The Letterman List
I've deliberately held back from commenting on her latest controversy, a series of "he said, she said" long-distance potshots exchanged with David Letterman, while others like my colleague, Conservative Politics Guide Justin Quinn, have written at length on the tasteless jokes on Letterman's Top Ten List that started it all and the fallout from his comments. I waited partly to see how big this would get. But mostly I waited until Kathleen Parker weighed in.
Getting My Parker On
If I could be a ventriloquist dummy with the power to choose the partner I'd work, I'd gladly sit on commentator Kathleen Parker's lap and have her do all the talking. The way White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett claims Obama "gets" women is the way Parker gets the whole Palin thing.
Parker first demonstrated this in a September 2008 column that argued why Palin should withdraw her name from the Republican presidential ticket. With regard to the Letterman fiasco, she was able to separate out why it's okay (although still gender insensitive) to mock Palin as a grown woman, but totally inappropriate and somewhat skeevy to go after that woman's 14- or 18-year-old daughters.
Sexualizing Her Candidacy
And, in an online chat last week at the Washington Post website, she was able to cut through the bull and articulate why "women's issues" types don't rise to Palin's defense; using the Letterman situation as a jumping-off point, she defined the unease that intelligent, thoughtful, well-read and reasonably educated women have over Palin the political female figure:
I don't have a problem with raunchy humor, but time and place are everything. In a nightclub, fine. But Letterman is sort of an American institution. It just seems to me that when a woman is running for public office, we should avoid sexualizing her.Strong MedicineOkay, I censored myself before so I'll say it now. I also think it's out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline. I'm wobbling here.
Parker's smart, straightforward, and conservative; and because she' not a liberal, she can dish out the strong medicine in hopes of effecting a cure.
Women are uncomfortable with Palin because she has promoted her sex more effectively than she has sold her experience or ideas.
After years of feeling the strain of needing to be much better than the men we work with or supervise -- while keeping our sexuality separate from our professional selves -- we are discomfited by a woman whose behavior is a throwback to the days when buxom secretaries who couldn't type still were commonplace in the workplace.
Palin's approach is what makes us uncomfortable; she displays her sexuality like a candy bowl placed on the edge of an officeworker's desk, inviting others to take a piece even as she innocently delivers a string of provocative double entendres just to get a rise out of them.
If Palin Looked Like Sotomayor
The exact opposite of the polar ice queen Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin breaks the unspoken rules that say if you want to be taken seriously and get that promotion, don't bat your eyes, lick your lips, wear a shirt too low or a skirt too high. If you want to be regarded as competent, you have to be respected.
Women are uncomfortable because we know that if Sarah Palin wasn't intensely attractive in that Everyman's Sexy-Librarian-Fantasy way, she wouldn't be where she is today. Her looks are the loophole in the binding but unwritten contract that defines how a man and a woman should regard each other in a professional capacity. Here's the elephant on the table: If she looked like Sonia Sotomayor, Palin would never have catapulted to national prominence overnight or stayed in the spotlight despite questions about her ethics, experience, intelligence, or desire to learn and grow personally and professionally.
Fodder for the Tabloids
We don't feel the need to defend her because she's already skilled at deflecting criticism with a flirtatious smile and a folksy charm. We also don't agree with her choices. If we stood in her shoes, few of us would have run for VP if it meant placing our high school daughter's pregnancy on the front burner of the nation's consciousness and putting her well-being at risk as her life became fodder for the tabloids.
Because of these actions, we see her as an opportunist and are amazed at the number of women hoodwinked by her "she's just like me!" veneer. (We're not surprised that men are taken in by her, because that's the story of our lives.)
No Elizabeth Cady Stanton
We also know, in our heart of hearts, that she isn't a women's issues advocate and wouldn't think twice about shutting the door behind her once she got through. We recognize she lacks a type of female generosity that sees us all as part of the same struggle; we won't win unless every woman wins, but Palin's only interested in herself.
These are the things Parker hasn't said, but that every "women's isues" type sees as the reality surrounding Sarah Palin, Politician.
Not Enough to Be a Woman
If we were smart, Sarah Palin could serve as a rallying point for progressive-minded women to get together despite our differences and move forward in strength and unity. Because Sarah Palin's candidacy has taught us one important lesson: It's not enough simply to be a woman to earn a woman's respect, or her vote. You have to want to help her succeed as much as you want success for yourself. And you have to achieve it on your own merits, relying on your personal strengths, abilities, intelligence, and compassion for others, and not primarily on your physical appearance, your air kisses, your flirty comments, or your inviting candy dish sexuality.
Comments
Good column, with one correction: I don’t know who wrote the subhead, but it’s Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
I knew that…but how embarrassing! Once in a while my dyslexia pops out. Correction made, and thanks for not letting the egg stay on my face too long…
It’s hard to feel sorry or defend a woman who during the campaign whored her own children out as props for her political thinking, despire the obvious contradictions of reality. Fact is she had a teen daughter who got knocked up while her good old boy and girl parents denied the existence of teen sexual expressions. Then they arranged for the cameras a politically expediant shotgun engagements to keep the cameras rolling.
Now, Dave told a badly constructed joke, and sometimes court jesters pay prices from the crown, but to see this woman as a “victim” is interesting since her whole rap is pointing at the other political side of her own gender and accusing them of the same slight of hands she plays like a beauty queen blowing a flute in the judge’s private chambers.
Interesting column, Linda, but as you guessed, I am profoundly disappointed. First and foremost, what upsets me is the fact that you blanketly invalidate any opinion I have of the situation simply because I’m a man who has “been taken in by her.” If that’s not sexist, I don’t know what is.
And while we’re on the subject of sexism, I’d like to point out that the only people who have sexualized Sarah Palin are the members of the media, who tend to get hung up on what she’s wearing, how she wears her hair (if I recall correctly, you intimated at one point that she needed to change her hairdo because it was getting old [if that wasn't you, I apologize, but it was a woman I spoke with who mentioned that to me]). Secondly, to say Palin is where she is simply because she’s attractive immediately devalues every successful person who happens to be good-looking. If winking and batting your eyelashes are the standard to which you’re holding your politicians, then out goes Bill Clinton, because he was as guilty — if not guiltier — of it than Sarah Palin. Palin shouldn’t have winked during her debate, or given a “shout out,” but in fact that was Sarah being Sarah. It’s one of the reasons many on the right like her. She is who she is at all times, not when it suits her (or the media, for that matter).
To the subject at hand: I get very irritated by people who criticize Palin for “putting her children out there.” Palin brought her children with her on the campaign trail — just like Obama did with his family. The kids who were in school stayed back, but the kids who weren’t came along. Sarah’s daughter, Bristol, is very interested in what her mother does, because she admires her. If my teenager wanted to come along with me on such an extensive journey, I’d cave and bring her because it’s a long time to be away from them. The fact of the matter is, that her children did NOT appear with her at every campaign stop, but the few times they have been with her, the media has jumped all over her. Nevermind that Obama’s family appeared with him on the national stage about the same amount of time. Obama never got ridiculed for his family, and even he has expressed disdain for the media that attacks a candidate’s family.
As I’ve said before, Palin didn’t invite this creep to say what he said. And she didn’t go running to the media when he said it. The media came to her. You, of all people, know how journalists work. They hear something and they want a response. Palin gave it to them, yet suddenly she is “sexualizing herself,” or “having difficulty staying out of the public eye,” or “whoring herself for her politics.”
It’s unconscionable and, frankly, self-defeating, because women who make arguments like these the central issue in a debate wind up inviting comments from ignorant men like David Letterman. That’s no excuse for the comments, but it certainly is one reasonable explanation of why he would not only find it funny, but also think everybody would find it funny.
I find it most disappointing, though, that in your blog you make no mention whatsoever of WHY Sarah Palin was in New York. Check that out, and then let me know if that counts as “whoring.” The very fact that no one seems to remember why she was in New York in the first place (or, at least, fails to mention it) is an indication to me that she was not whoring herself. In fact, few people actually knew about it at the time, because Palin wanted it to be a low key event. This woman realizes she’s a lightening rod, and the last thing she wanted was to bring negative attention to the organization for which she was raising money.
It’s sad, really. Palin can’t get a break from anyone. She comes into town to do a good thing, and she winds up being pilloried for something someone else said. The people who claim she’s out there “whoring” herself ought to be ashamed of themselves. When George Bush and Bill Clinton got together for the Katrina victims, no one said they were “whoring” themselves. In fact, men don’t often get accused of “whoring,” because it’s a term specifically applied to women. So, when liberals say Palin’s “whoring” herself, aren’t they the ones who are sexualizing her?!
Final thought: they say the worst attacks on Republicans are from other Republicans, but I would venture so far as to say attacks on women from other women are much more vicious. While I’m not specifically referring to you, Linda, I have to say that most of the time when I see a woman attack another woman, it’s not for ideological reasons, it’s usually for superficial reasons like “her skirt is too high” or “she wears too much make-up” or “look at how she’s flirting with everyone.” The reality here is that liberal women don’t like Sarah Palin, and since most feminists are liberal, Sarah Palin doesn’t fit with their world-view. So, what do they do? They don’t attack her views, they attack her personally. They hit her where it hurts: her children, her wardrobe, her “sexuality.” I did have to chuckle at one point when I was reading this, because I’ve never seen Sarah Palin’s cleavage, and all her skirts are below the knee. Just because a woman doesn’t wear a pants-suit, it doesn’t mean she’s any less capable, credible or viable as women who do.
So … go ahead. Pick on Sarah. She’s “still here” (as Contessa Brewer said of herself). But, leave her kids out of this. She didn’t put them in the spotlight any more than Obama put his kids in the spotlight. The jokes about her family are disgusting. The same way Rush Limbaugh’s joke about a then-13-year-old Chelsea Clinton were disgusting.
Whether Letterman was referring to Willow or Bristol is inconsequential. It takes a particular kind of man to pick on a teenage girl.
Whew!
IMHO, Sarah Palin’s 15 minutes of fame should have expired a long time ago.
Well said Justin Quinn, I thought the same things while reading this article.
Ironically this writer is criticizing Palin yet that the same time trying to emulate the Palin look with similar frames and hair yet doesn’t achieve it since she is not nearly as cute. She also seems to be engaging in the girlish and age-old tactic of dumping on the pretty girl. When do women and the women’s movement grow up?
I see were back to feminism equals angry, ugly chicks no one would want to knock up in the first place again.
Even though I think Palin has done a great deal of work herself in exploiting her children, I thought Letterman’s joke was in extremely poor taste. Doesn’t matter whether it was Bristol or Willow he was “joking” about — it is unconscionable to make sexual jokes at a child’s (or even older teen’s) expense.
Having said that, I would also like to point out that Palin’s buddy — John McCain himself — had made a pretty raunchy “joke” at Chelsea Clinton’s expense back in 1998. I think Chelsea was 17 or 18 at the time. He publicly called her “ugly” and said it was because “her father is Janet Reno.” In one fell swoop, John McCain attacked 3 women in a very nasty sexualized “joke.”
I think “jokes” and attacks like this on women’s appearance and sexuality are pervasive in our culture, and need to be addressed in a larger, more conscious way.