I’ve made the joke several times lately that Sarah Palin kills feminism. That my most stridently feminist friends (and myself) find ourselves yelling words we wouldn’t normally allow anyone to call a woman at the TV, and that we find ourselves making the arguments against her that we would hesitate to make against another woman.
I was an Obama supporter, so I’ve been making arguments against a female candidate for a while now, and I will go to my grave defending the notion that that doesn’t make me a bad feminist. But my arguments against Hillary Clinton (and my serious arguments against Sarah Palin) were policy-based. I don’t want a warmongering president. I would like to maintain my rights to my reproductive system. Etc.
But the major arguments repeated over and over again about Sarah Palin are still the same old sexist arguments writ larger. She’s incompetent. She spent too much money on clothes. She’s nothing but a pretty face. She’s bitchy. She’s incapable of making difficult decisions. Her family is used as a prop.
We may argue–but Sarah Palin IS incompetent. $150,000 IS a ridiculous amount of money to spend on clothing, especially when you’re trying to pretend you’re Joe Six-Pack Hockey Mom.
But the fact remains that we’re still making the same old arguments that have always been used against us. Inexperience, “not ready,” it was pointed out in the primaries, have always been lines used against “minority” candidates, whether that’s women or black candidates. And focus on the woman’s clothes? Yeah, we know how that works.
The coverage of the clothing scandal has been amusing–I’ve been saving bits and pieces of it on my Tumblr for later reference–but what’s been rarely pointed out is that it appears to have been a man who did the shopping for Palin. What does that say for our gender perceptions? Something different, I’d bet, but instead the frame in the news is of the hockey mom going on a shopping binge with the RNC’s credit card. It fits the stereotype of women, right? Look at what they’ll do when they get their hands on the cash. What will they do when they get their hands on the budget?
(sorry, this is just kind of me vomiting my thoughts onto the page while I’m reading)
The selection of a woman who so gloriously fits into all the usual frames for a female candidate (when so many others didn’t but were forced into them anyway) by the McCain campaign can tell us something hugely important about them: this is how they see women. They’ve bought, full stop, into the media perception of female candidates. In a year where we saw a woman candidate who was very few of these things, the McCain people still thought woman equaled pretty and family-friendly, and that competence was impossible to come by.
Perhaps they realized that any woman was going to have to face a tougher battle to prove competence and so figured it didn’t matter that Sarah Palin couldn’t hack an hour-long TV interview.
But will Palin’s reinforcement of pretty much every prevailing stereotype of women in politics have adverse effects on the next women to run? Or can we hope that people will remember that there are women out there–on both sides of the aisle, not to mention in third parties–who are competent?
It’s official. Sarah Palin was found to have abused her authority in the firing of a public official who would not fire her state trooper ex-brother-in-law, according to the probe released Friday.
Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan refused to fire Trooper Michael Wooten, who was involved in a divorce and custody dispute with Palin’s sister. The report cites repeated attempts and pressure by Palin’s husband, Todd, the “first dude” of Alaska, to have Wooten removed from his job.
The real question is, is this having any effect on the race?
The investigation has been under way since July, and Palin originally promised to cooperate. Yet after McCain asked her to join his ticket, Republicans began to claim that the investigation was politically motivated, even despite Republican dominance in Alaskan politics.
The Wooten probe has been, until now, just another punchline in the story of McCain’s largely unvetted Veep pick: the pretty conservative with the sharp tongue and folksy manner who couldn’t name a single newspaper she reads and didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is.
Hey guys. So one of the fun things I do as a communications student is study portrayals of different people/groups in the media. Obviously, this comes with a feminist slant. And I assume most of my readers here will have the same sort of viewpoint, and maybe some academic backgrounds that can help me out.
So it’s been suggested by one of my profs that I should attempt to do a little crowdsourcing experiment on this paper. I’m posting my topic here, and I would love suggestions from my readers on where to take it, and more specifically, on readings I should check out for it. I’ll be blogging my progress as it goes on, so we’ll see if this helps, hurts, or is just neutral and fun for you to watch me tear my hair out.
Proposal below the fold.
Hockey Mom, Beauty Queen, or Pitbull in Lipstick:
The Many Faces of Sarah Palin in the Media
Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin burst onto the political scene in August with her selection, seemingly last-minute and out of nowhere, to join the McCain campaign and bring something new and fresh to the ticket. Almost immediately, the media seized on her image as a young, attractive woman and the coverage overflowed with stories about her past as a beauty queen, her looks, her style, and the Internet exploded with Photoshopped bikini pictures and Palin Bingo.
The public opinion of Sarah Palin has changed as more information has come out about her, but the one thing that hasn’t is the pervasiveness of feminine stereotypes in the coverage. Feminist theorist Judith Butler has written about gender as a performance rather than as an innate quality, and it is my theory that the coverage of Palin centers on how successfully she performs certain gender roles. Other theorists have also written about the female body as signifier, and this also plays into portrayals of Palin—stories will mention her physical appearance when they would not mention the appearance of a man in the same situation. Critical feminist theory will provide the framework for this study, drawing from several disciplines to analyze her portrayal in the news.
I plan to study the coverage of Palin in two media outlets: Salon.com and the Washington Post, and carry out a qualitative analysis of the stereotypes presented in their stories, both op-ed pieces and straight news. A random sampling of stories will be selected from the volume of stories about Palin in the two sources, and read for stereotypical descriptions of her physical appearance and personality. I will then use the feminist theorists to examine what those particular stereotypes mean, and why they are pervasively applied to Palin, often in place of discussion of policy.
So I’m used to feminist complaints about overly retouched, unrealistic photos in fashion magazines. I’ve even indulged in a bit of this myself (even while I photoshop zits out of my own pictures on Flickr.)
I found this ridiculous sentence while searching: “The cover photo is a very close-up picture, which drew controversy because many people say that a close-up picture of a woman is meant to be unflattering.”
To me, among many, many other things, this proves the fact that Republicans chose Palin because she was pretty, not because of any other qualities she brought to the ticket. I’ve seen hundreds of unflattering photos of Obama and McCain this election cycle, not to mention insulting and racist cartoons. Yet we’re supposed to be up in arms because she was NOT photoshopped?
First off, from what I know of photojournalism (and I do TA in the photojournalism department of my university), altering the photo is a breach of ethics. Now, granted, that usually has more to do with adding people into events where they weren’t, or making someone look worse (whoops, Fox), or, perhaps, making a black man look blacker?
So apparently I’m supposed to be up in arms because a close-up photo of a very attractive 44-year-old woman with more money than average and better skin than I’ve got shows what, her pores? That she’s got a few fine lines?
This is ridiculous.
I write in defense of beauty rituals and makeup, glitter and sparkle and high heels and femininity. And I don’t pick on Sarah Palin for using any of the above. I don’t even pick on her for being “Caribou Barbie” or “Bible Spice.” She’s allowed to be a pretty woman and to make herself even prettier.
But what the hell is wrong with us that a simple unretouched photo is enough to set the right wing howling that it’s unfair coverage? What’s wrong with showing a 44-year-old woman’s skin? Do they honestly think someone’s going to decide not to vote for her because they can see her laugh lines?
After debates over Biden’s possible Botox, and comments that Palin could wink so she clearly hasn’t had it (used to imply elitism on the part of the Democrats), this whole tempest in a teapot seems forced at best. At worst, it’s profoundly insulting to the woman’s intelligence–and to all of ours.
But then, presidential campaigns in general are an insult to our intelligence. And the more we harp on issues like this, the more they really do seem like a beauty contest.
I warn everyone: this may be offensive. There was champagne, and much shouting at the TV. Click “more” at your own risk. Also, it goes in reverse order, with the most recent first.
I just realized that I haven’t updated. I’ve been working on this and that, writing school stuff and writing for other places, so I guess I just felt like I’d updated more recently than I have.
It’s a busy, busy week this week. My sister’s birthday is today, so I’m taking her out for dinner tonight, and then getting a good night’s sleep because it’ll be my last until Sunday.
Most importantly, tomorrow night is DEBATE NIGHT. I will be purchasing more cheap champagne and live-twittering. Going to see if I can change my Twitter widget to update in the main blog area instead of in my sidebar, so those of you who don’t stay up to watch the hilarity can read it all the next day.
Apparently, the format of the debate is going to favor Palin–no follow-up questions. I’ve elaborated several times as to why I think that this will also help Biden–he’s got to answer the damn question, and won’t have much time to snark at Palin. She, on the other hand, will be able to make her own self look, well, clueless.
I stood up for the woman in the beginning–certainly not for her policies, but at least for her not being as dumb as people wanted to think. But as time has gone on, while I still don’t think she’s dumb, she certainly has proven herself to be willfully uninformed. I still won’t compare her to the much-maligned Dan Quayle. We’ve got another one much closer: George W. Bush.
Remember Bush sneering at a journalist translating languages for him? Or his many mispronunciations or confusions of foreign officials (I seem to remember a story about Prime Minister Poutine? Oh, ye gods.) Remember Bush defining the word “Sovereignty” as “it’s sovereign”?
This kind of arrogant, oppressive ignorance seems to be fading from popularity, as Obama’s poll numbers seem to indicate. One of the things I do like about Obama is his tendency, from all reports, to sit back and listen when other people are talking, and to be willing to learn. Now, since by all accounts Palin is cramming for her debate like a high schooler for the SATs, one would assume that she’ll have learned something by then. After all, I spent 3 hours Monday morning boning up on my economic policy and all I had was Google and a friendly debate through IM. (I don’t have a solution to the problem, but I like the one Bernie Sanders proposed–surprise, surprise.)
Point being, if she wanted to learn this stuff, it’s out there. She’s clearly not a stupid woman–she managed to get elected governor of Alaska without a dynasty behind her to shoehorn her into the seat. But she certainly didn’t count on being quizzed on federal-level policy this soon into her career, and it is pretty sad that even as a governor of a state she didn’t find it necessary to learn it.
Anyway, I’m honing my snark for tomorrow night. Until then, if you miss me, you can check out my Paul Newman piece, my first debate piece, my bailout piece, etc. at GlobalComment (plus read Renee’s stuff there, she’s excellent) and a bit of lighter fare: Janes in Love review at BUST and Black Summer review at Newsarama. And a bunch of junk on Tumblr.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Tina Fey played Sarah Palin. Her twisted, brilliant comedy writer’s brain must have exploded when she first saw a picture of McCain’s VP nominee. I mean, really, she’s note perfect (though I think Tina’s cuter, but I’m not exactly unbiased).
This clip, though, was better than I expected. By placing mock-Palin next to mock-Clinton, Fey and Poehler manage to both poke fun at both candidates and make several points about Palin. Most notably, that she is not Hillary Clinton. Also, that it’s bloody hypocritical for the McCain camp and supporters to cry sexism now.
Most importantly, though, they remind us that it’s NOT sexist to ask a female candidate about her positions and preparation for the job. That we had a qualified, smart, strong woman candidate and that this election shouldn’t be about choosing a woman for woman’s sake.
In this age of the utter failure of journalism to even approach doing its job properly, at least we have comedy. Yes, we have the blogosphere, but no lefty political blog comes even close to the audience of Saturday Night Live.
Latoya has an excellent post up at Feministe about Sarah Palin and Condoleezza Rice, the similarities between the two, and the need for voting based on a person’s policies, not their anatomy.
Sarah Palin can’t have my lipstick. She can’t take my right to the word or use it against me, and she certainly can’t copyright any metaphor using the word.
Lipstick is such a great word. It immediately calls up a certain picture, both of the object itself and of a lipsticked woman, and even though lipstick comes in many colors, somehow it always comes out red in my mind.
I’ve spent hour searching for the perfect red lipstick. Emma Forrest named a novel after the perfect lip color. Red lipstick is not common any longer, and thus it now always signifies. It may read “slutty” to some and “retro” to others, but it is usually sexual, the assumption.
Mostly I wear lipgloss, because lipstick is a commitment. You can’t kiss it off without leaving your mark all over your lover–and that’s the way I like it. If you’re planning on kissing, you can either leave off the lipstick–a clear invite–or apply it perfectly, daring them to cross that line, mess it up, brand themselves with your lipstick, mark themselves as yours.
Sarah Palin doesn’t even wear that kind of lipstick. She just uses it as a metaphor when she wants to (”what’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?”) and then her crew turns it around and claims that Obama’s being sexist? Not so much.
Lipstick doesn’t just signify woman in Sarah Palin’s claims–it now signifies her. Well, I refuse to think of her when I put on my lipstick in the morning. I prefer to think about Clara Bow, Marilyn Monroe, Lauren Bacall, Madonna, Courtney Love, and me.
According to Linda Scott in Fresh Lipstick, the modern makeup trends in the U.S. started with the growth of the movie industry and spread to independent young women. Lipstick, therefore, started as a signifier of the independent woman, and I like keeping it that way.
It seems interesting to me that many people have just blown off Palin as a throwaway choice, a stupid move, a bad idea for McCain that will obviously backfire. It also amuses me to see everyone trying to decide if Palin was a sop to the right or a play for Clinton voters, and I see very little acknowledgement of the biggest thing about her: she’s BOTH.
She’s a smart, pretty, accomplished woman that most of us would like if her political views weren’t so damn odious. Moreover, she’s bound to attract the kind of sexist media attention that got a lot of the Clinton base so angry (and so convinced that Obama stole something from them).
She is likable in a way McCain is not.
And yes, she believes in all the things that most of us despise about the Christian Right, and is an oil junkie to boot. So really, while McCain may well have undercut his best argument, he’s also played to both areas of his base–the social conservatives and the oilmen–and at the same time made an attempt to reach out to the gender-essentialist wing of the Clinton fanbase.
I agree with many people that yes, McCain is “doubling down” here, taking a risk on an unvetted candidate with two years of high-level political experience. He’s undercutting his main anti-Obama argument for identity politics and hoping identity politics works because he may well think that Americans only vote that way. He’s condescending, and taking a huge risk.
But to laugh off Sarah Palin because she’s unvetted and inexperienced is, as M. LeBlanc noted, is to assume once again that Republican strategists are stupid. They aren’t. If they were so damn stupid, they wouldn’t have had power for all of my lifetime except the Clinton years, and let’s face it, the Clinton years weren’t bastions of progressive activism either.
Never underestimate your opponent.
McCain may well have shot himself in the foot–Palin could say something dumb (dumber than “what does the VP do all day?” which, well–can YOU answer that? I mean, in Cheney’s case I assume it involves lots of devilish cackling and roasting little babies alive, but…) or the scandal could blow up in her face.
But it could also have the opposite effect–energizing the religious base AND attracting just enough PUMA-types to swing the election his way.
I don’t know if there’s been a case in which the VP choice actually swung an election for a candidate. I know there have been times where they hurt a candidate–McGovern comes to mind, and maybe even Gore (don’t we all wish we’d known what an ass Lieberman would’ve become?). I guess we’ll have to see.
