Sexism Against Conservative Women Is Still Sexism
When is sexism acceptable? The answer should be never. Yet for many feminists in our country, only certain types of women have been worth defending. When a conservative woman is the target of an attack, many so-called feminists stay silent. This "selective sexism", or speaking out against sexism on a case by case basis, does not advance our national dialogue on women's issues. Rather, selective sexism allows a dangerous level of permissible sexism to live and breed in our country. The only way for the women of this country to truly move forward is to unite and speak out against all forms of sexism regardless of party or the source of the attack.
When Playboy publishes a piece titled So Right It's Wrong which is a "hate rape" fantasy of Guy Cambalo targeting ten conservative women, all women (and like-minded men) should be outraged and renounce this immediately. The identity and party affiliation of the 10 women is not of consequence -- this is simply a despicable act.
Or when Ms. California, Carrie Prejean, voices her point of view on gay marriage and then becomes the target of an objectifying sexist rant by Keith Olbermann, where's the outrage? Carrie is entitled to her point of view, and if you don't agree explain why -- don't diminish her opinion by turning her into a sexual object.
Or when Governor Sarah Palin's 14 year-old daughter is the subject of a degrading and humiliating joke by David Letterman, how can we let this be part of our culture? How would any one of us feel if this comment were directed at our daughter? And if Governor Palin were Governor "Sam" Palin, would Letterman dare to make that joke?
Or, on the other side of the spectrum, when Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi is compared to the James Bond villainess "Pussy Galore" in a RNC Video -- is that acceptable? Even if we do not agree with Rep. Pelosi on policy or think she has been a mentor to other women, we should still defend her from a sexist attack. Issues are fair game, sexist treatment should not be.
And frankly our country deserves better. In 2008, we passed a major milestone in electing our country's first African American president. And now suddenly comes an awareness that, yes, our country can take great pride in our advances against racism; but at the same time comes a realization that perhaps we have not yet come so far in our battle against sexism.
But times they are a changing and one can see, that ever so slowly, the country is having some "wait-a-minute-that's-not-right" moments. To realize, yes, we have a come a long way baby - but we still need to travel that last mile. And that last mile is eradicating the roots of sexism and misogyny, deeply buried in darkness, ignorance and bias. And this realization has produced agents of change: new women's groups birthed out of the 2008 election to speak out against sexism such as The New Agenda, WomenCount and Campaign for Gender Equality; as well as countless blogs forming an internet presence.
We see the successes of our collective actions. We see how The New Agenda can issue an action alert about the RNC "Pussy Galore" video and have our members write to Michael Steele and within 24 hours, the video is pulled. Or where Twitter and countless blogs condemned the Playboy article and shortly thereafter it disappeared. Because frankly these attackers know better - they are aware that this is not for the good of our country. They just need that gentle nudge of enlightenment.
But with these small victories, we must keep our eye on the prize. The real challenge for our country is to not selective actions, but rather collective action. We need to roll up our sleeves and do some digging together. To get down deep below the surface and work on eradicating those stubborn roots which have been flourishing for decades in the fertile soil of ignorance and hatred.
And we need to do this excavation as a team. All women and like-minded men must band together and unite in this crucial undertaking. We must put aside our political party, and even some issues that are divisive to women. We must instead choose to focus on what unites us, and what unites us is this: we want to make this country better for future generations. We want our daughters and granddaughters to grow up in a country where they are safe and have opportunity. That, we can all agree on.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you, Amy Siskind!
Speaking truth to power.
And I think the author, and many of those who posted to this piece, might profit from trying to discriminate between the kinds of things that some of us "on the left" say about "conservative women" that are actually not intended to "slam" the individual woman ... but rather a particular "brand" of feminity with which we are sincerely unhappy, uncomfotable, and unwilling to see perpetuated for our daughters. My problem with Sarah Palin is probably not with the woman - who is most likely a super wife and mother - but rather with the caricature. Similarly, in reference to the other post I just read, my "issues" with Israel and its fervent supporters within our government, lie not with the country or the religion ... but with Zionism and the practices to which it has led. You are under-rating many of us who really are capable of holding two conflicting ides in our heads ... and remaining able to function.
The best part about Sarah Palin is that, while her family is a train wreck, she exposes NOW and similar "feminist" organizations to be not feminist at all, merely leftist. When an feminism goes up against leftism, like when a leftist makes a sexist joke, feminism always loses. NOW and their tired old ideologues never rise to attack a leftist for sexism. Olbermann is absolutely sexist and so is Letterman. Exposing that truth is awesome.
Yes, it is case by case .. like when NOW clamped down on its many local chapters when they attempted to criticize President Clinton, the highest ranking executive in government, with an intern, a member of the very lowest rung in Government. Rather than making it a teaching moment for the nation on sexual harrasment - NOW self-immolated rather than criticise a political ally. From that point on, NOW was no longer looked to by the press as credible spokesman for woman's interests. It was reduced to just another lobby confined completely within the Democratic Party from the 1970s heights it had reached as being a credible national platform for women's rights.
Wow...so much hate on HuffPo. This article, in case you missed the content, was about sexism, and how it should be as intolerable as racism. Sure Sarah can be picked on as a public figure, but how about for policy, which is totally fair game? Pick on her for not dealing with Alaska's high rape stats, or pick on her for the fact that Alaska made deals with Big Oil that put money in Alaskan's pockets. Go ahead - that's fair. But saying a lawmaker has a slutty flight attendant look, or that her daughter is getting bonked in the dugout by A-rod - these aren't comments against the woman's policies or beliefs. They're flat-out sexist, and therefore hateful, just as much as racist comments directed at Michelle as a baby mama would be. That's what Siskind is saying is wrong. It's not ok to be sexist against one set of women or another any more than it's ok to be racist against some blacks. It's wrong to be sexist at all.
Got it?
How are the comments "sexist"?
What is your definition of "sexism"?
Sexism does not mean saying non-nice things about women, you realize that, right?
It means discrimination based on gender.
How does that apply to Letterman's comments?
Because you wouldn't make those comments about a man. Those "jokes" were targated at a young mother and a sexualized female politician. Tell me which of those jokes could have been made with Obama's name substituting Palin's? NONE. If it was a universal comment that had no gender identity behind it then it wouldn't be sexist but the fact is a man has never and WILL NEVER be referred to as "knocked up." Liberals hatred for Palin has blinded them from knowing right from wrong. David Shuster was suspended from MSNBC for stating that Hillary was "pimping" her daugther during the election. He was also forced to apologize and even Olbermann apologized on Shuster's behalf because he was so horrified by what his co-worker said, which is ironi and hypocritical because then he sexually degrades Ms. California and joins in on the Palin bashing. The point is, attack her policies-if you actually know them. Attacking her looks and children doesn't prove your point, it only gives her more supporters.
There is discrimination going on here. Generally speaking, when men are spoken of disparagingly in the media, the personal attacks have to do with other things besides sexualizing them. When women are disparaged, it's nearly always connected with our sexuality. This fits in nicely (or... not) with the culture's general trend of portraying women as sex objects. Or, if you like, as being good for nothing but... well, you know. Men aren't portrayed that way. They're treated as multidimensional beings who have other functions in life besides being a woman's studmuffin.
You know, I just realized--you know all that publicity about Patrick Swayze suffering from cancer? Go dig it up sometime. Read the comments. You will see some remarks about his looks but they are respectful. Overwhelmingly, the remarks are about what a great actor he is and what a great husband he is and so on and so forth. Then go look at Farrah Fawcett's story. It's all "her beautiful hair" this and "I've got her poster from the seventies" that.
We have other body parts besides the reproductive, you know. We're good for something besides decoration. Wow, we even have brains! And feelings! And stuff like that!
Badly reasoned article. By your definition, any criticism of women is "sexist." Please stop painting yourself as a leader for women's rights. I am a woman. We don't want you.
I asked the same thing....sexism as a word has meaning....it's not just a catch all for anything that is less than flattering for women.
It means discrimination or bias based on gender...how do ANY of the things she is talking about fit that category?
This was criticism of a woman for being a woman. Replace Sarah Palin's name with any female hero of yours and think again. Sarah is an extraordinarily accomplished woman (if the catty remarks on her intelligence or her unimpressive academic credentials or humble lower class background and culture were true - well that makes her accomplishments that much more remarkable.). Her political stances do not make her any less accomplished or any less a woman.
Robert in D.C.
So conservatives (who want to take away women's rights) are now suddenly concerned about sexism.
How odd.
Where did you get the impression that conservatives want to take away women's rights? Do you really believe Margaret Thatcher was all about forbidding women from becoming Prime Minister of England. The only issue on which many (but not all - e.g. libertarian) conservatives can be considered against women's rights is on the issue of abortion. But even there it is not really a women's rights issue, but more of any issue of which woman has the greater right - the mother or the unborn daughter.
Think before you post.
Robert in D.C.
You say it was sexist, but are you saying that it was acceptable for a woman (Palin) to verbally attack a teenage boy in the media?
Palin said "the kids" are off limits yet she verbally attacked Levi in public. When he appeared on the Tyra show, Palin called him a liar and an opportunist. The Palin's are making Levi out to be a bad father and a bad guy. Yet, we don't know the whole story.
Palin has been judge, jury and prosecution for Levi's character in the media. You don't think THAT is sexist?
Palin is an adult and the Gov of Alaksa, yet you are saying that it was appropriate for Sarah to verbally attack Levi. She is doing harm to the reputation a teenage boy and no one batted an eye.
Where was the public outrage that the Gov of Alaksa was verbally attacking a teenage boy in the media? Maybe Levi should demand a public apology from Palin.
So, the kids are off limits unless Sarah is throwing the darts. I think if you are going to use the word "sexism", you have to remember that it goes both ways.
Great point.
It is sexist to define and attack a woman, with cheap shot negative stereotypes, to deride her as "slutty", and infer that her daughters are promiscuous, and think it's amusing to talk about statutory rape of a 14 year old. The Playboy article reduced conservative women as objects worthy of rape because they hold opinions and beliefs that are different to yours. Those tactics should be deplorable to anyone who claims to care about equality. Address these women on the issues, instead of treating them like 2nd class citizens.
The Levi excuse is a straw man argument. Firstly, Levi is an adult, he's not underage, he's a teenager, but of the same age when one can vote and fight in a war, he'd be held as an adult for a crime he committed. Palin hasn't been judge, jury or prosecution of him, she responded to what she felt were lies he had told, and quite honestly, he's only being invited on these shows for opportunistic reasons. He is opportunistically looking to advance himself, and misrepresenting the Palin family, including Bristol, in the hopes of making money from the situation. It's been reported that he not only hasn't been paying child support, he hasn't been visiting the child. That is a vastly different issue than the discussion here at hand, as well you know..
Are you saying two wrongs make a right?
Regarding Carrie Prejean, you said, "don't diminish her opinion by turning her into a sexual object"
What the Hel*------are you kidding me. Carrie turned herself into a sex object. She posed topless and parades around on stage in a bikini in a contest that awards beauty.
No one turned Carrie Prejean into anything----she made that decision----and the decision to buy bigger boobs----all by herself.
What a joke.
Very well written and spun if it is to be believed, though in poor taste it was a joke and as always people like you and the media made an issue of it since Letterman is a Liberal.
Sorry, I consider myself a quite pro-feminist male, but how were Letterman's jokes sexist? Rude, yes. Crass, yes. Sexist?
To be sexist one must be inherently prejudiced against a person's ability based solely on their gender. Saying Sotomayor is not up to being SCOTUS because she is a woman, (or is likely to get PMS, or something to that degree) is sexist. Insinuating a girl can have sex is not. It maybe sexual harassment, but it is not sexist.
Furthermore, I am not quite sure who you think the victim of Lettermen's jokes is. I would have thought from the jokes that the daughter is the victim, but from your title it seems you think it is Sarah Palin herself. Do to all this confusion about both the nature and target of this attack makes me think that Sarah Palin and the author are simply playing the victim.
Great! So you would also conclude that those of us who did not vote for President Obama, because we felt like he lacked enough experience, disagreed with his policies, didn't get on the hope and change train, etc, etc, etc, aren't a bunch of racists who are "inherently prejudiced against a person's ability based solely on their race."
Although to be fair, unfortunately, there were entirely too many who based their vote on race.
It is inspiring to see that those folks are not a majority.
Palin always plays the victim. It's her M.O.
She is still bashing Couric and Gibson for their faulty interviews, she calls bloggers losers, journalists are buffoons, the MSM are liars.....on and on.
She is a whiner.
If there is one thing Sarah Palin is not, is one who plays the victim. I initially did not like her - but since then I have grown to respect her for displaying perhaps the thickest skin possible. If half the hatred that has been tossed her way had been tossed at me or any member of my family, I would definitely be in jail for murder.
Robert in D.C.
David Letterman had every right to make a joke at the expense of Sarah Palin. She is a public figure and jokes about her come with the territory. And, Sarah Palin's family does not shy away from being in the spotlight either so jokes will and can be made, in my opinion. The sexism would be if the jokes were NOT made because Sarah Palin is a female. That would be discrimination based on gender. David Letterman did his job that night. He tells jokes and not all of the jokes can appeal to everybody but it is his right to tell them and Sarah Palin should understand this since she holds a public office.
I agree with you, if Sarah were somehow 'off limits' or handled with kid gloves because she was female, that would be sexist. Jokes about politicians sex lives are made all of the time, most at the expense of males. In Palin's case, these jokes are very topical, since she has dragged sex into the center of political posturing.
The author here mentioned that playboy article and *I* find it offensive, as a woman and a feminist, that NOW jumped on Letterman but stayed silent about an article that advocated rape and violence towards a large group of conservative political type females. The male feminist that stood up and made himself and his outrage heard over that article (which was truly hate speech and objectification of women) was FIRED over it by AOL and NOW didn't call for a boycott?? Women, and feminists, should have had that man's back. Instead they go for the publicity angle via Letterman as scapegoat. Ugh!
Can you please point to where in his article the guy from Playboy advocated either "rape" or "violence"?
I have heard this said MANY times, and have asked for and received ZERO examples.
When you accuse someone of something as heinous as advocating rape or violence, you should provide examples.
A joke about sex with a 14 year old? You think that's a joke? Sarah Palin is fair game, sure, but her innocent 14 year old daughter. I think all women should be outraged, not coming to blogs to defend this kind of crap. No wonder letterman and his ilk believes it's ok, when so many women sit around laugh and defend this ignorance.
I'm just taking him at his word that the joke was about sex with the 18 yr old, who *did* get pregnant at 16, right? I would find jokes about sex with underage girls inappropriate, of course, but the entire campaign Palin paraded an underage pregnant girl around as a poster child for 'pro-life' agendas (although poster child for the failure of abstinence only is more like it) and jokes were made about it day and night, on all networks. To cry foul now?
Based on what he said, I assume he failed to check which daughter was with Palin at the game. I certainly didn't know, and would have automatically assumed the joke was about Bristol. Again, I'm just taking him at his word re the pregnancy joke. He has more credibility than Palin, who's been playing the sexism/victim card almost non-stop since being in the national eye, all while using sex appeal as a currency with her 'base'. I hate that kind of hypocrisy, and frankly I feel sorry for all her children (and grandchildren).
If it was about a 14 yr old, I would not defend that.
Maybe he was talking about the daughter who was WORLD FAMOUS for getting KNOCKED UP?
I know you Palinista know her every move and which kid is her prop on which days, but the rest of the world....Dave's writers included....doesn't know or CARE.
There seems to be a new ethic to outrage these days in America.
Dave was talking about the 18 year old and not the 14 year old, BUT that slows down the torch carrying mob, so why let that get in the way....just keep saying it was about the 14 year old NO MATTER WHAT.
The guy from Playboy talks about hate sex, but that's not inflammatory enough, so let's just CALL IT RAPE. Men shouldn't be allowed to have sex with women they don't respect or empower, so....you know, we'll just keep calling him a rapist cuz we don't like his attitude, not because he actually rapes or calls for anyone to rape.
Nancy Pelosi was called a movie villian, "P*ssy Galore" which, of course, is obviously more sexist than calling Cheney - Darth Vader. Forget about that, it's SEXIST, don't you get it?
Why let facts stand in the way of some good old fashion outrage?
So, I gather from many of the comments here, that sexist jokes are back in vogue with the left. Evidently, Hillary losing the election has consequences.
You should be gathering that the right can make an issue out of nothing, throwing words around as they feel, accurate or not. How many "ists" have they used now? Fasc, Social, Commun, Terror, and now S E X and rap-ist. What a ridiculous party you have become, which is sad because now more than ever the Dems need a swift kick the pants, or at least some kind of competition. All you got is calling people names that don't fit, which is all we are trying to point out. These labels people like Palin keep trying to give just aren't accurate, and she and the (R) party are the ones who look like fools when they pull this kind of thing.
She could have just said she didn't appreciate it, but crying sex-ism or using a loaded term like R A P E just makes her look like the extremist she is, trying desperately to remain in the spotlight and shame anyone who dares even make a joke about her or hers, no matter how accurate they actually wind up being.
"And if Governor Palin were Governor "Sam" Palin, would Letterman dare to make that joke?"
Umm, YES. Especially if "Sam" Palin was an ardent supporter of abstinence-only sex "education" programs even after "his" underage daughter got knocked up twice. Or once, if you actually believe "Sam".
"And if Governor Palin were Governor "Sam" Palin, would Letterman dare to make that joke?"
Obviously you've never watched late night TV. All the hosts have made worse jokes about Elliot Spitzer, A Rod, Madonna, etc. You can't ask us to never tell a naughty joke about someone famous. Geez, develop a thicker hide.
Develop some more original material. Is that the best you can do? Potty and bedroom jokes?
Even that does not quite hold water. Sarah Palin as governor had never been associated strongly with the religious or social right - that is why she had been so popular with Alaskan Democrats.
Wow, with 1000 comments you can be SURE that alot more conservative, Neocon, Puma, Birther, Truther etc etc blogs will be written.
But in the end, what a waste, we have a right wing political hack sucking smart people away from real discussions.
HP keeps saying they want out of the wingnut business but here we are giving preachers of hate a platform.
You can censor my comment but I Refuse to allow people who use smearing as a way of attacking Democrats free reign here.
Amy you can attack us evil liberals all you want, but make it substantive and honest.
George, what are you talking about?
Michelle, your blog and your logic was fuzzy, wooly. What on earth are you even saying? I quote from your blog:
"Comedians joke around. They make fun. That is what they do and I personally love that they can take almost any topic, serious or not, and make me laugh about it." --- seriously Michelle? Is this what you laugh about? Palin is not talking as ex-VP candidate, pls! She is saying: you cannot talk about a young girl as if she was cheesecake! If America finds its titters over raping young 14 year olds, gosh, then what was all that noise about pedophiles? Then you say:
"Palin, ..is the one needing to apologize to young girls for her and her daughter's example ........ how about "I can see Russia from my house" or "My 16 year old daughter is pregnant"."
Wow! Since when did 'I can see Russia from my window" damage anyone? But then Letterman is a comedian and comedians can speak on anything, those wonderful guys, how awesome indeed! What a god he is when compared to Palin 's weak vision of Russia from her window!
Next: "But to.. film an interview while a turkey is being slaughtered.., pretend you know ..foreign policy ..and then say DL is the problem and needs to apologize...wow."
‘Wow’, did you say? What are you?
To save an adult who is crass and vulgar with ugly foot in his uglier mouth, you abuse a young girl!
Just because Sarah Palin and all of her apologists desperately wish for Letterman to have been talking about the 14 year old DOES NOT make it so...
Yeah, yeah, yeah...the 14 year old was there and the 18 year old wasn't....WHO CARES?
The only people who would know that are Palinistas who follow her schedule. The writers wrote a joke, Dave read it and EVERYONE who did NOT have a predisposition toward Palin outrage assumed Dave was talking about the daughter who was WORLD FAMOUS for getting KNOCKED UP.
You know, the one whose entire life and career and now about going around talking to kids about how she got KNOCKED UP and how happy she is since she got KNOCKED UP but how ALL of the OTHER kids should try really hard not to get KNOCKED UP. I believe she is also the one who is on the cover of various publications with her baby after she got KNOCKED UP.
BUT since we are ALL supposed to know Palin's day to day schedule and also we are supposed to keep track of which kid Palin is dragging around as a prop that day (Don't these kids have school....EVER?) then, of course, Dave MUST have known and is therefore a PEDOPHILE.
.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
