Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Stop the sexism, McCain campaign

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Stop the sexism, McCain campaign

I hate to say it, but I am starting to agree with the self-serving Campbell Brown. The McCain Campaign has GOT to free Sarah Palin. They are starting to REALLY tick me off. In order to treat her equally, this is what they need to do ASAP:

Let HER do the post-debate spinning on cable TV - not Rudy Giuliani. Why are they sending a man out there to do something that is typically the role of the VP? If they don't even express confidence in Palin, how can they expect her to feel confidence in herself?
Send her on SNL for a cameo next week. It would show that she's a good sport and that she considers the parody a harmless joke, and it would knock the socks off the critics.
Let her talk to the press - NOW. No limits. Let her take questions at every appearance. Part of the reason the Obama/Biden gaffes don't get as much attention is because those guys are out there so much, talking so much. I do think there's a major double standard in how the media are treating Obama/Biden gaffes, don't get me wrong. It's just that the McCain campaign is asking for gaffe-hype when they up the stakes for any one interview by making it such a rare thing. Furthermore, they need to start getting her USED to these interviews and the national interviewers' styles. It's human nature to feel a little uncomfortable in a new setting at first and then to loosen up as you do it more. Why would it be any different with Sarah Palin?
Take Obama's talking points. Remind people he voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, for example.
Have her dial up Kathleen Parker. Not to overstate Parker's importance, but send Palin into the lions' dens to demonstrate her fearlessness and strength.

5 comments:

goesh said...: The handlers knew MSM would attack her twice as hard as any of the men - it's called good management but then I'm not talking to Rosey the Riveter here - McCain is scripted too and managed so I don't know if you are suggesting women shouldn't follow a collective agenda in a campaign because the corollary is to suggest she is cloistered when last I heard, she drew 60K in a Fl. appearance. She is as active as Joe 'the man' Biden. She is doing more good on the street than she is being trolled by pundits via contrived interviews. I got a crisp $50 says she doesn't reference McCain much in the debate with MR. Biden but then most any woman should be able to hold her own with most any man, right? I don't understand the angst here when corporate women follow a much tighter script - seems almost a double standard at play here to me. The people attacking her body/vagina would attack her in the same manner if she was disfigured,except they would use the Crone word if she were and you know it.; September 29, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: I do get the impression the McCain camp has no idea how to handle this stuff. Let her go, let her be herself and America will accept her mistakes while admiring and respecting her. Let the press make fun, it just makes us protective (may not even be sexist, I feel protective of some men too when they are unfairly attacked). Of course, I could be wrong.

But I didn't care for the fact that she went back to K Couric and McCain went with her. Like she needed protection or help. I don't think so.; September 30, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Unknown said...: A cordial invitation to see a historical remake of a timeless drama!

Almost nobody is old enough to remember the 1937 film, A Star is Born, starring Janet Gaynor and Fredric March, in which “Esther Blodgett is just another starry-eyed farm kid trying to break into the movies. Waitressing at a Hollywood party, she catches the eye of alcoholic star Norman Maine, who arranges a screen-test. She is caught up in the (ruthlessly satirized) Hollywood glamor machine. She and her idol Norman marry; but his career abruptly dwindles to nothing.”

That’s okay if you weren’t around to see it. It has been remade several times, and the latest (2008) version debuting this Thursday is a blend of the original movie plot with a reality television twist, but that is covered in detail below.

If you are old enough, you may remember Judy Garland (picture of Judy Garland) and James Mason (picture of James Mason) starring in the 1954 remake of A Star Is Born. “A movie star whose career is on the wane, meets showgirl when he drunkenly stumbles into her act one night. A friendship develops, then blossoms into romance before tensions increase as Esther’s career takes off while Norman’s continues to plummet.”

If you aren’t old enough to remember that one, perhaps you remember the 1976 remake of A Star Is Born that starred Barbra Streisand (picture of Streisand) and Kris Kristofferson (picture of Kristofferson)
“A rock star has seen his career begin to decline. Too many years of concerts and managers and life on the road have made him cynical, and the monotony has taken its toll. Then he meets an innocent, pure and very talented singer. He shows her the way to stardom while forsaking his own career. As they fall in love, her success only makes his decline even more apparent.”

And now, in the 2008 remake, where the original storyline is mixed with reality TV, this Thursday (check your local listings) you can watch it with a political twist!

Sarah Palin (picture of Sarah Palin) and Joe Biden (picture of Joe Biden) star in A Political Star Is Born (2008)

An aging US Senator whose bumbling humor endeared him to his Delaware constituents and the people of America, is finding his career on the wane. Each time he tried to get a promotion (by running for US President) he got fewer and fewer votes, (he didn’t even crack the 2,ooo vote mark in the 2008 Democratic primaries). He was ready to pack it in when he was chosen to be the VP of his party’s ticket.

While on the rubber-chicken dinner and fund-raising circuit, he meets a young and fresh face to politics, the governor of a small-population state, who leaped from obscurity to stardom when she was picked to be the VP candidate of the opposing party’s campaign.

Hillarity and hijinks are sure to ensue when the aging hippy in the swan-song of his career meets the up-and-coming straight-laced starlet. Will there be romance or pain for these two star-crossed souls, who were destined to meet in a political-reality TV remake of the timeless tale, A Star is Born.

(This Thursday, check your local listings for time and channel.); September 30, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't agree with all of your advice, but most of it is good. I don't think Palin should meet with any critical press. No point. No benefit. Palin just needs to act like "screw the media--I'm only about the people." Also, side note: I wish that McCain would actually toughen up. Get to fighting. It's October, let's GO.

Here you go, show them your blog, send your post:

Contact RNC:
http://www.gop.com/Connect/ContactUs.htm

Contact McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/; October 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: I absolutely agree with this post -- you have excellent advice for Sarah. Let's hope after she kicked some a$$ in the debate with Biden, the McCain campaign will feel freer to just let Sarah be Sarah.; October 2, 2008 at 10:04 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

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Stop the sexism, McCain campaign

5 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive