Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Perky and spunky

Friday, September 19, 2008

Perky and spunky

Anthony Bonaparte, writing in the Suburban, a Quebec newspaper:

God-fearing-religiously-conservative-anti-abortion-mothers-of-knocked-up-17-year-old-daughters.Palin is effervescent, congenial, knows how to skin an animal, can chant “drill baby drill” with gusto and a perky smile, and she has spunk. I hate spunk.

And I hate words that make accomplished, mature women sound like little girls.

11 comments:

CT Bob said...: Lovely blog you have here.

Tell me, are you going to start a blog that examines the sexism with which Hillary Clinton has been treated for the last 18 years?

Or are you only defending women on a partisan basis?; September 20, 2008 at 4:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Tell me, if you don't like the blog why you're even here? The bias crosses partisan lines. It's just that the Democrats are more openly aggressive and down-right demeaning in their discussion of Palin, so obviously they get more play. There were plenty of records of Hillary's sexism, check out the Hillary Forum for example. Not to mention, Hillary is no longer running for office, so what exactly would be the point?; September 20, 2008 at 7:41 AM
CT Bob said...: Hey "Anonymous", stop hacking Sarah's email! LOL!; September 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Nice.; September 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Forum moderator said...: CT Bob, I am writing about Palin on this blog, not Hillary, because she is currently in the race.; September 21, 2008 at 10:35 AM
CT Bob said...: Moderator - so, since you're obviously such a staunch defender of women and not at all a partisan hack, would you please point me to your other blog where you surely defended Hillary Clinton against sexism eight months ago?

Sexism is ugly regardless of the party involved. However, if you only defend Republicans from sexist attacks, you are partisan and everyone sees it. Just admit that you didn't lift a finger to defend Clinton.; September 22, 2008 at 6:03 AM
Jadis said...: ct, I can't speak for the moderator, but for me, Hillary betrayed women when she was instrumental in the "bimbo brigade" nonsense.

And so what if the admin is only defending Palin for partisan purposes? There are plenty of pro-Hillary sites out there.; September 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM
CT Bob said...: Jadis, would you please refresh my memory? What exactly is the "bimbo brigade" you're referring to?

And it's obvious that this is a partisan blog; I was just messing with you folks a little. My blog is very partisan too, but I like to have a little fun with it.; September 22, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Anonymous said...: "And I hate words that make accomplished, mature women sound like little girls."

I think that was the writer's point.; September 26, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Big Bitch Marii said...: Hello mate great blogg; November 26, 2023 at 10:28 PM
Big Bitch Marii said...: Thankks for sharing this; December 1, 2023 at 3:48 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

Friday, September 19, 2008

Perky and spunky

11 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive