Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: PBS wants to know: Do you think Palin is qualified

Monday, September 22, 2008

PBS wants to know: Do you think Palin is qualified

I wonder if they ran a similar poll on Obama....I suppose they didn't run a similar poll on Biden. Now that the media have decided that Washington insider experience is a prerequisite for public office, what's the point?

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?

Yes
No
Not Sure

(The "yes" votes are winning)

11 comments:

libhom said...: I'm curious as to why you are not addressing the McCain campaign's sexist treatment of Palin.

I also am curious why you have not criticized McCain for his repeated sexual harassment of Ms. Palin.; September 23, 2008 at 4:29 AM
CT Bob said...: Libhom, do you have specific examples of the campaign's and McCain's instances of sexist treatment? I'm intrigued.

Sexism is ugly regardless of which party you belong to.; September 23, 2008 at 5:31 AM
CT Bob said...: To the moderator - I'm linking your blog in my "Distinguished Adversaries" section on ConnecticutBob.Com, not because I'm against calling out sexism (I'm not) but because of the unintentionally ironic and partisan slant of this blog. Welcome aboard!; September 23, 2008 at 5:48 AM
Drake 8 said...: This morning someone on NPR said that Palin is getting a "crash course" at the UN this week.

Tom Brokow has said that Obama was "vetted" by world leaders on his tour this summer.

Maybe Palin needs to make social calls for a week so she, too, can be "vetted."; September 23, 2008 at 6:57 AM
Jadis said...: Sexism is ugly regardless of which party you belong to.

Yes, but in my opinion, it's even worse coming from the party that claims to champion women.; September 23, 2008 at 8:57 AM
CT Bob said...: Sorry Jadis, but the Democratic Party hasn't adopted sexism as a plank. Unless you consider everything that everyone says in the media as part of the party. You shouldn't generalize. I don't think 18,000,000 sexists cast votes for Hillary.

So, has McCain ever acted sexist towards Palin?; September 23, 2008 at 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: OMG! They want to know if she is "qualified"?!!?! How dare they. PBS you bastards, you have crossed the line. We know what you really mean by "qualified". It is really code word for "experience" and we all know that really means what sort of "tenure" does she have.

PBS. you should be ashamed of yourselves!

(tongue now out of cheek)

Blog owner you kidding me with this post, right?; September 23, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Anonymous said...: What's wrong with asking whether she's qualified?; September 23, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Health And Fitness Geek said...: FYI, there is a NEW Poll on McCain vs Obama.

http://www.pbs.org/cgi-registry/poll/poll.pl

Pass it on.; September 23, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Drake 8 said...: What's wrong with asking whether she's qualified?

Gov. Palin is arguably more qualified than the junior senator, and he's at the top of the ticket.

His experience is a joke.; September 23, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: In response to why this post is relevent... Let's say McCain picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty as his running mate (Pawlenty was on the very short list). Would PBS have run the same poll asking if he was qualified?

We can't say for sure, but it's unlikely, especially if there haven't been similar polls on the other three candidates on the ticket. Like Palin, Pawlenty does not have federal experience, is not a carrer politician, and graduated from a public university. (Interesting fact, most presidents are former governors -last senator president was Kennedy). Pawlenty is on his second term, so that could be the reason, but on the other hand Obama is also on his first term. Perhaps it's because the Palin choice has been seen as a stunt to get women voters, but Pawlenty may have been a stunt to get midwest swing states.

So why was Palin singled out for this poll? It's not blatant sexism, but it does show different treatment. She has to prove herself more than the other candidates, perhaps because her image and presentation are different than other candidates.; September 24, 2008 at 10:29 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

Monday, September 22, 2008

PBS wants to know: Do you think Palin is qualified

11 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive