Have Conservatives Discovered Sexism?

Below the Belt: A Column by NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy

September 5, 2008

Hey, have you heard? Conservatives have discovered sexism in the media!

And they're learning that it's disrespectful toward women, potentially damaging to their careers, intrusive into their personal lives, and just plain unfair. That is, unless a feminist like Hillary Clinton is charging the media with sexism -- then it's called liberal whining or playing the gender card.

Allow me to back up for minute...

I was getting ready to fly out of Denver last Friday, having attended the Democratic National Convention with my sister NOW officers and several staff members, when Sen. John McCain announced his pick for Vice President, and all heck broke loose. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was on the list of prospects for the Republican ticket's number two slot; however, other names had risen to the top during the last few weeks, so McCain's decision to go with this relative unknown came as a bit of a surprise.

But the announcement was in keeping with a presidential election season that has been both exhilarating and infuriating. While we have so much to be proud of and energized by this year, we still have a very long way to go.

Let's start with the positives: For the first time in this country, a major political party has nominated an African-American candidate for president of the United States. Democratic Senator Barack Obama's achievement truly is historic, a marker of real progress in our nation. Palin should be applauded as well for becoming the first woman to appear on a Republican presidential ticket, a ceiling Geraldine Ferraro cracked for the Democrats in 1984.

All this excitement started with a primary season in which a female candidate for president, Senator Hillary Clinton, came closer to winning her party's nomination than any woman before her. She garnered 18 million votes while facing more than a year of rank sexism and open hostility from the media, something Sarah Palin is currently getting a crash course in.

Why is that highest glass ceiling so hard to break? One factor, quite simply, is the fact that some in our society still feel uncomfortable with and threatened by women in the workplace -- particularly ambitious, strong women competing in male-dominated arenas. Women leaders continue to be a minority, a strange "other" that makes many men (and some women) uneasy.

So I'm happy to report that the best part of my experience at the Democratic Convention was the genuine love and respect for Hillary Clinton that I saw in the hall. The media tried their darnedest to paint Clinton as a wicked queen trying to steal the convention away from the hapless Obama. The press refused to provide any context conveying just how uneventful it was that Clinton's name was being placed in nomination on the floor -- a practice that male runners-up with far fewer votes have enjoyed at past conventions. And the media speculated again and again that Hillary's enraged supporters would throw tantrums and ruin everything.

What I witnessed in person was nothing like the media's favored narrative of intra-party strife. Sure, some of us who endorsed Clinton and worked hard for her candidacy were hurt and disappointed that she did not win the nomination. But Clinton displayed true grace, and even dedicated Obama supporters did not begrudge her her place in history, in the Democratic party or on the Denver stage.

Some in the press, like The New York Times' Maureen Dowd, claim that Clinton and her supporters have used sexism as an excuse "to cover up her incompetent management of her campaign." I guess this is their way of defending their indefensible behavior toward Clinton. Apparently punditry means never having to say you're sorry.

Starting way back in March of 2007, NOW took on the misogyny hurled at Clinton by the media, and it had nothing to do with an "incompetent" campaign. We did it because, first of all, we believed that Clinton deserved to compete on an even playing field with the male candidates.

But even more importantly, we did it because public prejudice impacts all women. As long as the media get away with it, no woman is immune from the injustices and cruelty of sexism. So, we spoke out over and over, eventually creating an online Media Hall of Shame. This project grew to include instances of sexism and racism targeting Michelle Obama, who we knew the media would move on to eventually.

Which brings us back to Sarah Palin, who, as I write this, has been McCain's VP choice for less than one week, and already has faced an onslaught of double standards and condescension. The sexism aimed at Palin might not look exactly the same as the sexism directed Clinton, but it originates from the same biased place nonetheless.

Let me offer full disclosure before going any further: In all honesty, I think a McCain/Palin administration would be TERRIBLE for women's rights. McCain has referred to Palin as his "soul mate" and on issues like reproductive rights, economic justice and equal marriage, I couldn't agree more. Not to mention the fact that picking Palin was a transparent attempt to woo disgruntled Clinton supporters. She's turned out to be a vitalizing force for the GOP, but I have a hard time imagining McCain choosing Palin as his running mate had Clinton been on the Democratic ticket.

Over the next two months, NOW will be working to educate voters about the dangers of sending McCain and Palin to the White House. We will be posting information about their records and platform on our website. But we also will monitor the media and call them out for their sexism directed at Palin. A woman slurred, regardless of her party or stances, is a woman slurred.

Right out of the gate the media questioned whether a mother of five (including a new baby) should be running for the second highest office in the U.S. and putting herself in the position of having to assume the presidency should something happen to McCain. CNN's John Roberts put it this way: "The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of, how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"

The Washington Post's Sally Quinn said on CNN: "...everyone knows that women and men are different and that moms and dads are different and that women -- the burden of child care almost always falls on the woman. But I think, when you have five children, one a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, and a daughter who is 17, who is also a child and who is going to need her mother very much in the next few months and years with her own baby coming, that I don't see how you can not make your family your first priority. And I think if you are going to be president of the United States, which she may well be, I think that's going to be a real stretch for her."

The media are not doing themselves any favors by questioning the priorities and abilities of moms who work outside the home. Juggling work and family responsibilities is a major issue for women, and many women don't have the option of staying home with their children full-time. Many people made an issue of the fact that Palin only took a few days of leave after giving birth at age 44 -- but I don't hear concerns that mothers on welfare are forced to go back to work right away, or the majority of female workers who have no right to Family and Medical Leave.

And anyway, would they be asking whether a man with five children should be running for high office?

Palin also has been portrayed as a lightweight in a way that men of similar experience rarely are. Radio host Ed Shultz called Palin an "empty pantsuit" who has set off a "bimbo alert." The Washington Post's Richard Cohen called her a "sitcom of a vice presidential choice and a disaster movie if she moves up to the presidency." It's even been suggested that Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic VP nominee, might need to ease back on his aggressive style when facing off against Palin in their forthcoming debate.

The revelation that Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, has become a predictable distraction for the media, who love obsessing about the reproductive status of women, particularly young women. I do want to note that I'm pleasantly surprised that a pregnant teenage daughter is not an automatic disqualifier for Palin to be on the conservative ticket. Of course, the shame that once surrounded single and young moms has dissipated because of the hard work of feminists, not the judgmental rhetoric from the right wing.

Indeed, conservative hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me, and it's on full display right now. Palin's own statement referred to "Bristol's decision to have her baby" and GOP sound bites insisted that this was a private family matter. Right wingers also lauded Palin for choosing to carry to term her recent pregnancy after discovering the baby would be born with Down syndrome. But aren't these the same people who think that no woman or girl should have a choice?

In fact, Palin is on record as being against abortion even in the case of rape or incest or the health of the mother. And McCain has voted consistently against funding for birth control and family planning.

May I point out that this apparently unplanned pregnancy only highlights the right wing's foolish and dangerous abstinence-only education stance? Not to mention Palin's own line-item veto slashing funds for a center for teen moms in need just this year.

I feel for Palin, and for all women struggling to be taken seriously in a man's realm; the desire to have people discuss your policies, not your hair or hemlines; the conviction that you have every right to raise your family as you see fit, including taking on a demanding job outside the home; the entirely reasonable expectation that you are the peer of your male colleagues and deserve the same treatment and opportunities that they receive.

If only the commentators and Republican talking heads complaining about the treatment of Palin had had the same reaction when Hillary Clinton was on the receiving end of sexist pundit pronouncements.

These struggles will continue for Palin and Clinton and all the women that follow them, if the media continue clinging to their outdated notions of gender stereotypes and rigid sex roles. We can get them to stop, but we have to do it together. The media are nothing without us -- their viewers, readers, listeners -- so we have to make sure they hear us loud and clear.

Why? Because we should defeat anti-women's rights candidates like Sarah Palin based on their merits and their positions, not their gender.

Recent Below the Belt columns |