The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.

In January 2011, the R&R Gallery in Los Angeles made this painting of a screaming Sarah Palin being nailed to the cross the prime advertisement for their gallery’s “Jesus Show.”

When Palin first exploded onto the national consciousness, making a hit with conservatives at the 2008 Republican Convention as John McCain’s VP pick, the smear campaign started in earnest. Pop art posters went viral offering Sarah as the devil, painted blood red with a long pointed tongue and maniacal expression.

Soon after, Chicago artist Bruce Elliott painted a portrait of a machine gun-toting, nude Sarah Palin and hung it in his wife’s establishment, the Old Town Ale House. It turns out his look-alike daughter posed for it. Elliott said he found Palin “bizarrely fascinating although he despises everything Palin stands for.”

If we are to go with his depiction of her, all she stands for is sex and violence. As an aside, I don’t quite know what to make of a naked women standing before her father as he paints her into a fake portrait of a woman he says he hates.

Fake photos of Palin depicted as a stripper likewise went viral. Palin’s detractors tried everything – she’s a bimbo, a neocon, a religious loony, stupid, a diva, and worst of all – a bad mother.

Then again, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could teach a class to Sarah Palin on how to be abused in the media and pop culture. Though Clinton and Palin are diametrically opposed politically and have a vastly different set of achievements and experience, they have one thing in common – they are powerful and threatening to the status quo that says women should go so far and no further.

When Hillary ran into a brick wall of negative media coverage in her historic presidential bid in 2008, Hillary haters said “I don’t have a problem electing a woman, just not that woman.” Hogwash. Any woman reaching as high as Hillary did would have gotten what Hillary got. All one needs do is to remember, with a wince perhaps, the novelty items: Hillary nutcrackers, Hillary toilet paper, the Hillary “cackling” pen, Hillary with her head coming out of a toilet, Hillary depicted with horns coming out of her head on MSNBC’s Hardball, and the Dominatrix Hillary doll, which makes a lovely pairing with the orifice accessible Sarah Palin blow up doll. Nice.

The famous picture entitled “Bruising Hillary” that appeared in the Village Voice in 2008 -– Hillary, bandaged, grimacing, covered in sweat, and sporting a black eye -– was a brilliant illustration of the bullying treatment she received at the hands of the media.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann only proved their point when he said “a super delegate needs to take Hillary into a room and only he comes out.” His only apology for the outrage his remark caused was that “he used the wrong pronoun.”

The recent painting of the screaming Palin being crucified makes the same argument for what mass media has done to her. She is viewed as a horrifying, threatening creature.

Whether we argue that these images illuminate the plight of and thus support these two women, or merely pile on the abuse, the effect on other women and girls is the same – to alienate. Who would want to be either Hillary or Sarah?

Who in their right mind would want to step up to the plate to get even a taste of this kind of treatment? And what about a powerful woman is so threatening that she must be silenced or marginalized either by sexualizing her or classifying her as a “hellish housewife” or demon from hell? It isn’t about the politics. We can no longer say that only one side is guilty of demeaning women. 2008 was a primer in how men and complicit women from both sides of the aisle did effective and lasting damage to women who dared to change the status quo.

There are more effective, logical and fair ways to reject a woman than to use her womanhood against her, aren’t there? Well, no actually. It has been proven that one doesn’t need to use issues when simply focusing on stereotypical gender traits will do the trick.

These images permeate popular culture and thus become an accepted way of seeing women. How many times did I run across a young woman saying “I hate that Hillary bitch” or hear a young man intimate that he’d like to “chop Palin’s head off.” The violence and hostility used to attack feminine strength in great part explains why First Lady Michelle Obama’s handlers work overtime to mold her into some sort of fashion icon tilling a victory garden. As Mrs. Obama told reporter Bonnie Erbe, “I don’t want to have a say.”

Is that the safer way to go? Is that the sum total of recent lessons we have learned?

There is no mandate for how a woman has to behave, how ambitious she needs to be or what field she should wish to pursue. But the threat of violence or of being tarred and feathered for being too outspoken, is ever present in our culture and hangs over women as a dire warning. When we teach our children that strong, ambitious women are to be caricatured and viewed as extreme or hateful and made an object of ridicule, we are saying, “Ssssh. For the love of God, just don’t be like her….if you know what’s good for you.”