Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Washington Post: Can Palin handle it all

Monday, September 1, 2008

Washington Post: Can Palin handle it all - kids and job?

Story here.

The Post meekly camouflages its own opinion on the sexist subject of whether Sarah Palin is shortchanging her kids by running for Veep by reporting the back-and-forth comments of others and by saying that debate was raging in the blogosphere on the topic.

But the question is: Why did the Post think this was a question worth asking at all? Why the open question about whether Palin is shortchanging her kids by having a career? The implication is that Palin is doing something wrong by running for vice president with young kids - that her place is in the home.

Will the Post now ask the same questions of John McCain and Barack Obama? Frankly, why hasn't the Post written a similar story about Joe Biden's choices to not quit the Senate after he was widowed with young sons?

This is not a question EVER posed about men. Therein lies the sexism.

Excerpt:

Daughter Bristol, 17, is pregnant and is going to get married, her parents announced yesterday. That news added fuel to an already heated debate on blogs and in the street about the appropriate balance between child-rearing and working -- and whether Palin can balance the extraordinary demands of both without shortchanging either.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...: I don't care if you are a working/stay-at-home, Christian/not or a Republican/Democrat mother. The fact is, no matter how well you raise your children and give them good values, etc., you have NO control over what they do as individuals. Anyone who says a teenage pregnancy is a reflection of any of these factors is fooling themselves or doesn't have children. I have 5 children who all all successful, productive adults. Some made a few mistakes and some haven't. That's life.; September 2, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Let's see...Odopey's wife had 2 kids and went right back to her high salary job. What's the difference? Since when is it an affront to civilization for a woman to work when she has small children? Are the FemiNazi's now suggesting that they stay home and bake cookies?; September 2, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Anonymous said...: FDR had loads of kids and polio. I guess the democrats think he was not a good presidenc because how could he be with so many kids and a debilitating disease.; September 2, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Hyphenated American said...: Recently, the media has started pushing the meme that Sarah Palin is a bad mother, since she is not staying at home taking care of her children. Well, color me unimpressed. Do you remember the Clinton family? It was claimed that both of them, papa Clinton and mama Clinton were running the American government. As Hillary once said - she will not be baking cookies. Or, as wasalso said - get two for the price of one. So, while both parents were busy, who exactly was raising their daughter? Was it Monica Lewinski? Alas, I never heard this question asked before. No one claimed that Clintons are bad parents because they chose a political career instead of taking care of their precious little daughter. So, why is Palin treated differently? Does it mean that media is sexist, or that it is liberal and it would do anything to help the unfortunate Mr.Obama?; September 6, 2008 at 4:03 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 1, 2008

Washington Post: Can Palin handle it all - kids and job?

4 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive