The right is fond of complaining that feminists and feminist allies hate Sarah Palin because she’s pretty. We don’t. She’s conventionally attractive, yes, but that’s not really surprising. Most politicians are on the pretty end of the spectrum, from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton to George W. Bush to Mitt Romney. Not all of them, of course, but many of them.
Palin’s physical attractiveness is, for feminists, a null issue. She’s pretty? Fine, but will she be a good vice president? A good president? She’s not going to be able to negotiate better with Putin because she’s pretty — but it won’t be a handicap, either. No, her mind is the part of her anatomy we’re most interested in.
This is not the case with her ideological cohort:
I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America.
Now, physical attraction is what it is; if you’re not asexual, you find someone attractive, somewhere. Probably more than one person. And it’s okay for Rich Lowry to find Palin attractive.
But that is not her raison d’etre. Quite frankly, Lowry’s purple prose is demeaning to a woman who is only the second to serve on a national ticket. His argument for her is simple: she’s hot. Therefore I want to vote for her. Her mind? Issues? Whatever, dude, she winked at me!
It’s sexist, pure and simple, to view the vice presidency as another place for eye candy to be. By all means, find Palin attractive — or Obama, or Dick Cheney (hey, some find evil to be sexy). But have enough respect for Palin to argue for her on her merits as a leader. That her merits as a leader are wanting is no reason to reduce her to her sexuality.
(Via John Cole.)
Haha, Jeff, I was writing the same piece at the same time. Of course, mine was a little meaner.
Three cheers for Rich Lowry ejaculation references!
Are you saying Rich Lowry has the hots for Bill O’Reilly? That would explain a lot.
Seriously, I think Lowry covered himself on the sexist charge by saying he was talking about the same quality O’Reilly has.
I also loved that moment during Samantha Bee’s coverage of the RNC when she asked one man why Palin is qualified to be VP, and he answered, “First off, she’s a beautiful lady!”
Eh. Many people have stupid reasons behind casting their vote. I’m sure that there are people out there who will vote Obama/Biden simply because neither of them is a woman, for instance. It’s their vote, they can do what they like with it. And if they want to tell us about it, well, it’s not up to us if they want to embarrass themselves in that way.
Pingback: What if Palin’s “straight talk” were not so darn pageant worthy? « Professor, What If…?