:33 am
“Sarko’s legendary insecurities over his 5’5” frame reached new heights…”
Ok, that’s funny. But i would write something like this:
“Sarko’s towering insecurities over his 5’5” frame soared to new heights…”
nhthinker // Jun 13, 2010 at 8:55 am
Almost everyone has some of their ego tied up in their physical stature and their beauty.
The human psyche is a conflicted beast: It encourages us to appreciate specimens of physical stature and beauty, but it punishes those that are caught trying to spend time, money and energy looking more statuesque and beautiful more than the average person does.- Your enemies will paint you as vain as opposed to trying to reduce the noticeably of your height difference or your beauty difference from the norm. But let’s be honest: if Sarkozy was a woman concerned about her height, there are plenty of stylish height enhancing shoes “she” could wear and no one would care. That a man would wear “lifts” is society indicating that he is behaving in a manner that is unacceptable for a man, but almost expected for a woman. Part of acceptance is ratcheting down the emphasis.
Sarkozy, and Frenchmen, in general, have a reputation of awareness of style and beauty much more than the average American male. Is the money spent on the fashion industry and the hair styling industry a positive sign of social interaction or a negative one? Do you think the average American politician (without a European level of vanity) would have attracted the ex-super model wife? Is Sarkozy less of a man because he had the ego and the energy to attract the ex-super model wife? People, in general, and politicians specifically are allowed some flaws.
How would you compare Sarkozy’s flawed vanity used to attract women to marry as compared to Bill Clinton’s
use of the power of his office to get sexual favors from women that are still in their teens?
On the scale of what to ridicule about the egos of politicians, Sarko’s efforts on the height thing seems almost endearing as opposed to being something worth attacking.
As to critique on writing, I would suggest that you never try anything like this:
http://letters.salon.com/34178230de687f0d0bcbaf4fce2843d5/author/
“when he became barack obama”
Such writing reveals the author to be touchingly irrational in perspective. But if that’s the type of advice you want and the type of writer you want to become, have at it.
ottovbvs // Jun 13, 2010 at 11:25 am
nhthinker // Jun 13, 2010 at 8:55 am
“As to critique on writing, I would suggest that you never try anything like this:
http://letters.salon.com/34178230de687f0d0bcbaf4fce2843d5/author/
“when he became barack obama”
……it seems a perfectly reasonable summary of Obama background, qualities and his unlikely ascent to the presidency…..the fact you single it out for censure in a discussion of Sarkozy’s height is evidence perhaps more of your own irrationality than the authors……and seducing teenagers is not the exclusive province of Democratic politicians……plenty of Republicans have done it also…..it has more to do with gender than politics
ltoro1 // Jun 13, 2010 at 5:23 pm
My wife and I are the same height without shoes, which means if she wears anything with a heel she is taller than me. It doesn’t bother me at all. Personally, I think tall women are hot.
msmilack // Jun 14, 2010 at 12:52 am
nhthinker
Wow. Should I be flattered that you read my other writing or offended at your criticism? I think I will choose neither and say to myself, to each his own.
For what it is worth, my advice to her was intended to be useful, not snarky. I have taught jouralism and it was from that experience that I spoke to her; as for the other, I do not apologize for writing of my personal experience of knowing Barack Obama when he was a law student nor for the conclusions I drew from those early meetings; in either event, I fail to see the relevance of your connecting my comments on that subject to my remarks on this author choosing to make fun of a person’s height. But I rather enjoy your writing and admire your usual even handedness, so it surprises me to see you go after me but that is your right. Live and learn (and remember that everything you write on the internet is available to anyone at any time).
nhthinker // Jun 14, 2010 at 8:32 am
msmilack
Everyone has their own tastes- I enjoy reading your writing here however I find that your writing is usually always in the tank for Obama and that you bring up Palin in topics that have nothing to do with her, just to take shots at her. To me, your letter about Obama points to a lack of balance- putting him on an almost messiah-like pedestal. You are definitely cheerful enough.
The subject here was vanity and I thought you were the listed as a photographer on this web site.
For a professional with anartist’s eye, I was surprised you decided to say nothing about the importance of imagery as it relates to Sarko’s stature. I’m curious- do you have any involvement in the photo selection related to the articles on this site?
You decided to go after the author without researching who she was. I decided to point out some of your own writing, (in your words- “going after you”), after spending a half an hour trying to understand where you were coming from. If you think I’ve mis-characterized anything, please let me know.
msmilack // Jun 14, 2010 at 10:24 am
nhthinker
In answer to your questions: I have written articles for this site which I worked hard to keep balanced albeit with my own point of view — such is the nature of writing for a blog versus a newspaper article where point of view is kept out. I am the first to admit that I am far less careful about maintaining objectivity in my comments which is the nature of the quick discussion on this blog, though perhaps in the future, based on our discussion, I should be more careful. I have worked as a journalist for the Boston Globe, I have a PhD in English Literature, have taught college in the past, but I have spent the past twenty years as a fine art photographer which is nothing like regular photography and I absolutely have nothing to do with the photography on this site. Perhaps that is more information that you asked for but that is the summation of my work experience in answer to your question. Also, many years ago, I was a Visiting Professor of Journalism at Brown University.
If I was unfair to the young writer, that is unfortunate and I regret it because I do not take pleasure in being unfair to anyone; I do, however, believe that writing about a person’s appearance is unkind and unnecessary and I don’t see the point in hurting people’s feelings.
You are right about my feelings about Palin; I find her the most dangerous person in politics in my lifetime because of her lack of knowledge and messiah like belief in her own destiny; she reminds me of a 19th c. Calvinist who thinks she is anointed; you are also right that her name seems to creep into many unrelated discussions in which I participate; in defense, I can only say that my intention is to sound the alarm for those who miss the signs that I find so dangerous (though you can argue that is merely my opinion). And you are entirely right about my belief in Obama: I find his intelligence and long range view of the future valuable and life-saving though despite what you may believe, I do not think he is perfect; I just think he deserves credit for trying hard and for being a person of integrity and wisdom which are rare qualities in today’s political scene. You are 100% right that those are my preconceptions. If I have offended you with what I have written or how I have written it, I apologize, as that was not my intention. Like you, I have strong feelings and also, like any human being, I bring the baggage of my education and experience to how I see the world and to the way in which I write about it. Whether you believe this or not, I try to be a kind person to others and fair in my evaluations. Perhaps I should avoid writing comments on this blog entirely, or should only do so when I can take the time to sound more balanced. I will give it serious thought before I write any comments on any subject again.
nhthinker // Jun 14, 2010 at 11:08 am
Msmilack,
Personally I like it much better when people don’t over-edit what they are thinking. I like the free exchange of ideas and thoughts. If you think that I was overly harsh and the expression of my opinion might dissuade you from commenting or to comment less- I’m deeply sorry. My intent is to call them as I see them. I think most of us here are mature enough and thick skinned enough to take criticism and figure out if any of it is useful. I know I can be overly harsh- subconscious and sometimes consciously as a ploy to get a conversation going especially with thinking people that see things differently than I do.
Please keep posting often- I promise that any future criticisms from me to you will try to be more good-natured while still trying to get the point across.
Carney // Jun 14, 2010 at 1:52 pm
And have you married a significantly shorter man? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
The reality is, that unless you have extraordinary high status (fabulous wealth, worldwide fame, awesome power such as ruling a nuclear nation), a short man’s odds of being with an attractive, tall woman are very low.
Short men thus have a dramatically smaller pool of available women. Furthermore, human psychology about height pervades our language (standing tall, towering over, long shadow, a man of stature, etc etc), and being short is the cause of constant humiliations. You really think no one would snicker seeing them together with her in stilettos?
Sarko’s conduct may not be impressive, but it’s quite understandable.
And no, I am not very short or whining about it – I’m 5′8″. I’m simply observing some facts.
God only knows fat women, who unlike short men play a large role in their own condition, complain bitterly enough about how superficial men are, etc.
msmilack // Jun 14, 2010 at 2:40 pm
nhthinker
thanks. I am probably being too sensitive also.
sinz54 // Jun 14, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Carney: God only knows fat women, who unlike short men play a large role in their own condition
Another pun, eh?
Actually, obesity has been found to have a genetic component as well as a lifestyle component.
I’ve always been attracted to plus-sized women. Not women who are grossly obese, mind you, but “pleasingly plump.”
msmilack // Jun 14, 2010 at 7:57 pm
If Napolean had been a very tall man, would a discussion of this so-called complex even exist? When height becomes the outstanding feature of a world leader, I think we are perhaps looking at the wrong qualities of the leader and what he has to offer or has accomplished.
ottovbvs // Jun 14, 2010 at 10:00 pm
msmilack // Jun 14, 2010 at 7:57 pm
……Physically small men……Winston Churchill…..Harry Truman…….Ghandi……Georges Clemenceau……Nelson…….Madison…….Carnegie……David Lloyd George……..Montgomery…….Cavour…….Monnet……David Ben Gurion……Lenin…….a fair number were egomaniacs……in fact egomania is a fairly consistent characteristic of great leaders……a far more consistent characteristic than height
msmilack // Jun 14, 2010 at 11:58 pm
And here is another interesting piece of trivia: the tallest American presidents were:
Abraham Lincoln
Lyndon Johnson
Bill Clinton
Thomas Jefferson
Franklin Roosevelt
Barack Obama
Ronald Reagan
All of them were over 6 feet tall (actually Roosevelt was 5′11″ but the rest were over 6 feet tall)
Studies have been done showing that tall people in America make more money and get elected to office more often, reflecting the prejudices of our society. Hopefully, that is changing like other prejudices which are buried and gone.
nhthinker // Jun 15, 2010 at 7:37 am
“Hopefully, that is changing like other prejudices which are buried and gone.”
Sorry, it’s likely just the opposite. The increasing emphasis on advertising to encourage commerce (even in communist China) encourages more focus on basic appeals to the human perception of beauty. Super models of both sexes tend to be very tall, either very slim or very athletic, very youthful, very symmetric. The emphasis at the extremes cascades down to a huge number of transactions.
Try being a ordinary looking teenager trying to get a job in any upscale store in today’s malls: Plan to be a shelf stocker as opposed to a sales person working on commission. I love how some union leaning folks love to bash the lack of beauty and sophistication of greeters at WalMart.
bWalMart probably does more to encourage the scaling back on the emphasis on beauty than any other entity involved in retail.
ottovbvs // Jun 15, 2010 at 8:21 am
“I love how some union leaning folks love to bash the lack of beauty and sophistication of greeters at WalMart.”
……….not as hard as they are bashed by their employers
nhthinker // Jun 15, 2010 at 8:48 am
otto,
so you implicitly admit that union leaning folks bash the greeters at Walmart.
And you contend that the act of giving greeters jobs by Walmart is a example of Walmart bashing the greeters.-
As opposed to the other stores which would never put ordinary (non-superficially beautiful) people as greeters at the front of their stores.
It’s amazing to observe your irrationality…
msmilack // Jun 15, 2010 at 10:32 am
nhthinker
I only meant that when a topic is discussed and we therefore become conscious of it as we are in this discussion, we at least participate in the process, however slow, of not accepting the prejudices that lay behind such advertising automatically. Of course, the prejudices do not disappear overnight, but still improvement is possible. Look at how African Americans used to be portrayed in films compared with today as one example of change that is possible in the world of subliminal messages we encounter unconsciously. Another example is the portrayal of women in all things media.
nhthinker // Jun 15, 2010 at 12:32 pm
msmilack-
Would you like to comment on the evolution of music videos and their portrayal of women?
Is there more or less emphasis in Hollywood on beauty?
Do super models make more or less than they used to?
Are women in TV news industry being held to lesser beauty standards in the past 20 years, or has it actually reverted back to the beauty standards of 40 years ago.
“beautiful and competent” trumps “ordinary and competent” every time: and its getting worse, not better.
Except at Walmart…