Does Sarah Palin intend to run for president in 2012? If so, she's likely to announce her candidacy within the next few months. And that's why Vanity Fair knows its exposé, "Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury," just published online and slated for its October issue, will draw readers, comments, and fire.
Gleeful Palin supporters are already claiming that the VF profile -- written by Michael Joseph Gross -- is such a vicious hit piece that 'radical feminists' are defending Palin. Yes...and no. Women of conscience who believe that no female should be smeared solely on the basis of gender are speaking up and criticizing the article, but Palin is just the latest in a long string of victims. Defending Palin is what any progressive woman would do to ensure that a female candidate is able to run for public office without being subjected to gender-based criticism.
Although one Associated Content blogger cites Shakesville founder and progressive pundit Melissa McEwan's thoughts on this subject as evidence that the 'feminist left' is outraged on Palin's behalf, he glosses over her larger point -- that the VF piece paints Palin as 'the worst' for the wrong reasons, which McEwan happily corrects:
She's the worst because she's an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, anti-socialized healthcare, anti-social safety net, pro-social Darwinism conservative asshole, just another self-proclaimed bootstrapper who belittles feminists and their advocacy for the programs and policies that help marginalized women and girls, who trades on being a rightwing token while demeaning the very activism that has afforded her the public platform on which she brazenly basks in the luxury of her disdain.
McEwan seems to understand the corner we're all finding ourselves painted into. She wraps up her post with a conclusion that expresses frustration more than righteous anger:
I will continue to defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.
But I'd prefer not to be obliged in the first place.
And later, while responding to readers' comments, she notes the precarious position feminists find themselves in when their actions are driven purely by gender considerations:
...[D]efending a woman against sexist attacks because one is a feminist, and thus interested in denouncing the strategy irrespective of at whom it's directed, is reduced to an unprincipled position held by someone who can see nothing but Palin's womanhood.
I've read the entire VF piece and I have to admit it's troubling. Certain comments made by its male author do reek of sexism, since actions held up as examples of 'the worst' of Palin are commonplace for many male candidates. Gross loses sight of the fact that it's possible to criticize Palin and point out her failings and not play the gender card. Alaska talk radio host Shannyn Moore has made a name for herself tracking Palin's every political gaffe without relying on gendered digs to get her points across.
Let's be honest here. The purpose of the VF profile is not to change minds but to draw readers to the site and to the magazine. So the incendiary statements sprinkled throughout serve their purpose. I wouldn't be writing about it if it weren't sexist, and chances are if you haven't read the piece, you will now. So it's a win-win for Vanity Fair and for Sarah Palin; both parties get more attention and more online coverage. But it's a lose-lose for the rest of us. Sexism in the media is perpetuated, more serious considerations of Palin's experience and qualifications are pushed aside, and capable women who might run for public office are scared away by the ugliness.
All this sound and fury distract us from the issue of whether or not Palin is the best candidate for the job. To vote for her solely on gender and to ignore everything else is not only wrong -- it's the ultimate sexist act.
Related article: Readers Respond - Should Sarah Palin Run for President?
Comments
I read the article online last night and to call it sexist is ridiculous. Palin is criticized for being inarticulate, inconsistent, petty, arrogant, narcissistic, rude, having anger issues and holding grudges. None of which I find it misogynistic to attack. A man with these traits would be just as reprehensible. Being demanding, not thanking people that have helped you – or tipping staff that deserves to be tipped is low class. None of the behavior she displays is acceptable in a civilized human being regardless of sex. To feel you have to defend her is taking feminism to a ridiculous extreme. As a woman, I find it offensive that anyone would defend this creature simpy because she’s female, much less vote for her for that reason.
Please melissa, stop the “as a woman” talk. Either your points stand on their own merit or they don’t.
The VF story is simply another in a long string of tired smear articles. Sarah doesn’t tip? Who knows if what the author says is true but it amounts to nothing more then petty gossip.
Unadressed by the article is why Palin remains a force to be reckoned with in American politics. And almost as interesting is why a strong, confident woman elicitis such fierce condemnations from the left.
“Vanity Fair” is a fat, slick magazine with 75% of it’s pages devoted to advertising over-priced dungarees & perfumes that smell like bug spray. Sarah Palin accurately describes its male “reporters” as limp & impotent. So. is she throwing a bit of “sexism” back at them?
In the Vanity Fair article Sarah Palin is portrayed as a shallow, petty, and intellectually lazy celebrity. The only thing I saw that remotely resembled sexism is the story of her wearing a push-up bra in order to get her way at a meeting. Even then, this was Palin’s description of herself.
Like other celebrities, Palin is a big money-maker not only for herself, but for her backers. LeBron James is a celebrity because he has can make NBA investors a ton of money. Sarah Palin is a celebrity because she has the uncanny ability to get working-class people to vote against their own self-interest. It doesn’t matter if she is stupid or otherwise unqualified. Republican billionaires knew what they were doing when they drew her out of the crowd – just as they knew what they were doing when they selected Ronald Reagan. Politics has become a TV reality show.
What any of this has to do with sexism is beyond me.
Michael Gross did not write the Sarah Palin piece. Michael Joseph Gross, a young magazine writer did. Michael Gross is the author of Rogues’ Gallery, 740 Park and Model.
Weren’t there a few articles about McCain having anger issues and being verbally abusive to his wife? What about stories about John Edwards’ character flaws? How is it misogynistic to write about a woman’s personality defects?
If she presents a story of a happy marriage as a character qualification then how is it misogynistic to present evidence that this may not be so?
Also, if people are afraid to talk about her that is definitely news worthy.
Feminisim does not mean blind partisanship for any woman with a pair of ovaries.