Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Thoughts on the SNL Todd Palin incest skit?

Monday, September 22, 2008

Thoughts on the SNL Todd Palin incest skit?

I have mixed thoughts on it. Clearly, the skit was poking fun at the NY Times, not the Palins. The premise was that the Times, and other media, will say anything to go after the Palins, without the facts. It's pretty funny purely as a send up of the Times.

On the other hand, joking about Todd Palin having sex with his daughter is really not very funny. Imagine how you'd feel if you were the daughter. Remember when SNL made fun of Chelsea? Everyone rightly said to back off. I think SNL could have made the same point in a way that didn't involve the Palin kids - especially a skit that involved having sex with their father. Kids should be off limits.

You have to wonder why good people go into politics sometimes. Is it really worth the cost in a culture as coarse as ours?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...: This isn't about SNL, I hardly watch tv anymore, but I just scrolled through a number of posts, and I thought I'd already heard a lot of sexist remarks about Palin. It's stunning. Add me to the multitudes of women who have really had our eyes opened this election season. And the women! I remember back when there were "ladies who hate women." The world is upside-down. I'm feeling kind of dizzy.

Good work on this, but I'm not sure I can bear to read any more.; September 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM
JustTheFactsMaam said...: The incest "skit" is not funny; it is inexcusable. Their goal, as the the anonymous poster above implied, is to wear us down and to punish women who stand up for something by relentlessly attacking their loved ones.

Even if SNL gave equal time to denigrating the democrats, this kind of thing is completely unacceptable...but you see that couldn't happen, because there are very few derogatory jokes made against democrats on TV, and because the democrat party conspicuously keeps women from rising to the top--"their" women and if they could, ALL women.; September 22, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Jadis said...: You have to wonder why good people go into politics sometimes. Is it really worth the cost in a culture as coarse as ours?

I have always said that the fact someone is willing to put themselves - and their families - through the insanity of a national campaign proves they're crazy and unfit to hold office.

I think it's absolutely disgusting.; September 23, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Anonymous said...: It certainly gives one pause. On the other hand if many brave people had not stepped forward and risen to the occasion throughout all of the years, where would we be now?

Sarah is not afraid to be smothered with a garbage pail of words and pictures, as others fighting for freedom and truth are dodging arsenals full of bullets. She must win.; September 23, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Eidin said...: "...to wear us down and to punish women who stand up for something by relentlessly attacking their loved ones."

This SNL skit is as low as you can go. In my mind incest and the sexual abuse of children is the worst thing one can be accused of. It's no joke.

This is really the last straw for me. I wish I lived in a swing state so my protest vote for McCain/Palin would truly count.; September 24, 2008 at 8:32 AM
Anonymous said...: If there weren't people who actually believe all of us small town types think "incest is a game the whole family can play" it might be funny. If they had been actually been making fun of the Times wouldn't it have been that Mr. Palin was having sex with a two-headed alien????

Agree that most people who go in to politics in today's world are crazy, power hungry, greedy, or narcissistic. But every now and then America has produced a leader who is genuinely called to serve and tough enough to take it. Let's hope Palin is as extraordinary as she seems.; September 27, 2008 at 4:36 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 22, 2008

Thoughts on the SNL Todd Palin incest skit?

6 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive