Sarah Palin, "Sexism" and Double Standards

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

I was watching the MSNBC/Fox News commentary following the convention speech of Sarah Palin earlier, and one right-wing commentator in particular made me think of all these claims of sexism in regards to coverage/criticism of Sarah Palin and her personal life. He basically said that Sarah still has to prove that she has what it takes to be VP in a debate with Joe Biden, which I agree with. But then he says that Joe Biden better "watch what he says" so as to not get people upset with him for basically bullying her. I recall myself even saying that in a thread somewhere, but today I started to remember Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries and the media treatment of her.

These Republicans who are absolutely PISSED that the media is bullying Sarah Palin and her personal matters are the same folks who accused Hillary of complaining when the 'big boys' ganged up on her in a debate. The same folks who accused Hillary of not being tough enough when she shed a tear in a campaign stop before the New Hampshire primary. The same folks who said that Hillary Clinton had NO RIGHT to make such complaints and that if she can't take hanging out with the guys, she should just get out.

I watched the Daily Show later on and Jon actually did a segment about it too. Among the examples of double standards displayed in regards to the treatment of Sarah Palin was Bill O'Reilly, who (when talking about Palin) said that people had no right talking about her daughter's pregnancy, and that regular citizens deal with these issues all the time. Then it cuts to him talking about Jamie Lynn Spears, where he says that blame needs to be put on her "pinhead" parents, who need to learn how to be responsible parents. Now I know that Bill O'Reilly isn't exactly a stranger to hypocrisy, but it still draws parallels to the whole issue of whether or not the media treatment of Sarah Palin is justified. Afterall, the basic consensus among the public was that the treatment of Hillary Clinton (who has endured way, WAY worse) was justified.

So why is it that Governor Palin, who voluntarily accepted the nomination to run for public office, knowing the consequences, is somehow exempt from harsh treatment from the party running against her, when someone like Hillary Clinton was obviously not? Afterall, Palin is running for the same position as Joe Biden, so why is it that Joe Biden needs to watch his mouth in regards to debating her, when the media was criticizing democrats in the primaries that they weren't harsh enough on Clinton? Is it because Palin's an attractive woman, who for that reason garners more sympathy from the public, and which indirectly causes red flags to pop up whenever a guy is too critically harsh on her when it comes to political disccusion? It's not like she isn't asking for it, she does afterall know that this all comes with the process.

Is this just the Republican party changing the metrics as usual, or is there a deeper, subconscious mentality among the public that an attractive woman should not be under the same line of criticism as a less attractive woman? Is it because Hillary is a proven political machine and Palin is a rookie outsider? And if so, why is it that someone with low qualifications for such a high public seat of office be given a free pass while those with more experience get thrown under a microscope? I just don't understand the mentality of "oh, we should take it easy on her" when it's not at all unusual for such actions to be taking place, regardless of what gender that candidate happens to be.

Basically, do you think that the GOP is right to claim that the media has gone too far with Sarah Palin, or do you think that it's justified? And furthermore, did you think that the media treatment of Hillary Clinton was fair? Do you think there's a double standard between the reaction of the people thinking we're too harsh on Palin, and the lack of reaction from anybody when Hillary was under attack? I guess a broader question would be whether the media is nicer to an attractive woman than a less attractive one?

[Darc Requiem]

Zeidan, paragraphs pleased. I can tell that you are riled up, but that was difficult for even me to read and I'm often guilty of not using enough paragraphs. Calm down a bit and edit that wall of text please

As for double standards, both parties have them but the Republicans seems to get away with it. I remember how they were going full blast after Clinton over Monica Lewinsky until it was discovered that half of them were committing adultery themselves. Both parties have obvious double standards on military service. Dems said it was okay that Clinton didn't serve, but went after Bush's sketchy service. Repubs belittled Gore and Kerry's service but defended Bush's and touts McCain's.

[HGW XX/7]

All I know is I haven't seen Palin crying yet, regardless of what people say.

The Repubs saying the media can't mention her daughter are just like the dems who say the media can't mention Obama's former pastor.

It'll happen no matter what on BOTH sides. Republican's just tend to speak out more about these things. It's most likely 'cause a majority of democrats lack a spine (or an audience).

I say dig up the dirt and let me hear it. I don't care who it's on.

[prime_timer]

Sarah Palin is smoking hot though Jason. Cougar!

[Darc Requiem]

We are going to hear dirt on her regardless. I just wish that "dirt" was confined to things that actually have bearing on her potential job performance as VP. I don't think the daughter issue will truly go away because of her stance on sexual education. That said her daughter isn't the VP nominee, she is 17 year old that has enough to deal with right now.

The Palin versus Obama experience issue isn't going away either. No one wants to say it, but I suppose I will. John McCain is 72 years old and has had bouts with cancer in the past. Whether people admit to it or not, they are going to looking at Palin as Commander in Chief because of this.

[Lizzaroni]

The difference is that people have suggested she should not take the job because it'll undermine her ability to mother her children, which is an unacceptable double standard. It's pretty much the only thing Giuliani got right in his speech: no one ever asked such a question for a man. It had nothing to do with Palin's relationship with her male peers in the "workplace" (ie. political arena) and everything to do with her job position/responsibilities relative to her gender.

The rest is a complete double standard the Republicans are holding the Democrats to, save for the crying because Palin has yet to shed a tear, and even then, I'd withhold judgment until I knew what the crying was about. Crying about having to play with boys is obviously unacceptable; crying because, god forbid, something terrible happened to a family member is another - man or woman.

The difference between Hillary and Palin is that the latter managed to pull off "toughness" with feminimity, and she can use that to her advantage. It might be unfair, but a dynamic between men and women still exists and Biden will have to be aware of it during the debates.

[MAX]

Originally Posted by Darc Requiem

Zeidan, paragraphs pleased. I can tell that you are riled up, but that was difficult for even me to read and I'm often guilty of not using enough paragraphs. Calm down a bit and edit that wall of text please

As for double standards, both parties have them but the Republicans seems to get away with it. I remember how they were going full blast after Clinton over Monica Lewinsky until it was discovered that half of them were committing adultery themselves. Both parties have obvious double standards on military service. Dems said it was okay that Clinton didn't serve, but went after Bush's sketchy service. Repubs belittled Gore and Kerry's service but defended Bush's and touts McCain's.

Of course if we call them out on it, we're being intolerant radical liberals..

[Smokey]

^Duh.

That said, I do believe there are double standards operating here. I'll go more in depth later, right now I have to go to a class.

[Tanooki]

I think Guiliani last night put it well. Them hammering her over her ability to do the job just because she has a downs baby, a knocked up unwed daughter, and 3 other kids aside from those two somehow makes her unable to lead. That's crap, it's lies, manipulation, and a double standard fishing for attacks when they have little real substance to bring to the table. And while there have been some jackasses playing the doublestandard on BOTH sides of the isle, some have been fairly consistent. Various republicans both enjoyed while others hated the crap Hillary got with all the 'she is a woman can she handle it' type crap. It's sick and shouldn't be tolerated. One thing though that is unique in the Palin issue is that few want to attack her on her gun toting pro-life type stuff that can work as good ammo in the press (candidates are at least.) All you're getting from most these bastards is a personal smear campaign against a 17 year old girl because her mom is running for office and it's dispicable, just as bad as when Chelsea got the woof-woof comments early in the Clinton years of the 90s. Some lameass shockjock and a handful of moron politicans on the right played that bs and it was bad, but many more on both sides denounced it. Yet, now with it being a republican female up there with 2 beyond low but easy things to abuse, a crap load of leftie reporter morons are just pounding it to death and avoiding the issues and that's what's sad. What really set it in for me was the amount of democrats that are coming out against this smear merchant crap. In particular Susan Estrich, Kerry's 2004 campaign manager, has been just ripping on the press, calling them out for double standards, and demanding they stop which says plenty to me how far it has gone.

This isn't the Republican party changing the metrics, it's the Democratic fringe jackass smear merchants that are. You get so many of these left/moderate or left/feminst types all up in arms wanting fair treatment, womens rights, and all that, but in the case of Palin it seems to suddenly get defined for anyone that fits a political agenda and that's sickening. I think both Palin and Hillary took a pounding from the left and it's just wrong. Originally Hillary got it once her campaign didn't look so hot after Super Tuesday and everyone wanted to help make history with a black president or whatever and started placing a lot of negative spin and commentary on her and showering the golden boy with praise. She gets out, and then it was just the two guys...but as soon as Palin comes in it's back to attack the girl again and due to her (like Obama) short career there's little to slam so they attack the pregnant daughter and the handicapped kid...two things that party traditionally seems to enjoy protecting, like a pack of hypocrites.

I don't think they should take it easy one damn bit on Palin, but when Hillary was getting her dose of abuse from the media and the right it was on HER, not her kid, and I think that should be applied to Palin too. Rip her to pieces, enjoy it even! But damn leave the kids out of it they got enough crap to deal with in the next few months obviously and they're not political talking points or figures. I also think it's fair to say that it's entirely crap the thing with Biden, let him do his worse...just because Palin has boobs doesn't mean she gets a free pass either. Honestly after last nights show I think she could hold her own against that guy and he's good! The fair ammo is her time in all her executive offices and her short time as governor. Given as old as McCain is and his cancer issues, if he does die, then honestly Palin vs Obama they're damn equal on the inexperience racket so to be smart I think both sides should drop that crap.

[MR EPIC]

I wonder what Obama thinks about all this.

[Tanooki]

Obama already came out with it the other day: He said that the attacks by the media and those on the left against Palin going after her baby and her daughter are completely out of line and have to stop. He reiterated his older point from months back that family are not political targets and said that people should leave the kids alone. He also followed up saying that if any of that was ever encouraged by his camp or was leaked by them they'd be fired.

[Lucas]

These people are using sexism as a shield to curb criticism and hide her lack of experience. Yeah, you can pull the "Obama has no experience either!" card to put me in my place, but it doesn't change the fact. They are trying to shield her for the same thing they bullied Hilary for because Sarah Palin is one of them. They shield their own, and attack everybody else. It's the same of the Democratic side. Problem is, most Democrats are too passive/have no spine and won't defend their own.

Say what you want about the GOP, but they know how to protect their own.

[Lizzaroni]

They didn't bully Hillary for the same things as Palin. No one questioned how her presidency would affect Chelsea; no one said anything about Palin crying because she didn't. I repeat:

The difference is that people have suggested she should not take the job because it'll undermine her ability to mother her children, which is an unacceptable double standard. It's pretty much the only thing Giuliani got right in his speech: no one ever asked such a question for a man. It had nothing to do with Palin's relationship with her male peers in the "workplace" (ie. political arena) and everything to do with her job position/responsibilities relative to her gender.

[Smokey]

^Well, on that note, Chelsea is a grown woman. Palin's oldest is, what, nineteen or twenty? I'm not sure about the army kid, but I know that the next oldest, Bristol, is seventeen. You have to admit, there is a bit of a difference there. I'm not saying that Palin should not pursue the VP office (well, at least not for this THIS reason), I'm just pointing out the facts.

[Tanooki]

Yes there is an age gap of child to grown adult, but one could draw back to the digs when she was the fugly girl with curls and braces being leveled to the other pet in the house along with Socks the cat. I remember that crap quite well, and most of it though were media commentator turds not politicians acting like kids or their network feeding the crap. Also in this time Hillary was blunted largely by the media machine too wanting to kiss up to Obama. They gave him a lot more coverage time, they gave her on some networks (NBC) less coverage than McCain. Also, again with NBC and even CNN she got the most negative press out of all 3 at that period which is amazing to me. I don't like the chick, we know that, but it even aggravated me how twisted it got over time.