Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: "Sarah Palin. You gossip about that. You don't elect it to vice-president."

Monday, September 8, 2008

"Sarah Palin. You gossip about that. You don't elect it to vice-president."

This blog does not round up all of the sexist filth on smaller citizen blogs all over the country. There's simply too much of it. Rather, this blog focuses on sexist comments made about Palin by mainstream media reporters and pundits. However, it will include comments made by/furthered by some of the bloggers who have a large national audience or are taken seriously by political candidates (like Daily Kos).

Which brings me to Andrew Sullivan. On his weblog, he gives credibility to a blog that makes the following commentary. Sullivan does so in a post in which he doesn't even point out the sexism but instead links to the blogger as if he should be taken seriously on the topic of Sarah Palin. I think that's pretty pathetic.

Sarah Palin. Really?

Normally, I'm all for book-burning middle-aged women who celebrate their 17-year-old daughters' decision to have children and marry the guys who, in some states, would be considered statutory rapists.

I think such women should be allowed to attend bake sales and live down the street from me, where I could whisper about them and their screwed-up morals. That's the America I know and love.

Call me insane, but I don't think this person should be allowed to run the country. And let's face it, if McCain wins, that's not a complete hypothetical.

Oh, and don't even get me started on how "the 'liberal' media is attacking Sarah Palin's personal life." And don't tell me her personal life should be off-limits in the first place. Because it seems only the embarrassing aspects of her life are off limits. And nothing was ever off limits for the Clintons.

Sarah Palin. You gossip about that. You don't elect it to vice-president.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: I watch the fat bloviator on MSNBC (Keith Olbermann) take on Gov. Palin constantly today. His follow-up, another psuedo intellectual Maddow also took on Gov.

It is going to be interesting. I still say that King Obama will win. The Press wants him to win.

Too bad the Press is not focusing on the King's lack of accomplishments and the stealing of words by his VP Biden.; September 8, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Andy is the most invested blogger on the King Obama's candidacy. His cover page the Atlantic article is his ticket to immortality. The King has to win in order for Andy to make it as an immortal blogger. Thus, he cannot or is unable to not lie or make up stuff about Gov. or the Sen. (Palin or McCain). To wit: Andy has said that McCain has not had courage to cross the line or stand up to Bush or GOP. Can you believe this? The King has done all. Where is the Proof? But, Andy is part of the Liberal/Hollywood crowd. So, he gets a pass.

Now, imagine, the King as GOP and McCain (American Hero) as Democrat?

Would Andy do what he is doing? If he is doing, then would he get a free pass on his biases?; September 8, 2008 at 8:23 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

Monday, September 8, 2008

"Sarah Palin. You gossip about that. You don't elect it to vice-president."

2 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive