I can sort of see that. My mom is from the "Boomer" generation, and that's how she has experienced sexism for the most part.

As a late X-er, I can relate. I loathe Palin for being cocky and unqualified, among many other reasons. It pushes those high school angst buttons about undeserving pretty/popular/rich girls getting whatever they wanted with ease. Of course, now that I think about it, I suppose I should be just as pissed off at McCain for choosing her. Or more pissed off.

It is pretty simplistic, but I can see where the author is coming from. There is a pretty big generational divide of the "Boomer" generation seeing explicit sexism in the workplace and my generation has a pseudo-equality that expresses sexism a bit differently. I have seen where powerful women are allowed in "traditional men's spheres" granted they still maintain femininity. So the notion is that you can be smart, but you better be beautful and sexually available. Palin may seem more palateable than Hillary because she meets certain qualifications, however, we all know Hillary was far more qualified. But I think both generations can agree she isn't the woman we want to break that glass ceiling for fear that she would patch it back up.

I have to say that I think this is a simplistic explanation. I can't say that most of my experience of sexism has been hot women getting promoted over me, although I'm sure many women have experienced it. Instead, it's been women getting promoted only if they act just like traditional men -- are focused on the job and only the job and don't give a crap about the other women around them. And then once they're in the job and acting just like men but their subordinates and the other women around them still aren't happy with their treatment, the men who promoted the women are like "What's the problem? We promoted a woman! Isn't that what you wanted?" And yes, there's a women in power, but we haven't gotten any of the things we want, like equal pay or more flexibility or a nursing room or all the other things that make women's lives a little easier.
Honestly, the only place I've ever experienced a truly woman-friendly workplace was working for three female attorneys who had their own firm and made all the rules. They gave vacation time and bonuses and were understanding with those of us who had families, and in return we gave them unswerving loyalty and were great employees.
My point is that Sarah Palin is a woman, but it's not enough for her to have ovaries if she's going to act just like a Republican dude once in office.

I know for sure that the language the conservative media uses to describe Palin gets me angry, along with their casual chauvinism disguised a concern.

At 21, I'm not quite Gen x. Does this leave me in the realm of subtle sexism?

I agree. I'm not a Gen-Xer, but I usually expect that a guy will get the goods before a woman does, while Palin's nomination offends me to my core. She is either patently unqualified or thoroughly stupid. I'd almost rather have seen Mittens get the nod.

That's a really interesting question. I'm 52 and work in technology so my experience has been and continues to be more closely aligned with sexism-as-lack-of-opportunity (plus some stuff around communication/competitiveness, etc., but that tends to percolate along in the background). I've been kind of confused by the Palin thing, or particularly in the reactions to her, because they're so much more vituperative than the reactions to the similarly unqualified, similarly incurious and un-/anti-intellectual George W Bush were at this point in the 2000 campaign, as we were just getting to know what a complete meathead he is.

The thing that surprises me about the way younger women are reacting is that they seem to be laying a lot of blame on Palin for her having been chosen. I think she deserves blame for having said "yes" but there was a whole context within which it happened and in which Palin herself is only kind of incidental. I was bothered by the Traister piece in part because I was concerned that it might give cover to some really egregious sexism but mostly because even while she was explaining why she has no sympathy for Palin, the circumstances that she was describing in very large part had to do with decisions being made by the McCain campaign, etc. and less to do with Palin herself (er, that is to say that she talked about both but treated them as if it were all Palin).

It may be that I'm missing something obvious or that I'm a total dumbass but I think the Palin nomination is something we're going to be studying for years, and that it may take years to sort out all the component threads.

I think the quote invokes some innately sexist ways of looking at women, e.g.: Her positions suck and she has an apparently very limited knowledge of world affairs, so she must be a dumb bimbo. That's what it sounds like it could reduce to, anyway.

"Incompetent?" I shudder at the thought of Sarah Palin ascending to the presidency, or even to executive office in my own state, but I'm not going to go and call her incompetent when she's still kept under such wraps, for chrissakes. Something got her to the governor's mansion, or hunting lodge, or whatever Alaska's is. And just because Palin won't acknowledge having had any higher political aims than the PTA doesn't mean we shouldn't.

The quote above seems in some ways to condone the sexist assumptions that successful woman must be either hot and dim or sexless and smart -- because it pits the people who make those observations of the unqualified babe against sexism. And I think that's totally shady.

Anyway, I sure as hell hope that the trope of dealing with sexism that that commenter has posited isn't shared too widely. Yikes.

The problem I have with that viewpoint is that it pits women against women. It reads like a "cat fight" viewpoint to me and that one of the most blatant types of sexism that I've dealt with in my career -- that no woman can criticize another woman on ANYTHING lest it be seen as jealousy or envy.

There's too much focus on the gender issue and not enough focus on the sexism that laid the foundation for there to be an issue in the first place. To me, the issue is not that Palin is pretty but unqualified, it's that the Republican party chose an unqualified woman in a cynical attempt to woo voters.

The idea that I might have an issue because an unqualified person was promoted over a qualified person -- that resonates. However, I'm tired of women being pitted against women. I certainly don't underestimate the Horny Vote, but I think that the issue is not whether Gen Xers are upset by the babelicious cheerleader dating the quarterback so much as we're tired of the class moron skating through with passing grades because s/he's cute and flatters the teacher. (Not a great analogy, I realize.)

As a Gen Y-er, I have to say that Gen X experience resonates with me. Granted - it's only anecdotally, and I work in Entertainment where young, sexy and brainless almost always trumps everything else... (yeah - I'm 2 of 3.)

I would tend to hesitate to extrapolate this past my chosen field - but maybe it's truer than I think?

Yeah I recognise the Gen X experience.
Worse that young brainless things get promoted for being pretty and cute...the level of people skills expected of men and women is just not the same. Everyone does it. Where I work some of the tech guys are practically autistic in the level of their personal skills, yet *shrug* they're just being men/ geeks and *I* being female am expected to deal with it. grrrrr.
Also just being quiet is a bigger deal - I mean women are expected to be far more extrovert and even a bit flirty.
Also agree with others that either the bimbo type women *or* those who act like stereotypical men get on.
Being neither, it's annoying.
I am very thankful for my current boss who is great and a role model, maybe on the one of the guys side e.g. into football, but not really. There is hope for normal women without being a stereotype.

On the flipside, if only women could be the boss and not get:
1. Called a ball-busting bitch
2. Called "mom"
3. Ignored, and called not assertive enough

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

You should all take a look at the latest absolutely terrifying Palin interview tape from CBS - she cannot name a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade. Unbelievable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/palin-cant-name-supreme-c_n_131042.html

Criticisms like this aren't sexism, aren't ageism, aren't lookism. She is just plain unqualified for the job she is seeking.

Also, her views are repugnant. She is hostile, arrogant, and proud of her ignorance. This is a disastrous combination.

"I've been kind of confused by the Palin thing, or particularly in the reactions to her, because they're so much more vituperative than the reactions to the similarly unqualified, similarly incurious and un-/anti-intellectual George W Bush were at this point in the 2000 campaign, as we were just getting to know what a complete meathead he is."

I agree with this point, actually. I think she plays well into the "Bimbo" stereotype for a lot of people, which is of course sexism.

However, I do think a lot of liberals /did/ think George W. Bush was a dumbass before he was elected. I think 8 yrs of him and what he's done to the world have made this election seem more important to people, so they're lashing out as much as ever...

"I've been kind of confused by the Palin thing, or particularly in the reactions to her, because they're so much more vituperative than the reactions to the similarly unqualified, similarly incurious and un-/anti-intellectual George W Bush were at this point in the 2000 campaign, as we were just getting to know what a complete meathead he is."

Palin's, horrifyingly, even worse. Bush at least was aware of national issues, although without any depth of understanding or interest. Bush at least knew what he believed. Palin, on the other hand, has clearly never even heard of most of these issues before she was chosen.

Aleks, I'm not sure that I agree that Palin's even worse. Stuff that's in the background tends to diminish in significance and what's in front of us looks larger. Bush has been a complete and utter disaster, and if you really think that he had much interest in national or international issues when he was first elected think back to the debates, and to his first year in office. Bush came off as just plain uninformed and stupid during the 2000 campaign, resorting to religious references and incoherent blather when he didn't know the answer to a question. There are a lot of parallels between him and Palin. Bush was a really, really, really terrible candidate and I'm not entirely comfortable with the disparity in treatment between the two.

And yes, Ninapendamaishi, an awful lot of people recognized that Bush was an uninformed boob (after all, in that election he lost the popular vote), but I don't think there was nearly the ugliness about it. People are celebrating Palin's incompetence and turning her into a national joke, while Bush became president (and turned himself into a national joke, but that's another matter ... ). This all just feels really uncomfortable to me.

I've seen the generational divide this way, and although it's particular to one topic I think that the general principle is broader. I'm in my mid-20s, so "our" is referring to folks my age.

Our parents, if they were even moderately liberal-minded, tried to bring us up to be egalitarian. My parents never never told me what I should or should not do because of my gender. But what I find is that among friends of mine in exactly the same boat, it is nevertheless the case that, for example, the women cook more. Men clean the house less. If you ask us why... it becomes a matter of "what I like" or what "standards" are rather than what we are told to or forced to do.

Conservatives like to pretend that gender bias, to the extent that it existed at all, magically disappeared. "No one says you can't do whatever you want, so everyone is equal! YAY!"

We tear our hair out because it appears that they have never seen a single freaking COMMERCIAL.

All of this is not to say that blatant sexism is gone - but the influence of implicit sexism is e-freaking-normous. Trying to hammer that fact into the American consciousness is like opening a coconut with a toothpick.

random thoughts...(is that me just discounting my own thoughts because i have ingrained sexism despite my upbringing by feminist women)

i was just thinking about how UNQUALIFIED george bush was. his main qualification was having been governor of Texas. i am from texas (a state that does have a thriving radical movement and radical history that isn't talked about, read the books Prairie Radical and The Third Coast...but let's get back to the point). the governor of Texas has no real responsibility. it is a ceremonial post. if you read anything about Kinky Friedman (country musician/mystery novel righter/NOW's Male Chauvinist of the Year)'s running for governor, this is even more clear. at the time of W's original candidacy (sorry, i moved away so i don't know current statistics) TX was 48th in education of all the states, but 1st in executions.

point is....no one questioned bush's qualifications for president/ his "executive experiece" was really non-existent. foreign policy....nill. people talked about this when W. was running. but not to the extent they talk about it about Palin. she is a woman...thus our "post-sexist society" (i say that in all sarcasm) focuses on the issues and deems her unelectable for these reasons.

i don't want her to be vice-president (nor a heartbeat away from president) more than any of the rest of you. *GO CYNTHIA MCKINNEY*

but point is, no one talked about W's lack of experience. but everyone is talking about Palin's.

Gen Xer here, and I do disagree. When I look at Obama, I see every nattily dressed dude that I ever had to train to do his job (and cover for his mistakes), who subsequently was promoted over me. When I see Sarah Palin, although I don't like her politics AT ALL, I think finally, a woman who doesn't have to be twice as good to be thought of half as much. Who'da thunk the Republicans (for whom I have never voted) would have me thinking thoughts like that?

I am SO disappointed about this election. I can't believe I was so excited about it six months ago...

I think the reason many women blame Palin for accepting the nomination, rather than blaming McCain for picking her, is that many women were raised with "us-vs-them" sexism, and are thinking, well, NATURALLY McCain would be sexist, he's an older man, but PALIN, Palin should have know better, she should be on our side because she's a women raised in a generation that should understand sexism, and she should have recognized that she wasn't ready and refused the position.

Also, jadzia, that's interesting, because I would say that's EXACTLY what Palin is-- she had to be twice as attractive and personable as a man would have to be to be considered for the role at all. It just shows that our culture values intelligence and competence in men, and attractiveness and friendliness in women.

I would think that all generations of women experience both of the things that commenter describes. I imagine that bright but plain women in my mother's generation watched as prettier, flirtier, less intelligent women were chosen over them for promotions, etc. And women my age (26) still have to deal with incompetant, entitled men who are favored in the workplace or school.
Palin is infuriating to many of us because she has characterized herself (and the campaign has tried to pass her off) as the continuation of Hillary Clinton's campaign or something.
Both women are more Boomer generation than Gen X, but look at the dynamic. Clinton is experienced, intellectually curious, knowledgable, gutsy, competant, unapologetically smart, and doesn't seem to care about how "fuckable" she is in the eyes of teh menz. Then along comes her polar opposite, who's embraced by the very folks who vilified Clinton. And she has the gall to suggest that, by virtue of her sex, she's about to be the beneficiary of the "18 million cracks" that were created for Clinton.
Sexism is not just about inequality between women and men. It's about inequality among women themselves. In patriarchy, some women enjoy privileges over other women, whether it's due to their looks or their willingness to submit to men, etc. Both forms of sexism are wrong and I'd say that both forms are experienced by women of all ages.

I thought I was a Boomer, now I may be a GenXer? I was born in '64 and reared on Friedan, Steinem, Abzug, etc. I don't get this whole label thing, but I'm more of an aging hippie than an aging hipster.

I'm a Gen-Y (23) and have been in the workplace for 2 years. I think this is a crude but valid distinction. I detest Sarah Palin because, honestly, she is my competition. She is is the blonde girl in the office who pretends to be dumb and gets promoted, she is the stupid flirty girl who lowers the tone of every conversation, she is the girl who dresses like a ridiculous sexy secretary and doesn't allow women to be taken seriously. She is the reason why at staff meetings we always end up talking about 'hair or clothes', and why my boss feels comfortable to comment on my make up (WTF!). She is the girl who pouts for attention and behaves like a 12 year old whenever she likes, people put up with it because she does it in a flirty way. She makes me the feminist, because she has to be the bimbo. BUT WAIT! Heaven forbid, someone calls her a bimbo, then she's a feminist, then she's offended. Then she wants sympathy and support from women. Heaven forbid the boss she basically gets her tits out for actually hits on her! Then she's a 'victim', and she needs our help.

I'm 23. No man has ever stopped me from achieving anything in my life. I'm a minority. I see racism every day. People are shocked that I can speak well, that I went to a great school, that I'm intelligent. That's fine. But sexism, though real, is much less of a deal. I think our generation are generally less interested in talk and more interested in action. We are less chained by identity politics and we have higher expectations of ourselves, and of our representatives. I can imagine that if you were born when women were truly openly oppressed, that you would settle for symbolism. Sarah Palin wants to ride in on that sense of female solidarity. Boomers play such a large role in defining feminist ideology that I would expect some Gen Xs and some Gen Ys to drink the kool aid as well, even though they should probably know better.

Well, I'm sorry but I know better. I'm not going to be shamed into supporting this disgrace. I'm not gonna be shamed into defending her either. I don't see anyone writing articles defending Ann Coulter so I'm not sure why we're defending Sarah Palin. Is it because, honestly, we're just as sexist as the Republicans we think are using her? We've stripped her of her agency and are sympathetic because she represents 'family values' that women are supposed to. She's not angry, she's not loud. She acts like a woman should, right? So even so called feminists would rather abandon years of progress to go back to the tired old dance of defending women as weak and needy and fragile. Look, she's a victim like me!

So what the attacks are personal? People were calling Dubya a monkey and feminists clapped along. Sarah Palin is a monkey. A dangerous dangerous monkey. Her views are repugnant and shallow, I loathe her. Why should I blame McCain, he's not her father! Give the woman her agency back for god's sake and destroy her.

Gen X here. I'd like to add another generation to the mix. My mom is not quite a boomer - raised in the 50s. She and I had a conversation two days ago that left me cold.

She was a Hillary supporter in the primary (me - John Edwards). She's reliably voted Democratic and canceled my dad's vote out for decades (in Missouri, where current polls have McCain and Obama in a dead heat). I haven't talked to her about politics since the nomination. Tuesday she says to me "How about that Sarah Palin - she's spunky!"

Oh, did I lose it (and I am sorry I had such a visceral reaction - I think it shut her down). Some snippets:
Q: Have you heard her answer any questions?
A: Yes
Q: Did you hear her answers to Katie Couric - mom, she doesn't know anything - she's woefully unprepared.
A: Oh, I don't watch Katie Couric, I don't like her.

Comment (Mom): Oh, I could *never* vote for Obama!!!!
Q: Why not, what is it about his ideas and platforms that you don't like?
A: I did my research during the primary; and I found out that Iran and Iraq like him. We have a reputation on the world stage. America is respected and I can't get behind someone who is supported by those countries.
Q: Where did you get that information?
A: On the internet - I did my research.
Comment (Me): Mom, you need to do more. We want Iran to be willing to talk to us, and we aren't at war with Iraq - their govt, and people are supposed to be our allies. I hope to god they like our next President. You need to know what the country is up against. We can't let her end up in the presidency.
Comment (Mom): She's not running
Comment (Me): She's a hearbeat away - he's not a well man [melanoma, etc...]
Comment (Mom): Well I don't like either one. I am not voting. It doesn't matter with the electoral college anyway. Otherwise Gore would have won.
(followed by me trying to explain the electoral collage and why MO voters still need to vote for the candidate their electors will represent)

Moral of the story: To be honest, I think one thing at play for some of her generation is racism. She and her friends have displayed clear racism in the past and she knows I won't support it when she says those kinds of things.

She is looking for any reason not to vote for the Black Man, and thought she could appeal to my feminism to get an ally with Palin. She chooses to remain a low-information voter because it allows her to feel justified and moral in her racist bubble. I am saddened and disappointed. And I hope I am wrong.