can we talk the palin coverage from a feminist/sexist perspective?

[lorien_ca]

i know many of you would probably rather not see 'another' political thread, but i really do value the opinions and insights of the women (and men) on these boards and would really like to know what you all think. i would sincerely love to hear from both sides on this, so if you're one of the one's who responded to the previous poll's about rarely posting in politico threads, please, speak up! i really don't want this to be a thread debating her merits per se, but rather HOW she is being presented, covered, questioned (or not) because of her gender.

as i'm watching/listening/reading the coverage of this last week, i'm struck by what seems to _me_ to be something of a double standard emerging in the way gov. palin is being covered. while i'm thrilled to see any woman making headway in an otherwise male dominated field, regardless of her politics, the feminist in me is actually bristling at the lack of tough questions being posed and the amount of 'fluff' being accepted in lieu of real information. when someone does dare to ask a pointed question or point out an inconsistency in her statements or history, the immediate defense seems to be 'how dare they, how sexist!'

the fact that otherwise tough journalists are backing off of demanding unscripted access to her the way they do/have of the three men on the trail. the fact that the same journalists who have thrown people like the spears family (not that i don't agree with them for the most part) under the proverbial bus for driving around with their infants not in car seats or their teen daughter for getting pregnant are now defending (or at least not questioning) the same behavior in a candidate and calling anyone else who begins to tread in that direction sexist, petty, inappropriate, rumormongering, etc. why was it so easily and widely speculated that bill would be behind all of hillary's decisions despite her record to the opposite, but cited again as basically 'sexist to even go there' when the fact that mr. palin is cc'd on the gov. emails and sits in on her meetings came out? why is it ok to call into question one candidate's religious and/or personal affiliations under the auspices of establishing a pattern of judgement, temperament and fitness to lead, but not another's?

i guess what i'm really getting at, is for all the hue and cry about the 'liberal' media, how is it that none of these journalists from _any_ outlet seem to be demanding/getting unscripted interviews? how is it that 'we' are ok with letting _either side_ get away with using the 'sexist' trump card as an excuse for not even asking, let alone reporting the answers to the tough questions? when it was hillary in the hot seat, the innuendo was, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. now with sarah, it seems to be if you can't take the heat, we'll turn down the flame.

thoughts? i've got my armor on, fire away .
lori

[annasmom]

I don't have much time, but I just had to post.

I completely agree.

When she was first mentioned as McCain's VP pick, all the political pundits remarked that Biden better not be too harsh on her. WHAT?!?!?!

Someone had BETTER be hard on her and ask her the tough questions!!

On the flip-side, even though I am a die-hard Dem, and policy issues aside, I do find myself getting angry when I hear people commenting that she shouldn't/cannot do the job simply because she has children. Or that she should be home with her children rather than running for VP.

No one would say that to a male candidate. Never.

[maestramommy]

Lori, she's being interviewed by Charles Gibson on ABC (this week?). It's supposed to be her first unscripted, no holds barred interview. Unfortunately I will miss it, but if you see it, let me know what you think! I'm suddenly thinking too bad Diane Sawyer didn't get an interview. I'd LOVE to see that

Eileen, I can't help it, I DO think now isn't a good time for her to run for VP, with her new child an all. BUT to be fair I would say the exact same thing if her DH were running for VP. I really would.

[Melaine]

I do find myself getting angry when I hear people commenting that she shouldn't/cannot do the job simply because she has children. Or that she should be home with her children rather than running for VP.

No one would say that to a male candidate. Never.

That is the first that occurred to me during this whole thing. Talk about double standards! To say that she couldn't do the job of VP while raising a family is completely contrary to, well, EVERYTHING....I was just shocked about that....I haven't really been following things since the convention though....

[KBecks]

I watched the convention speech and then I've largely tuned out of the media. I know who I'm voting for and there's not that much that would change that.

I want to know more about her, but I think I'm going to avoid a lot of the news and debate over her now until the VP debates. I may have to see her on the Sunday morning news shows though, I do want to see more of her.

The book banning and personal expenses stories were interesting, and I feel like I don't know what the real truth is, or if it will ever be known. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt on those two at this point. People are out to make her look bad, a lot of dirt has been thrown at her, and in part I think it's a throw whatever we can find that looks bad and see if anything sticks in the public mind. To me, the first rumor about who was the real mother of Trig set the tone for how she will be treated and how much dirt will be tried out.

I think that some people are threatened that the Republicans have chosen a female candidate for VP, and they have motive to do whatever they can to avoid the Republicans having achieved that first. I think it's dumb to put so much weight on those milestones. I think she will get pounded on ON THE ISSUES in a matter of time, and we'll see how that goes..... right now, it seems all the sensational crap is coming out and if she can be taken down on non-substantial things, that's the easiest path to her destruction. It will likely be more difficult to take her down on the real issues than on dirt, so I'm not surprised that the first blows are attempts to reveal anything remotely scandalous about her past, her personal life, her family life, and any mistake she's ever made in her experience to date, etc. etc. etc. Dirty blows are easy, winning on the honest issues takes a lot more work.

[o_mom]

Eileen, I can't help it, I DO think now isn't a good time for her to run for VP, with her new child an all. BUT to be fair I would say the exact same thing if her DH were running for VP. I really would.

To me it has nothing to do with having children, but with having an infant and taking on a very intense job. Man or woman, I would say the same thing.

[JTsMom]

I'm not saying there is no sexism taking place in the media with regards to Palin, but I haven't seen it. I have heard people IRL make sexist comments about both Palin and Clinton, just as I've heard people make racist comments about Obama.

I am both a feminist, and a SAHM. Although Palin's choice to run for VP at 4 mos post-partum is not something I would choose for myself (nor would I want my DH to choose it) I'm glad that there are women who DO choose to WOH, at whatever point, b/c their contribution is so vitally important- especially in government. I know the fact that I have that choice to make is largely due to women like Palin, so I would never let her choice to work while being the mother of a 4 mo old special needs baby influence my vote even a tiny bit. Her choice to work=none of my business.

I hope that Palin does step up to the plate and take on the tough questions that the press should be asking her- and every candidate. From a voting perspective, I don't care about her family life, her looks, etc, and I think they would be talked about a lot less if she hadn't been billed as "Mother of 5, regualar person Palin". You can't have it both ways. You can't present yourself as a mother, then complain that people are talking about you as a mother. If the idea that she's, "just a regular hockey mom" wouldn't have been pushed so hard on us, and the fact that she has 5 kids was just a side note, I think we would hear a lot less about her family life.

[annasmom]

To me it has nothing to do with having children, but with having an infant and taking on a very intense job. Man or woman, I would say the same thing.

*I* agree with both of you!! As a former working mom, I look at her and think, Oh my gosh, you must be SO tired!! It would definitely NOT be for me, but to each their own. I think I am probably just jealous that she looks so good 4-5 months post-partum, lol!!

It was the media that was pushing the idea, not comments I heard in real life. I just don't think that the issue would even be raised if she were a man. Has anyone criticized Obama for not being at home with his girls more? (For what it is worth, I have NO idea how much time he spends with his girls, I am only using it as an example.)

[annasmom]

You can't have it both ways. You can't present yourself as a mother, then complain that people are talking about you as a mother. If the idea that she's, "just a regular hockey mom" wouldn't have been pushed so hard on us, and the fact that she has 5 kids was just a side note, I think we would hear a lot less about her family life.

Very good point. I think it is absolutely true. She is holding out her motherhood as experience for the job as VP (or at least, some supporters are).

This might be all true and good, but then well, is what she has done as a mother open to criticism?? Also, don't the personal and family experiences of everyone come into play when they are shaping their social and political views? Imo, it is a part, but should definitely not be the entirety of someone's qualifications.

Which brings us back to the real need for her to start doing interviews and discussing the real issues now!!

[cottagemom]

I thought Gloria Steinem had some interesting things to say about her nomination.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,1290251.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Opinion
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is
Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem

September 4, 2008

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that
even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the
Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a
first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many
men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted
violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm,
who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny
to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a
boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him
and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has
never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life
more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing
pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

..... {see link for remainder of article}

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the
Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now
supporting Barack Obama.