  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Sexist Two-StepPosted on Sep 15, 2008By Marie Cocco I will not venture into the danger zone between dueling lipstick tubes. The great lipstick-on-a-pig campaign imbroglio, if we are lucky, will mark the moment Republicans jumped the shark with their cries of alleged sexism toward vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. I will note once—and only once—that such howls of indignation were not heard from them when Hillary Clinton (a new Republican heroine, to hear Palin tell it) was vilified and humiliated with sexist taunts. The hazing of Clinton predates her run for the presidency, going back to her 1992 debut on the national scene not as a candidate, but as a candidate’s wife. Try as I might to dismiss the pseudo-outrage that John McCain’s campaign has whipped up about Palin’s plight as a woman running for high office, I can’t. Not completely, anyway. This has a lot to do with a graphic image of Palin I just saw in which she is dressed in a black bustier, adorned with long, black gloves and wielding a whip. The image appeared in the Internet magazine Salon to illustrate a column titled: “The dominatrix,” by Gary Kamiya. Kamiya calls Palin a “pinup queen,” and says she not only tantalized the Republican National Convention with political red meat, but that her “babalicious” presence hypercharged the place with sexual energy, and naughty energy at that. “You could practically feel the crowd getting a collective woody as Palin bent Obama and the Democrats over, shoved a leather gag in their mouths and flogged them as un-American wimps, appeasers and losers.” That’s some sexual mother lode. Dare I point out that I have never—ever—in three decades of covering politics seen a male politician’s style, even one with an earthy demeanor, described this way? Salon editor Joan Walsh says she agrees the “dominatrix” piece had a “provocative cover,’’ and that her columnists enjoy great freedom. “One day Gary (Kamiya) called Palin a dominatrix, the next day Camille Paglia called her a feminist.” The magazine exists, Walsh says, to “push the envelope.” No sooner did Walsh give me this explanation than another Salon contributor, Cintra Wilson, pushed that envelope again. Wilson described Palin as follows: an “f---able ... Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume” who is, for ideological Republicans, a “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.” That is, when Palin is not coming across as one of those “cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms.” What is it about a woman candidate that sends the media into weird Freudian frenzies? Palin’s name was freshly announced when a Photoshopped image of her, supposedly wearing a flag-themed bikini and toting a shotgun, popped up on the Internet. Photographers for more than one mainstream news organization took evocative shots of her legs, perched upon stiletto heels, while she was on the stage for campaign events. Some liberal bloggers—yes, some of the same folks who routinely referred to Clinton with the rhymes-with-rich word—came up with this moniker for Palin: Stepford Barbie. Then there are commentators—and even an Obama campaign official—who draw parallels between Palin and Michelle Obama. The correct analogy would be to compare Palin with Democratic vice presidential contender Joe Biden. Really, have you heard anyone compare and contrast Biden with Cindy McCain? I sure haven’t. So why the Sarah-versus-Michelle contest? Palin is running for vice president. Michelle Obama is not running for anything but is helping her husband’s bid for the presidency. Palin seeks to be trusted with the nuclear code; Obama seeks a first lady’s role that lacks any constitutionally prescribed responsibilities. The media pairing of these two is based on nothing but their common femaleness. The Obama campaign says it will use Michelle Obama’s own profile as a working mother to blunt Palin’s possible effectiveness in attracting the working-mom vote. “We are not ceding women with children,” Obama campaign aide Anita Dunn told The New York Times. “We have a candidate whose wife is a working mom with two young children.” So it’s our-mother-beats-your-mother, a creepy condescension to all working mothers and especially to Palin, who isn’t a candidate’s spouse. She is the candidate. At least Palin’s treatment resolves a lingering dispute from the Democratic nominating contest. The rank sexism that surrounded Clinton’s bid often was dismissed (especially on the left) as no such thing. The animosity was said to be not about any woman candidate; it was about that woman, candidate Clinton.
Now it’s about Palin. At least no one can rationalize her treatment as mere Clinton-hating.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Bush the Infallible
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By KDelphi, September 17 at 8:34 am #
Leefeller--yes . it would be sexism. Sticking with Hillary (after she no longer even claims to have any possibility of becoming the nominee) is probably sexict too.
I just hate to see Dems making themselves look the least bit sexist, when the main vote they seem to need, is white females.
I would NEVER vote McCain/Palin (cyrena--I’m voting McCain/Palin, just to piss yu off!! heheh) Repeat--never! I just feel that there WAS some sexism in this campaign season (every season) and I dont think peopel look to the GOP for guidance on this--but, I think that they do expect better out of hte Dems. I think most people know there was alot of sexism, but, they like Obama (he never really said anything directly sexist, I dotn think)so much, that, whatever he or his campaign , (Or the DNC! Now that’s a new one!)does--it’s OK. Maybe. But I’m just not sure it is wise.
Report thisBy Leefeller, September 17 at 7:55 am #
KDelphi,
Actually if women vote for Palin because she is a women, isn’t that sexism?
Report thisBy Leefeller, September 17 at 7:49 am #
Cran Berry,
“Sexism is odious indeed, but let us not forget that McCain chose Palin because of her sex, not her ideas.”
What are you suggesting? A picture I would rather keep out of me mind. McCain’s infatuation with Palin may have nothing to do with her sex and her big furry bear skin rugs.
Report thisBy cyrena, September 16 at 9:05 pm #
By rage:
• “So, it’s now all about keeping some burly fiend doing life, who calls himself Big Carol in the joint, from breaking a convicted and sentenced Karl Rove down over the sink in the cell like a Winchester about to be loaded.”
Rage, this is hilarious. I’d rather they didn’t prevent it. I want Karl to meet Carol.
~~~
By KDelphi
• “Cyena, please stop making every topic about me, Its really not.”
Poor thing KDelphi. It must be more hallucinations. You’re right that not every topic is ‘about’ you. In fact, nothing is. What gave you that impression? Do you look for all of my posts and decide that they are about you? And, who’s problem would THAT be?
Nope, nothing is about you KDelphi. I’m well aware of that. But, since you won’t go away, and have become our cross to bear, surely you aren’t suggesting that we could all ignore you, even if we wanted to…
That is especially the case because of all of the IED’s that you drop all over the place. (Insinuations, Exaggerations, Distortions). Like this:
• “I still think that it does not help the Dems to kee[p after her for her sex.”
You make these broad accusations, ‘the Dems’ all the time, and never have even the slightest reference or example to relate. Since when have the “Dems” (who are they?) ‘gone after’ Palin ‘for the sex’? You get yourself all bent out of shape when someone point out the obvious when you make comments like this. If somebody makes the point that this is an ignorant statement, on top of being a lie, then you claim that you’re a victim of name-calling or that we’re putting you down, when the fact is that YOU make the statements! And yes, they ARE stupid. Nobody is going after Palin because she’s a woman, or ‘for her sex’. (at least I’ve not read that in any of these posts). So, you’re creating an innuendo/exaggeration/distortion.
People have been commenting negatively in respect to Sarah Palin because she’s proven herself to be completely substandard and inadequate as a politician or leader of ANYTHING. She doesn’t know SHIT! My 16 year old niece knows more about what’s going on in the affairs of the US and the world than Sarah Palin does. So it’s not about ‘sexism’ it’s about STUPID!! And unfortunately in her case, she’s also a bitch. (IOW, *not* a “kindly” moron or empty-headed Stepford Wife or Husband).
So stop calling it sexism, or making comparison’s to Hillary Clinton, because they just happen to both be female politicians. *I* didn’t vote for or support Hilary Clinton in the primaries initially, because there were far more qualified democratic candidates in my own opinion. Then, when she kicked in the really low-ball sleazy campaign stuff against Obama, I really didn’t like her. BUT, had she won the primary instead of Obama, I WOULD have supported her for President against McCain. BECAUSE, while I have a lot of problems with Hillary Clinton, there is NO comparison in terms of qualifications to a nobody like Sarah Palin.
So stop with all of the BS about ‘the Dems’ (as in WHO specifically?) going after her.
And, get over yourself as well. Take your own advice. NOTHING is about you.
Report thisBy rage, September 16 at 2:04 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“The Obama campaign says it will use Michelle Obama’s own profile as a working mother to blunt Palin’s possible effectiveness in attracting the working-mom vote. “We are not ceding women with children,” Obama campaign aide Anita Dunn told The New York Times. “We have a candidate whose wife is a working mom with two young children.””
I agree, especially since Palin’s counterpart is the almost never mentioned ladykiller, Joey “the Shark” Biden. Still, though, why not? The ObamaNation has been playing nothing but weak defense since he won the nomination, walking on eggs in a delicate balancing act of appeasing the DNC and not choking the crap out of the lying, low-balling coot McCain. The reactionary Whig Party can’t take away from Michelle and Hillary the great parenting they managed to sustain during years of marriage while achieving laudible professional successes.
Face it, Palin is only in this game because, along with being a married religio-fascist mother of five, she can dress a moose she just shot right there in the field, and she’s fluent in Holy Ghost inspired tongues. That, and Palin has signatory consent from big oil to govern Alaska however she likes. McCain isn’t marketing Palin as a credible candidate with talent, virtues, and love of the country enough to become the Vice President. Palin is that pretentious crowd attracting celebutard Gramps so loathed in Barack Obama’s ability to inspire a movement.
Sure, Hillary and Michelle are disgusted and insulted that Palin’s name is even used in the same sentence with them, and should be. Murdoch sleazecake in place of the red meat of unbiased reporting gets on everyone’s nerves. The harsh criticisms, the perpetuated inequities, and the chronic marginalization are way beyond frustrating. But, the strong aren’t phased by any of it. Real women are too well aware that this is nothing more than political mud wrestling for the oafdom that usually whines for bread at the circus. Karl broke McCain in 2004 to get Dumya into the Oval Office a second time. Now Turdblossom needs to put humpty dumpty back together well enough to evade jail himself for contempt of Congress and hampering prosecution of his Justice Department corruption. So, it’s now all about keeping some burly fiend doing life, who calls himself Big Carol in the joint, from breaking a convicted and sentenced Karl Rove down over the sink in the cell like a Winchester about to be loaded. Rove knows once Blunder Woman June Cleavage engages the ladykiller Joe Biden in the VEEP debates, his goose is cooked, these distracting mommy wars be damned.
Report thisBy Rodger Lemonde, September 16 at 10:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
For those who think she has gotten a bad deal just write her in for president and let the old man talk family values with John Edwards
Report thisBy xyzaffair, September 16 at 10:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There was an article in the Style section of my local newspaper, the Torrance, CA, Daily Breeze, about the popularity of Sarah Palin’s eyeglasses. It’s not too surprising, given that the paper is sort of a dumbed-down version of the Los Angeles Times, with Charles Krauthammer as the featured editorialist, and frequent appearances by George Will.
Report thisBy Alan, September 16 at 8:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Charlie: I’m Charlie Gibson
Report thisMonty Palin: Yes I’ll have a Gibson,
and that’s my executive decision.
Charlie: No that’s my name.
Monty Palin: I’m sticking to the script,
I’ll have a beer AND a Gibson.
McGoo: Ayyyy.....wanna thank you Charlie…
for the opportunity…
Charlie: Senator McGoo what is your policy on taxation?
McGoo: Ayyy ...uh....Ayyyyy wanna spare no effort ta
make us energy independent so I definitely support privately developed corn powered taxis.
Monty Palin: Charlie have you ever had ta carry three six packs home on a moose path?
If you did, you’d want corn powered taxis too!
By KDelphi, September 16 at 6:53 am #
This is NOT about Hillary , Palin , or any other individual female poplitician. It is about losing alot of female votes, which teh Dems have traditionally carried.
I believe that there was sexism (Dowd, Secuf of HuffPo, plenty by FOX, Olbermann), but , if you dont see it, fine.
It seems to me that anyone supporting Obama (REALLY supporting) has long ago given up on any advice, criticism, etc. They just want to say how stupid everyone is for not voting for Obama, and then they can blame the election on Nader.
True--McCain/Palin made it a token sex thing. I still think that it does not help the Dems to kee[p after her for her sex. Go after her “climate chaznge” views, her evangelical views, her legal mess right now. The “lipstick” stuff would get a pass, in my book. She brought it up herself.
Cyena, please stop making every topic about me, Its really not.
Report thisBy Frostedflakes, September 16 at 6:24 am #
This continual sexism charge is crap. McPalin knew exactly what they were doing when they placed the “hockey mom” in the race. The choice of an unknown, conservative, gun-toting woman was meant to enliven the dying campaign of grampa McGruff. She was put in simply for the purpose of playing out the sexism role. She is , by all reasonable standards, not qualified for anything else. And let us not forget, this is America, the land of reality tv, where more people are prone to watch “Dancing with the stars” than the nightly news. Also when did the repugs, and particularly Fox news, become the parameter setters on sexism. Where were they while Senator Clinton was campaigning? The answer is that they were right there being sexist, and now we’re supposed to forget? Nothing in this campaign is happening by mistake, unless you’re a dem; because they are playing on the gullibility of Americans, which is an easy task unto itself,to further divide an angry electorate.
Report thisBy cyrena, September 15 at 11:52 pm #
KDelphi,
Are you SURE that no one mentions Biden’s age? Seems like I’ve noted it in at least a dozen articles just in the last 2 weeks. He’s 65. SO?????
Hillary is about the SAME age as Biden. How often was that ‘mentioned’ in the primaries? Only by her husband, as an excuse for her ‘forgetting’ the events that she lied about in Bosnia. Quite honestly, I don’t think the average American had any issues with Hillary’s AGE, OR her gender. I know *I* didn’t. I would have been tickled pink to have a woman as president. It’s about 230 years past due. But, Hilary Clinton wasn’t our best choice.
So, despite the obsessed whinings of Marie Cocco, there was never any blatant ‘sexism’ displayed toward Hillary. Of COURSE there have always been the die-hard misogynists who simply hate all women, and would as soon die rather than have any of us in any positions of power. But that’s no different than the die hard racists that would vote to chop off their own heads before they would vote for a black person.
Nope. It was never about ‘sexism’ for the average American, just as it isn’t about ‘ageism’ for the average American. And those who insist on beating those drums (like Marie Cocco) continue to insult and underestimate the intelligence of the average American.
It would appear that folks like you and Marie Cocco, are determined to attach all of these complicated ‘biases’ to the majority of us, when in fact it’s really not that complicated at all. Most of us just want the best person available for the job. We had a long and drawn out primary, which gave most of us the opportunity to decide who that was, and it wasn’t Hillary, just as it won’t be McCain/Palin.
Report thisBy KDelphi, September 15 at 11:02 pm #
I cant stand Palin. That does not excuse the lantent sexism displayed by the Dems.Nor the sexism that Palin , herself, is so proud to display. The GOP has always displayed it,. No one expects any different.
This will ackfire, just as it did with te sexist remarks towards Hillary, racist remakrs about Obama, and “ageist” reamrks about McCain (which are a little more excusable, as age can be considered a factor ) But he is younger than Ragan was the second time.IN any case, you may lose the elderly vote.
No one mentions Biden’s age.It is easier , I suppose, to focus on any issues that dont involve --well, issues. Age, sex, race, class. If we dont ask for better elecion coverage , we’ll never get it. The ecstasy the Left has about going after Palin, should be tempered with the reality that things like this have a history of backfiring.
Dont accuse me of supporting Palin, or I’ll field dress you!
Report this