I was pleasantly surprised to see someone from the Left attempting to discuss its own sexism, even if the post didn't go far enough. In a post titled Caribou Ken, Echidne of the Snakes starts to examine liberal sexism regarding Sarah Palin.
If Sarah Palin was a male governor from Alaska, do you think that she would be treated the same way she has? Would this imaginary Sam Palin be taken to task for his ignorance on foreign politics (coughGiulianicough) or for his weird fundie ideas (coughHuckabeecough)? Would Sam Palin be called Caribou Ken after the penisless boyfriend of the Barbie doll?
These are not comfortable questions for a liberal goddess to ask, especially given Palin's bad platform and the way she is being used by McCain for nefarious ends. Indeed, both the Democratic presidential primaries and the presidential campaigns have been unpleasant moments for me, because I had underestimated the amount of free-wheeling and jokey sexism that still prevails in this country and because I see the term "sexism" itself cheapened and mutating into something that has no meaning at all.
So who are we to thank for these odd gifts, us feminists? There's lots of thanks to go around, layers and layers of sexism, if you wish, and it's extremely difficult to look at the mess and point a finger at one point to say: "There!" Extremely difficult and also frightening, because my attempts to follow the chains lead me to point my finger at all sorts of people I otherwise value. Including some feminists.
Echidne starts out asking the right questions ("Would a male candidate be treated this way?") but, unfortunately, has to excuse the Left's behavior by blaming McCain for picking a woman so "obviously unqualified" for the job of VPOTUS. How do we know she is unqualified? Echidne repeatedly argues that Palin is a bad pick because the McCain campaign has allowed little press access to her.
As has been noted before, Palin's experience at least equals Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama's, because she has been in government a similar amount of time. On top of that, as an executive, she has been required to make decisions and been accountable for them. Legislators do not face this pressure, and Obama's "present" votes show his unwillingness to take a stand where it might not help him politically.
What Echidne should have discussed and did not is the way the Left has embraced a different standard for Palin than that expected of Joe Biden or any other male candidate (*cough*John Edwards *cough*). She clearly has adequate experience for the veep job as evidenced from candidates such as John Edwards, yet the Left has continued to insist that she has not, using the "press avoidance" fig leaf to disguise their real opposition to her (as an aside, Patterico makes the point that Palin needs to play hardball with reporters playing gotcha with her).
Because the dirty secret, the third rail of leftwing politics, that Echidne doesn't want to discuss is this: women are not acceptable political candidates if they don't support unfettered abortion rights. If said woman does not genuflect at the knee of NARAL and NOW, then calling her a bad mother, sneering at her as a "beauty queen," calling her every foul-mouthed version of prostitute and holding her to a different standard than men is acceptable. The Left won't consider this sexism, although moms of all stripes will know that it is. The Left will simply call this "vetting."
Echidne isn't comfortable admitting that sexism comes just as easily from the Left as from the Right. I hope she'll become more honest as time goes on.
|