Shakesville, people are quite capable of reading her remarks - and you provided a link. You seem to doubt I've read it, by the use of "if you say".
I have a problem with "theys" and "thems" as if there was some massive TM response to Sarah Palin that was negative - and or sexist. My memory is quite different than yours perhaps. Since the Traditional Media is heavily weighted to the right, the coverage of Sarah Palin was if anything "effusive". Reporters and pundits who should know better were salivating about the pick. There were dire predictions of landslides - of PUMAS rushing to vote for McCain. Of hockey moms and white workers she would sweep off their feet. Of "family values" folks. "Knockout speech" at the convention was a phrase repeated ad nauseum. If anything - poor aging McCain was given "new life and vigor". If I had a dollar for every mention of the approval rating for Ms. Palin in Alaska mentioned in both print and on the tube I could retire happily.
What happened next goes back to my original point - the McCain Campaign had selected (with her unblinking co-operation), what we call on the street "a ringer". "Chum". A fake. She couldn't sustain the facade built with a telepromptered well crafted speech. Even then, she was cut more slack than anyone in recent history. Why? Because much of the right press hates Hillary - for a host of reasons. So, Palin was to be the anti-Hillary, the proof that a "fresh" "maverick" woman, Republican woman (not one of those awful "un-womanly feminists") would upstage all of us and sweep McCain to victory. She got a free pass because of sexism - that was used for her, not against her.
But it didn't work. The cracks in the facade began to become evident - and those who weren't blind, deaf or terminally stupid began her unraveling. Sexist? No. Those pundits who wanted to retain even an iota of veracity in front of the viewing public had to state what was patently obvious - the woman was not Hillary, or a shadow of Hillary, or even vaguely literate.
Some wingers continued to weave fantasies. What IS sexist is that she was not held to the same standard as any other intelligent woman in politics. But when the mask slipped by the time of the Couric interview, cries of "sexism" began - and where from? The sexist right-wing, and delusional former Hillary supporters "clinging" to an obsession conflating sexism with critique, to advance multiple agendas.
ME deeming "some woman" unworthy of equality? Don't make me laugh. Equal to what? I've fought for the last 45 years for women to be judged as equals - by men and women. Defending women with whom I disagree politically has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. She needed no defense from me - she had the entire phalanx of talking heads weighted in her favor. She blew it, or more accurately, the McCain campaign blew it, by selecting her, un-vetted.
They then cherry picked feminist rhetoric to shape their responses to each reported gaffe - and we were inundated with endless loops of lipstick on a pig discussions. If it wasn't so tragic I'd be rolling on the floor laughing - right wing Republicans attempting to sound like Gloria Steinem.
I didn't agree with Hillary politically, and still defended her against sexist remarks - you can check the HR's I've handed out on DKos. I voted for Hillary here in NY, but never agreed with her vote for the war, nor did I agree with some of the tactics her campaign used in the primary.
Sexism is "tolerated" in this society because it is built into it structurally. You seem to forget that both men and women are sexist, and that many men and women are loyal supporters of the status quo.
Back during the first wave of feminism a powerful group of women helped defeat the vote for suffrage in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women (MAOFESW)
That Organization spread. Were they sexist? Yes. Were they women - yes. Were their arguments sexist - hell yes.
I would no more defend Sarah Palin than I can defend those women, though I do teach my students that they were victims of the patriarchy. They were also classist, and racist.
Do I think people attacking Sarah Palin's children was wrong? Yes. Did she manipulate her children for political advantage? Yes.
Sure - the internet is full of hateful sexist/racist you-tubes, and sniggers and trash - but it will be no matter who is running for office or in the public eye - female or male.
To be honest I am far more concerned with the rise of hate crimes, and the threats against the POTUS elect and his family (whipped to a frenzy by La Palin).
What I'd like to ask you - since you take issue with my response, is why all these alligator tears , now, for Sarah Palin? Where was the outrage when the attacks were leveled against Michelle Obama, who wasn't even running for office? Double standard methinks.
I'm more concerned with the thousands of women being raped in Alaska, a majority of whom are Inuit. I'm worried about women who don't get egual pay for equal work, and a Republican Party that would like to keep it that way, and destroy the few unions we have.
I'm more concerned with the rising rates of HIV infections of women in my community.
I have no time to spare for Sarah Palin. I've wasted enough here in these comments.
I'm off to cook my turkey. And I'm delighted that Sarah Palin's goose was cooked - by the voting public.
We have a lot to be thankful for this year. Keep that in mind.
completely unqualified veep candidate with the object of manipulating "women" (as a variable/voting bloc) to select his ticket.
And if he got some men to vote for her, by showcasing her looks - well that was an extra benefit.
What was sexist was that Sarah Palin, knowing herself to be unqualified, leapt at the chance.
Women are capable of manipulating sexism. Sarah Palin is a politician first, a religious wing-nut in a sexist fundamentalist patriarchal evangelical structure second and a white "faux" working class female third.
Frantz Fanon writes about "colonized mentality" and it applies equally to self-hating blacks as it does to self-hating women. Sarah Palin hates feminism. She will do anything in her power to "become one of the Dudes" playing their game. A willing participant in the quest for reactionary power.
She will opportunistically use her family, ethnic relationships (promoting her husband as Eskimo when she has worked against indigenous interests), use her children (hence Trig as Cabbage Patch prop) guns (phallic symbols) as weapons in her arsenal.
I have neither sympathy nor empathy for her.
Was there sexism directed at Hillary from the time she stepped on the national stage? Yes.
Did it stop her? No. Did she lose? Yes. Because of sexism? No. Will she go on to triumph in the political arena as Secretary of State, and possibly as the next President, after Obama serves two terms? Yes, I certainly hope so.
Had McCain selected a qualified veep candidate of either gender we wouldn't be discussing Palin.
The trolls posting here who hang out at the Confluence and Puma Central should crawl back under their bridges.
I am a feminist activist/community organizer. What that means to me is that as a feminist, I cannot accept nor condone anyone who uses any "isms" to gain power - racism, sexism, ageism, homophobism or classism.
Sarah Palin is like a Vichy collaborationist. I put her in the same category with people like Clarence Thomas. Dangerous, as the tools of those who truly hold power.
As an activist it means I don't just blog, I actually work in communities where poor women (and men) suffer, under this system of multiple oppressions.
And yes, I've read Melissa McEwan's critique's of the media, left and TM, response to Palin.
I disagree with her premise and it is pointless to post there, since anyone who disagrees with her rather facile idealized idea of feminism is given short shrift.
Yes, there have been gross, sexist photoshopped pictures of Sarah Palin spread around the net.
Along with gross photo-shopped pictures of John McCain, Cindy McCain, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama...Hillary and Bill, John Edwards...Joe Biden...such is the gutter nature of our poltical discourse and what passes for "wit".
But those photos and puerile satires are not what defeated Sarah Palin and John McCain. Sexism didn't undercut her appeal to the large chunk of the electorate that voted for her. It is disturbing to me each time I look at the number of people who did. I won't write one word in defense of Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter. Those who do - well, so be it, but imho it's an intellectually slippery slope.
They were defeated because enough people saw her, and her mentor as wrong. Not because Mccain was too old or Palin too stupid. Just wrong.
It didn't work. And the loud cries of how sexist all we leftists and media types are ring hollow.
For any of us to now echo and co-sign those plaints is a waste of time, and ultimately not moving the real battles against sexism forward.