Joan Ganz Cooney | 11/07/2008 9:50 am

Joan Ganz Cooney: Palin No Victim of Sexism

I’d like to discuss the charges of sexism that were hurled almost every time a Palin supporter talked about her. Well, how convenient, as the church lady would say.

May we review the record? Can anyone imagine a male politician introducing himself to the nation as a soccer dad, carrying his special-needs infant on his shoulder and trotting out his pregnant teenage daughter to show what a loving father and family man he is? Palin has, from the beginning, presented herself with great pride as a sexy, winking, hard-edged woman with a capital W. So yes, comments bordering on sexism have certainly been made. But what, pray tell, did Dan Quayle — who was nearly crucified by the press — and others have to hide behind? He had no -ism at his disposal to use to rationalize away his missteps. He just had to take the criticism personally — like a man, you might say.

Can anybody recall Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel calling their critics sexist? Yet both of them must have encountered plenty of sexism while climbing up the political ladder. But whining was not their thing or that of their supporters. One of the ironies is that white men who have never supported any feminist cause and who certainly opposed the E.R.A. and who are proudly anti-choice are the ones who have hurled the charge most frequently and loudly.

I wish I could welcome this crowd to the cause of feminism but something tells me that they will not prove to be reliable allies.

Read more about: Dan Quayle, Election 2008, News, Politics, Sarah Palin, Sexism, women

67 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

GG, thank you for this very thoughtful post.

By Marva Marva on 11/07/2008 1:16 pm

e-mail alert

shirley chisholm’s motto was “unbought and unbossed.” not applicable to sarah palin or for that matter john mccain.

By mary lou s on 11/08/2008 10:51 pm

e-mail alert

Wow, O Wow! What a great well written, well thoughtout post! It was truly riviting, and thoughtful and right on! Bravo! Bravo!

By Lotus Kann on 11/08/2008 9:10 am

e-mail alert

In response to your post, the first part contradicts that last. You stated, “Do we need all the women whose names we’ll never learn to do the important leadership tasks they bring to the table? Yes!!” If that is so, then Sarah Palin may (at least) bring that to the governship in Alaska. Remember she had an 80% approval rating. There are no “mainstream” American women. We are all different—just talk to a woman in Tennessee vs. one in NYC. She may have been unprepared, I will agree with that. But so is Obama, but many were talking about his fresh perspective that will reform Washington. Maybe that’s what people were hoping from Palin. (And yes, I did read your comment about significant “low profile” role comment, but I think you are reserving those roles for liberals, not conservatives. At least it appears to be that way, since all the women you discussed previously were liberal—except for Condoleeza Rice.) Respectfully,

By Susan Easterday on 11/08/2008 10:00 am

e-mail alert

Yes, Susan, I celebrate Sarah’s role in Alaska. Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal - these are just meaningless labels to me. Until we can engage at a level that is inclusive, pluralistic and diverse, we cannot have a whole body. Complementarity is the concept, not divisiveness. Why is it that when we name a person, many peoples’ first instinct is to associate them with a party instead of looking at the body of their work or the positions they enunciate? At their abilities, both strengths and weaknesses? At how well they bridge gaps and work with others? We simply must drop these artificial differences and respect each other for our abilities, each suited to her/his task and with differences that result in lively discussion and informed decisions that are once and forever non-partisan. As for these women all being liberals: first, I chose names off the top of my head that are high profile and international and second, I believe no one who knows their history would accuse Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi or Gold Meir of being “liberal.” Good grief! We simply must rise above these ridiculous, meaningless, harmful labels which, if we were asked to define them, would be impossible to define in a communally agreed way. I could point out specific examples but I feel that would do no service to the conversation. I am not trying to prove a point - this is not gang warfare or primal clan allegiance - but to bring together all parties based on ability, vision and voice to create a healthy vibrant whole. Good ideas are not restricted to one gender, one party, one country, one faction. We can and should agree to disagree and find compromise that is very often so much better than the original posit. I quote Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. I don’t know where political party fits in, but it’s not at the level of greatness, I am sure.

By Garden Goddess on 11/08/2008 10:43 am

e-mail alert

Oh I’m sorry—you are absolutely right. I got a little carried away and missed Margaret Thatcher—and it’s hard to label most foreign politicians (like Ghandi or Meir) with our labels anyway. That’s what I get for responding to posts with a 2 year old yelling in the background. With that said, I applaud your discussion about moving towards appreciating those for their individual strengths and weaknesses. The problem is when the political season comes upon us, these civil discussions go out the window. And I found it extremely difficult to appreciate most of the people running this year(s), because they either talked in high level rhetoric (ie: hope) or in their party talking points. It is about the person and what attributes they can bring to any given situation—no matter who they are. I just have to say THANK YOU for your thoughtful, respectful response. I know it’s this way on both sides. But do you realize how many times conservative thinkers on these blogs have been called stupid, ignorant (or ignorancy as one of my liberal friends on facebook said!), scary, mean, etc? I wish this could stop, but then I think the pundits would say this is how it has always been. Here’s to Eleanor Roosevelt and great minds to discussing ideas. Now I’m off to the park to discuss potty training—and I’m looking for some great ideas on this!

By Susan Easterday on 11/08/2008 11:08 am

e-mail alert

susan, thanks for joining our discussion. If it is a boy you are potty training you might try the cheerio trick little boys like it, makes it a game.

By g c on 11/09/2008 10:15 pm

e-mail alert

The 80% approval rating doesn’t rate very high with me, considering that this is a state which may have just re-elected a senator who has just been convicted on 7 felony charges. I also gather the approval rating has fallen dramatically the past several months.

By Marina B. on 11/11/2008 4:52 pm

Well—sure but there are lots of senators and congressman in situations like this—consider Marion Berry of Washington DC (and he’s a Democrat). But regardless, it would be interesting to see the approval ratings. They liked her in AK and I’m not sure if that would change because she ran for VP. She had a few bad interviews, but other than that—was pretty solid—whether you like her or approve of her policies or not. And now in her interview last night, she has said she didn’t even go in Neiman or Saks (you know, the clothing controversy)—which can easily be proved if she is lying. So we’ll have to see and I’ll be the first to decry her if that is a lie. But their is certainly equal opportunity lying in politics. The fact is a lot women did not give her the benefit of the doubt—they hated her from the minute they realized she was pro-life and conservative.

By Susan Easterday on 11/11/2008 5:34 pm

e-mail alert

I personally don’t see voting for a felon, whether Republican or Democrat. It can validly be argued, however, that being convicted of malfeasance connected with one’s office, as Stevens was, should be a greater disqualifying event than being convicted of wrongdoing in one’s private life. By way of analogy, one can visualize an employer retaining an employee who has been convicted of a drug offense, but I can’t imagine an employer retaining an employee who has taken bribes in the course of his employment. Palin’s pro life position does not bother me. The glee with which she launches lying attacks does, as does her ability to disregard facts with which she does not agree. She is just a nasty piece of work IMO.

By Marina B. on 11/12/2008 10:24 pm

I see your point regarding the severity of offense and in what venue it’s committed, but laws are laws. And I feel our government should have the utmost responsibility to abide by them. I know these opinions are all a matter of opinion, but I don’t recall Sarah Palin exhibiting “glee” when talking about serious subjects. But either way, the lies you are referring to are again an “equal opportunity” political campaign problem. The Obama/Biden campaign had it’s share of manipulation of numbers/votes, misinterpretation of comments or taking things out of context, and also disregarding facts that don’t align with their policies or opinion. What’s unfortunate is that we really don’t have any objective reporting anymore, which puts all of US at a disadvantage unless we want to spend hours researching. But I suppose, the good news for is that they won. So Sarah Palin is irrelevant.

By Susan Easterday on 11/14/2008 2:38 pm

e-mail alert

By Susan Easterday on 11/14/2008 2:38 pm

e-mail alert

I personally agree that laws are laws, and I don’t see the logic in prohibiting a convicted felon from practicing law but allowing him/her to make laws. The glee I referred to was Palin’s obvious enjoyment in launching divisive attacks. Maybe she’s too stupid and/or too engrossed in herself to recognize what she was doing, but that’s not really better, is it? The lies I was referring to were the lies about her own record, which continued long after the truth was made public. Other candidates have been pilloried for less, but, of course, and criticism of Palin was met by charges of “sexism.” And she smirks. Anyone who smirks deserves to be slapped silly. It’s one o my pet peeves. :-)

By Marina B. on 11/15/2008 12:01 am

GG, very interesting post. I did not agree with Sarah Palin on many issues but I also recognized that Alaska is very different then other parts of our country. Important issues up there may play very different in the lower 48. she may be ready someday but she needs more prep then what time she was allowed to be ready for this election. She has a lot to learn, can she, you betcha, but she has to figure out how to unite and not divide for one and learn more about what goes on outside of her world in Alaska. Negativity did not play well this cycle and she was part of that real america platform. I feel like in some ways she was used but in others she perhaps gave as much as she got. Hard to tell the inside story of what was real or fiction and whos throwing someone under the bus.

By g c on 11/09/2008 10:30 pm

e-mail alert

Right on. There was no sexism. Palin sunk Palin and invited attacks by being a vapid imbecile that even a McCain staffer called a ‘Wasalia Hillybilly.’ Africa is a country? Doesn’t know what the ‘Bush Doctrine” is nor what countries form NAFTA? Can’t name the newspapers she reads or another Supreme Court ruling besides Roe vs Wade? Stated the VP runs the Senate? The ‘Sarkozy’ call? Doesn’t believe in global warming but does believe in creationism. On and on…ad nausem.

By Wine Warrior on 11/07/2008 11:09 am