|
|||
|
Sexism and Sarah PalinPosted on Jul 7, 2009
Marie Cocco writes that Sarah Palin’s “intellectual emptiness” and “demonstrably poor judgment” should not excuse the “sexist cant that Palin ... has been subjected to since she burst onto the national scene.” Eugene Robinson, however, finds that the fear of “being painted as elitist and sexist” has perpetuated the myth that Palin is “a substantial figure whose presence on the national stage is anything but a cruel, unfunny joke.” For a third take, skip down to Ruth Marcus’ excellent column on the subject. Excerpt from “A Trashing as Old as Suffrage” by Marie Cocco: Almost as soon as she’d finished her breakthrough speech at the Republican National Convention, one columnist for the liberal online magazine Salon called Palin a “dominatrix” and a “pinup queen,” referred to her “babaliciousness”—and described her convention address as having been charged with enough sexual energy to give the partisan crowd a “collective woody.” Another Salon columnist described Palin as a “Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume” who was, for the most ideological Republicans, a “hard-core pornographic centerfold spread.” Palin early on was called “Stepford Barbie” and “Caribou Barbie”—terms used even by highbrow commentators who found it acceptable to liken Palin to the impossibly proportioned fashion doll. The Barbie epithet marked Palin as an object of sexualized fashion fascination well before it came to light that the vice presidential nominee had used Republican Party funds to buy an expensive campaign wardrobe. Advertisement Why does the same combination of bemused condescension and uninhibited vitriol that the media of a century ago showed toward the suffragists persist today? Excerpt from “Don’t Cry for Me, Alaska” by Eugene Robinson: There are basically two reasons why the political class and the commentariat continue to speak and write about Palin as if she were a substantial figure whose presence on the national stage is anything but a cruel, unfunny joke. The first is fear—not of Palin and her know-nothing legions, but of being painted as elitist and sexist. From the beginning, Palin has been a master at maneuvering her critics into this trap. Like most Americans, she didn’t go to an Ivy League school; like most women, she deals every day with the challenges of juggling work and family. She highlighted these aspects of her biography, then used them to portray herself as a victim whenever anyone had the temerity to criticize anything she said or did. The most recent illustration is what she posted on her Facebook page last weekend on the reaction to her announced resignation: “How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make.” What is she talking about? Who are these “countless others” who supposedly have made the same decision to abandon governorships for no credible reason? The names don’t come rushing to mind. Why is any criticism of Poor Little Sarah the result of the “different standard” that mean old “Washington and the media” always apply? Because blaming her favorite alleged persecutors allows her to ignore the bewildered reaction from her constituents in Alaska who are stunned and mystified at her decision to skip out. Excerpt from “Bailout, Palin-Style” by Ruth Marcus: It’s fair to say that I’ve been no fan of Palin’s since John McCain picked her as his running mate, and my estimation of her has only gone downhill from there. I think my hostility has to do with our shared gender: I’m anxious to see women succeed in the political arena, as elsewhere, and I think McCain’s cynical choice of Palin and her faltering performance since have served to set back that cause. On the day she was announced as the vice presidential nominee, Palin gave a shout-out to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and added, “It turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.” Yes we can, but Palin hasn’t helped. This latest twist in the Perils of Palin soap opera only makes matters worse. The unconvincing explanation combined with refrigerator-magnet wisdom—“Don’t explain: Your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway”—underscores the image of women unable to withstand the heat of political pressure. The notion that this is some kind of “brilliant” (Mary Matalin) or “crazy like a fox” (Bill Kristol) move strikes me as ludicrous. If fellow Gov. Mark Sanford proved anything, it’s that a male politician can be as flaky and overemotional as any woman. So is it unfair that Palin’s performance would reflect poorly on other female politicians? Of course. But Palin’s move—not retreating, she said, but “advancing in another direction”—is no advance, for her or any other woman. CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By dante, July 9, 2009 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
There is no such thing as inappropriate language when it comes to political candidates. When you step into the arena you are fair game for every comedian and blogger from here to North Korea. The so-called “sexism” is just people pointing out the obvious fact that she was picked solely because she has a vagina and a bangin’ bod to go with it. If she was a man she never would have come anywhere near the ticket.
Report thisBy xypher, July 9, 2009 at 5:08 am Link to this comment
Boo hoo…poor Sarah!
Report thisBy doalive, July 8, 2009 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
one word fascist,one phrase right wing princess
Report thisBy geronimo, July 7, 2009 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The flury of attention that Sara Palin is receiving again points to a major pitfall of representative democracy, namely, the tendency for the public to care more about the personal attributes of their elected representative than the policies he or she will push for while in office. Thus it is that we find unemployed workers supporting someone such as Governor Palin who’s turned down a federal stimulus package. It’s as if her feistiness trumps their putting food on the table for themselves and their families. What’s the answer? Our switching to direct online democracy, such that, there’s no more depending upon representatives to decide for us. Shouldn’t be a problem either, since most Americans of voting age already are connected to the Internet, and, for those who are not, access can easily can be made available. Then what’ll become of former politicians such as Sarah Palin? Will anyone care?
Report thisBy godistwaddle, July 7, 2009 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
Trailer trash politics slut.
Report thisBy konnie, July 7, 2009 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
oh please. she was a limpublican wet dream…........
their ideal female. the fact that she was rejected by the real world had nothing to do with her vagina,
and everything to do with her empty brain, and pull the string talking-(points)doll platitudes. McCain was an idiot for choosing her in the first place.
just let her go away. soon.
Report thisBy KDelphi, July 7, 2009 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment
when will you guys get bored with this??
I check the home page and article after article about Palin!!
This is one reason why the “left” can never get anything done. Or maybe the “left ” is just fine with have a circle jerk over Palin…
Report thisBy diamond, July 7, 2009 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
Sarah Palin belongs to a party which has turned sexism into an art form. If she is then subjected to sexism herself she has no one but herself to blame. She was not put forward by the Republicans as VP because of her intellect or her personal integrity. She was put forward to counter Hillary Clinton’s 18 million votes. In the same way that racists used to think all black people looked the same and were the same, the Republicans think women are too stupid to distinguish between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. ‘They want to vote for a woman, let’s give them a woman to vote for,’ was their theme. It was a huge mistake, women didn’t miss the contempt in this and were completely turned off by it. What happened says more about the Republicans than it does about Palin. They are reckless and ruthless in their pursuit of power and were prepared to put another puppet in the White House, just like George W. Bush, so they had a backup patsy in case McCain died. Palin is not the problem, those who put her up for VP are the problem. An even bigger problem is that no one really knows who they are.
Report thisBy Mary Ann McNeely, July 7, 2009 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
I still think Dick Cheney had a hand in Palin’s selection as VP. She was somebody Cheney could easily have controlled and she would even have been grateful for it. The Cheney Death and Money Machine would have set up shop in Palin’s office and therefore would have played a substantial and largely unseen and unwelcome role in a McCain administration. McCain would eventually have caught on but what could he have done until 2012 when he could have dumped Palin? By then, she would have been McCain’s natural successor.
Report thisBy Dude, July 7, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
Eight Ways to Spot Emotional Manipulation
Report thisThere is no use in trying to be honest with an emotional manipulator.
An emotional manipulator is the picture of a willing helper.
Crazy making - saying one thing and later assuring you they did not say it.
Guilt. Emotional manipulators are excellent guilt mongers.
Emotional manipulators fight dirty.
If you have a headache an emotional manipulator will have a brain tumor!
Emotional manipulators somehow have the ability to impact the emotional climate of those around them.
Emotional manipulators have no sense of accountability.
By NYCartist, July 7, 2009 at 6:55 am Link to this comment
A woman comments. Sexism and Sarah Palin is like
Report thisClarence Thomas and racism. Another way of putting it: Sarah Palin policies are to women as Clarence Thomas policies are to African-Americans. Poor.
It is difficult for men to write about women without dropping in some sexist comments. Some women will echo stereotypes too.
By Howie Bledsoe, July 7, 2009 at 6:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I had gotten into an argument not long ago on this very issue. Someone was berating Obama, and offered intelligent and educated points to back up his debate.
Report thisWithout listening to any of his points, he was quickly ostersized as a racist by the crowd at large. (He was a white man.) About 10 minutes later, some other guy starts bitching about Palin, and everyone starts debasing her. To play devil´s advocate, I mentioned that that was a highly sexist diatribe coming from a man. Even the women there were defending the Palin basher. My point is, that being in a minority group as a politician, that is one of the few playing cards at your disposal, and you would be a fool not to use it. Look no further than the Dalai Lama to get my point. We need to look beyond the packaging and scrutinize the actions, policies, and outcomes of our politicians, rather than sex or skin color. And that is why I don´t like Palin.
By Rodger Lemonde, July 7, 2009 at 5:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Palin is like the prop presents in a store display, there ain’t nothing in it, so the appearance of the package is all you can discuss. GOP window dressing with a uncontrolled sound track.
Report thisBy ardee, July 7, 2009 at 3:58 am Link to this comment
There seems a tendancy to lean to far towards assumed sexism when discussing the critiques of Sarah Palin. Sexism will be truly a thing of the past when we can assess male or female on their own merits or lack thereof.
I do not know the reasons for McCain’s addition of Palin to the ticket, though , in light of her subsequent comments, it was obviously a very poor choice indeed. Noone, I assume, put the flood of ignorant remarks in her mouth, noone forced the GOP to allow her to spout one ridiculous remark after the next, and noone is responsible for those remarks but Ms. Palin.
Perhaps a certain desperation or despair infused McCain’s campaign, understanding possibly, that after eight years of Bush/Cheney even a dead Democratic candidate was going to outpoll any GOP nominee. Perhaps some rather dim bulb in charge thought Palin a future star and the VP nomination would set her up for future high office, I do not know.
What I do know is that Palin is a blight upon American politics and those who support her candidacy for any office commit a travesty on common sense and good judgment.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, July 7, 2009 at 3:54 am Link to this comment
Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bill-gives-attorney-general-power-to-designate-gun-owners-tax-protesters-as-terrorists.html
Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.
Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.
The bill is ostensibly aimed at preventing race “extremists” and gang members from joining the Army, but since the Army already hires felons, criminals, racists and gang members, the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists, a process that has been ongoing since at least the start of the decade.
The bill’s definition of “people associated or affiliated with hate groups” include, “Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or “Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.”
The evidence required to show that such an organization is affiliated with a violent hate group includes people possessing tattoos identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature, people who possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.”
The amendments introduced by Hastings were passed by the House and the bill now moves on to the Senate for approval before it is signed by the President.
Since the definition of an “extremist” has already been established by numerous federal documents over the last few years that list law-abiding citizens as domestic terrorists, Hastings’ amendments are simply an attempt to centralize the power to demonize such groups into the hands of the Obama administration.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 7, 2009 at 3:22 am Link to this comment
I am usually as supportive of the anti-sexist views as possible. But had Sarah Palin looked like Barbara Mikulski, and that been the ONLY difference, she never would have been picked to run for Vice-President. Period. The sexism was on John McCain’s part, a man who cheated on his wife for a year with his rich Barbie-doll clone before he married her. (To Cyndie McCain’s credit, she’s actually got both a brain and a heart—and uses them). I wouldn’t be surprised if Cyndie McCain felt threatened by Palin—until it became clear that McCain and his staff couldn’t stand her.
Sarah Palin used her looks for advancement that way Jim Bunning used his Perfect Game for advancement. Bunning is nearly as stupid and ignorant as Palin—and he’s got a 30 year head start on her! Bunning may have been a marvelous pitcher, but he’s been a dumb reactionary @$$hole since getting into politics. Palin is the same, using something TOTALLY irrelevant to get ahead.
Seems more common with Republicans: Ronald Reagan, Gopher, Sonny Bono, Jack Kemp, Bunning, Steve Largent, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzeneggar and now Al Leiter has talked about it, to name a few. On the Dems side I only know of Bill Bradley (also a Rhodes Scholar) and Heath Shuler, a former quarterback and now Congressman from NC. And now Al Franken, whose POLITICAL commentary over the last dozen years has been razor-sharp, and wickedly funny.
It seems much more a Republican trend to run with no obvious relevant skills, but a hook. And Sarah Palin had her hook. Conservative (Reactionary), nasty infighter, both publicly and behind the scenes, and both pretty AND sexy—far better looking that other harpy of the Right, Ann Coultergeist. It’s her hook like Sonny Bono’s “I Got You Babe” and Jack Kemp’s passing arm. Or Jim Bunning’s Perfect Game.
Report this