Julia Reed | 09/09/2008 9:00 am

Julia Reed: From Gloria Steinem to Norah O'Donnell, Misogyny and Sexism Are Fine if the Target (Palin) Is on the Right

Last week, I was a tad distracted by the hurricane hurtling my way, but I spent my evacuation going between coverage of the storm that was Gustav and the storm that was Sarah Palin (whose speech I watched upon my return to New Orleans at a Magazine Street bar, as we still had no electricity). Now that my power has been restored, the mess that was my yard has been cleaned up (I have the scars to prove it) and New Orleans is out of danger (for the moment), I feel as though I must put in my two cents regarding the response of the media to Sarah Palin, including that of some of my fellow wOwers.

First, let me say that I was appalled by it generally, but I’ll try to dismantle the reaction piece by piece. First, there is the stunning double standard. In an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, Gloria Steinem refers to the “ridicule and misogyny” suffered by Hillary Clinton. Both those words could certainly apply to what Sarah Palin went through last week. Blogs accused her of faking her own pregnancy with a Down syndrome child to cover up for her daughter. Mainstream journalists — female mainstream journalists — like Norah O’Donnell questioned whether a mother of five could effectively function as vice president. More piled on about her irresponsibility in accepting the nomination with five children, including one with special needs. Alan Colmes suggested on his blog that her airplane travel had possibly contributed to the fact that her child was born with Down syndrome. It went on and on and on. Where was the feminist outcry? Plenty of Republican women were sickened over the treatment of Hillary Clinton (hell, even I cried at the video that introduced her convention speech), but there has been no reaching across party lines to defend Palin. Not even when Martin Peretz dismissed and demeaned her by saying, “I give [Palin] her due: she is pretty like a cosmetics saleswoman at Macy’s.” If he had said that about someone who agrees with them on the issues, Steinem et al would have gone crazy. And therein lies the real truth. All the opiners who called the choice “insulting” (including my friend Sally Quinn before her about-face) really meant that it was not a choice that they would have made; she is not a woman who thinks or votes like them, she is pro-life, not pro-choice. (I too am pro-choice, but I respect the choices of other people — especially one, like Palin, who walks her talk.) Apparently only those women are worthy of defending. When so many of the most vocal critics weighed in by calling Palin a “cynical” choice, I had to ask myself, “Who is really being cynical here?”

I don’t know what people think we’re playing here, but this is politics, not checkers. Every veep in history has been chosen for a calculated reason.

Cynical was also the word used by GOP strategist Mike Murphy (who once worked for McCain, but was not asked to join the campaign this go-round) in his off-camera remarks with our fellow wOwer Peggy Noonan. While they discussed (in a conversation both thought was not being recorded) her lack of experience, Murphy termed McCain’s choice as cynical. Others have called it “pandering” to women and “calculating.” Well of course it is, up to a point. If you want the most level-headed and experienced guy in the party, you’d choose Dick Lugar. You might also lose as badly as he did when he gave it a go in 1996. If you wanted an experienced governor, you might go for Tom Ridge, who is another white guy Vietnam Vet. I don’t know what people think we’re playing here, but this is politics, not checkers.

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

Hi Diana, I have been reading the post on WOW and it has been interesting.Just a note:The Times is right leaning..I thought that was funny.I guess MSNBC must also be right leaning.Anyways everyone has their own opinion.Here are few things I have picked up.This is from Factcheck.org site. Summary We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading. Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years. She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term. She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982. Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesy” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state. Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.” She will be on Charlie Gibson thursday and that will give most a chance to see a little more of her hopefully.I interested in learning more about all are candidates and their vp choices.

By Tom L on 09/09/2008 3:06 pm

e-mail alert

Tom L. ————Must be ESP - I was just getting ready to post the same information!!! Thank you, a voice in the wilderness. Please continue to post on this site. Some of us need you badly!!! Thanks again

By Lady Gator on 09/09/2008 3:37 pm

e-mail alert

Your welcome Lady Gator.Factcheck.org is a good site.Non partisan.There are so many lies and half truths that have been put out there.People really need to do thier research.I prefer my fiction in books not the news media.

By Tom L on 09/09/2008 4:35 pm

e-mail alert

Tom, Thanks for the heads up, will check out factcheck.org. Have used it before, but figured that I would wait until some of the dust settled and more info was in, before heading on over there. Join in the conversation more.

By Frannie Em on 09/09/2008 11:20 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Tom — thanks for the info. I am not an internet junkie, and all the garbage that gets passed along here taken straight from the Internet, blogs, YouTube, etc., just amazes me. IMO, name-calling is not as harmful as passing along misinformation. You can recognize name-calling for what it is: but passing along half-truths & outright lies is harder to detect, but does more harm. Go Cubs!

By Linda Mason on 09/09/2008 6:16 pm

e-mail alert

I agree Linda.They need to just put facts out there and let us decide.Politics being what they are I dont think that will happen.

By Tom L on 09/09/2008 7:00 pm

e-mail alert

Linda I agree with you about the name calling. I like Obama very much, but sometimes I wonder if he really wants to win this election. He looks older and more tired. I have been watching Sen Obama’s interviews with O’Reilly, and I am very impressed by him. He meets each question with very good responses. About 2 hours ago he was speaking to a group and he said, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig”. Whether or not he was referring to Gov Palin, her voters will certainly think he was, and they will rally even stronger. When I heard him say it, I could only question, what was he thinking. Everyone uses “code”, the left judges words to mean something and vice versa. The right will take this as code to mean Gov Palin.

By Frannie Em on 09/09/2008 7:38 pm

e-mail alert

Diana T I think you are correct. You have the right to ask whatever questions that you want to, and you should. I think to look at her as not being able to answer the questions would be a putdown. You said the historians say that this election is pivotal. Which historians? I think it is an historical election because of the fact that there is an African American on the ticket. It is exciting and important for that reason. The last five elections each side has said and pressured that it was a pivotal election. I think everyone here has a right to ask questions, they should and this is a great forum to do it.

By Frannie Em on 09/09/2008 9:36 pm

e-mail alert

Frannie, Which historians.? The important ones. I don’t know what you mean, which historians. I am not looking to put the woman down; I’m trying to find out certain aspects of what she knows, why she feels it and what she would do about it.

By Diana T on 09/09/2008 9:51 pm

e-mail alert

Diana, I thought your post was very fair, I really meant, which ones? What are their names, I would like to read them for my own edification. Wasn’t coming after you, just asking. JSI (Just seeking information).

By Frannie Em on 09/09/2008 11:24 pm

e-mail alert

Oh, Frannie, I don’t know where to begin. I think right now, one of the most informative essays I have read in several months, in regards to what the next president will face on Day 1 in the Oval Office is Richard Holbrooke’s in Foreign Affairs Magazine. It really is a great sum-up(if there’s such a word) of the problems our nation and the whole world has, and is a good jumping off point to read other things. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87501/richard-holbrooke/the… I think Bob Woodward has done a very credible job in the three books he wrote on the Bush administration, with imput from Bush himself, and I hope I can find time to read his new book that came out yesterday. I have gone back and read some Thomas Jefferson on governance and politics, and in fact, just this evening discovered a site that has compiled 2700 quotations from him. I just think it is so important to remember the men that created our system of government were products of the Age of Reason.http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1800.htm One of my favorite Presidents was Harry Truman. He was a very wise man and faced some very serious crisis’ himself. Not only did he have to make the horrible decision to drop the bombs, but, then he had a terrible situation because of Gen. MacArthur. One of my favorite books about him is called Plain Speaking, by Merle Miller. These are a series of interviews that Miller did with Truman over a period of about 4 years towards the end of his life, and as you remember, he had very salty language. But, reading Truman in his own words forever influenced me as to the importance of a sense of history. Over the years, I have read all of Thomas Friedman. His first book called From Beirut to Jerusalem is still considered one of the definitive books of the area, and gives a great basis to get familiar with the Mid-East and all of the areas. I think because my brother-in-law is an Israeli, and has been part of the family since 1959, it instilled in me from a young age, a necessity to learn as much as I could about what did happen, what should happen, what will happen. In regards to Afghanistan, I discovered a rather short and easy to understand book called “Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics by Martin Ewans, who used to be the Head of Chancery in Kabul(British Diplomat). It has great footnotes and bibliography for future reference. If you don’t understand the complexities of the tribes and tribes within tribes, the geography and the very complicated relationship between Afghanistan and all of her neighbors, you won’t get the seriousness of our situation over there. There have been fierce power struggles for over a hundred years. I also just finished a book that Lee Iococca wrote recently, “Where Have All The Leaders Gone?” It’s only about 260 pages long; I think I read it in a weekend, and he is bemoaning the fact that we seem to be squandering our cutting edge and we are having trouble with our upbeat American can-do attitude. By the way, if you missed him tonight, go to charlierose.com tomorrow and watch him with Tom Friedman talking about the new book, Hot,Flat and Crowded. He was very good about setting the agenda this country needs to have to get ourselves back on track, and it gave me a lot to think about. This is some of the stuff I have been reading. I feel like it’s not enough to get you going. There is so much to think about, and I am always reading something; Dad always told us that you should never stop learning something until the last day on this earth. I try to read about 12 newspapers a day and I go to several think tank sites such as the Council of Foreign Relations, The Congressional Record. I am very much into environmental issues and try to keep on top of it all the time. http://www.ipcc.ch/ This is the website of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and if you look about a third of the way down the page, you can read the full report on Climate Change and Water by downloading in PDF. Oh, and try to get Dennis Ross’ book he wrote last year on Statecraft; it is a must read, and I learned so much about diplomacy by one of the best. Will this help?

By Diana T on 09/10/2008 12:05 am

e-mail alert

Diana, Thanks for the info, have read Friedman for years. I have seen him talk about Flat Hot and Crowded. I am in Calif so Charlie isn’t on yet. I am real tired so will probably head to bed soon. My degree is in East Asian Languages and Cultures, with a minor in International Relations, didn’t do a lot of work on the mideast until my son ended up there. But I’m fully aware of the complexities of the tribes, and their entrenchments in their relations with each other. I like Woodward, but sometimes he seems a little pedestrian in ideas. Always shading situations with the same old perceptions. If this, then it must have been this, because I just know it. He recreates dialogue when he wasn’t present, nor did anyone tell him what was said. When asked how do you know they said that, he said - “I just know it had to be that way.” A little too much ego for me. Not that he doesn’t reveal some true facts, but other democrat leaning journalists say that he is too cozy with people in government to get a great perspective. Don’t get me wrong, I will probably read his new book, but he loses me at times because of lack of objectivity. I don’t know if objectivity exists anymore, that is why I asked about historians. Thanks for the links and your great post with all the great things to read. Too pooped to read Holbrooke tonight, but will definitely hit it tomorrow. Thanks again.

By Frannie Em on 09/10/2008 12:55 am

e-mail alert

It’s just a ridiculous shell game, Diana. I dislike virtually everything I know about this person. I dislike everything I know about Dick Cheney. Sexism has nothing to do with it. She is unqualified, non-inclusive, ignorant of foreign policy, and if this is the best the republican party can present as a serious candidate, then I say, well, obviously, they have a very shallow bench. So they shout about how “women” are being “sexist” and all that bullcrap. Nonsense. She’s unqualified. So’s McCain. They are unqualified. They should not be elected. End of story.

By Mugsy Peabody on 09/10/2008 2:27 am

e-mail alert

Ms Reed, I understand that you and perhaps all other women want to support a woman candidate, especially one who is chosen to represent your Party. However, what I don’t understand about your post, Ms Reed, is why you would support candidates who shout “Country First!” but whose actions say “Winning First!” From my own point of view, that reality tells me they mean to justify any means by the end result. Is that how you want our country to be governed? Any means — lying, manipulating, fear mongering, torturing, withdrawing our Constitutional rights — as long as we “win”?

By rocky rocky on 09/09/2008 10:34 am

e-mail alert

Ms Reed — The above is a response to your words: “If you want the most level-headed and experienced guy in the party, you’d choose Dick Lugar. You might also lose as badly as he did when he gave it a go in 1996. If you wanted an experienced governor, you might go for Tom Ridge, who is another white guy Vietnam Vet. I don’t know what people think we’re playing here, but this is politics, not checkers.” — Julia Reed

By rocky rocky on 09/09/2008 10:47 am