Many McCain supporters, including myself, were saddened that our candidate did not win; yet, were so happy that a major barrier was broken for the African-American community. This win embodies hope, and the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. had. It's hard not to feel the joy that comes with a new level of liberty achieved culturally. It is a huge milestone not only for minorities, but it is a huge milestone for everyone...not only Americans but a realization of the "Dream" around the world. Truly inspirational.
Now, we need to go a step further and shatter the glass ceiling that Hilary Clinton spoke of. In order to do this, we need accountability of the treatment of women portrayed in the media. Women in position of power are typically portrayed as mean/unapproachable, or in contrast, sexy/stupid. We need to stop this. I need to thank Campbell Brown for calling out the sexism that was happening, as the media was going after Palin; Brown urged people to "get back to the issues."
The treatment of Palin was reprehensible, and clearly feeding into very bad stereotypes about women. My question, where were the Gloria Steinems and other powerful female voices calling out the ill treatment of Palin? Women will break that glass ceiling when women learn how to truly support each other, and stop choosing to only represent one type of female personality. Women need to empower each other by respecting a women's right to choose working, staying home, being liberal, being conservative, or anything in between.
In an earlier post, I mentioned that black men had the right to vote several decades before women. I pray that we don't have to wait so long to see a woman in the white house. I am truly happy for Mr. Obama's accomplishments with this campaign, and the message of hope and inspiration that comes from having a dream. This is a major break through.
So now I call out to the ladies in the media, and anyone that has the power of a voice to continue to press forward and stop perpetuating social stereo-types in the media. And, lets help change the negative ones.
IN CONCLUSION
Thank you democracy for breaking a huge barrier this election; let's get the glass ceiling next.
12 comments:
During the primaries, I sensed that sexism was a stronger prejudice than racism. The "Bradely Effect" was expected to bring Barack down; however, an effect of sorts did occur. Voters, once behind the curtain, flocked to the male candidate. Perhaps, Hillary is too much of a polarizing candidate to test this theory. But, it may be a notion worth researching.
In the aftermath of the campaign, Palin was portrayed as the moody bitch that destroyed their efforts. Honestly, nothing that campaign could have done would have overcome the significance of Obama's campaign.
Katie, I really think you are onto something. While I’ve heard the Palin gossip described as petty or politically motivated, I’ve not heard it attributed to sexism by the press.
I think your comparison between sexism and racism is brilliant. I for one, believe that sexism is a more difficult ceiling to break than racism and history bears this out. A review of history was in order, for me, to realize that there was a 50 year gap between black men having the right to vote and women's suffrage! I was thinking it was only 3-5 years! I forgot that men thought so little of women back then!
After viewing the talking heads and pundits on the tube, it is my observation that very few of them list Palin as a viable Republican leader let alone Prez or VP for 2012. I have heard many a pundit rave a long laundry list of potential male leaders and candidates, more qualified for high office, but few to no women. . .no Palin. This is coming from my own beloved Republican party. What an eye-opener. The good-ole-boy network seems alive and well in the US. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I doubt Palin is. Oh, and the Dems are just as bad, with their treatment of Hillary.
I too was appalled at the treatment Palin received from, so-called, feminists, Gloria Steinem and others. Cathy Young gives a good report of this in, The Wallstreet Journal’s,
‘Why Feminist’s Hate Sarah Palin’
Obama, achieved his goal to be the first black president because he ran a superior, positive campaign. Democrats, in general, were unified in their support. McCain ran a somewhat negative and uninspiring campaign. Even the ticket’s most ardent supporters had an undertone of dissatisfaction, because of McCain, not Palin. That’s why they lost the election. It wasn’t Palin’s fault.
I agree that a certain amount of common respect must be given to viable female candidates by the media, their own party AND those proponing to be feminists.
This is not to say that all women should vote for a female candidate simply because they share the same gender. No, we live in a free country and we should choose our leaders based on character, abilities and politics.
The unjust criticism leveled towards Palin by the press, both parties, and feminists is very telling, as each had it's own agenda. For the media, it may be as simple as sensationalism, liberal bias and the monkey-see-monkey-do effect. For Republican men, it may be the preservation of their own species, ie. sexism. For Democrats, it was a partisan attack.
It's a puzzle as to why a feminist will go against her own feministic belief system to trash a fellow, accomplished, woman. Certainly political bias is a component but I personally believe there's more to it than that. Could be, it is a syndrome, of sorts, worth exploring. After reading Young's WSJ piece, I began to think that perhaps we have uncovered a syndrome or agenda. Why not coin a catch-name to apply to it? How about, 'lateral sexism' or perhaps, 'feministic sexism'? Why not start a movement against it? (Tongue in cheek.) Seriously, I do believe it is a phenomenon worth exploring. I would like to hear a psychologist’s take on it. Then again, of course,the research would have to be done by an unbiased, apolitical, expert to be validated. There is no doubt, Palin was panned from all angles.
My prediction is that no woman will be elected to the highest office in the land until three things happen. 1. That the woman receives full support of her party, including both her female and male counterparts. 2. American women and/feminists are unified in their respect for such candidates regardless of politics, religion or ideology. 3. The press is unbiased.
It is my opinion that until this is publicly examined and corrected,it will be impossible for a woman to break through that glass ceiling. With all these hurdles, it just might be 50 years!
I do agree with you about a woman president as the glass ceiling that will take America even further than it is today historically. Unfortunately there are sometimes double standards for women who rise to power in both the political and business worlds. They are seen as either one of the two that you mentioned in your post. I think that there are more than two types of women who can come to power but some are intimidated because they don't want to be categorized as one or another.
In order for the glass ceiling to be broken women have to support women. As this past election has demonstrated having your peers vote for you (along with other support groups) can help in making history. It's ironic that America is one of the most developed democratic countries yet it lacks having a woman as head of its government.
That is such a good point, Maxwell. You are very astute. Why should women have to be one or the other? We don't characterize men in that way, now do we? Women do it to themselves and others all the time. By doing so, it is a self inflicted sexism, don't you think?
I would have to disagree with skarppala about disheartened McCain supporters blaming the lose on McCain and not Palin.
It was not until Palin entered the ticket that I became upset with the direction of the campaign. I strongly disliked her, and I do believe that her presence reduced the credibility of the McCain campaign.
As for the black vote, yeah 50 years earlier than women, but not so you'd really notice. The black male had a more difficult time actually casting their votes after the earned the legal right to do so. Women did not encounter as much social resistance to their legal rights as the black male.
I agree that sexism is the more difficult barrier to overcome, but the solution lies within each individual female. We need to stop validating ourselves through our appearences or status as a wife and mother. We need to seek our individual value from our intelligence and our abilities. Sure, motherhood is important. However, females tend to rely on these social norms for our identity, where men make a distinction between their roles...father, provider, etc.
Hillary was hammered by the media for being cold-hearted, then hammered for showing emotion. True progress will not be made until society in general understands that a woman's ability to incorporate logic and emotion into our decisions is actually our greatest strength.
Palin was so very obviously mishandled. That botched interview should have never aired. She should have been allowed to go on the more friendly network interviews, as warm up. Her stump speeches were so banal, robotic and repetitious. It wasn't until she finally started going rogue on her stump that she redeemed herself. I could go on and on. The error was in the choice of handlers, not necessarily Palin.
A perfect example of the mishandling was when gave a prepared speech at a solar plant and didn't even mention solar. It was infuriating. It wasn't until the very end of the run that she ditched some of the prepared stuff. Suddenly, that was when McCain's numbers went up, dramatically.
The above "mishandling" referred to does not mean that zero McCain supporters blamed Palin for (at least part of) the loss. But honestly, in light of the larger issues guiding this election, it is unlikely that McCain could have pulled out a win - no matter who the VP nominee was.
Disliking Palin does not mean that I agreed with how the media treated her. I believe there was definite sexism and she was scrutinized more than any other candidate. However, I have to shout BS for the notion that she was “mishandled”. If a woman is going to compete on the main-stage in national politics, she has to handle herself, especially if women are going to be considered worthy adversaries to our male counterparts.
Pamela,the details, such as reviewing a tape of an interview and saying, "Forget it, don't run it," need to be done by her staff and handlers. Negotiating terms of an interview must also be done, especially a first interview, when you don't know how the candidate will do. Setting up interviews that showcase your candidate in the most positive light is also to be done by handlers. How can she do it if she's stumping? That's what you have staff for. Palin tells us she was so frustrated that she decided to set up her own radio interviews that went quite well.
I'm not a big fan of the way she speaks. The cadence of her sentences drives me nuts. She runs her sentences into each other and pauses where she shouldn't. I have a friend that did that too. She's a Harvard Grad. In second grade she stuttered. Fortunately, she had a diligent mom and a good doctor. Turns out she was very intelligent, (she got a near perfect score on her ACTs in HS.) Her problem was her brain got ahead of her speech as she was trying to get out her ideas. Her stuttering evolved into a speech pattern just like Palin's. I've gotten past that. Hey, if you can put up with Brokaw's lisp, anything is possible.
I'll tell you why I like Palin. She's the only one that had the guts to say we shouldn't have corporate welfare bailouts. (In one of her rogue speeches.) She instead believes we should be investing in energy (all types) and do it now. It will have the greatest payback for the American people. She's right.
It seems that we must agree to disagree because I am still not buying the "handler" argument. If Palin was in a difficult situation with a foreign leader, without the luxury of a handler or consultant available to assist her, she would have to figure out an appropriate course of action. If she could not, then she shouldn't be the VP.
Besides, the whole point of Katie's blog was about women supporting women in politics (in spite of differing ideologies). That being said, it was totally inappropriate for CNN to conduct a panel that included a political analyst and a fashion consultant. Ultimately, the specific candidate is not the issue, but rather the socially constructed "roles" women have been placed in.
Pamela,
I agree with you to a certain extent. I believe there are other variables involved with the media interview process that are very different from meeting with leaders of foreign countries. For example, if this interview was aired straight without cutting we may have seen a different interview. We will never know. What was left on the cutting room floor remains to be seen. It is up to the handlers to follow up and make sure biased media producers don't have free reign to portray a candidate in the worst possible light.
If anything Palin's handlers placed too much emphasis on visual image and not enough on getting Palin out there with substantive ideas and proposals for moving this county forward. I would say they did a disastrous job. A better venue for Palin would have been C Span, talk radio, or some Sunday morning talking head shows. She would have had no choice but to ditch the Caribou Barbie image and present herself and their agenda without all the hype. If I had been handling her, the last place I would have put her would be with Couric or Charlie what's his name. I also might add, the Greta interviews are also pretty bad. Palin is showing she's not doing such a great job at handling things herself. What's with the kitchen interviews? She could use a good handler, in my opinion. Someone that will book her in the right venues. Right now, she's framing herself as this multi-tasking, caribou chili-cooking mom, who by the way is the governor of the state of Alaska. It's just wrong.
It's just been reported that Fox is admitting an error reporting the Palin news. I was dubious when Carl Cameron reported it. He couldn't wait to tell everyone about it. He was a just a little too gleeful. I've never seen the, usually low key, reporter so animated.
I was beyond shocked Fox aired it because it seemed more like gossip than news. I knew his source was a man. I just knew it. It smacked of sexism at the time and, it seems, my intuition has proved reliable. The reason I knew it was a man is:
1. They trusted the source. If it had come from a woman, they would have considered the source and not run it. Sorry ladies, this is the truth.
2. Palin is stepping on too many toes of career politicians that have had their sights set on 2012. This story probably came from one of those camps.
I feel bad now for the aides whose reputations have been besmirched. Most likely they will now have a rough time getting new business as a result of the accusations, true or not. As if losing the election wasn't bad enough.
Post a Comment