Palin's Appearance Makes Headlines Because of Our Hypocrisy, Not Hers

Despite my usual tendency to delight in the unmasking of hypocrisy, I am having a tough time hopping on the bandwagon of outrage over Sarah Palin's 150-thousand dollar clothing allowance. Oh sure, it puts the lie to her small-town, off-the-rack values and reinforces her critics' image of her as some sort of Barbie candidate, in this case the "makeover edition" complete with several designer outfits and stylish stilettos. Turn Caribou Barbie into Cosmo Barbie! But beneath this "controversy" is a troubling fact: when it comes to judging female politicians, we are still a deeply sexist culture. Hillary Clinton was certainly subjected to this relentless scrutiny. The result: she actually looked better and better as the campaign went on, her "look" polished by hair and makeup folks who were part of her entourage. As I watched her during her grueling campaign schedule, I found myself thinking, "Wow, she looks great! How does she manage that?" I did not find myself thinking the same about Barack Obama. Men get to wear suits and ties. BOR-ing. But oh, so simple.

Enter Sarah Palin, an attractive woman with long legs who is not shy about showing them off by wearing skirts and perching on impossibly high heels. Again, I found myself thinking, "Wow, how does she manage that?" I last wore stiletto heels to my high school prom, where I quickly kicked them off under the table. And, like Hillary, I wear a lot of pantsuits. Probably for the same reasons. But the catty comments aimed at Hillary Clinton's appearance from the right over the years pale next to those aimed at Sarah Palin's appearance from the left in just the last few months. Palin may appear hypocritical for accepting 150 thousand dollars of the RNC's money for expensive outfits while touting her credentials as a woman from the "real America." There's no doubt that she would have been better off spending the money on more reasonably-priced attire, especially at a time when she is attempting to identify with struggling middle-class Americans. That part is certainly fair game for critics. But make no mistake: we have a double standard when it comes to men and women running for office. So if Sarah Palin is guilty of something here, I would call it a matter of degree. The fact that she needs to look sharp for daily appearances in front of those unforgiving high-def cameras is something all women in the public eye can relate to. How much you spend on that effort is a separate question.

I remember how shocked I was when I learned that the hair and makeup person who worked for one of network television's top news anchors was paid a yearly salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars. But there is a reason that particular female anchor looks fabulous, day in and day out. Does it have anything to do with journalism? Of course not. No more than stiletto heels have anything to do with politics. Except that we make it so. Until we can turn our culture into one that teaches our daughters that what you know is more important than how you look, hypocrisy will have a home here. And I'm not talking about Sarah Palin's.

Comments

[suvbaby]

A $2500 valentino Jacket a necessity? Almost $13,000 for less than 2 weeks of makeup and hair?
Give me a break. The RNC should have considered how it would play out with the woman who is struggling to buy clothes for her family.

[tellthetruthalways]

You missed the boat on this one. Was it sexist when the media made a big deal about John Edwards' haircut? Or Bill Clinton's for that matter? Trust me, if Barack Obama had spent $150,000 on wardrobe it would have been big news. Palin's makeover is news because this woman and the McCain camp made a big deal about her status as a regular, small town hockey mom. They painted an image to win votes and then went out and dressed her up in the most expensive duds they could find. That is why this story had the legs it did, not because misguided sexism.

[yngskywlkr]

" The fact that she needs to look sharp for daily appearances in front of those unforgiving high-def cameras is something all women in the public eye can relate to. How much you spend on that effort is a separate question" ...

You make the same point I was just about to make. The question here is not just about double standard, but more about how far they went to make her look good. 150,000 dead president's far.

Perfect example Fox news. I understand there is a double standard out there for female anchors, but do they all have to be blond, blue eyed, buxom hotties in tight blouses, short skirts and knee high boots ? I mean even the female anchors at CNN and MSNBC don't take it that far.

[Balzac]

I don't know, I think maybe she could have dressed suitably for much less than 150 thousand dollars. It's definitely not her biggest problem and I am sympathetic to the extra costs women pay for professional or formal attire because they generally don't wear uniform suits like men do.

[nee]

It's not like she went out and spent the money. The clothes were bought for her to wear. She isn't going to keep them. They will either be brought back or donated to charity. I still don't get what the big deal is.

[maribelle1963]

Worst of all, she actually embodies EVERY TIRED CLICHE OF a stereotypical women politician, the things men thought for years that kept women down:

1. She doesn't really know anything/she's uneducated
2. She was chosen for her looks/sex appeal
3. Won't her kids be a problem to her ability to govern? (she charges the state for kids' travel, RNC pays for their clothes, Piper carrying a LOUIS VUITTON BAG --can't seem to get over that one-- and she was absent from the Juneau legislature so much they started wearing "where's sarah?" pins)
4. She's a "kept women" who runs up big bills (150K in clothes, + 22K makeup artist,+10K stylist)
5. She's a consumate liar (sigh. Palin's demonstrable lies could fill a book.)

EVERY ITEM ON THIS LIST HAS BEEN USED TO KEEP WOMEN DOWN and out in business and politics. Palin is the true life version, a living nightmare of ALL these things, rolled into one.

Palin has put the women's movement back 20-30 years. The damage she has done to women seeking higher office has only begun to be calculated.

[maribelle1963]

PART--1

I don't buy the "she had to do it" scenario.

The problem with your thesis is this: Each of these women had the chance to "recreate" this role as they were breaking new ground. Clinton chose to make the role as unisex as possible. Palin chose (or had chosen for her and went along) the sexiest, most stylish role she could get away with and actually USES her "feminine wiles" to try to win (winking and mugging, stilletto heels and boots, etc.)

Hillary was moving in uncharted waters and as such, she invented the role of Woman Senator running for President. She chose to wear pantssuits, to look authoritative, put together and stylish. And rich--Let's face it; Hillary is a rich woman and she looks it, dresses it, owns it. Her choice, and she takes whatever heat she takes for it.

Sarah Palin came out of nowhere and tried to claim the opposite; she's an "every woman." But dressed up in super-expensive designer, sexed-up office wear.

[mercury613]

Were we not talking about Sarah Palin, Ms. Muller, I would agree with you. But we are, and I don"t.

It is absurd to compare Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton. Regardless of what you may think about her politics, Clinton is everything Palin is not " educated, accomplished, experienced, articulate, and well-traveled; in other words, qualified to be Vice President. In Clinton"s case, your charges of hypocrisy and double standards are absolutely appropriate.

Palin, however, is shockingly and obviously unqualified to be Vice President. She was picked by McCain and his goons for many reasons, including her phony everywoman image and religious fanaticism, but one major factor in her selection is her ability to give Joe Six Pack an erection. Her looks and sexuality have been a large, calculated part of their campaign from day one. Palin knows this and willingly plays along. Was it her idea? Probably not, but she is no victim here. For whatever reason " ambition, vanity, sheer stupidity, or a combination of all three " she agreed to this campaign angle and is milking it for all it"s worth.

Because they, and she, opened the door, her looks are fair game. To suggest otherwise smacks of patronizing political correctness. It is also a slap in the face to American women everywhere who have worked hard to free themselves from the archaic female stereotypes that Palin so willingly seems to embrace.

[MS]

Do you really think that a guy who spent $150,000 on clothes would not have been attacked?

What about John Edward's "$400 haircut"? That story ran for days. But Palin's $23,000 makeup artist would take years' of haircuts to be as costly, per-day.

Sarah Palin is a woman, but she does not recognize the boundaries between appropriate professional expenditures and personal expenses. That's what's being noted. That's not sexist -- it's political.

[RallyGrrrl]

"Does it have anything to do with journalism? Of course not. No more than stiletto heels have anything to do with politics. Except that we make it so."

Absolutely. The scrutiny of Palin's appearance is excessive and discriminatory. Biden, McCain and Obama are not subjected to the same criticism and the same kind of magnifying glass, which to me makes it clear that the level of opinionated interest is dictated by Palin's gender, not her policies.

The shame is on those who escalate this conversation to a topic of heavy rotation instead of a passing side story. It should be a topic that remains relatively under the radar instead of making banner headlines.

Bottom line: get real - if you want to dislike the McCain-Palin ticket then pay attention to their policies. If you don't vote for them then they can't win. There is absolutely no difference between a vote from someone who really really super duper wants that candidate to win and a vote from someone who is torn about whether or not to vote for that candidate. Talk is cheap - if you really want to make a big deal out of how ridiculous Palin or McCain are, then come up with an argument that will actually convince someone to NOT vote for them. Otherwise you're just wasting your breath.

[osalover]

The fact is this: when Hillary was running the Dow was not in the tank. It is frivolous to spend that much money at a time when you are supposed to be showing your fellow Americans that you "get it". And now her excuse is that she didn't know how much money was being spent and that she and Todd shop in consignment shops back home in Alaska.

Well, show me a woman who doesn't know an expensive item when she sees/ feels/ wears it. Especially if she is only used to wearing hand-me-downs that she purchases at consignment shops.

She really and truly underestimates our intelligence and I, for one, completely resent it.

[kellygrrrl]

of everyone working in the McCain Campaign, I'd have to say that Sarah Palin is the ONLY one who is actually doing the exact job she was hired to do.

[blondecuban]

Do you think Obama would not have suffered the same scrutiny if he'd been the one to spend $150k on clothes and $22K for a makeup artist? It seems to me that there is reverse sexism here, like Palin should not be criticized ever because she is a woman.

[one2one]

She is being criticized for the tax payer funds spent on those clothes. Of course we know she needs to look presentable. But on her dime, not mine.

[randomx6]

Sorry, McCain at least KEPT HIS PROMISE about public financing. Much bigger isue than clothes, doncha know.

Yeah still voting for Obama because of the Court but expect a Carter/Bush type Presidency.

[dccarles]

I'd agree with you, Ms. Muller, if it wasn't for Edward's $400 haircut. I don't think this is so much a problem caused by sexism (though there's a nasty thread of that) but a partisanship problem. A partisan believes any stick to beat the bad guys with is a good stick.

I could blather on about how Elections Should Be About Issues, Not Haircuts, but the vast majority of coverage I've seen have been about 'character', not issues. Character is important. I don't care how much money was spent, so long as it's from the RNC's purse and not the taxpayer's. (And I'm a Canadian.)

[ZTB]

"Palins appearance makes headlines because of OUR hypocrisy NOT HERS"?????

WHAT???

I can only ask Judy.....Did you not see the post on HuffPo, that the costume designer for SNL "revealed the struggle he had in dressing Sarah Palin: she wanted to wear NICER clothes than they had picked out for her"

??????

While there is truth to the amount of scrutiny that women in the public eye face as opposed to men in the public eye when it comes to appearance...
In the case of Sarah Palin....that is not going to fly as a defense for HER HYPOCRISY!

For someone who is trying so desperately to appeal to the "average" person in the midst of an economic crisis,
who claims to be "one of them"......it seems Sarah herself was more concerned about her appearance than anyone else could possibly have been.
She obviously no longer wants to be associated with "average", unless it is to her advantage.
Obviously.

[Trapper439]

Easy.

Just tell women that when they are invited to a "black-tie" gathering that they should all wear the exact same outfit and be judged only on their professional achievements.

That's what men do.

Problem solved.

[Checquoline]

I am not the first to suggest that the 150,000 would have been better spent on teaching her something. Anything.

[kellygrrrl]

they spent $21,000 on a voice coach. why weren't they having her read the Constitution while practicing her dialect?