Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Was Obama referring to Palin? "Lipstick on a pig"

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Was Obama referring to Palin? "Lipstick on a pig"

Critics say Barack Obama was talking about Sarah Palin. Was he? The audience certainly thought so, and they thought it was pretty funny too.

What’s the difference between a more hopeful kind of politics and old-fashioned attacks? Lipstick.

Barack Obama says the John McCain-Sarah Palin policies don’t represent change, they’re “just calling the same thing something different.”

“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” Obama said during a town-hall style event here Tuesday night.

The comment was widely interpreted as a play on Republican vice presidential candidate Palin’s joke during the Republican National Convention that the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom was lipstick, though the campaign said Obama wasn’t referencing Palin’s comments.

I guess I'm willing at this point to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was just using a well-worn turn of phrase and not calling Palin a pig. It's not the first time he's made a gaffe when the teleprompter was off.

BUT, if Obama didn't realize the comment would be interpreted as a slam at Palin, then he's pretty naive.

Then again...

This isn’t the first time in a 24-hour period that lipstick has become an issue. As he was introducing Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan said Palin had “zero experience in national government, zero experience in foreign affairs. There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick.”

Plus: Why did he immediately bring up Palin's kids? What was the point of that?

"Look. she's new, she hasn't been on the scene, she's got five kids. And my hat goes off to anybody who's looking after five. I've got two, and they tire Michelle and me out," he said.

Someone should have asked a follow-up question: "Senator, what exactly is your point here? Why bring up the kids and being tired?" This comes pretty close to saying the kids are a detriment to her ability to lead because she must be REALLY tired with all of those kids. Didn't he say kids were off limits? Why, then, is he bringing up Palin's kids?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...: You're stretching it.

I agree that many of the examples you cite (the salon stuff especially) are sexist. Or, at the very least, disgusting and mean. (You have to admit that the muslim stuff againstn Obama is racist...)

But, this? Come on. You're way stretching; September 10, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama should know any "lipstick" comment automatically brings Palin to everyone's mind. He should have known better.

I once said to a reporter, "One monkey don't stop no show." Not all, but one, of the individuals involved was black so as soon as I made the comment I said, "Oh, no, don't use that, I'm sorry, it was really a poor choice of expressions." (And I didn't go to Harvard.) Fortunately for me, the reporter left it out of her story (I assume she hoped to get quotes from me again). She still misquoted me on other comments and I still got in trouble but at least I wasn't accused (that time) of making a racist comment, which it wasn't but it would have been attacked. I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about them and saying just because 'they' were trying to stop us, we were going to get our job done.; September 10, 2008 at 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous one: Read my post. I specifically stated that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and NOT assume that he was calling Palin a pig. Thus, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that the lipstick comment was a turn of phrase and not sexism. I addressed it on this blog because it's a big topic of the day relating to sexism and Palin.

-Forum moderator; September 10, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course Obama knew exactly what he was doing with his Lipstick-On-A-Pig comment. He had plausible deniability and knew he could get away with it. One look at the video and how he played to the audiences reaction is proof enough.

He did the very same thing when he gave Hillary Clinton the finger. The audience reacted and Obama played it for all it was worth, knowing that if anyone called him on it, he could say he was just scratching his nose with his middle finger.; September 27, 2008 at 3:02 PM

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 10, 2008

Was Obama referring to Palin? "Lipstick on a pig"

4 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive