Visit: Author's Website
It's a dirty, ugly name, but sometimes it needs to be invoked to reflect the audacity of realtime behavior. It is the only word that can truly describe the media's treatment of Governor Sarah Palin, when compared to the treatment of her male colleagues. The word, of course, is sexism.
What other term could truly and as accurately describe the non-stop obsession with Palin's clothing, hair and makeup, and stunning silence on her actual record of political achievements? The silence is deafening. What other term could describe how politicos and writers, on both sides, are getting away with spewing the most vile, deceitful bile about Palin's personal life, and keeping practically mum on the personal lives of her male colleagues?
It's sexism, baby.
It didn't start on August 29, the date on which Senator John McCain publicly unveiled Palin to the world as his selected running mate. No, it began with a woman named Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton dared to dream a little loftier and to reach a little higher than any woman has ever reached in this country. Clinton broke stereotypes and energized both men and women, united behind her pragmatism and many years in the public eye. Clinton ultimately was not successful in her bid for the Presidency (yet), but did pave the way for future women who can now dare a little more. Clinton was ridiculed and criticized by many, including many in the "mainstream" media, who were in the tank for freshman Senator Barack Obama, and those on the far right, who well remember her days in the White House, as half of what was once described as a "Co-Presidency." Mocked in variety shows such as "Saturday Night Live" and heavily criticized by her former adviser, Dick Morris, Clinton had to have tough skin just to weather a typical media cycle.
Was it sexism then? The line was more blurred, as Clinton was more a part of the establishment, than just some upstart crow of a woman. But let's be fair - she was not treated fairly.
And neither is Sarah Palin. Mocked weekly on a desperate "Saturday Night Live," Palin has been in the papers and on the television much more for her choice of fashion, rather than choice of policy.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines sexism as "Prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: towards women... behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex." The familiar stereotype of the dumb beauty comes to mind. Or of the pro-life female, who is ridiculed as a simpleton hillbilly. Sound familiar? Congratulations - you've been introduced to Sarah Palin by the most biased news anchors and writers in recent history.
What else explains how publications like the New York Times are fine with turning a blind eye to Senator Barack Obama's astonishing lack of experience and troubling former drug habit, while brushing off Governor Palin's accomplishments as one of only 50 people in the United States to currently be the top official within a state? What else explains why people like Peggy Noonan are getting away with dismissing Palin as some inexperienced simpleton, while all Senator Obama needs is "judgment"? Why was one of the presidential candidates, Senator Obama, allowed to insinuate that Palin is a pig, without having to make an apology, while any criticism of Obama is immediately labeled as racism? Why is Palin mocked for her clothing and makeup, while no one gives a second thought to the clothes worn by Senators McCain and Obama? Even the liberal Salon.com recognizes the disgusting and rampant sexism clawing to the surface, as they had to title a how-to piece on criticizing Palin, as "Liberal's Guide to Guilt-Free Criticism of Sarah Palin." When someone feels guilty, they are aware of it on some level, and may seek to overcompensate. Salon.com's writers are obviously aware of such festering sexism, since they had to reassure themselves that in fact, it's not sexist to criticize this woman... While utterly ignoring the fact that her executive experience far outweighs that of Obama, who quizzically enough, is more often compared as her opponent, than Joe Biden.
Ah, Senator Biden. It's bizarre that Obama would select Biden, a gaffe-machine of a man who once had to drop out of a Presidential run after it was discovered that he plagiarized from a British politician's biography. Since there truly is no comparison in judgment between Biden and Palin (the latter wins, hands down), you may have noticed how little the media reports on Biden these days. Palin is painted as an inexperienced former beauty queen, and Biden as the expert foreign policy analyst. Think again. In his 30+ years in the Senate, Biden has shown poor judgment time and again, complemented by his numerous failed Presidential campaigns. Biden was wrong about the War Powers Act, and has been wrong in his continued confusion over delicate foreign matters and his rocky history with Israel, starting with his screaming threats to former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, and his continued refusal to sign any letters of goodwill to that country. Biden can't go for 5 minutes without making up something extraordinary, and doesn't have the good sense to lead in any form of crisis. The only reason the man has been able to stay in Washington is because every time he has helped to create a crisis, he quickly runs behind others, and points fingers as fast as he can.
The New York Times can endorse the Obama/Biden ticket as much as they like - an endorsement from the Gray Lady is as good as nothing anyway. The only too-transparent reasoning, however, is sickening. According to the Times, Obama was endorsed because Palin is not ready to lead. Palin is not running for President, McCain is. By using Palin as a scapegoat and breathlessly attempting to sink the McCain/Palin ticket by innately attacking her "inexperience" (aka gender), the Times has sunk to its lowest - and it's been low man on the totem pole for a long time. Palin is not weak - but the Times is pandering to the lowest most vile stereotype, of the woman as a figure of naivete, innocence and weakness.
Feminism nowadays is a word with serious baggage. It often connotes militarism, even hostility in some quarters. A brilliant physician and mother of three, who taught one of my courses, once explained that the basic definition of feminism, however, is the idea that women and men should be treated equally. Not a bad idea, unless you're a desperate journalist and the only negative thing you can point to about your opponent is her sex, using outdated and crude stereotypes.
No one, with a clear conscience, can honestly say that the women in this election cycle have been treated fairly. Sexism has never looked so ugly.
|
The idea of poor Sarah suffering under sexist attacks coming from the mouth of a Republican is a study in hypocrisy of the worst kind.