Palin Dresses Like a Naughty Schoolteacher

The rather crazy identity politics of this most recent election brought into the mainstream discussions of identity and the importance of it. Sure, these discussions were usually no more than superficial regurgitations of stereotype…but conversations between pundits do not reflect the perhaps more significant private conversations among individuals. Central to these discussions were, of course, Barack Obama’s racial heritage (and, at times, his skin color was interpreted with respect to his Americanness – revealing that Americans still really struggle to see dark skin as “American”) and the gender of Hilary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin. These discussions had nothing to do with who these people actually are. Rather, what their differences from white male politicians – that is, their “weirdnesses” – symbolized were was on debated. We did not talk about HRC, Palin, and Obama themselves. We talked about female politicians, and therefore women generally, and black politicians, and blackness generally.

Clinton’s shameful treatment by the conservative/moderate media (read: most of it) has been well-documented elsewhere: statements about how the country run by her “would be like being nagged by your wife”, how she’s a “bitch” (but isn’t that a good feature in a leader? I mean, by definition no one pushes bitches around), constant assessment of her clothing, etc and so forth and please god let the misogyny stop. These comments had nothing to do with her, but what she represented – a powerful, liberal female politician.

When Sarah Palin came on the scene out of nowhere, conservatives were overjoyed. Apparently not understanding the definition of “feminism,” conservatives declared that their support of Palin made them “feminist.” Actually, Republicans supported her because she is “theirs”; their contempt for Clinton’s politics translated into insults based upon her biological status as a woman. If they really were “feminists,” they could still say hateful things about Clinton – but their statements would have attacked her ideas, not who she is.

So much for conservatives. Yet the mere fact of Palin’s presence on the political scene allowed a slimy undercurrent of liberal feeling to surface as well. Liberals, faced with a female political opponent, conducted the exact same method of attack. For the most part they ignored who Palin actually is and used a distorted caricature of her ideology to discredit her. This is typical in politics. Yet as with conservative attacks on Clinton, the basis and center of Palin’s caricature was femaleness, not her ideas.

The primary method used by the liberal media (and in casual conversation with liberals) was sexualization. (For a mild example, click here.) Media of all kinds sexualized her. The difference was that when the conservative/moderate media mentioned how “hot” she is, it was a positive statement. Their admiration of her ideology and their admiration of her body came together. Liberals, however, used sexualized/naked images of her in order to demean her. Her reactionary views on sexuality, birth control, and other choice issues was usually the justification for this. Liberals knew that the quickest way to humiliate Palin was to reduce her to the level of a naked body, to make her image into one that could be used for sexual gratification (even if it wasn’t.) In doing so they did not directly respond to the ideas that they objected to, but attempted to undermine the credibility of such ideas by sexualizing the woman that held them. After all, if she’s nothing but a slut, then her ideas aren’t important, right? And we can tell she’s a slut because her look-alike is in a porn flick and we drew naked cartoons of her with fetish gear. Palin’s consent in using her image this way of course is irrelevant to the conclusion that she is now a slut whose opinions do not matter.

Sometimes feminists annoy members of the general community by claiming that certain actions that harm women or show a bias against women based on gender are political. Most people claim such things are social, not political. Well, folks, here we have it: the degradation of a woman via sexual imagery for explicitly political purposes.

Additionally, we have a kickback to an earlier era of eroticism, where one is meant to feel contempt for the subject of one’s arousal. Make no mistake, Sarah Palin is attractive. And when we explicitly sexualize her even when we violently oppose her ideology, doesn’t that seem unhealthy? We’re getting off on the image of someone we are contemptuous of. To me, that is an unhealthy expression of sexuality as well as misogyny. The only difference between this and hating women who act as porn models or strippers generally is that it is aimed at a particular person.

This reminds me of a story. When William Jennings Bryan was running for president under a Populist platform around the turn of the century, his wife appeared with him on the campaign trail. In one particular instance in the South, she was insulted by male Southerners and even egged. This was despite the tradition of “Southern chivalry” that demands (white) women be treated with respect. Mrs. Bryan, of course, was exempt from this because she not only had the “wrong” political views, but she was acting in an “unwomanly” fashion. Thus the harassment of the Southern men was justified – she had to be put back in her place.

Likewise liberals have and will try to put Sarah Palin, whose ideas are “incorrect,” in her place by using her gender as a weapon to undermine her credibility. And, like conservatives, they will do this and still attempt to claim that they are “feminist.”

This entry was posted on Friday, November 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm and is filed under Politics, Politics & Business, Ripe!. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.