Sunday, October 26, 2008
The consequences of the sexist attacks on Sarah Palin
The director of an advocacy organization for women, Women's Watch, eloquently denounced the sexist attacks on Sarah Palin in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:
I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.
I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing....
The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.
Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.
The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."
"Stone her"? How biblical.
The sexism direct at Palin really has been appalling. Everybody has their own yardstick, but for me it is this: There is essentially no criticism aimed at Palin that does not apply in spades to John Edwards, yet we heard none of this garbage from the media or in popular culture in 2004. The differences between Palin and Edwards on such matters as relevant experience, attractiveness, vanity, fitness as a parent and spouse, character, an appealing personal narrative, charisma, and so forth are small and favor Palin where there is a difference, yet we heard none of these attacks four years ago. There are only two possible explanations for the disparate treatment, and they probably both apply. The first is the gender of the target -- it is easier for people who have a mental image of the president as a man to conclude that Edwards was "ready" to be president and Palin is not. The second reason is, as Glenn Reynolds observes, "when you campaign for The One all sins are forgiven in advance." I think it is very hard to find a third plausible explanation for the different treatment of Palin and Edwards.
Helen McCaffrey is right about this: In its zeal to elect Barack Obama, the Left and its fellow travelers in the popular culture have legitimized a certain kind of contempt for women, a belief that if you cannot visualize a woman in a job it is somehow acceptable to blackball her candidacy. The presidential election of 2008 has, indeed, been disastrous for the cause of women who would compete on the same field as men.
35 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Oct 26, 07:49:00 PM:
"There is essentially no criticism aimed at Palin that does not apply in spades to John Edwards"
In the zeal to lambast critics of Palin as petty and sexist, it seems like the more legitimate criticisms get ignored.
I imagine Edwards could name more than one Supreme Court case, (Hamdan v Rumsfeld? Marbury v Madison? Heller? Bush v Gore?) but Palin could only name one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRuBdW0yBUY
Or perhaps frequently read sources of media are more fair territory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y&NR=1
And let's not get onto her perspectives on science.
There can be reasons for intelligent people to oppose the Palin pick that are not straw men, as Chris Buckley alludes to.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sun Oct 26, 08:10:00 PM:
"I imagine Edwards could name more than one Supreme Court case, (Hamdan v Rumsfeld? Marbury v Madison? Heller? Bush v Gore?) but Palin could only name one."
First of all, you 'imagine' because no one ever asked Edwards that.
Secondly, he's a lawyer. He *has* to know things like that.
They picked a tangential topic that she likely would know little about, and threw it at her. It was a stunt, a setup.
For example. Why don't we quiz Edwards on the characteristics of firearms?
What, he doesn't know about US military weapons' calibers or what a stove-pipe jam or SPORTS is? What a fool. And he wanted to be commander in chief of the military.
Wait, what? A first hand or at least basic knowledge of military information is not a necessity for the office of the Presidency, even though it is totally enmeshed in military matters on a pretty much daily basis, and it never gets brought up?
Then what makes a memorized list of Supreme Court cases relevant? Don't you know that the Presidency does not have judicial powers? (excepting pardons, which are unqualified and have nothing to do with written law)
"Or perhaps frequently read sources of media are more fair territory."
I don't read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time, the Economist, or the Washington Post. The last periodical I read for non-recreational purposes was Foreign Affairs.
Somehow, I stay on top of world events.
Mystery, I know.
But of course, all of the other candidates may belong to the same crowd. But no one will ever know, because no one will ever bother to ask them the same question.
The entire point of the post was that Palin and Clinton have been treated unfairly by press and political pundits. Of all the people who ran for the presidency, these two were treated most unfairly. Who else got asked these kinds of irrelevant, 'gotcha' questions, or had gender-specific adjectives tossed casually around?
And what do they have in common? Certainly nothing political. And even nothing professional.
By SR, at
Sun Oct 26, 08:31:00 PM:
Democrats will stop at nothing in their quest for power. It is both despicable and frightening at the same time.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 08:46:00 PM:
Dawn - Bamm!
That was beautiful, thanks.
If I was a liberal I would have to insist that all women who run for public office get the Sarah Palin treatment for the sake of equality. Because I am a conservative I don't have to return the favor. I can continue to treat all women with respect, regardless of their race, creed color or political affiliation. That is why I am a conservative.
By Andrewdb, at
Sun Oct 26, 09:00:00 PM:
Given the information we know today, I have to say that John Edwards is less qualified as a spouse than Sarah Palin.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 10:01:00 PM:
There's a third reason: social class. (And in fact I think although the sexism is being used as a weapon, class rage is what's driving it.) (Please note: social, not economic class. I'm not talking about money here, I'm talking about culture.)
John Edwards is upper-middle class. He's a lawyer. He talks and thinks like an upper-middle-class man. People of that class are comfortable with him.
Sarah Palin and her family are working class. Their priorities, attitudes, tastes, recreations, aspirations are working-class. From the point of view of provincial upper-middle-class people, she is presuming above her station in running for office. And she doesn't even seem to realize it! Thus the outrage; thus the actual hatred which seems to have no basis or rational cause.
The sputters of "...this...this...BEAUTY QUEEN who dares hold herself out as fit for the vice-presidency!" say much. Beauty contests are just *so* declasse. She may be a sitting governor, but what really counts is that contest she was in twenty-odd years ago, because it gives her class status away.
Not coincidentally, pundits and journalists are generally upper-middle class.
Not coincidentally, that remark also applies to Republican and conservative pundits. Look at the nature and kind of the criticism directed at Palin from these quarters recently. It's not her politics they object to, it's her polish. No Ivy degrees. Not a lawyer. FIVE children??? Et cetera.
Not coincidentally, Obama, wildly popular with this group, is also a man of the upper-middle class. The clothes, the personal style, the carefully-selected bowl of organic fruit... they understand Obama and are comfortable with him. With Palin... not so much.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Oct 26, 10:05:00 PM:
Since McCain seems to have stolen my original idea for a Government thesis, (League of Democracies... I should have written that down years ago and claimed credit!) I've had to develop a new contingency thesis. Ideas much like jaed's suggestion here will be incorporated.
By Punditarian, at
Sun Oct 26, 10:11:00 PM:
jaed,
I think you are right on target about the class warfare apparent in the attacks on Governor Palin.
It is an old irony that the same leftists who proclaim themselves the advocates, defenders, protectors, and even the vanguard of the working class actually despise working men and women.
Historically, most communist leaders, like the Obamessiah and his homeboy Bill Ayers, actually come from upper class or upper middle class backgrounds, rather than working class backgrounds.
The idea that these elitists would have to put up with an actual working class person in high office disgusts and frightens them.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 10:24:00 PM:
A further corollary is that people who aspire to that social station that is occupied by people such as Barack Obama, Chris Buckley, John Edwards, etc., will identify with the idea but not as subtley as their "bettors", hence the green vulgar T-shirt that was displayed in the class mentioned.
And since the the ramparts of the Academy have long since been taken over by the Progressives and vanguards of the Revolution, I am amused their could be no discipline invoked at the boy-child's vulgarity. Isn't this the eschaton that the progressive feminists wanted all along?
-David
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Oct 26, 10:53:00 PM:
While I totally agree that class snootiness is a big part of the reason people dislike Palin, I strenuously disagree that John Edwards is from any different class than Sarah Palin. To think that completely misses the huge class distinctions within the legal profession. The guy is a tort lawyer, for chrissakes. His father was a "meal" worker. His formal name is "Johnny Reid Edwards" and he assumed "John" as a nickname, presumably because it is classier. Unlike (for example) Barack Obama, Edwards does not talk like any "upper class" person that I know. There is nothing about John Edwards social class that distinguishes him from Sarah Palin, except that he was laundered through a few years in the Senate, which apparently counts for more than being the governor of a small state.
I'm sticking with my original thesis: The primary explanations for the different treatment of Sarah Palin and John Edwards are gender and political affiliation. Sure, you can always point to other reasons, but I submit they pale by comparison.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 10:53:00 PM:
Some posters have stated that Governor Palin is of working-class background. Her father was a high school science teacher, and her mother was a secretary at the school, so while she may not have been of upper-middle class background, she was definitely of the middle class, perhaps lower middle class. Her husband, while earning more than many professionals, has only a high school education, and could be labeled working class.
Governor Palin was also a National Honor Society member in high school, so she is not a doofus, contrary to the claims of the Democrats.
Yes, her treatment at the hands of the press has been shameful.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 11:04:00 PM:
Let's see, why might feminists not be fans of Palin?
Let's see... charging residents in Wasilla for rape kits and her general apathy for rape victims, her lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the fact that she's against emergency contraception, her history of cutting funding for young, low-income mothers... I could go on.
But that's unimportant stuff to women voters, isn't it?
As for her being a victim of "class war", that's not quite it. She's a victim of "competency war". She's blitheringly incompetent. Liberals, independents and many Republicans now agree that we want someone smart, informed, well-educated and intellectually curious for the leader of the free world. "Down home roots" alone doesn't cut it anymore.
Bill Clinton had as much in the way of "down home roots" as Palin, but he was also smart, informed, well-educated and intellectually curious.
That didn't seem to keep the right-wing from doing all they could to destroy his presidency, did it?
The simple truth is, it doesn't matter to you guys. All that matters is embracing the Limbaugh vision of the world. Whatever the background of the individual in question, you'll end up defending it regardless. Dubya was the "Yale MBA President", remember? A hoity-toity college education was just fine with you back then.
Hypocrites.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Oct 26, 11:30:00 PM:
Well, Joe Max, I for one have no problem with a hoity-toity education, even if it comes from Yale. Have one myself. And I am no fan of the anti-intellectualism that has become so popular among Republicans. My point is the opposite: Why did John Edwards get a pass?
As for the other stuff, you sort of damn your own case with your factual errors. The "rape kit" smear has been entirely discredited. What evidence is there for her "general apathy" for rape victims? Bill Clinton has a history of cutting funding for low-income mothers... I could go on.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 11:32:00 PM:
Yes the sexist attacks are an attempt to hide the fact that she is a successful Governor and has a better record and more accomplished record than Obama.
Joe Biden made the biggest GAFFE in Debate History when he misquoted Article 1 as it applies to the Vice President.
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 11:35:00 PM:
Sarah Palin is a self made woman unlike Hillary who road into elected office on the shadow of her husband. Without Bill would anyone really know who Hillary Rodham is? Todd Palin would become Mr Mom if Palin wins. This is as feminist as it gets.
Yes you can be PRO WOMAN and PRO UNBORN CHILD at the Same Time.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Oct 26, 11:52:00 PM:
"A hoity-toity college education was just fine with you back then."
And it still is.
Jesus, you're like the sixth idiot in a week to come along and try to *tell* us how much we HATE education.
1) Who the hell are you to tell me (or anyone like me) what I think?
2) You like to say Republicans hate education because it reinforces your little internal caricature of them that they're flyover state dwelling morons, when in actuality they hate pretentiousness and elitist attitudes. It's not that freaking hard to understand the difference.
"That didn't seem to keep the right-wing from doing all they could to destroy his presidency, did it?"
Oh, you mean after he committed perjury, a felony, while in office? What a tragedy, that the vast, right wing conspiracy felt it correct to try to remove from our highest office a man who lied under oath while holding that office.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Oct 26, 11:53:00 PM:
Did you see what I did there? In 2), I deigned to tell you what you think and why.
Isn't that annoying?
By , at
Sun Oct 26, 11:54:00 PM:
I think Joe Max goes too far, but the same theme can be encapsulated in my generalized rebuttal to Dawn et al.
It seems that there are two basic questions to Palin's media exposure: were the questions easy, and were the questions relevant. Clearly "what color is American money" isn't going to be a showstopper, but the candidate should know the answer regardless of its relevance if the question is easy. Similarly, someone running as VP should know the relevant issues so long as the expectations are not arcane or unfair. In light of this, a "yes" to either issue is sufficient to provoke disagreement to Palin's candidacy, (especially when she is running with a 72 year old cancer survivor,) but I happen to think that the questions were both easy AND relevant.
Examine some of the issues discussed in the Couric interview. "Where do you get your news? What do you read? What do you think about any decisions by the Supreme Court? What do you think about foreign policy? Who were some influential thinkers for you?" Amongst the people I talk to, these are all softball questions. If you read ANY news, name it, and if you don't then just say you're a working mom that has to catch-as-catch-can and name ANYTHING. Similarly for the Supreme Court; I listed the ones above because they were the cases I could rattle off without even thinking due to their recent media exposure, (except for Marbury, which I just like.) Influential foreign policy figures? Say "John McCain." That's it. There are a plethora of other answers that would also work, almost as many as there are people to answer them; but Palin couldn't handle the really easy stuff, which undermines her credibility as a qualified candidate.
On the relevance issue, consider the theme that these things were all driving at: who are you, what is your governing perspective, what is your stance as a potential serious US governmental figure. All of these issues don't get raised with other candidates because they take every opportunity to make these ideas known, and for good reason: they form the scaffold for how a candidate would operate. Palin hadn't until recently, so she did get asked, and she couldn't answer to satisfaction issues of what her perspective is, where it comes from, and how it relates to other prominent issues in the national governmental consciousness. The VP isn't at all directly involved with the judiciary, but Supreme Court cases are interesting not just for their awesome adjective. SC cases address fundamental issues of how the US government should operate and how law continues to evolve, both things that many think a VP candidate should have SOME stance on give the role in, you know, execution. I daresay that this is more relevant to the VP position than the knowledge of firearms, because legal/philosophical/Constitutional questions seem to come up fairly frequently (as in the current administration,) but few White House officials tell the Secret Service "back down, I've got this."
Mishandling the easy or relevant is grave cause for concern in the minds of people I talk to, (admittedly white, educated, and professional,) but a more general and nebulous issue also looms. When observing Palin's interviews, a frighteningly large number of my acquaintances ask themselves "could I do a better job than this woman?" and respond in the affirmative. Personally, I don't want a representative member of society to represent me, I want someone smarter, more knowledgeable, more moral, etc. When I watch Sarah Palin imply that urban dwellers are not "real Americans," (whatever that means,) or muddle her way through a policy discussion, she seems so disjoint from the idea of someone I would want acting on my behalf that I could not deign to vote for her ticket; it seems foreign, uninformed, and vaguely hostile toward people like me.
Certainly, there are many other reasons that people use to tear down Palin as a valid candidate, but I have only seem a number of followers proportional to the reasonableness of the objection; few people go so far as to say "because she is a woman/working class/Republican." It's not the pedigree that matters, as demonstrated by the same people touting an Obama presidency, but the idea(l)s that are held up for the masses to judge. Watching Sarah Palin give a stump speech or an interview, her ideals come off as "hating intellectuals, city citizens and information," and that is something I cannot stretch to support.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 12:02:00 AM:
Also, Dawnfire: "Who else got asked these kinds of irrelevant, 'gotcha' questions, or had gender-specific adjectives tossed casually around?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMdL4sod_Co&feature=related
Ooops.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 12:21:00 AM:
Honestly, I'd leave the actual merits of a Palin candidacy to the side.
To many people like me (I don't claim to speak for people unlike me -- so hold that thought!) it seemed that the selection of Sarah Palin was a crass political stunt meant to woo disaffected would-have-been Hillary voters.
I think women, in particular, responded with offense to this perceived suggestion that they were a monolithic voting class -- and one with only the most superficial ability or interest in discerning among candidates. (That first Colbert Report bit about the "V--- Americans" pretty much summed this up.)
So, yes, the gender issue has been in the fore for Sarah Palin from the word "go." And, personally, I think that's incredibly unfortunate for all potential future women candidates to high office.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 12:30:00 AM:
Stick to facts, ObamaThugs - just because you heard something in a blog or a rumor or (Yes! it's true! the mainstream media) does NOT make it true:
[Let's see... charging residents in Wasilla for rape kits and her general apathy for rape victims, her lack of support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the fact that she's against emergency contraception, her history of cutting funding for young, low-income mothers... I could go on.] Boludo - you are wrong on all counts. Gov Palin MOST DEFINTELY NEVER made anyone pay for a rape kit (but you know this, the MSM knows it, it's been thoroughly debunked, yet...the ObamaFraudsters jusy can't help propogating the lie. She has supported contraception, in emergencies, and in education curriculum. She INCREASED funding for social programs to supprot young unwed mothers. Why didn't you add the lie about cutting Speced funding? She doubled funding for that in ALaska schools. Gov Palin has run a state wth a 15billion dollar budget - at a profit!!! And, she returned the profits to the citizens of the state! While your ObamaFraud tanked a 150million dollar educaiton funding program that achieved no discenable gains and - in the areas of math and scence - collosal losses! Yeah, that's a guy I want running my country. His state has the HIGHEST violent criminal rate, and the 7th HIGHEST unemployment rate. He has ZERO experience with foreign policy and - in 3 scenarios which developed during his campaign - he got every single one wrong!! Gov Palin is running for VP with one of the most accomplished leaders the country has seen. She has led successfully, she has managed a staff of 12000 people, successfully, she has run a State successfully - SHE IS THE MOST POPULAR GOVERNOR IN THE COUNTRY!!! 80% approval rating... and your Congress? Hovering around 11%. So, can the manure about her intellect, her experience, her ability to do the job. On all counts, she outmans your BO... well, as long as we stick to truth. Throw around some ObamaFraud lies and the race tightens, slightly (we're not allowed to address all those scary things in his dossier that wouldn't let him run a dog pund: Rashid Khalidi, Mike Klonsky, Bernie Dohrn, AyersDuh, Frank Davis...hmm)
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 12:41:00 AM:
I felt the same way about the Hillary candidacy; a lot of people expected me to vote or her, because she's a woman. But I disagree with her politics, so the woman thing was not even a factor. Likewise, if you are a rabidly liberal radical feminist, I would agree that you cannot vote for Gov Palin (although her conservative authenticity has NEVER been reflected in any social policy she has enactied for her state. (However, if you are a moderate liberal feminist, it is easy to see that the McCain Palin ticket does far more for women than an Obama ticket. Even today, McCain has more female senior staffers and the women's pay betters the men. BO - on the other hand and true to form - has much fewer women in the upper ranks of his team and their pay is much less than the average men's. BO talks the talk about equal pay, but cannot walk the walk. McCain hires a woman to share the ticket with him and doesn't make her check her thoughts at the door....just saying) Now, the Obama campaign is - of course working the same drill. They expect everyone to vote for him - because he is black (he is obviously unqualified and has zero authentic experience to run on. He acknowledged this hinself when asked if he would run back in 2006. He lied (of course) and said "No, it would be wrong as I have not enough experience to even consider doing the job. Well!) This is blatant racism. But, he goes one better: now, if you DON't vote fro him, you are racist! Incredible how that logic works for him.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon Oct 27, 01:20:00 AM:
"Whatever the background of the individual in question, you'll end up defending it regardless."
Took the words right out of my mouth - Wright, Ayers, Khalidi etc.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon Oct 27, 01:26:00 AM:
"It seems that there are two basic questions to Palin's media exposure: were the questions easy, and were the questions relevant."
A third question: Has Obama ever been exposed to the same harsh scrutiny by a fawning MSM that takes its children to Obama rallies?
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 01:41:00 AM:
Compare apples to apples - John Edwards is not a female, but Hillary Clinton is. It is rather disingenuous to make the comparison of Edward's treatment to Palin, albeit, I do recall the brouhaha with his $400 hair cut and his huge energy sucking mansion plus the aerial picture counting the number of SUV's parked in the lot and driveway. None of these minor life style preference has anything to do with his ability to govern.
Hillary suffered many sexist bashing from her laugher to her pant suits, even rumors about her being a lesbian. Come on guys, are your memories so short? The media does not discriminate Republicans v.s. Democrates, they are equal opportunist when it comes to colorful headlines that will sell as eye ball velcros.
You can debate till the cows come home with classism and elite preference by the press, it doesn't take away the fact that Sarah Palin is lacking in higher level intellectual thought process. To add on top, her propensity to use her position for personal purpose - troopergate. TH, you are an honest to goodness man, would you ever use your position for personal advantage? I think not. Yet you will give that leeway to Sarah Palin? I hope not.
For the rest of the ignoramous chauvenists, to debate the issue on providing a rape kit as a major issue for the victim is absolutely horrifying. When a person gets raped, the trauma is not the physical possibility of pregnancy but the sense of loss in the trust of humanity. The victim goes through tremendous post traumatic depression, suicidal tendency and years of nightmares. The road to recovery is not through a five and dime rape kit, but a long term therapy with years of relapse and triggers. Provide free long term counseling will be much more supportive than a laughable rape kit!
Get real guys!
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 02:08:00 AM:
Gender is part of it Tigerhawk, but it's probably hard for you and most men to really understand.
Women are driven by status, power, and fashion, things Palin does not have.
The attacks on her: "state" school of Univ. of Idaho instead of Harvard or Yale where rich/cool/connected people go, her "too many kids" particularly Downs syndrome baby, and her blue-collar husband who is supportive instead of a cheating, but master of the Universe type like Bill Clinton or David Patterson or Eliot Spitzer or Gavin Newsome or Tony Villaraigosa, all make many women HATE Palin.
You see it's not about politics, so much as Gender Politics. Feminism is all about having the "correct" husband, school, number of children, etc. Plus clothes, wealth, fashion, and "correct" opinions.
Women hated Palin from the beginning because she was "trash" i.e. she did not come from the Upper Class WASP elite that is "supposed" to run things, or various pet exotic Affirmative Action figures like Obama who are trotted out to show how enlightened and "with it" the WASP Upper Class really is.
Look at "Gossip Girl" -- every young woman in America watches that show, and the values and the lives of the rich spoiled brats that inhabit it are what drives Feminism.
Well, yes, women who fail to come from the "correct" WASP background will get the full Palin treatment. So what, they've reaped what they've sown. They can't call back the bullet.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 02:29:00 AM:
Gael @ 12:30:00 AM :
Boludo - you are wrong on all counts.
You are confusing me with Joe Max. The name of the poster here comes here AFTER the posting. I repeat the final sentence of my posting:
“ Yes, her treatment at the hands of the press has been shameful.”
Have you a problem with that statement?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Oct 27, 06:56:00 AM:
Women hated Palin from the beginning because she was "trash" i.e. she did not come from the Upper Class WASP elite that is "supposed" to run things, or various pet exotic Affirmative Action figures like Obama who are trotted out to show how enlightened and "with it" the WASP Upper Class really is.
I'm as WASPy as it gets, and I really do not think that WASPiness has anything to do with it. Hillary Rodham is hardly from the WASP elite -- she is a random suburbanite from Park Ridge, Illinois who made a lot out of her life. Michelle Obama is not the WASP elite either. Obviously. And she has not been subject to any of this. Both Hillary and Michelle do, however, both belong to the meritocratic elite, which in certain circles depends heavily on the schools one attends. That fact has protected Michelle (who is not actually running for office, we must remember), but not Hillary.
I think the class issues describe why a certain class of women hate Palin, but the broader attacks have much more to do with gender. Indeed, the "rape kit" smear itself has to do with that. I suspect nobody would have come up with that issue, or it would not have gotten traction, if Palin were a man.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 08:00:00 AM:
What is missing here is the near unanimous feeling that our federal government is all screwed up. We all keep saying it needs to be changed. But here we go again with electing the incumbents into the Legislative Branch, empowering them more with a higher majority and an executive that will further empower them. Insane! Sarah Palin is the quintessential Washington outsider and represents what this country really stands for and has made 8us great. She deserves none of the crap she has been dealt by the elitist but deserves the vote of every woman and man in this country.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Oct 27, 08:43:00 AM:
"Also, Dawnfire: "Who else got asked these kinds of irrelevant, 'gotcha' questions, or had gender-specific adjectives tossed casually around?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMdL4sod_Co&feature=related
Ooops."
There's no oops there. He's a fucking constitutional lawyer! Asking him about the Supreme Court is *softball.*
"many think a VP candidate should have SOME stance on give the role in, you know, execution. I daresay that this is more relevant to the VP position than the knowledge of firearms, because legal/philosophical/Constitutional questions seem to come up fairly frequently (as in the current administration,) but few White House officials tell the Secret Service "back down, I've got this."
Neither will they take the place of a Supreme Court Justice and make the ruling themselves. And you've deliberately twisted my point about familiarity with military matters into having some sort of pseudo-Rambo persona. This is a limp argument, and dishonest.
"a frighteningly large number of my acquaintances ask themselves "could I do a better job than this woman?" and respond in the affirmative."
Amazingly, I say the same thing about Obama.
If you can't bring yourself to support her because of her politics, fine. Such is the nature of our system. You can vote for whomever you please.
But the initial post was about receiving fair treatment on the basis of being female.
Her fitness as a mother was questioned on headline news channels, repeatedly, for weeks. But who ever asked about the fitness of serial philanderer Bill Clinton to raise a daughter?
Trig Trutherism actually got wings and fluttered around the national media for like a week. Who ever questioned the paternity of Obama's children?
The 'paying for Wasilla rape kits,' and 'library censoring' lies have been getting repeated and spread by Obama cultists since August, even though they've each been factually dis-proven.
Her poor treatment at the hands of media is indisputable. All that remains is to determine the motivation.
'She needs to be vetted!' doesn't wash. Spreading unsubstantiated rumors and fishing for embarrassing sound bites is not vetting; it's character assassination. And even if you accept this kind of thing as 'vetting,' then you still have to explain why Obama never received this kind of treatment. Why wasn't he 'vetted?' After all, he's after the top job. Palin is only VP candidate, a position which is almost entirely ceremonial.
Really, it's probably because she's a Republican woman from a lower class background. Her very existence and serious consideration either sort of blows up the Democratic caricature of the Republicans as the rich white man's party, (which hasn't been true for decades) or 'proves' her as a traitor.
Actually, the more I think about it the more that makes sense. It's one thing to have an enemy. You can respect an enemy. But no one respects a traitor except other traitors.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 09:31:00 AM:
TigerHawk wrote: And I am no fan of the anti-intellectualism that has become so popular among Republicans.
Excellent post, and I agree with you that gender and party affiliation are better explanations for the treatment Palin has received that class.
I keep hearing about this rampant anti-intellectualism among conservatives, but I just don't see it. Conservatives are not anti-intellectual, they are anti- "intellegentsia" (leftist academia and upper-crust, boutique "progressivism").
At the risk of oversimplying (and in the interests of brevity), conservatives tend to have a soft spot for the following types of "intellectuals": intellecturally curious, self-educated, indpendent-minded tradespeople who believe in old-fashioned notions of liberty, individual responsibility, etc. (Joe the plumber); entrepreneurs, small businesses owners (as opposed to rent seekers); engineers, builders, career military - people who have advanced training but have not been indoctrinated in the neo-socialism of a college liberal arts degree (which I happen to have myself).
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 01:53:00 PM:
My initial comment was late at night, and I'm not sure the "point" made it out of my head:
If the selection of Sarah Palin was in some significant way influenced by her gender, are we really suprised that gender is informing the debate about her?
Or: "Who started it?"
You could say that the Republicans did women a favor by elevating "a woman" to this position (as some have).
Or not.
By , at
Mon Oct 27, 08:05:00 PM:
@ Dawnfire: I agree that there have been instances of sexist treatment toward or perspectives on Sarah Palin, and have made note of such. What I object to is the idea that every instance of criticizing her is rooted in sexism/classism/partisanship; the idea that no one else gets asked those questions, or that she is no different from Edwards (and thus should be treated no differently.) I have quoted you AND TH in these respects, with video evidence that the same questions have been posed to at least one other candidate and a justification for why so few others get asked. Further, I have tried to make the case that the burden placed on her, a slightly more elaborate version of "tell us about yourself" as it relates to government, was hardly onerous; I am willing to bet that you and most people you know have opinions on two or more Supreme Court cases, Roe and Heller being obvious guesses. Also, so what if the same questions were easy for Biden or Edwards; if those issues are relevant, then that would make him MORE QUALIFIED in that respect, which I think is insufficient justification for throwing the questions out. How could questions of governmental philosophy, news and opinion, and the highlights of recent law NOT be relevant given a White House that has repeatedly been subjected to questions of legality and constitutionality? (Dick Cheney's "I am a member of two sets and thus a member of neither" is a personal favorite.)
"What newspapers and magazines do you read?" C'mon, I gave the competent cop-out answer without a moment's thought above. Further, this is fundamentally different from your firearms example, because we both concede that the President doesn't need that knowledge for the job. It is for these reasons that people are sometimes dismissive and disrespectful to the notion of a Palin candidacy beside a 72 year old cancer survivor: she failed to handle some profoundly easy stuff.
@TH: I think that for most people, partisanship has less to do with disrespecting and disapproving of Palin than policy does. She went so far as to scoff at fruit fly research, which most biologists hold up as an invaluable source of scientific innovation (as with regard to things like MS.) As much as some of my friends (and myself) will assail and assault Justice Scalia's arguments, he still earns respect by making said arguments strong, sound, and well-founded. In my view, Palin is treated less respectfully than Scalia or even McCain because the former two at least try to bridge the gap between their position and the viewer's/reader's, while the latter stokes sympathies that intellectuals and non-rurals are somehow "anti-American." Whatever other issues arise, I think these are the thousand-pound gorillas that cannot be ignored in driving opinion. Everything else seems paltry, and I can't imagine this many people are so prejudiced: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402698.html?hpid=topnews
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Oct 28, 12:43:00 AM:
"She went so far as to scoff at fruit fly research"
This is the next litmus test for national candidates - what is your position on fruit-fly research?
By , at
Fri Oct 31, 01:25:00 PM:
I think women, in particular, responded with offense to this perceived suggestion that they were a monolithic voting class -- and one with only the most superficial ability or interest in discerning among candidates.
This is totally hilarious. Liberals think and act as if women are a monolithic voting class: a liberal one. I can't count the number of articles I read, even those purporting to be "news" and not "political commentary", in which the author assumes every female reader is just as liberal as they are.
The poster above said that removing programs for low-income women is bad for women. The implication is that women are naturally socialists and that it is in accord with their values and interests to take from others by force to benefit themselves. Many women would disagree with that, but it is an article of faith among the left that womena are rather monolithically in support of it.
