Earlier this year, I caused anxiety among a few of my dearest friends with my unrelenting critiques of media sexism against Hillary Clinton. To them, Clinton was either ideologically too "problematic" to warrant feminist intervention or "it wasn't about sexism, people just hate that woman." Well, this blog entry will probably make some of them explode, because I believe that the focus on Sarah Palin's wardrobe is sexist too. Liberals, however, do not care about this because she is conservative.
I never imagined I would be in a position of defending a conservative, anti-choice, anti-gay, woman from sexism. But after witnessing so much sexism (and class bias and racism) during the Democratic primaries and so little critique of it from the so-called left, I'm already on a roll. During the primaries, Clinton's pantsuits caused an usual amount of media discourse on the candidate's clothing. Many women have already noted that men too wear "pantsuits," but do not receive attention for doing so. Now, the airwaves are ablaze over the RNC's purchase of $150,000 in clothing for Palin to use in campaign appearances. My first response was: "why is this even interesting." Given the state of the economy, war, and other problems, this hardly warrants attention. But then I decided to give the subject more attention by examining its sexist dimensions.
Why Is This Sexist?
I never imagined I would be in a position of defending a conservative, anti-choice, anti-gay, woman from sexism. But after witnessing so much sexism (and class bias and racism) during the Democratic primaries and so little critique of it from the so-called left, I'm already on a roll. During the primaries, Clinton's pantsuits caused an usual amount of media discourse on the candidate's clothing. Many women have already noted that men too wear "pantsuits," but do not receive attention for doing so. Now, the airwaves are ablaze over the RNC's purchase of $150,000 in clothing for Palin to use in campaign appearances. My first response was: "why is this even interesting." Given the state of the economy, war, and other problems, this hardly warrants attention. But then I decided to give the subject more attention by examining its sexist dimensions.
Why Is This Sexist?
Focusing on and ridiculing Palin's clothing purchase is sexist in a very basic way: it treats women candidates differently then male candidates and in a negative fashion. I do not recall much attention at all -- certainly no negative attention -- on the clothing of male candidates during this election year. Indeed, I only recall two moments of media coverage of a male candidate's clothes -- and in both of those instances, the analysis complimented the candidate. One round of articles focused on the very exquisite suits Obama wears, and later CNN shamefully posted video footage of a "cool" Obama in jeans, which soared across the web. Other than that, most of the media's clothing scrutiny has centered upon women candidates, and it has often been unflattering.
Analyzing women's clothing -- and not men's -- is also sexist because it focuses on their appearance, rather than intellect, talents and qualifications. One of the oldest sex stereotypes deems women as better "seen" than "heard." Historically, women could not vote because the men who ruled this country believed that they lacked the intellectual capacity to make an intelligent choice. Women, they argued, would only vote based on their emotions or, to the extent they were married, would only do what their husbands directed them to do. This stereotype lurks subtly in the pantsuit and Neiman Marcus fascination.
Why Do I Care About This?
With all of the serious problems in the world, one might wonder why I chose to analyze this issue -- even if Palin has indeed experienced some sexism. I am compelled to discuss this matter because sexism (and racism, homophobia, classism) among liberals is especially troubling. Liberals -- especially Democrats -- believe they are advanced on issues of discrimination -- and at their finest moments, they are. They want to control government in order to improve the lives of people who are disadvantaged. They shun the "hateful rhetoric" of conservatives. They want to strengthen civil rights legislation and enforcement. Great talk, and I share those goals. But if liberals exhibit the same type of biases that they purport to oppose, then they ultimately lack credibility on these issues and come across as opportunistically advancing discrimination concerns simply to ensure electoral support from women, people of color, the poor, and gays and lesbians. Paying lip service to antidiscrimination concerns is only marginally better than doing nothing at all.
The problem with liberal bias goes beyond sexism. When liberals attack "uneducated" (they really mean not having attended college or graduate/professional school) voters as not being sophisticated enough to vote, they stigmatize the poor and many people of color. When liberals use labels such as the "latte" or "lunchbucket" voters -- and describe the latter disparagingly -- they do the same. And when they mock people having to purchase clothing to run for office, they show a great deal of hypocrisy on issues of class; any poor person who could have the fortune to make it on a national ticket would require a large clothing allotment, given the fascination with appearance -- especially of women -- in this vain society.
If liberals truly believe in an unbiased and egalitarian society, then they should take the lead and demonstrate those ideals in their own lives. Until they do this, I will remain cynical regarding the prospect of progressive change if and when the Democrats sweep into national power.
No comments:
Post a Comment