Thoughts on “Thoughtful” Analysis of Sarah Palin
July 13, 2009
by Kitt
|
Whenever I try to discuss our society’s sexist response to Palin, all I get are a bunch of excuses: The attacks aren’t sexist, that’s just politics, she shouldn’t have done this, she shouldn’t have done that, I don’t feel sorry for her.
The responses are largely the same, sometimes very close to verbatim. Could their opinions possibly be influenced by the media? No. It is surely just a consistent coincidence. Of course, there are SOME attacks, including sexist ones, but most of what you read out there is very “thoughtful” and certainly, not sexist. Right?
Take, for example, this piece a friend of mine sent me yesterday which they described as a “very thoughtful WSJ piece on Palin“.
Let me share a few “thoughtful” excerpts with you.
Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence.
All I can say is double standard, double standard. Women aren’t allowed to have confidence. If they do, they obviously worship themselves. Our current President, a young man with very little experience, who, after questioning whether or not the country was ready for a great leader, decided to run for the highest office in the land. It is perfectly acceptable for a male politician to have this extreme level of self confidence. Yet, if a female politician has this much confidence and has the audacity to not hide it, she’s hated.
Manupulative, huh? Have you ever heard a male politician called “manipulative”? Nuff said.
In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.
Horrifying? A bit melodramatic, don’t you think? The writer is “thoughtfully” stirring up people’s emotions and playing on their fears. Yikes! Women having power is scary.
Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.
Because it is impossible that anyone, especially intellectuals (members of the thinking class), could actually support Palin. Close-minded much? I always like a little close-mindedness mixed with my “thoughtful” analysis.
What she is, is a seemingly very nice middle-class girl with ambition, appetite and no sense of personal limits.
Again with the double standard. Girls, lower, middle or upper, are supposed to have a strong sense of their personal limits and under no circumstances are they supposed to have ambition.
Seemingly? What’s that about? Is Sarah being deceptive, making people think she nice? Well, women are known to do such things.
She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.
There goes that manipulation term again. Sure comes in handy when those women try to run for office. No. Holding office could mean power and everyone knows that women can only achieve power through manipulation.
Stupid? Is it possible that we can move beyond elementary school level name calling? Or is this a new trend in “thoughtful” analysis?
Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in.
Well, you learn something new every day. Modesty is the key to success in politics. Doesn’t sound right, does it? Could it be that most politicians are male and perhaps the modesty rule doesn’t apply to them?
Actually, it’s arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they’re perfect in every way. It’s yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.
Well, let’s pass a law that says that we cannot elect anyone born during the 30 year period known as the self-esteem generation. Oh wait, our current President was in that generation – and has high self esteem at that. Will he sign it? Oh, he’s a man so its okay to have self esteem. Maybe the law should only apply to women born during the dreaded self-esteem years.
This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.
Palin doesn’t know how to think. No. This isn’t your run-of-the-mill, see-how-many-hits-we-can get attack article. It is “thoughtful”. Really. It is.
My post isn’t meant to be a sexism action alert. This is pretty mild on the Palin sexist attacks scale. What concerns me is that this article is considered “thoughtful”. When it comes to Sarah Palin, it seems that even “thoughtful” analysis and sexism go hand in hand.
Indeed, it seems that “thoughtful” analysis of all women political figures and sexism go hand in hand.
Well, to me, this is very sad because I, firmly believe that, with all of the crises facing our country, we could use a nice, large dose of the other half of the population being more accurately represented. How can we expect women to feel comfortable running for political office when even “thoughtful” analysis is laced with sexism? Regardless of political ideology, all Americans lose when sexism against any woman political figure goes unchecked.
Check it!
I went to the same high school as Peggy Noonan, the author of the article you’re quoting. She was a few years ahead of me, but I did know her–our best friends were sisters. I liked Peggy, she was always nice to me, and as we all know, older girls aren’t always nicer to younger ones. But Peggy was always kind.
So I liked her and I’m proud to have known her. But I’m also very disappointed. I agree she seems to have problems rooted in sexism. We’ve had two women run for the highest and second highest office of our land over the past 18 months, and Peggy Noonan has devoted a lot of her time and considerable talent knocking down both of them.
But within her words on Palin, I also sense something else–the class gap between Palin and the rest of the class we’ve heard talked about. Sarah Palin comes from working to middle class roots, and she’s not Ivy League. I’m likewise disappointed to hear Peggy Noonan sound as though she’s saying “never” with regard to Sarah Palin, because guess what? Peggy Noonan also comes from a working class family and she’s not Ivy League, either.
Makes me wonder if Peggy’s forgotten her roots. Either that, or maybe Sarah Paln’s rise to the national spotlight is taking Peggy back to a place and time she’d rather forget.. Regardless, that “mean girl” job she did on Palin sure smacks of elitism. And it sure doesn’t sound like the Peggy Noonan I once knew.
Great job Halane,
we need to have the alert sign on when the talk comes to women and modesty and/or limits, women and manipulation, women and adequacy, woman and ambition and self-esteem.
and when the words show up myth, horrible, terrible or melodrama or just drama the author has degraded to unchecked emotions.
like your satyrical style.
Wow, the Sotomayor hearings provide an excellent opportunity to discuss in detail how society should honestly and constructively advance women in politics and business and we are back to discussing whether or not Palin is being unfairly pick-on.
We have even got to the point of making Palin’s history of moderate achievement something to admire and condemning women like Noonan who come from a working class background and have achieved academic and professional success because it makes them “out of touch” and an elitist.
I get it – Palin’s brand is the common guy and gal, someone who attends four to five colleges, takes on various jobs and makes it to the big time only to be ridiculed by men and turncoat women.
So what else is going on in the area of women’s rights?
LVL…I haven’t condemned Peggy Noonan. I liked her growing up and I’m proud of what she’s done with her life. But the truth is, what you call Peggy Noonan’s “academic” success is as moderate as what you’ve determined to be Sarah Palin’s “professional” accomplishments.
Peggy Noonan made it to the Oval Office as a speechwriter with a degree from Fairleigh Dickinson University. Sarah Palin made it to the Alaska statehouse–and before the msm media started the gang-on maintained a better than 80% approval rating from the people who know her best.–with a similar education.
I’d say they’ve both done really well. But only one of them is saying the other isn’t good enough, and even goes beyond that by pre-supposing she never will be.
Peggy doesn’t distinguish herself academically or professionally by joining what has to be the biggest gang-on in the history of the msm. So if piling on is something that’s considered a success because it’s being done from the pages of the Wall Street Journal, all I can say is I don’t agree.
A gang-on is a gang-on. And if the gang-bangers would ever stop, then you’d probably see more discussions on matters you consider to be of greater relevance.
I have two daughters and I cannot help thinking about their future. B/c of this, our society’s response to Palin is a huge red flag for me. When my daughters are being interviewed for jobs or considered for promotions or leadership positions, I hope to gosh that our country has progressed to the point where adjectives like deceptive, manipulative and stupid will not be used when evaluating their performance.
Personally, I see Palin as a test. Generally, our society holds the value that sexism is wrong. If members of our society who so strongly disagree with Palin’s policies, can still do the right thing and acknowledge and denounce the sexism directed against her, that’s real progress. If this happens, I bet other women candidates will have a much easier time. If this happens, I’ll feel much better about my daughters’ future. If this happens, LVL, I will shut up about Palin.
It was surprising to see Reagan-loving Republican Noonan pile on but remembered she was such an Ivy-League wannabe in the 80s. She made her mark tearing down the Clintons and now Palin who reminds her too much of herself.
She wrote “The Case Against Hillary Clinton.”
So we’re not allowed to call Sarah Palin stupid when she says or does something stupid? I would think the number of times we called W. stupid would have utterly neutered that word of any gender subtext.
Romney and Huckabee are just as stupid but no one dares to say, “Romney is stupid” or “Huckabee is stupid.” They call their policies stupid and I’m sure Romney and Huckabee are more stupid on women’s and GLBT issues.
Sarah Palin continues to be a subject for feminist concern because, having driven her out of national politics, the MSM, bloggers and large numbers of “progressives” in general continue to stomp and spit on her. Plainly, the attack was never proportionate to the level of risk she posed to their chosen candidates. Plainly, it was always to do with Palin herself, her sex and her class. That’s why the kicking of her political corpse is so disturbing and so relevant to feminist concerns. The uppitty woman has been buried and must stay dead, say the false progressives. Lest all “uppitty women” suffer that fate, we must say, “No”.
I used to watch Oprah and I have her DVD box and in it there is an clip of an episode where it is shown how to turn people against each other. In the clip there is an “expert” on intelligence of blue eyed vs brown eyed people. Very soon the whole audience buys the meme about how brown eyed people are more intelligent than blue eyed and the audience starts to argue amongst themselves. It is supposed to demonstrate how prejudices take hold and affect our worldview.
My point.
It has been alarming to see this mentality play out on a national level, egged on by Obama himself (but of course he distances himself from it with the help of the oh so loving media.) They vs Us is very much in the core of the Obama presidency, hence the strawmen and alike. The groupthink that emerged during the election about Obama’s supremacy fuels those who are with him against those who disagree with him. This worries me, because I am not sure where it leads. And more importantly it worries me because I’m beginning to suspect it is not an accident that it is happening.
You might want to check out the comments being made about Palin’s editorial in the Washington Post. The number of posts that claim she could not have written the commentary is interesting.
@Briar
“Plainly, the attack was never proportionate to the level of risk she posed to their chosen candidates. Plainly, it was always to do with Palin herself, her sex and her class.”
That is what I call thoughtful analysis. Thank you!
I don’t think it is sexist to call Palin stupid but I do believe it is inaccurate. Palin is as smart as George Bush, Jr. but probably less intelligent than Bill Clinton, Obama or George Bush, Sr. George Bush, Jr. is constantly ridiculed regarding his intelligence and I have never heard it argued that such attacks were because of his gender. He was attacked because he was inarticulate. Palin is inarticulate and undereducated. I believe this is a factually true statement.
However, even if Palin is only of average intelligence, this does not make her a bad person or potentially a bad President. Being a good President also requires good instincts, great savvy, adequate character and fine vision. Palin has some of these traits, particularly savvy although I personally question her character. I personally believe she left Alaska in worse shape than she found it and is leaving Alaskans with a big mess in which to dig themselves out.
What is sexist is to associate her looks or figure with her intelligence, make sexual jokes about her or imply that she is an unfit mother.
Palin’s savvy, grit and charm attract follows; people identify with her “everyman / women” persona and her belief in smaller government, lower taxes, energy security through drilling and family values resonate with some votes. These are fine enough reasons to support her and vote for her.
Because I do not fully trust her character, do not fully believe in all of her policy positions and do not believe she has ever been a women’s rights advocate, I don’t believe I could ever vote for her. And although I can defend her against attacks that are clearly sexist, not all the criticism against her is sexist.
At the time I heard very few attacks on W. The press went way out of its way to make it pleasantly humorous, by my memory. What Palin is encountering is similar to what Hillary Clinton has endured for many years, irrational hatred. People hate her because they hate her. People despise her because they despise her. This does happen to men to some degree, but that seems rare to me.
surlybastard: You can do or say anything you like. You will look like a Democrat misogynist moron when you spew group think hate regarding Palin but that is not my problem and it is evidently a problem you can’t perceive. I am no longer a Democrat due to what Democrats have become. You all are so thrilled at what you are not, Republicans, that you are unaware of how ugly and un democratic you have become.
Jon Stewart apparently thinks that Sara Palin should resign as the mother of her children.
Palin is very authentic and never lied since I became aware of her though she is a conservative. She’s very ethical with a good character though leftist propaganda tells you otherwise. Democrats and Republicans in Alaska made her the most popular governor in the United States. Bush failed as a governor and president. She’s articulate depending on which clips you choose to look at. Her speech at the Convention was the best speech out of both Conventions. She knocked it out of the park because she has the communicative talents of Reagan. Her Nevada speech about women’s rights was the only speech during the entire campaign season about women’s rights. Obama gave speeches on race, anti-Semitism and homophobia but never on women’s rights.
Politifact:
Palin was the most popular governor in the United States. Remember the following polls are based on Democrats and Republicans in the state. Her job approval ratings were astonishingly high.
Ivan Moore Research put her at 89 percent which was off the charts.
Rasmussen put her at number 2 in July 2008 but only because of the Obama-backed Troopergate in Alaska. See my blog for more about Troopergates 1 & 2. David Brock who wrote The Real Anita Hill and The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, instigated Troopergate/Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky in 1993 which brought the Clintons down. Rasmussen said people shouldn’t get hung up on whether someone is ranked number 1 or 2. ” In the broader sense, she (Palin) is one of the very top.
SurveyUSA editor Jay Leve said the highest ratings are around 80 percent and Palin’s ratings were “extraordinarily high. Those kinds of numbers are unprecedented.” He said it was highly likely Palin was top dog.
The senior editor at Cook Political Report and managing editor at Real Clear Politics believed Palin’s numbers ranked her as most popular. The managing editor at Real Clear Politics said, “It’s difficult to make a categorical statement like that. But generally, they are on pretty solid ground. If I was a betting person, I bet that’s an accurate statement. Once your approval rating is over 80 percent, it’s a liitle silly.”
I will never vote for Obama or Palin but the continued leftist sexism against Palin gives me no choice but to defend her.
Take the “n” out of “on” in that link. It’s hard commenting on a touch screen. If leftists keep up the double standards, I have no choice but to defend her against the double standards.
I read Noonan’s piece and then read again, incredulous. Sadly, it told me more about Peggy Noonan than about Sarah Palin. And what it told me about Peggy Noonan was not pleasant.
Donna,
Thank you for the post.
Samanthasmom,
I think you are misinterpreting the Jon Stewart piece. It made fun of Palin but was not sexist.
John,
I think people fall into different camps:
* People who make fun of Palin because she can be inarticulate at times and there is a lot of drama (e.g., Levi) in her current and extended family. These people are not necessarily sexist but they are looking for a laugh at Palin’s expense. For example, I did not find the Stewart piece to be sexist.
* People who have a real dislike and disrespect for Palin and many times make sexist remarks (e.g., Bill Mahr, David Letterman)
* People who honestly disagree with her politics and character and their criticism can cut like a knife but may not be sexist (e.g., Noonan, sometimes Matthews but he drifts into sexism many times)
What I think some Palin’s supporters do (as many Obama supporters do) is label any criticism as sexist (or racist in Obama’s case) to protect their candidate from any criticism. I believe both Palin and Obama try to employ this strategy.
LVL,
Well, sure people fall into any number of camps. That includes political operatives that choose their words carefully seeking to create a specific affect. Frankly, I would put almost all of the well-known commentators and comedians in that category. That last sentence applies to almost all subject matters.
Meanwhile “out on the street” I am meeting people that demonstrate the same sort of irrational hatred and/or disrespect for Palin that they or others demonstrate for Hillary Clinton. I am not suggesting that these people have a political difference with either of them; they actually hate one or the other or both of these women.
I believe that the reason these people hate is that so many of our social leaders have demonized these two women in much the same way that they demonize Nations that oppose us or that they wish us to wage war on.
John,
I have no major disagreement with the last points you are making. I think you are right with regard to the level of hate that exists among some people regarding these two women.
And while the same level of hate exists for Obama in some circles (e.g., Audra Shay), it is less tolerated in general (although I am shocked she was elected to lead the young republicans).
LVL,
Whatever hate exists relating to Obama, it is not relevant to me. These demonizing campaigns relating to Clinton and Palin serve to degrade and diminish all women in my opinion. I will continue to oppose my Democratic Party on this issue regardless.
John,
Your philosophy, or emphasis, is were we differ then.
While I would restrict the majority of my comments on a web site such as the The New Agenda to women’s rights, hate of all stripes inspires hate of all stripes. When one stands against racism, xenophobia or homophobia, one’s stance against sexism is only strengthened not diminished.
I am inspired by a culturally competent society that would acknowledge, respect and appreciate the similarities and differences that people possess and thus understand and be pained by the country’s inability to fully utilize the perspectives and talents of women in all walks of life. I could not hold this view for women, if I did not hold it for others as well.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...