Sexism: It has been an outraged claim of discrimination plastered across our television for much of this tumultuous election. First used by Hillary Clinton in classifying the media's portrayal of her campaign, the word has undergone a drastic evolution and ended up in Sarah Palin's hands. While Palin, of course, would disagree that any evolution (sexism or otherwise) ever took place, there is a fundamental difference between Clinton's cries of sexist media reporting and Palin supporters' claim of sexist background checks. One was a fundamental and often detrimental part of an election, the other an empty excuse made in an attempt to blame others for a candidate's shortcomings.
Palin's ascent onto the national scene has been greeted by much criticism. From her colloquialisms to her northern version of the term "soccer mom," few would contest that she is a political anomaly and a surprising pick for vice presidential candidate. With such an unexpected choice, it should be no surprise that Palin has been strictly watched and harshly criticized. Knowledge of a candidate's background, experience, and intellect is key to understanding the candidate and interpreting how such an individual will act in elected office. Questioning such information is hardly sexist; it is a right and even a duty of the American public.
When we criticized Obama's experience, we heard no cries of racism from his campaign. Consider how the Obama campaign responded to such criticisms: They sent Obama out on tour to prove to the public he was competent. Palin, on the other hand, has been a mystery until the debate on Thursday, and arguably after.Yet subjecting Palin to the same treatment elicits accusations that we are belittling the accomplishments of a woman. Questions have been raised regarding Palin's erratic college record (she attended five colleges over six years) and there has been pointed inquiry into the duties of a mayor in a town of 9,000 people. But rather than responding to these claims, the McCain campaign has taken her away from their microphones and accused such questions of creating a double standard for women.
There may be such a double standard in many areas of politics, but a woman's experience hardly falls into this category. Experience is a question every candidate must face; Obama, McCain, Biden, and Clinton have all come up against it at one time or another. Few individuals would fault Hillary Clinton for her political background or intelligence. After eight years in the U.S. Senate and sporting an education from Yale Law School and Wellesley College, she is quite obviously an intellectual woman and a brilliant politician. In this aspect, she met the demands of the American public without hiding behind a blanket of excuses.
Yet Clinton was faced with harsh sexism. No woman should ever be met by a man who screams "iron my shirt" in her face at a rally. Clinton was often criticized for her harsh exterior and what appeared to be an inability to relate to others. Yet the one time she showed emotion, suddenly she was a weak woman whom we shouldn't trust with the difficult job of president. When Clinton showed anger, she was shrill; when a man shouted, he was passionate.
It is true that references to Palin's gender may be appearing on national television screens more than they should. Plenty of people have joked or admired Palin's attractiveness, and there have been a fair share of inappropriate sexual comments thrown in her direction. These comments are to be expected from a public run down by election coverage and a media eager to please a bored audience. However, these surface incidents of sexist treatment can hardly be expected to alter the McCain-Palin campaign or affect the outcome of the general election.
Palin has made her fair share of fumbles and in turn these mistakes have been bantered around the Internet. Surely if a man made such verbal gaffes, he never would become political fodder. But wait, remember Bush's statements that we "misunderestimate" him or his sympathy in understanding "how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Bushisms have been wildly circulated in attempts to discredit Bush's abilities and intellect. Never has sexism applied to those attempts. But have Palin's supporters attributed the publicity of her verbal mistakes to sexism? You betcha.
The filter of media portrayals and harsh critics made it difficult to see Hillary Clinton, the candidate, without first seeing Hillary Clinton, the pantsuited female candidate. Yet Sarah Palin's image has been colored not by gender, but by her Alaskan background and small-town "charm." The film of gender bias had a tangible effect on Clinton's campaign, yet this perception has hardly touched Palin. Palin's harsh questioning is not a result of sexism; it is a valid inquiry into an unknown individual's past. Sexism just does not apply.
Hayley Trahan-Liptak is a Heights
staff columnist. She welcomes comments at hliptak@bcheights.com
2008 Woodie Awards
