Theorists and scholars have written extensively on how women are consistently in an impossible, crazy-making double bind when they seek powerful positions. But this piece, by Taggles, is a down-to-earth example using a most topical example. The scholarship and the theorizing are important. But so is the short and sweet illustration given by Taggles.
Reprinted in full from No We Won't.
I
have been thinking a lot lately about the sexism that Hillary faced in
her run for the White House and contrasting it with the sexism that
Sarah Palin faces in hers. There is some commonality
between the two, but in general there have been two extremes of sexism
that can be identified. They are both undermining to women. Here’s how I see it:
|
Hillary
· Hillary is cold.
· No man would ever want to have sex with Hillary.
· Men are afraid Hillary will castrate them.
· Hillary has too much Washington experience.
· Hillary has too much baggage.
· Hillary was too wonkish.
· Hillary craved power
· Hillary’s old.
· Hillary wears a pantsuit.
|
Sarah
· Sarah is hot.
· Men want to have sex with Sarah.
· Men are not afraid for their private parts around her.
· Sarah does not have enough Washington experience.
· Sarah has no baggage.
· Sarah’s a beauty queen.
· Sarah’s power is not earned.
· Sarah’s young.
· Sarah wears skirts.
|
It is all so damaging. All to[o] pervasive. Women are continually clubbed with these biases. Make it stop, please!
The link doesn't work for me...
Posted by: DYB | October 04, 2008 at 04:08 PM
These are not examples of two opposite extremes of sexism. THIS IS SEXISM! This IS misogyny; this is HATE!! Plain and simple. Ask yourself who benefits from all this hate of women, this permissible display of disgusting behaviour by the MSM? Read the blogs of obama, the blogs of huffinton post, watch the fat white frat boys of msnbc and then look what the young people of this country are saying about women, what they are ENCOURAGED and REWARDED for saying about republican women, democratic women, women over 30, women who don't DO what obama and his apostles say they must do....women who don't sit down, who won't shut up and who won't believe as they decree.
The herald angels themselves can come on down from up in heaven, join hands and skip in merry circles around the new messiah singing "oh yes we can" but my hand will NEVER EVER reach for the "yes" lever for obama in the voting booth this november. no way. no how. Some things really are more important than the "big" issue du jour. Some things you can never stop fighting for; for yourself, for your daughters and for your grandaughters. It's that important. It really is that important.
Posted by: ainnj | October 04, 2008 at 08:27 PM
* Sigh * I've grown so disillusioned by so-called liberal Dems. This election season I've had to endure listening to how Clinton is "a frigid evil power-hungry bitch" and how Palin is a "slutty bimbo white trash Barbie M.I.L.F."
And then my Obama friends wonder why I refuse to support their enlightened leader...if this is the type of enlightened behavior his supporters believe is perfectly all right, then I'll have nothing to do with it. What makes me so sad is that it's so pervasive and doesn't make anyone cringe except for me and other true feminists.
Posted by: freyjanyc | October 06, 2008 at 06:48 PM
It's not just that women are seen as sexual beings, it's that this is given such primary importance.
If a woman gets into any power, she's held up for scrutiny in the same way women might be sized up at a bar.
People might speculate the same way about male candidates, but certainly in a trivial lighthearted way.
It's like men (and women who are so used to this from them) won't let you in until they have evaluated you sexually.
It is so weird. I always thought it was an exaggeration to state that people were threatened by women's sexuality. I must say, this election cycle has certainly demonstrated just that.
Posted by: ClareA | October 07, 2008 at 09:17 AM