Sexism and Sarah Palin

[Plaid Adder]

I finally figured out today one--only one!--of the reasons that the whole Palin thing makes me so angry.

Sexism takes many forms. But one of the most persistent is the tendency to evaluate women based on their faces, their clothes, and their bodies rather than on anything that lies beneath. All women in political life have to deal with this to some extent--witness the amount of ink and pixels expended on discussing Nancy Pelosi's outfits and Hillary Clinton's pantsuits. Indeed, I would argue that all working women run into it sooner or later. A woman willing and able to make herself attractive to the men on the upper rungs of whatever ladder she's trying to climb will have advantages that other women don't, regardless of her ability, experience, intelligence, or integrity.

My point is this: when a qualified woman is passed over for a job in favor of another woman who is less qualified but more attractive to the men doing the hiring, that is sexism. And that is undeniably what happened with McCain's VP pick. If he wanted a woman for the ticket, there are easily a dozen women in the Republican party who would be much more capable of doing that job than Palin is. They were all passed over for Palin, because even though she's a pit bull, she apparently looks pretty good once you put a little lipstick on her.

OK. That's like, 1/1000th part of what's pissing me off about watching Republicans cry sexism over this. I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

The Plaid Adder

[apnu]

1. Hi Plaid Adder! Good to see you!

:hi:

[EFerrari]

2. Oh, no sh!t. And they have her in WI today licking ice cream cones.

The Theatre of the Absurd and the Repugnant lives.

[livetohike]

3. Bingo! Thank you so much for saying this. It's what I have

been thinking for the past week.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I've said this over and over--she's a pretty face to keep the male

GOP and Indies over on their side. Look at RW blogs, they are sporting wood over her, and it has nothing to do with her, um, qualifications. It is the ultimate sexist move on the GOP's part--underqualified, pretty, and then combine that with the fact that she's just got too damn much on her plate motherhood-wise, they know she absolutely strains the feminist case for someone in her position, but the Dems and media can't say anything without having sexism charges leveled. She is a weapon for them, no doubt, same as McPOW uses his POWness as a weapon.

[Tansy_Gold]

5. Not just "motherhood-wise" but "familyhood-wise."

I will leave it to those with real experience to either confirm or deny my supposition here, but it seems to me that having a special needs child requires the commitment of more than the mother. We can pick on Sarah Pain all we like for shirking the obligations of "motherhood" and we'd probably be correct. But from a feminist perspective, I would see the commitment as involving the entire family.

In other words, has Todd Pain stepped up to the plate and said he is willing to take on the role of mother and father while Sarah goes off politicking? This is what we would EXPECT of a spouse who is the traditional wife and mother, and that would allow us NOT to ask the question of the candidate. We don't ask why Barack Obama is leaving his children alone while he campaigns, because we know the girls are looked after by their mother.

If Todd Pain were operating in his wife's stead as helpmeet and nurturer, the argument would be defused immediately. But he hasn't. Instead we've seen the other children stepping in as surrogates. Do we even have any idea what Todd is doing these days? Is he sitting in on policy discussions while Sarah has tea with Laura and Cindy?

The point is that in one way or another, both of the Pain parents have relinquished legitimate claims to that title. Todd has become little more than a sperm donor, and Sarah just gestates the spawn and pops them out for others to raise.

There are ways to address these "issues" without falling into a sexist trap, because the questions themselves are not sexist.

Tansy Gold, who really does believe it's all in the framing

[TwilightGardener]

6. I agree with you that it's a "parent" question more than a mother question--

but IMO, they haven't proven an ability to be solid, attentive parents who put their kids' needs ahead of their own.

[Tansy_Gold]

8. No, of course they haven't, and that's my point.

The problem is that we -- meaning DU and the bloggers and all the rest of the non-official surrogates -- are focusing on Sarah's parenting skills and/or lack thereof and it opens us to the charge of sexism. We don't have any way rebut it if we ONLY criticize her, especially if we criticize her as a "mother" specifically.

PlaidAdder's comment is spot on. When a qualified, experienced, skilled, knowledgeable woman is passed over for someone whose sole or even primary qualification is physical attractiveness (or political expediency), then sexism is at the root. We have to be able to distance ourselves from charges of sexism while at the same time continue to level the very valid criticisms.

For instance, Jon Stewart's montage of Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly and others on 180-degree cultural issue flip flops provides PRECISELY the non-sexist criticism I'm talking about. By framing attacks in a way that allows NO countercharge of sexism, that weapon is neutralized. O'Reilly called Jamie Lyn Spears' parents "pin-heads" because she got pregnant at 16. Bristol Pain could easily be said to be the child of pin-head parents, too. NOT JUST her mother.



Tansy Gold

[NatBurner]

7. nicely put

I'll be borrowing this POV for future arguments!

thx!