Smoky eyes and pointing fingers: much ado abouth nothing.

We are so used to judge women by their appearance that a joke mentioning Sarah Huckabee Sanders' eyes makeup was generally perceived as an intolerable insult.

After all the vitriol comedian Michelle Wolf (rightfully) unleashed in her roast at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, she got harshly criticized for one particular joke about the president's press secretary. Sarah Sanders, a wife and mother, was humiliated for her looks, protested conservative activists and prominent journalists. How dare Wolf attack another woman on her physical traits! Liberal media joined the rightwing in declaring their outrage, defining the comedian's treatment of Sanders as bullying.
I was curious to hear the joke in question. After such a backlash, I braced myself for a tasteless, aggressive punchline. Here it is: “I actually really like Sarah. I think she’s very resourceful. She burns facts, and then she uses the ash to create a perfect smoky eye. Maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies.”
Seriously?

I think the general indignation against Wolf's humor is wrong on so many levels. First of all, nothing new, and nothing wrong, in comedy attacking and ridiculing powerful people.
Second, in this particular case the critics didn't get what the joke was about: actions, not looks. Finally, and more importantly, in rushing to defend a woman's honor, these critics insulted and diminished all women.

All humor is subversive in its own way, showing us a new, twisted perspective on life. Often it is openly political, addressing cultural norms, social issues, government acts and showing us their incongruity and inadequacy in new, original ways. Governments choices, as love and death, involve everyone of us, that's why political establishment has always been a favorite target of comedians since Aristophanes' plays in ancient Greece.

And that was what the joke was about, a woman's actions as public servant. It is quite obvious that it was not about her makeup but about her covering up the truth. Burning facts and turning them into perfect smoky eyes means using them as it suits you better, manipulating the truth for your own personal good. Not a critique of her appearance. Quite the opposite: her perfect look hides her not so respectable practice.
This supposed scandal is just nonsense based on a huge misunderstanding. Confucius said it better: “When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger”.

Not getting a joke is already bad enough, but what upsets me even more is what many saw in that finger. And how they rushed to defend it. Because that finger is not the person. In our case, it's just eyeshadow, nothing more, nothing less. Not something sacred and unmentionable. I think a woman can handle a punchline mentioning her face powder without calling to question her entire life as wife and mother. It may surprise many, but cosmetics choices, good or bad, don't define a woman's worth.
Yes, I like to think that we are something more than our makeup. In the same way men are more than their ties. But I doubt anyone has ever had to affirm that, because no man would ever feel shaken to the core because of a joke about his tie. And no journalist would make a victim out of him. People who criticized Wolf's punchline, instead, seem to think a woman' s worth is so fragile that just the mention of her eyeshadow can make it crumble. Like that powder is all that keeps us together, the glue that holds our fragile self.

No, our makeup doesn't define the kind of person we are. Systematically lying to the public, instead, may.