Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Journalistic irresponsibility

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Journalistic irresponsibility

Scumbags invaded Sarah Palin's personal email account, and the Washington Post reprints
the contents - verbatim - of emails (I'm choosing not to link to the newspaper article). This is journalistic irresponsibility that makes the newspaper complicit in the invasion of Palin's privacy. Yes, it's a story that the emails were hacked. Reprinting the content? Goes way too far. Receiving stolen property?

On top of it, they're trying to turn her personal emails into a public scandal.

It's just as in court - this is fruit of the poisoned tree, so the contents of the email account should be OFF limits for public discussion.

15 comments:

Chus said...: This is what I think: Sarah Palin's E-Mail Hacked; September 18, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I may have to stop visiting this very fine blog. It's links too often make me ill.

JerryT; September 18, 2008 at 6:55 AM
Jadis said...: Can you imagine the screams of outrage from the MSM if Biden's personal email was hacked??; September 18, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Anonymous said...: What is sexist about this or most of your blog entries?

You seem to think that every mention of Palin is sexist.

I suppose you think NOW is sexist for not endorsing her, right?; September 18, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Jadis said...: Anon - obviously you haven't READ this blog. I pity you if you are truly so blind as to not see the blatant sexism involved here.; September 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: jadis, you are wrong. I've read all the entries. While some of them are absolutely legitimately sexist attacks, most of them are NOT. Palin, herself, considered similar attacks on Hillary as "necessary for someone running for a public office, not because she is a woman".

While the hacking of the private email and Wapo's printing of the content are indeed irresponsible, using a private email (gov.palin@yahoo.com---really!) for doing government business is just as irresponsible and plain stupid.

Were those actions sexist? Me, calling Palin "stupid" sexist? I doubt it since I also call John Edwards "incredibly stupid" and irresponsible as well. Should we condemn National Enquirer for finding out stuff about him and call them sexist?

I don't disagree with this blog. I disagree with MOST of the entries. Crying wolf whenever we deem necessary does not do any good for the women's movement and we end up looking like little girls pointing fingers at the big, bad boys.

Moderation and selectivity---absolute requirements for a blog to be taken seriously.; September 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Anonymous said...: I love your blog..keep up the good work! :); September 18, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: I love your blog too. Totally empowering.; September 18, 2008 at 3:00 PM
always_asking_why said...: I think the media that posted the hacked email should be held liable and charged with a Federal crime. It would just like reading someones mail out of their mailbox, that is a federal offense.; September 18, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Chris Turner said...: Give us all a break. Hacking into the Governor's personal email account isn't sexist, and shouldn't be the story. The story really is, Governor Palin conducting official Alaska business via her personal email account, so as to avoid the scrutiny of a freedom of information request. Palin fancies herself the reformer, when she's as political, and even more crooked, than the rest of the crew in Washington. Now, with the significant time left until the election, America will finally realize that the inquiries into Palin's lack of ethics aren't sexist or mean, they're simply vetting the potential Vice President quite unlike John McCain failed to do.; September 18, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Not Sexist, eh? Tell me ... when was the last time the personal e-mail of a Male or Vice Presidential candidate hacked into?; September 19, 2008 at 5:56 AM
Forum moderator said...: To be honest, occasionally I post on things relating to Palin that interest me, but that, as I've noted before, are more the result of ideological bias, not sexism. Most of the entries on the blog reflect sexism but not all. I will try to make it clearer when I am weighing in on something I don't necessarily feel is sexism per se, although I have tried to do that on previous posts. For example, I don't think the email hacking issue is sexist. I just wanted to comment on the journalistic irresponsibility!; September 19, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Forum Moderator,

If you intended to include all "things relating to Palin" in your blog, you should have mentioned it somewhere here: " I created this blog to monitor, and round up, the sexist treatment given to Republican VP nominee, Sarah Palin. This blog will focus on sexist reactions to the Palin nomination by the media and politicians."

That would have cleared all kinds of confusion.

Best regards; September 19, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Anonymous said...: It's very rarely that I post on anything else, so I will leave it as it is; September 19, 2008 at 4:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Great blog! To hell with those who think your main theme is being abused.; September 20, 2008 at 2:18 AM

Post a Comment

What is sexism?

All criticisms of Sarah Palin are not sexist. It would be sexist to expect that she would receive no criticism, or that she SHOULD receive no criticism, because she is a woman. I admit that some of the criticism of Palin may really be the result of ideological bias, or simply sloppy reporting, not sexism. Some of the questions are fair game in isolation (yes, of course, it's fair to talk about Palin's experience in general; it's that she's held to a higher standard than males in the race that's the issue).

The Palin piling on is a complex cultural stew. In some cases, I suspect ideological and gender bias are working together. A reader has challenged me to define what I consider to be sexism. Broadly, I would define sexism in the political sphere as the following: When the woman is held to a higher and different standard than a similarly situated male, especially but not limited to issues that have no relevance to the race and that tend to diminish the woman's professional accomplishments by playing into gender stereotypes.

Specifically, here is a list of what I consider to be sexist behavior:

Coverage of a female politician that fixates on her physical appearance, pro or con. I admit that male politicians sometimes face this (Obama walking shirtless out of the Hawaiian surf got a lot of attention, and there was a lot of attention about John Edwards' shiny hair). And I think that some women have mixed feelings about this. After all, who doesn't want to be considered good looking? But, for many women, when they are in a professional setting, and supposedly professional media commentators place the focus back on their physical appearance, as a positive or a negative, it feels diminishing of their professional accomplishments. This works both ways, of course. Hillary Clinton has been viciously attacked by some on the right for supposedly not being good looking. That, too, is sexist, especially since unattractive male politicians are generally not held to this standard. If you think about it, good-looking male politicians also find their appearance the topic of discussion in many cases, but that's not true of unattractive male politicians. It's true in both cases for women. Simply put, appearance is not relevant to competence, so why are we talking about Palin's hair and looks?
Sexual-related comments about a female politician.
Blatant belittling of one's intelligence without evidence and in a manner not accorded to male opponents (i.e. saying the woman is stupid, needs a teleprompter, needs a lot of coaching, etc.)
Implying that the woman must not really believe her positions or must be under the intellectual sway of a more powerful male. (This happens in racism too. Consider how opponents argue that Clarence Thomas is a tool of intellectual white men like Antonin Scalia).
Double standards relating to motherhood; i.e., the female politician is asked questions about motherhood that her male counterparts aren't asked about fatherhood. (Why doesn't Palin stay home to take care of the kids? Hillary, why don't you want to stay home to bake cookies and hold teas?) The reverse is also true. It's also wrong for people to demean females who CHOOSE to stay home and raise their families. I personally believe that whether a woman chooses to be a housewife, a career woman, or, like Palin, a mixture of both, is her personal decision and debate about it really isn't relevant in a presidential election.
Slurs that are typically used to demean women but aren't applied to similarly aggressive men; i.e. when attributes that would be praised in a man are reduced to a negative in the woman (b-tch, nag, etc.). The Martha Stewart phenomenon. The tough woman is a b-tch, but the overly emotional woman is too weak to lead (women can't win sometimes!)
The woman is held to higher standards for intelligence/professional qualifications than a male opponent. (Palin is utterly unqualified, but Obama is then not?)
Diminishing of traditional female roles as being silly (the PTA, chortle, chortle, chortle. She was a housewife once, how pathetic, etc.). I don't know about you, but right now I am thinking about the woman, a housewife, who ran my child's Catholic Bible school this summer, and she was quite a force to be reckoned with. I'd love to pit her against Putin.
Emphasis on female roles traditionally seen as silly when discussing an accomplished, professional woman (she was a beauty queen 24 years ago!!!!!!)
Assuming incompetence. (she's a woman, so she won't be a strong leader, etc.)
The woman becomes defined by a single gender-related issue in a manner that males do not (consider how the abortion question is defining Palin, but doesn't define Obama or even McCain.)
Issues that aren't used against male opponents are magnified out of proportion against the woman. (Bristol-mania. I admit this one might be ideological bias more than sexism, but I do think it's caught up in Palin's cultural role as a "mother")
Invasion of the personal sphere and personalization/lifestyle focus of/on the candidate. In other words, covering the woman through the gauze of personality and lifestyle issues, rather than professional accomplishment. (Why are we talking about Palin's prenatal care and amniotic fluid again? It's creepy. Do we talk about Biden's sperm count? I admit that's a really creepy thought, and I do admit that Palin invited some of this by talking about her breastfeeding to People magazine. But still.)

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Journalistic irresponsibility

15 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive