Anne Kornblut's absurd pro-Palin false equivalence
December 28, 2009 11:36 am ET by Jamison Foser
The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut must really want to portray Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton as having faced equal amounts of sexism, despite evidence to the contrary. That's the only way to explain this ridiculous passage:
Despite "lipstick on a pig," "beat the bitch," and "iron my shirt," the 2008 election wasn't just a collection of lowlights for female candidates. It was a chance for the country and for women running for high office to learn what it will take for a woman to someday assume the Oval Office.
Notice the difference between those three examples?
"Beat the bitch" is a reference to a McCain campaign event at which a supporter asked him how he would "beat the bitch," in reference to Clinton. (McCain's response? "That's an excellent question.")
"Iron my shirt" is something a few male members of a Clinton audience yelled at her, suggesting that a woman's place is in the home.
And "lipstick on a pig"? That's a McCain-Palin campaign lie. During last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig" -- a common reference to an unsuccessful attempt to make something unappealing look better. The McCain-Palin campaign then pretended to think Obama was calling Palin a pig, and the media pretended to believe them. It was all so very transparently stupid, and doesn't have anything to do with sexist treatment of female candidates. It has to do with lying politicians, and the media who enable them.
And Kornblut should know "lipstick on a pig" isn't like the others; that it was, instead, a McCain campaign concoction: the article she links to -- an article she wrote -- notes that McCain himself had used the same phrase to describe a Clinton health care proposal. So why is she pretending Barack Obama's use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" was the equivalent of John McCain praising a questioner who referred to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch"?
The "lipstick on a pig" was not in reference to any human being, let alone a woman, so it's ridiculous to say it was a sexist remark equal to telling Hillary to "iron my shirt" or personally calling her a "bitch".
A politician seeking office who used the expression "lipstick on a pig." Hmm... oh yes, you're referring to John McCain's discussion of Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposals, correct?
------------------------------------------------------------------
But then... You guys never did let facts get in the way of a good false equivalency.
------------------------------------------------------------------
But then... You guys never did let facts get in the way of a good false equivalency.
Had he said, "Ma'am, with all due respect, that is an insulting and sexist term, and very disrespectful to a candidate for President, and I won't respond any questions of that type" or something along those lines, he wouldn't own the comment. But saying "that's an excellent question" without criticism makes it his problem as well.
Do you remember the outrage expressed by Republicans and right-leaning media after the "iron my shirt" comments were made? No? Neither do I.
So it really doesn't matter who originated the comments.
Nevertheless, let me assure you, I am one Progressive who absolutely loves the former, half term governor. When she was added to the McCain ticket all hopes for a Republican win in 2008 were destroyed. Her ineptitude drove people away from the right and gave Obama a margin of victory that could not be questioned or doubted.
I think I speak for many here that would absolutely love seeing Palin top the Republican/Teabagger ticket in 2012.
Keep that head of yours in the sand, dude.
It makes our heads hurt. ;-)
If it serves no other purpose than to keep us on our toes and prevent logical atrophy, it's still worthwhile in ideological combat to keep our minds alert and our humor dry. And frankly, even as one who as taken friendly fire from time to time, I think it makes for some darn entertaining comments.
Now neon, wish you'd post some quilting tips, but AA seems to have taken an extended leave of absence.
Now to work back to topic: the press is lazier than we are; especially when they reach for equivalency and come up with two good examples on one side and manufactured junk on the other.
Oh, and... WaPo = joke.
Looks like one of the Special Education students logged in to their parents' computer......
However, mrhebert74, either you don't try to edit before you post, or that eggnog that you are drinking must be pretty potent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122301885.html
I'm a woman and I hate Sarah because she's STOOOPID!!
MidnightWriter, above, gets closer to my true feelings about "Sara."
Also I love Hillary Clinton (as a pol) and I think she's beautiful (as a human).
But damn you, damn you, damn you for posting something so outrageous I actually spit coffee on my monitor.
Here's Newsweek's defense for running that original cover photo and further expanding upon that topic by The Huffington Post.
"We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do," Meacham said, in a statement provided to Huffington Post. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
The cover was meant to convey a larger point -- expanded upon within the magazine -- that the problems the former vice presidential candidate poses for the GOP are, at once, institutional (see the special election in New York's 23rd District), substantive (see the death panels smear) and image-based (the tea party protests that Palin flames).
And shame on the two cowards who thought differently.
In any case, many arguments could be made to effect on either side, on that sticky question.
Which brings the point too, that "liberals" were not the ones who made sexist comments so much. The corporate press, the right wing ogglers, and other non-partisans just can't resist heaping crap on any female candidate.
As far as raising kids goes I have to disagree. Maybe I'm being too politically correct but who says a woman should be more responsible for a childs upbringing than a man? President Obama also has small children and I didn't hear anyone questioning whether or not he would be able to raise them properly during the campaign. Isn't this the old excuse that's always used for why women are paid less, hold fewer high pay/power positions, etc. in the private sector? It may not be the best example of sexism directed at Palin (I'm not usually in the position of defending her) but I think it is sexist in the same way that people asking to see Obama's birth cert but no one else's is racist.
Hypothetically: Whether you're a man or a woman, if you had 6 children including a baby with Down's Syndrome, it would be quite difficult to give all of them the attention that they need while simultaneously traveling and essentially having an all-consuming life apart from them.
That said, society should support women instead of putting road blocks in their way. That would be much more family friendly. It's done in other countries to great effect. It isn't the norm here in the USA.
And I think Mary's point is a very good one. Life is about choices. and Palin chose to have 6 kids. I grew up in a Fam with 8 kids and we pretty much were raised by sibs, as my parents worked in the day time and went out at night for my Dad's square dance calling career. Not that I knock that. He made money which we needed, and he was a real talent.
But it still woulda been nice to have actual parents at home. That being said, we knew enough not to have sex or there would be hell to pay! So even with their busy schedules, we obviously learned some things better than Palin's brood. ;-)
As for being the more nurturing sex, there is no denying (there are always exceptions) that women are by and large more nurturing. I take exception to the fact that this is seen by some as not being a quality that has value. I find women's role in child rearing to be irreplacable. And it isn't renumerated as well as what men do, but it is integrally important to a functioning society.
I am a feminist. That means seeing the woman as whole, multi facted beings, not being poor imitations of men. We have our own power and grace to give to the world. That it isn't as appreciated as it should be is something you'll need to take up with someone else.
And there are many variation in women. I know this by studying personality type (Keirsey). Every woman is not meant to necessarily be a mom. At least temperment wise. But that's a small minority. Most women are pretty damn capable in that regard and fulfill the role quite well. And some Dads can as well, but there are differences in the sexes that should be appreciated, and should not be discounted.
But I don't consider it troublesome to make the inquiry as to the suitability of a woman with 6 kids on the younger side (with a Down Syndrome baby) being the VP. I'm not really seeing most men as the Mr. Mom type. And that's not knocking men. It's just that boys aren't bred socially for the job is all.
I also didn't mean to purport that Keirsey's work be construed as suggesting that some women do not innately have the temperment, due to personality difference, of being a mom. That's an individual thing, but I didn't make that clear by the way I structured that paragraph.
So my apologies for that. But pesky biology does have a role to play. Let's admit that at least, for goodness sake. To say otherwise is folly, or wishful thinking.
And this is taking into account that my own mother wasn't all that hot....ha! But my Dad as a mom wouldn't have made the cut. ;-) Just my informed opinion and an anecdotal reference on my own parentage.
With respect, I did read your comments, including this remark:
I took this to mean that if women "just are" "more responsible", then non-women are less responsible -- and this is a "biological reality" rather than matter of cultural gender norms. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but it seemed a logical implication of your argument. Thank you for elaborating your position.
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that women are somehow "replaceable" as mothers, to devalue women's roles as mothers, or to undermine the unique values and qualities of women. I just think it's critical to acknowledge that womanhood and motherhood are much richer categories of identity than those of simple biology. (I think we agree on that point.) Again, my sincere apologies if I've misunderstood your argument.
So what I'm trying to say is that I don't think I was as clear as I coulda been. I just couldn't type/think that well. And to boot I wasn't wearing my reading glasses.
Okay, my very responsible H got the new router installed. But he still doesn't nurture our tiny kitty beings like me! I'm going on because we just got two new rescue kittens about 7 weeks ago. God, they're adorable, if not a bit of a handful.
And yes, I do think we are probably mostly in agreement. And I think kids are always better off with a very involved dad. I wished I had had that. My parents cared, they just had their hands way too full. And I see no way that Palin could do what she's doing and it not be a detriment to her kids. That was my ultimate point.
This is another example of how deluded the right is on who gets attacked more based on their sex. They want to put conservative women in a glass jar and label any criticism or opinion about them as being sexist. BUT at the same time, they have no problem with insulting and humiliating liberal women in a sexist manner.
Who gets attacked more in a sexist manner, Palin by liberals or Peloci by Rush and Beck?
The media was focused on irrelevent issues like Sarah Palin's wardrobe because they couldn't dispute her on the issues. One supporter of McCain's made an unfortunate line (beat the bitch), where as Obama himself called Sarah a pig. I agree, there is no comparision between the sexism faced by Sarah and Hillary. Sarah faced real sexism - Hillary faced phony fabricated sexism.
Hillary sought to portray herself as a victim - Sarah was a serious substantive candidate on the issues who didn't need anyone's sympathy.