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

pi, you said:”McCain has my full respect. Whereas… Obama. It’s the deceptions he has perpetrated that I worry about so much, and this hideous, hideous campaign run by his rabid team of surrogates. I believe this approach is at the very core of the man. A man driven by a deep-seated ambition.” don’t you worry about mccain’s deceptions, or those of palin? mccain casts himself as a maverick. yet he gave in to bush on the few items he opposed him on: tax cuts for the rich, torture, and immigration. as for palin, the following cute reference comes from abc via huffpo: “More curious, frankly, is the revelation that Sarah Palin hates cats. This is not abnormal on its face, since it’s perfectly reasonable to loathe anything that requires the permanent installation of a box full of feces in one’s household. However, Palin may have a political reason for opposing cats. According to a letter sent to the Palm Beach Post, it seems that the residents of Talkeetna, Alaska - who the Wikipedia tells me is the inspiration for the fictional burg of Cicely, as depicted in the teevee show Northern Exposure - chose a cat named Stubbs as their official mayor. Stubbs has executive experience, hunts prey with his bare paws, and does not bilk the taxpayers of Alaska out of money for fake per diem expenses, like Palin does. Stubbs the cat hangs out at Nagley’s General Store in Talkeetna, with a bunch of other cats, all of whom have been thoroughly vetted, by actual veterinarians.” actually, i would like to leave it on that light note.

By mary lou s on 09/09/2008 7:16 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Mary Lou, I do feel exactly that way about Obama. And yes, I do feel that McCain is a maverick and I also agree with you 100% that he betrayed himself to stay alive politically. You could visibly see the sag in the poor man’s shoulders as he went against his own conscience over and over under the frightening power and glare of the Bush administration. As I recall, pretty much the whole nation did. Never have I seen a more intimidated press. They were cowed. Everyone was terrified of being called unpatriotic after 9/11. The poor Dixie Chicks! I still think McCain is a maverick to his core. (Why else did the rank and file of the Republican party have an issue with him?) Congratulations though… you have delivered a severe blow to Palin in my mind, revealing that she does not like cats! Harrumph.

By Buh- Bye on 09/09/2008 9:14 pm

e-mail alert

p.s. You know I bet Obama could get a 5% bump if they got a photo of him smiling with little Fluffy in his lap and the headline Palin Hates Cats!

By Buh- Bye on 09/09/2008 9:27 pm

e-mail alert

Hi My Alias — From your post, I suspect you don’t live in Illinois, since it is apparent you do not understand the vital role that petition challenges play in the election system. To get on the ballot, a prospective candidate needs to obtain a pre-set number of valid voter signatures on nominating petitions. It is standard practice for challengers to review the nominating petitions of their opponents to make sure that the “signatures” are from living, registered voters withing the election district. Every person who signs a nominating petition is supposed to print his/her name and provide his/her signature so that the signatures can be compared to their voter registration in case of a challenge. Therefore, it is not merely a technicality if a persons’ name is ony printed. The challenge procedure is very time-consuming and costly for political candidates, and may seem self-serving, but it provides a real disincentive to unscrupulous candidates to falsify signatures.

By Linda Mason on 09/09/2008 9:42 pm

e-mail alert

My Alias, I am curious. Is there any part of McCain’s actual policy proposals or platform that appeals to you? You realize that his positions are 180 degrees different from your previous favorite candidate, Senator Clinton. Let us give a cheer to the John McCain who was brave in the POW camp. But that John McCain grew into several other John McCains. In fact, John McCain’s positions on the environment, reproductive rights, tax cuts, ethanol, immigration and foreign policy are entirely different from that of the John McCain of the nineties. He switched his positions to pick up campaign contributions so that he could become President. Or maybe he had been wrong all along? I just do not understand how you can avoid the fact that his policy choices are so different from Clinton’s. You really want a more conservative Supreme Court? Another war or two? The end of social security? Just asking. Maybe you do.

By Elizabeth Bennett on 09/11/2008 5:30 pm

e-mail alert

No Elizabeth, I don’t. But I want our voting system - the whole basis of our tenuous Democracy - to remain strong. This primary I believe the Democratic Party insiders abandoned that ideal and massaged results to get the guy they wanted in. Republicans have effectively messed with the integrity of the voting system for the last two terms. Every election they target a new state. Florida/Ohio. They’ve got their fingerprints all over the software for electronic voting machines. It’s a nightmare. But now, the Dems are playing in that sandbox against their own members and it sickens me. One thing I do agree with McCain on, in — how do I say - in general principle - is that the U.S. cannot afford to lose another war… again. It diminishes the impression of our strength which in turn compromises our security. That said, there is a major problem with this illegal war and occupation of what was, a sovereign nation. I do not know if we can win an occupation. I do think we’re in a heckuva mess and Rumsfeld made a major botch of it and Cheney’s Halliburton made a ton of cash on this. Rock and hard place again. I want us OUT of there, but out of there in a good way. In a winning way. If that is indeed possible. It may be the only way we can come out of this looking okay. If there truly is a democracy in that country… altho… honesty, I don’t know if any of that is possible now. McCain will try. It might be nice to have someone in a leadership position who has actually been in a war for once. Wisdom may go beyond idealism. Cooler heads may prevail. Decisions may be more measured.

By Buh- Bye on 09/13/2008 11:42 am

e-mail alert

McCain’s choice was inspired- and desperate. He was something of a ‘maverick’ until he worked out that in order to get the presidential prize, he would have to make peace with the farther-right end of the party. So, he moved away from many long-held positions- on immigration, environmental, and economic issues. That squeeked him through the primary process, but did not fire up the infamous ‘base’. And this is the truly awful part of the story: the (imho cynical) whipping up of a ‘base’ that sees reproductive and faith issues as the ultimate litmus test and qualifier for a president of the US has served the Republican party very well for the last 8 years. And McCain- who was attracting crowds in the hundreds- essentially accepted / sold out to [depending on your point of view] that form of politics. The result? crowds in the thousands. A ‘base’ that is ‘energized’. But as Barbara points out (and as I did in a different post), being VP to a 74 year old president calls for a bit more than being a strong, generally cabable person. It is interesting that nobody seems to be making the ‘it’s only the VP spot, anyway, and they don’t really do much’ argument- and telling that the comparisons are between Palin and Obama (McCain is, at least for the moment, almost a footnote). Is 20 months of being a governor equal to being a senator? Is being mayor of a small town develop better skills than being a community organizer? Is being a hockey mom better than being a teacher? Whether or not Palin- or Quayle or Ferraro or any other potential VP would be up to the post matters, but so does what she stands for. Aside from the irony of the selling point of the VP being that she is a real person, just like you (the reality show show element- you could be the next VP!!), there is the question of the message the choice sends. Where before I could see myself voting for McCain on economic issues, and especially foreign affairs (and international relationships, an area in which I think most American seriously underestimate how much work needs to be done) now I have to consider what happens if we get VP Palin - or President Palin, (this time or next). And this is the point Barbara makes so well (above): could I vote for somebody whose politics are so dramatically different than mine? well, no. Economically she may not be frivolous, but she is a big believer in bringing home the bacon. Socially she believes in using government to legislate people’s personal lives. Anecdotally she appears to believe rules are (to borrow a phrase) ‘for the little people’. Educationally, she believes in ‘letting the children decide’ whether the creationists or the evolutionary biologists are better scientists. Does that mean that she should be treated badly? no, but nobody should be. In Europe, Palin would still be on maternity leave, and in the US there is still an open debate about things like maternity leave and childcare. To have a conversation about the pros and cons of going into what is obviously a more-than-full time job when you have an infant is not necessarily anti-feminist. Why do we think that there will ever be an easy answer to that question? My understanding of feminism was removing artificial limits, not trying to pretend that there is no difference between being a woman and being a man. In some ways, the way Palin is being marketed like that old Virginia Slims ad: she can bring home the bacon (career woman), fry it up in a pan (hockey mom), and never ever forget you are a man (women shouldn’t whine). Is this really progress?! (and Star, I’m with you on the tone thing- a place for thoughtful postings is what brought me to WoW in the first place- let’s show that it can be done!)

By Kate Puddlejumper on 09/09/2008 1:00 pm

e-mail alert

Thanks, Julia. The article said it just right for me. Though I don’t agree in the least with Ms. Palin and will NOT be voting for that ticket because I don’t agree with their politics, these venomous attacks do nothing but hurt. I wish we could stick to the issues and be passionate about who stands for what instead.

By Chris Broersma on 09/09/2008 1:08 pm

e-mail alert

Public discourse has been destroyed by the neocons, who threw reason out the window years ago in an ideologic attack on the Constitution, the court system, the bill of rights, and the idea of fair play in this country. They demonized anyone who disagrees with them. They listen only to Rush Limbaugh and other vicious fools who lead them down the garden path, and shout down anyone else. They don’t read anything that doesn’t agree with their narrow view, and they are determined to take over this country and destroy the opposition. I’m not making this stuff up. This is what they say in public they are doing. Religious freedom is seen as a threat to their so called “American way of life,” when that is the very basic tenet of our way of life, for example. And now, when many have thrown in the towel and are name-calling and making fun of this latest “bread and circuses” stunt of naming an underqualified, bigoted, proudly ignorant, gun-toting “mama” to their ticket, they’ve managed, once again, to divert the discussion from the issues of this campaign: health care, the war, the sanctity of the ballot, the destruction of the banking system, the bankruptcy of our housing industry, the biggest national debt in US history, 6+% unemployment and growing, the looming recession, etc. They don’t want us to talk about these things, they want us talking about Palin. Okay, here’s talk about Palin: John McCain is totally unqualified to be President of the United States because he selected her to be his Vice Presidential candidate, and he didn’t even check her out enough to find out she is being investigated for malfeasance in office. End of discussion, end of story. But that is if people were actually thinking.

By Mugsy Peabody on 09/09/2008 1:20 pm

e-mail alert

Mugsy— Exactly. The NeoCons in a booklet written, printed and distributed by Tom Delay/The Heritage Foundation etc state their mission, “Not to debate liberals but to use Stalinist tactics to wipe them off the face of this Earth.” So yes we are in a civil war with some of us who most care about the Constitution and sick of the NeoCons (neither new or conservative but as old as time and evil as hell—read that somewhere and forget author but so true) and part of the game is change the frame (ie Palin for McBush) and steamroll them…and by god if they counter or speak up call it unfair or whatever other adjective can deflate the attack. This woman is an abomination and her choic proves McCains unfitness for office. But they have control of the MSM and the voting machines so it will be an uphill fight. And I have one response to Julia Reed saying “Play nice.’ NO! Hope that’s clear enough. This is a fight for our country….and Miss Mooseburger should be indicted. Thankfully her crimes seem to be getting some notice today in the Washington Post etc….but this could be another Oct Surprise. As much as dislike Rove, gotta hand it to his craftiness. But her in to deflect attention off McSame….let everyone go nuts. Change the frame. Then let her get indicted and put someone else in at the last moment. Someone acceptable to most. Romney. And at the same time introduce something at the last moment that will be unrecoverable for Obama….like on Oct 31. That’s what I believe the plan is. Look what they did with his speech. Instead of a national conversation on his excellent speech…we had the introduction of what he knew would be a lightening rod the following day. Palin’s done her job in that regard. Dirty politics. And for them to cry foul—-is ludicrious. Not going to work with me. And HuffPo is taking the right approach.

By No Kill and Drill Palin on 09/09/2008 2:40 pm

e-mail alert

To Julia Reed and everyone else— Stop throwing around the words “sexist” and “sexism” at anybody who makes a negative comment about Sarah Palin, or HRC, for that matter! Just stop it now! A real feminist would not use the S-word for the purpose of stifling rigorous political debate on a female candidate, but that is exactly how it’s being used here! You don’t like to hear Palin called a “liar?” That’s not sexist — that’s an assessment of her capacity for veracity!!!! By referring to EVERY negative comment about women candidates as “sexist,” you have made the term completely meaningless. That is one reason I pay little attention to claims on this site that HRC was the victim of sexism — not because I don’t believe she such a victim (I’m sure she was), but because most posters do not discriminate between bona fide sexism and political scrutiny/criticism. In short, you have over-used the word to the point of rendering it meaningless. I am going to express my opinions about Gov. Palin freely, and no one on this site has the right to call me sexist for doing so. Eugene McCarthy visited my college campus in 1972 when he was running for the Democratic nomination. I asked the Senator face-to-face if he would consider Shirley Chisolm as his VP running mate, and his answer was no, he thought she was better suited to a Cabinet position. Now Ms. Reed will probably need a fact-checker to learn who Shirley Chisolm was, and I do not recall seeing even one of HRC’s supporters on this site invoke her historic quest for the nomination in 1972. In any case, I doubt that many were actually advocating for her as VP in 1972. The point is that I don’t have to ask anyone here for credentials as a feminist on getting a woman on the Presidential ticket, so cut this “sexist” b.s. now. If we have a pro-feminist agenda, then let’s work for it by voting for Obama, because Palin will set us back a century.

By Linda Mason on 09/09/2008 1:53 pm

e-mail alert

As Anne Hathaway said, her gender has nothing to do with why I am not going to vote for her.

By Mugsy Peabody on 09/09/2008 2:41 pm

e-mail alert

I am a Democrat [centrist] who agrees with Julia Reed regarding the sexist slurs and innuendos levelled at Sarah Palin. Her phony and insulting photoshopped rifle toting in bikini was appalling, and criticism of her that reeks of sexism, snobbery, and bias has revealed just how one sided the sexism has become. Sarah Palin is entitled to her positions, and tolerance for those we disagree with is one of the benchmarks of our Democracy. It should be possible to respectfully disagree with her views and challenge them. It is not alright to smear or insult her and infer she has no right to her opinions. She makes herself very clear and appears a strong enough person to argue and defend her positions. DailyKos had a disgusting post about her Downs Syndrome baby which I found revolting, just as the comments as Palin’s being unfit to serve because she is a mother of 5. Insulting nonesense. While I am opposed to her views and positions I believe she has every right to them. Treating Sarah Polin as a pariah, a hick, an incompetent, and adding phony photoshopped junk to the Media is unacceptable and hypocritical. Vice Presidents are usually chosen for their usefullness to the ticket by all parties. There is a long history on this, As Julia says, this is politics.

By mitzi morris on 09/09/2008 2:02 pm

e-mail alert

Everyone on the McCain deathwatch is so appalled at the possibility of Palin one day becoming the Commander In Chief. Strangely, I am not so phased by this. Perhaps being raised by and surrounded by such creatures growing up puts me at some ease. I know them to be fiscally responsive doers and very basic meat and potatoes (okay moose and potatoes) kind of people. Palin is a good representation of a large segment of our population. It might not hurt to have a mother in the White House folks, even at the head of the ticket. Couldn’t be worse than the mess the men have wrought over the last few decades. And anyway, were it to happen (for those counting the days of McCain’s demise) you can be assured that she, like any president, would be surrounded by mega-advisors, and could also be turfed out of the position within a matter of one term.

By Buh- Bye on 09/09/2008 5:37 pm

e-mail alert

Pi, that’s the problem. The mega-advisors. Tom Delay. Karl Rove. Schmidt. Cheney. The Bushes. That’s exactly why I don’t want her anywhere near the White House.

By Mugsy Peabody on 09/09/2008 6:31 pm