Why are people so shocked by liberals’ sexist attacks on vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin? Sure, they’ve created Photoshopped images of her as a porn star and bikini model, nicknamed her VPILF (a spin on MILF) and, for good measure, suggested she should be at home raising kids instead of running for office. But this is nothing new. Although certain members of the left love to accuse Republicans of ignoring women’s interests and being the “party of white males,” they’re also fine with vile, woman-hating attacks on conservative women. As columnist Michelle Malkin noted last week, “Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors.”
And they can’t wrap their heads around the idea that a woman would make an independent choice to vote Republican. That might explain why liberals frequently portray them in some degrading position, thoughtlessly serving male masters. Liberal columnists and cartoonists depict conservative women as prostitutes, parrots, puppets and — in the case of women of color — slaves.
Shortly after Condoleezza Rice became the first black woman to serve as Secretary of State, cartoonist Pat Oliphant drew her as a parrot perched on President Bush’s shoulder, complete with buck teeth and exaggerated black lips. Not to be outdone, Pulitzer Prize finalist Jeff Danziger depicted Rice as “Prissy,” the slave character from Gone with the Wind. Danziger’s cartoon Condi also had exaggerated African-American features, as well as bare feet and a stereotypical black dialect: “I knows all about aluminum tubes.” Cartoonist Ted Rall dropped the subtlety and referred to Rice as Bush’s “house nigga” and added, “You’re not white, stupid.”
Michelle Malkin, a conservative Asian-American columnist who frequently reports on such attacks, has also been on the receiving end of them. Popular left-wing Web site, Eschatonblog.com, referred to her as a “whore” who should star in “internment camp porn.” Others have referred to her as a “mail-order bride who was trained by some minor Republican operative to do this,” “a gook out there pandering to the radical right” and “a paid prostitute for the Republicans.”
It doesn’t stop with whore metaphors. Despite the feminist demand that female politicians not be judged for their looks, liberals make exceptions for Republican women. After the 2000 election, the Washington Post published an entire article that deemed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris too ugly to perform her job. “She looks bad … why should anyone trust her?” the article asked.
How can liberals, who generally pride themselves for eschewing sexism and championing “women’s issues,” justify this behavior? As Malkin noted in her column last week, the left has always been good at dehumanizing conservative women as “inauthentic.” It was feminist icon Gloria Steinem who called Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson a “female impersonator,” and said “having someone who looks like us but thinks like them is worse than having no one at all.” This mindset allows them to level sexist attacks with a sense of impunity. After all, it’s impossible to display sexism toward people who aren’t real women.
Sarah Palin, naturally, is their next target. For the next two months, we can expect some liberal columnists and bloggers to obsess about her looks, clothes, parenting abilities, imagined sexual skills — anything other than her policy positions. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd got the ball rolling by ridiculing Palin’s hair and shoes, and referring to her candidacy as a “vacuously spunky … chick flick.”
I’m not suggesting that liberal women are completely immune from such attacks. There has always been an effort to portray feminist politicians as shrill, castrating hags — who can forget the Hillary Clinton nutcrackers sold around Christmastime last year? The difference is that while sexism against feminist candidates is monitored and called out, conservative women are seen as deserving this type of treatment.
This election season, let’s stop giving sexism on the left a pass.
Ashley Herzog is a senior studying journalism. This quarter she writes from Washington, D.C. Send her an e-mail at ah103304@ohiou.edu.
Reader Comments
I don't align myself with liberal or conservative nor do I particularly like Palin's views but Herzog couldn't be more right with this article (and is herself on the receiving end of similar attacks). Bravo, I hope readers from across the spectrum will listen.
Ashley, well written. It's amazing the double standard currently in effect. Only 3 months ago 1/2 the democratic party was bellowing for a lady to be the nominee for President, and hell would have had no fury like her supporters if anyone had made a comment about her needing to stay int he kitchen bearing babies.
Of course, the only logical place for a modern woman is on the progressive side of the house, burning bras and killing babies. The Liberals don't know how to handle a modern, respectable, beautiful, witty, professionally successful, hunter and mother of multiple children. Oh, did I mention shes also a Christian?
The mere fact that she has led a full life of honor shows why they have to go after her husband's DUI from 20 years ago. Shouldn't they be looking at Barack who has already admitted to several forms of drug abuse at the same time? Their entire party is in a vertical tailspin, and this is all they can do, horrible baseless attacks
I seem to remember Republicans wearing "Coldest State, Hottest Governor" buttons on the floor of the Convention, if you want to talk about double-standards, Ashley.
I think it's hilarious that Republicans are complaining about liberals being politically incorrect. After disasters such as Katrina and intentional misstatements about wmds in Iraq, Republicans really have no moral standing. They've failed to lead competently and when they have led, they've had to deceive the American public with phony claims about Iraq being behind 9/11: remember the supposed secret meeting between Al Quaeda operatives and an Iraqi intelligence officer or Iraq's attempt to buy uranium from Niger? No, Republicans cannot lecture on what is appropriate or inappropriate to say when they have intentionally promoted falsehoods as truths.
The faux issues discussed in this article are part of a broader strategy to distract voters. Some Repugs have now gone as far as saying that criticizing Palin's "credentials", for example her experience as a mother, is sexist but I care less about her experience as a mother and want to know if she can competently lead and not impose right wing views on the public. And I think these criteria are important since the last eight years have given us nothing but incompetence in leadership and right wing pandering.
I find it interesting that Ashley is the only Post reporter to place a photo in all her reports. Does anyone have any idea what the other reporters look like?
Ashley's a columnist. Most, if not all columnists include their pictures.
As much as I've disagreed with her in the past, this piece points out an important issue.
Three of these commenters obviously did not actually read the column.
hewjrtaken: Did you even read the article?
Nowhere did she mention the democratic talking points such as WMD's, but if you really want to chase down that rabbit trail, then by all means, YOU accept the fact that BOTH sides of the isle believed in Saddam's weapons:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Now that you are completely disarmed, let's get to the REAL topic, which is your claim that the complaints on Sexism against Sarah Palin are FAUX... where have you been getting your news from, the DU?
Sen. Joe Biden answering the question, "Would the election of Sarah Palin as Vice-President be a step forward for women?" Biden's responds that, in fact, it would be a step "backwards" for women.
Now why is it a step backward? Because she decided not to have her son Trig aborted. I guess killing babies is a step forward in an enlightened society. But no, that's just the tip of the icberg.
Even Hillary has come out in defense of Palin when it comes to sexist remarks:
http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080904/pl_politico/13129
As to your comment for competently leading; Alaska certainly hasn't suffered while under her control. Obama has done what again as a community organizer? Sounds like a great job, except he didn't actually have any real power.
Sure some attacks have been spun out of proportion such as Obama's lipstick on a pig comment; however, you cannot claim that there have not been multiple sexist attacks on Palin that were not leveled on Hillary, nor would they be leveled on any man. There is a double standard in this election, and its due to Palin not only being a lady, but also having the (R) in front of her name.
konighund, we can go back and forth about Democrats who supported the war and then later admitted that they were misled by the administration about Iraq and wmds and Iraq's role in 9/11. But that doesn't in any way minimize the false statements coming out of the Bush White House before and during the war. What I find missing from those quotations are the whole lot of Bush/Cheney/Rice falsehoods.
Again, sexism is a faux issue because Republicans don't have anything to run on. They've presided over an obscene budget deficit, ailing financial markets, and a misguided war without end. So what do they do but cry sexism when women who espouse radically right views have to actually defend those views. This isn't Coulterfest where you can write completely unsubstantiated dribble and hawk it to the converted. We expect our leaders to justify their views and tell us why they are good enough for the rest of us. If Palin has to be “shielded” by the McCain people from the media (how sexist is that by the way? Big Daddy to the rescue!), then it is their own fault that they chose a candidate who won't justify her radical right views and tries to promote a resume that might even be thinner than Obama's.
And why is it that Obama's record as a community organizer problematic for you? These are people who perform a public service by trying to rebuild communities that have been hit hard by poverty and joblessness. The reach out to kids with after school tutoring/programs to keep kids from falling behind in failing schools. If anything, community organizers are more in touch with the person in the street than any politician could ever be. But if you are going to go there and insinuate that public service requires no leadership skills or parrot Palin's suggestions that people in public service do nothing, you are going to have to qualify that. And I presume that you have zero experience in public service.
The problem that I think reasonable people have with Palin is not the fact of her being a woman but the fact of her having radical right views. And as the troopergate investigation unfolds, we get a picture of a governor who is vengeful enough to use the levers of government to settle personal scores instead of attending to the needs of her state constituency. Don't cry sexism when you have a poor candidate.
I for one am so sick of hearing about Palin being compared to Obama. Who cares? She is a VP candidate and Obama is a presidential candidate. Let's get back to comparing the two people who really matter in this election, McCain and Obama.
The republicans and democrats both chose their VP's and to be quite honest I am not happy with either pick. I am pretty middle of the rode and dislike some of the past history of Biden and to be honest Palin's political leanings unsettle me somewhat.
I could care less is Palin is female, male, hemaphrodite or unic on a tricycle, I don't agree with her far right politics. I was going to vote for McCain when he first was on the campaign trail, but I've seen him go from a maverick and excellent level-headed candidate to a far right leaning candidate. Now will he truly act in office the way he is acting now on the campaign trail and vote his party's ticket on everything? I don't know, but it's not a chance I really want to take. I truly feel like his pick of Palin as VP was truly not his desire, but more of a party required pick. McCain used to be very liberal on Roe v. Wade and now he is hardcore against pro-choice policies. I really feel like Palin was picked to fill two main voids in the republican party platform. 1. Attract all disenfranchised female voters when Clinton did not win the nomination and 2. To please the far right conservatives who are severely dissatisfied with Bush not being a right wing uber conservative.
I guess what I am trying to say is let's stick to the political leanings and issues the presidential candidates are voicing and not worry about the VP's.
Everyone keeps playing a damn what if game on both presidents. "Well why would you vote for McCain? He is old and will probably die in office due to his health problems then Palin will be president, do you really want that" - yes I've heard this multiple times
"Well Obama will probably be assassinated by some racist and then Biden will take over, and do you really want that?" - Yes I've heard this as well.
If we want to play the "What if" card then we should be bombing the hell out of North Korea, Iran, and Russia because what if they decide to do something?
I am pretty sure most level-headed people, both voters and candidates don't deal in "what if's"
Amen to that, Southeastern. It would be fantastic to get back to the issues and off of these tangents. (I'm assuming you meant "McCain" when you said "severely dissatisfied with *Bush* not being right wing uber conservative?" Freudian slip, perhaps?)
konighund, you lost me at a certain point. I'm more than willing to concede many people have been despicable about Palin, but you went too far when you alleged, "you cannot claim that there have not been multiple sexist attacks on Palin that were not leveled on Hillary."
Let me make sure I'm clear on this. You think people, in general, have made worse sexist remarks about Sarah Palin than they have about Hillary Rodham Clinton. Do I have that right? If so, I have to admit, I am gobsmacked to "hear" that and I'm going to have to go ahead and argue against that assertion. I won't pretend to think that Hillary has been worse treated than her GOP counterpart, but I do dare say Hillary probably would at least consider trading the sexist remarks thrown at her for the kind that pepper Palin critics' language ("sexy librarian" comes to mind).
Consider the fact that Hillary has been called an "aging and resentful female" by pundit Christopher Hitchens, described as "everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court" by Mike Barnicle, and NPR's Ken Rudin compared her to Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction" (he later apologized). Tucker Carlson once infamously quipped, “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”
And that's just members of the media and punditry. Conservative and liberal politicians routinely call her ... well, you know. That word I won't say. Who hasn't seen that YouTube video where the elderly female supporter asks McCain "how do we deal with the [expletive deletive]" back in 2007 when Hillary was still the presumptive Democratic nominee? Based on this footage, we're led to believe that even older, gray-haired women will put aside social niceties to invoke the insult. No one even needed to explain to McCain whom she was referring to -- McCain laughed, knowingly. Because this was considered a perfectly acceptable way to refer to Hillary Clinton.
Well, it's not. It's patently unacceptable. In fact, any kind of comment that alludes to a singularly gender-related behavior should be considered inherently inappropriate and a sorry attempt at disproving either woman is incapable of fulfilling her position.
(I don't think, however, it's sexist to question either woman's experience and background. That's just common sense. If newcomer Gov. Tim Kaine had been selected for Obama's running mate, we'd have some idea of whether prejudicial views had unfairly affected how the two VP candidates were questioned, but we don't have a decent comparison at our disposal).
The only good that can come from this monstrous hijacking of voters' attention, either way, is for people on both sides of aisle to acknowledge when this abuse is levied at the opposing party's women. For conservatives, this is a priceless opportunity to develop some empathy for Hillary's experiences and acknowledge that she hasn't been pulling the "sexism card" all these years, after all. For liberals, it's an equally valuable opportunity to rise above partisanship and treat Palin the way that (at least) some feel Hillary deserved to be treated.
Wow, my posts always look so much shorter when I type them up in this tiny box ...
hewjrtaken:
sure, there have been republican claims that Iraq had WMDs; thats not in dispute, I listed the Dems who also made the same claims because of your original post in which you try to make it sound like only the republicans did that. Re-read your first paragraph and you'll understand the relevance. You can't make a statement like you did without also sharing the blame with the other party if they did the same thing.
kabrownrigg/southeastern:
Im not saying that Hillary was free and clear of any sexist attacks. But when they did occur, many in the MSM held the offender's feet to the fire; they were held accountable for their actions. I remember the guys holding signs at Hillary rallies that said "Iron my shirt" and the swift reaction that received. For the comment you mention kabrownrig, there was alot of media play for McCains gaffe.
The question comes in for sexism when they are saying that she is unfit because she is a mother (multiple references to her not being home enough with her kids have been launched since her acceptance speech). They can't attack her experience in elected office because she has more than Obama. How many are questioning Baracks role as a MIA father to his young daughters if he is elected? none.
Furthermore, even real experience has been called into question. One has been a Mayor and governor, another has been a community organizer. And while a community organizer sounds great when discussed in speeches "Just words, just speeches", the fact of the matter is that it is a position without any real power. Personal life character building? Certainly. But actual usage of power in a seat of government... aka experience? None. Look at Chicago today. What drastic changes for the good can be directly attributed to Baracks work in Chicago? Did he make people feel good with a few speeches? Did he tell them how to balance their finances or pay their bills or get them to register to vote? What has he actually done that made Chicago a better place? It is for the lack of any real substance to these questions that people rightly question his work as a community organizer and it's qualifications to be president.
So lets get this straight.
--Can't Question Michelle Obama and her multiple comments about her lack of pride in the US even though she is actively campaining for him (including todays letter to the editor).
--Can't question Barack on his extremist pastor who has on the record repeatedly made anti-American and racist statements, even though he has been a member of the church for 20+ years
--Can't question him on his relationship with known terrorist William Ayers, even though they have made speeches together, sat on boards together, etc.
--Can't question him on corruption when it comes to his sweet deals with Tony Rezko
-- how about his recent slam on people with diabilities, look to the ad that claims McCain doesnt know how to use a computer... Its well documented that he can't do it due to his war injuries!
But attack Palin (who as several have said isnt even running for Pres) on her role as a mother, her husband's 20 year old DUI, her being a step backward for womens rights!
(I gotta admit, she is a step backwards for the liberal agenda, but since when is that a bad thing? After all, the request to be able to kill babies is nothing more than a desire for a lack of personal responsibility.)
http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativeopinion/2008/09/12/americas-greater-need-community-organizer-or-commander-in-chief/
and yeah, these boxes do make the posts seem smaller until entered!
In regard to the photoshopped images, I find that conservatives tend to attribute anything that offends them to liberals, regardless of whether the thing in question has any merit as a political statement. I hardly think that an attempt at crude humor pulled from the depths of the 4chan boards constitutes a policy of liberal attacks.
I also think it is funny that Republicans are suing Republicans to suppress the investigation of Palin in Troopergate:
"What are the grounds for this suit? state Sen. Hollis French, who is managing the investigation at the behest of the legislature, is a Democrat who backs Barack Obama for president.
The five legislators name French and another Democratic legislator, Kim Elton, in the suit, as well as special investigator Stephen Branchflower and the Alaska Legislative Council. "The Partisan actions of Sen. French, Sen. Elton and the Legislative Council have tainted the investigation beyond the appearance of impartiality required under the Alaska Constitution," claims Kevin Clarkson, Esq., of the firm Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., and counsel in the suit.
Here's the amusing part: The Alaska Legislative Council is a permanent interim committee of the Legislature and is responsible for conducting the business of the full Legislature when it is not in session.
The Council, which approved the Troopergate inquiry and is paying for it, and which has stood behind French despite the partisan attacks, is made up of 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats.
In other words, the McCain campaign's allies in Alaska are suing Republicans in order to protect Palin from a bipartisan inquiry. "
from http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/361247/republicans_sue_republicans_to_help_palin
Of course, the investigation is one thing that can't be so easily spun as "sexist".
Story: "GOP senator: A 'stretch' to say Palin is qualified"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_el_pr/hagel_palin
from the article
"Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party's vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy experience and called it a "stretch" to say she's qualified to be president.
`She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials,' Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. `You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything.'"
Submit a comment to The Post