You have got to be kidding me.
I almost thought this was a spoof article, but soon realized that TIME magazine author Belinda Luscombe is quite serious about her contention of why women aren't supporting Sarah Palin: 'cause when it comes to politics, we're all just struggling with our inner catty schoolgirls:
Here's why Palin doesn't make the grade:1. She's too pretty. This is very bad news. At school, pretty girls tend to be liked only by other pretty girls. The rest of us, whose looks hover somewhere around underwhelming, resent them and whisper archly of their "unearned attention." So, if everyone calls your candidate "hot," you're in a whole mess of trouble. If the Pakistani head-of-state more or less hits on her, well, yes, she'll get a sympathy vote, but we're in Dukakis-in-the-tank territory. It's an admiration vaporizer. (Of course a candidate can't be too ugly, or it will scare the men, who are clearly shallow as a gender.)
2. She's too confident. This also bodes ill. Women have self-esteem issues. But they also have other-women's-esteem issues. As almost any woman -- from the head of the Budgerigar Breeders association to Queen Elizabeth -- can attest, it's almost impossible to get confidence right. Too timid and you're a pushover. Too self-aggrandizing and you're a bad word unless it's about a dog, or Project Runway's Kenley. Or Michelle, my best friend until 9th grade, after she won that debating prize and got cocky.
3. She could embarrass us. History is not on Palin's side. Every time a woman gets a plum job, be she Hewlett-Packard's ex-boss, Carly Fiorina, or CBS's Katie Couric, there's always that whispery fear that people will think she got the job just because she's a woman. So if things don't go well -- and a couple of YouTube clips have suggested that they're certainly not going well for Palin -- women are the first to turn on her for making it harder for the rest of us to louse up at work. (Emphasis mine)
While at first glance, you can see point two touching on sexist double standards women in politics have to endure, except she's saying the culprits are us gals with our "self-esteem issues." And check this:
The fact of the matter is once a female decides it's over with another female, it's like an end-stage marriage. No matter how seemingly benign, every attribute becomes an affront: the hair, the voice, the husband, the moose-shooting, the glasses, the big family, the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits. (Emphasis mine)
I really don't even know what to make of this statement because I don't know if she's being facetious or what. I'm almost more confused by their piece than anything; it's as if she's saying - while being enormously sexist - that women are being sexist against Palin. Huh?
Either way, she's flipping the McCain campaign's offensive assumption that women will like Palin because she's a woman on it's head - and saying that women don't like Palin because she's a woman. And that's just as heinous.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: TIME: Women who don't support Palin are just jealous little girls.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9654
I read that article earlier and couldn't believe that it wasn't marked as satire. It was satire, right?
Unfortunately, there's the underlying reality that anytime a woman criticizes another women -- no matter how rational or concrete the argument -- it is perceived as cattiness.
(Please, let it be a lame attempt at satire!)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who was ticked off by this. I read it and immediately wrote and sent a letter to the editor. I particularly enjoyed how she mentions that women have well thought out reasons for disliking someone, then comes up with a pile of garbage which would be more at home in Seventeen Magazine than Time. Apparently, for women, good reasons to dislike someone only include those based on childish emotions and petty jealousy over physical appearance.
Vanessa, I laud your word choice here: Heinous is what this type of argument is. Spot-on.
I don't care whether or not the article is a satire after all--because the ideas it puts forth ARE shared by many. Many. What these sexists--men and women alike--don't seem to get is that there are plenty of women like me who quite admire Palin for being a work-outside-the-home mother who has not let 5 kids derail her from rising high.
I have no beef with Palin personally--got that, sexists/Luscombe?
NO BEEF.
But, I do not believe the policies she endorses will be good for me or those in my life. Hence my lack of political support for her.
Does that make me a "hater," sexists, or does it just blow a giant hole in your argument?
(I hate violence towards living creatures, but I really want to punch inanimate objects now--something semi-firm, with just enough "give" to take my punch, but still firm enough to get a good grunt out of me.)
I like how after that comparison to a divorce her list includes "the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits," as if that was something we used to like but now it's an affront.
ew. shame we can't comment on the time article online, it would be an interesting discussion i'm sure.
I am completely APPALLED by this article even though it has a very valid point. However, reducing every woman to such silly stereotypes… I can’t resist the temptation of posting this part of the article to illustrate my point:
When men disagree, the steps to resolution are reasonably clear and unsophisticated. Acts of physical violence are visited upon one another's person or property, and the whole thing blows over. Women? Nu-unh. We savor the discord. We draw it out. We share our contempt with our friends, like a useful stock tip, or really good salsa. And then we all go hate together: a mutually encouraging group activity for when the book group gets quiet.
Wow, the person who wrote this article is an idiot. Here is what I wrote to the editor:
Are you kidding me? Your article is an insult to my gender. You know that women hate Sarah Palin, because she is a sexist, ignorant bigot. She wants to overturn Roe V Wade and promotes idiotic policies such as Abstinence Only education. Not only is she hateful, but she is stupid. She promotes policies that would have a negative impact on middle class Americans. I could go on and on. Your article is asinine. Shame on you; you should know better.
Wow. Right now I feel like I should be writing for Time Magazine. What a nut job.
Of course the writer completely ignores the idea that women may not support Palin for the exact same reasons they don' support McCain - her politics. I'm writing a letter to the editor. INSANE how this woman tosses in "making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits" as if it's so trivial, only obviously jealous and catty women could find fault with that.
Here is the email address for sending letters to the Editor of Time: letters@time.com
You can email them at letters@time.com.
And oh yeah - NICE. Way to use your public voice to further discount the opinions and thoughts of your fellow women, Belinda.
Wow. This article is insane. It seems as if she watched "Mean Girls" and applied it to politics.
So we either love or hate her BECAUSE she is a woman? I guess our brains are either too tiny or overrun by emotions that we can't think about the issues, just if she has a vagina? We vote based on how we "like" someone?
I see, so it is really us women who are to blame for all the sexism that is visited upon her.
Again, wow.
Uh... wtf?
(It's not the most articulate response, but then does this article deserve one?)
I cannot wait for this election to be over, and - fingers crossed - for Sarah Palin to go back to Alaska.
Uh... wtf?
(It's not the most articulate response, but then does this article deserve one?)
I cannot wait for this election to be over, and - fingers crossed - for Sarah Palin to go back to Alaska.
Of course it's entirely possible for women to be sexist, or misogynist; my grandmother didn't think women could drive & hated when they got drunk in public (more than men who did).
The idea that women don't like women because they're women is one thing. Saying that women who criticize Palin's rape kit issue don't like her because she's too pretty is absurd, and sexist.
I think Palin should not be VP because:
1) She is willfully ignorant.
2) She decided to run for VP even though she knew she was unqualified.
3) She is willing to manipulate family issues such as her daughter's pregnancy and then claim that it is a private matter. (Prediction, although disgusting to contemplate: there will be such a term as "privacy card" in future.)
4) She is in an excellent position to become president if elected and McCain dies in office, and will not be able to pull it off because of 1) and 2).
Is any of what I've just said tied to her having a uterus?
The only woman embarrassing me right now is Belinda Luscombe.
If you really believed in Feminism, you would work for advancement of ALL women. Clinton was a governor of Arkansas of which only has 1 major city Little rock, with the majority of the population living within 50 miles.
Carter was a peanut farmer from Georgia.
The hypocracy is so blatant its laughable.
This movement is dead after this election. Many women, including this Clinton supporter, now sees the face of feminism without the mask.
Feminism has been set back at least a decade.
Until you walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, you will have no credibity
If you really believed in Feminism, you would work for advancement of ALL women. Clinton was a governor of Arkansas of which only has 1 major city Little rock, with the majority of the population living within 50 miles.
Carter was a peanut farmer from Georgia.
The hypocracy is so blatant its laughable.
This movement is dead after this election. Many women, including this Clinton supporter, now sees the face of feminism without the mask.
Feminism has been set back at least a decade.
Until you walk the walk instead of just talk the talk, you will have no credibity
If you really believed in Feminism, you would work for advancement of ALL women. Clinton was a governor of Arkansas of which only has 1 major city Little rock, with the majority of the population living within 50 miles.
Carter was a peanut farmer from Georgia.
The hypocracy is so blatant its laughable.
DonnaFrFlorida, really? So I should work for the advancement of someone who wants to take rights away from me? And that would be feminist how, exactly?
clinton was highly knowledgeable, educated and talented. carter sucked.
DonnaFrFlorida is an obvious troll, please don't feed it!
And speaking of trolls, is there any way we should report them, if you guys want reporting at all?
I would like to say one thing, for any self-respecting woman who enjoys the freedoms our mothers won for us...
We don't want to go back to 1973, do we?
A VOTE FOR PALIN
WILL BE YOUR LAST CHOICE
Monsters!
Thanks for the letters email address, I sent one in. How infuriating to have our actual reasons for disliking Palin reduced to mindless "jealousy."
Donna, go back to The New Agenda.
Donna, go back to The New Agenda.
nightingale, there was a post on trolls a couple days ago:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/011339.html
So yes, DO report them. PLEASE report them.
Why would I be jealous of Palin? I could have debated Joe Biden better than that!
Why is it that just because I don't agree with one woman's politics feminism is dead? Feminism is bigger than one woman's career- especially a woman who wants to take rights away from other women! Ugh!
Shame on you, TIME magazine. Shame.
Donna apparently thinks that Carter is a woman in drag.
Wow. What a piece of crap. I'm just as upset with the sexism against men in this article.
She thinks all men solve problems with "acts of physical violence... upon one another's person or property."
And, apparently, all men are "clearly shallow as a gender." (This, coming from a woman who is making some of the shallowest generalizations I've ever read in a national newsmagazine.)
This lady is CLEARLY misguided. Does she live under a rock that only broadcasts Leave it to Beaver and Mean Girls?
To the Editors of Time Magazine:
I was shocked and disgusted to read Belinda Luscombe's petty, sexist article entitled "Why Some Women Hate Sarah Palin." To imply that women's disapproval of Palin is nothing more than schoolgirl catfighting and jealousy is offensive to me personally, and to women as a gender. How dare she trivialize our disapproval of her politics--namely anti-woman politics, being anti-choice in the extreme, putting the financial burden of rape kits on the victims, etc. And how dare Time agree to run such an offensive article. That Luscombe lists "making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits" along with "moose shooting" and Palin's "hair" as the superficial reasons we anti-Palin women refuse to support her is telling. If Luscombe cannot even distinguish Palin's actual political stances from her hair and makeup, then perhaps it is she, not us, who is judging based solely on gender.
The only thing worse than having women characterized as catty, jealous children is when other women promote the stereotype.
Shame, shame on her, and shame on Time Magazine.
-Judith Heiden Shimer-
Donna's message was a trifle vague -- is she saying that it's o.k. to support male politicians because they push for equal rights, but it's also o.k. to support women who do not, because they happen to be women? I'm not clear here.
If I understand her logic correctly, think about this.
George W. Bush has appointed women to cabinet positions, judgeships, and other federal jobs. He definitely has appointed more women to cabinet positions than any other president, including Clinton. (Many of them left these positions by the second term, of course.) Do you think these women were for equal rights, or perhaps that they happened to support Bush's policy positions and had the bonus of being female? I suggest you check out the records of Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor as an example of what can happen -- the rights of women in the workforce have declined significantly under her administration.
One last mention: Harriet Miers. She was female. She was vastly underqualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Should she have replaced Sandra Day O'Connor? After all, it's just swapping out one woman for another, isn't it?
I actually thought that this article WAS satire... maybe that was wishful thinking, but it's so over the top it wouldn't possibly be serious, right?
Right?
Umm.. if this article was not satire then the author has some gaps in her reasoning. She forgot that this is not high school; it is politics. Insinuating that women would dislike a candidate enough not to vote for them for so shallow a reason is insulting. Even her "logic" starts out flawed because in high school there were plenty of "underwhelming" girls who liked and were friends with "pretty girls". I'm sorry if the author happened to be catty and then generalized. But, that aside, female voters are not high school kids and high school is a completely different situation. Palin is not a peer that could prompt somebody to feel jealous. Am I supposed to see her as a threat because she could "steal my boyfriend"? Or maybe because the "boy I like" has a crush on her? That is a joke. Look at all of the beautiful celebrities adored and admired by fans. Shouldn't they all be hated and scorned using this "philosophy"?
This article wasn't even backed by a study but it seems like every other week an article comes out stating either that "pretty people" are better liked, make a more favorable impression, earn more money, have more job success, and are happier or an article comes out stating that that "pretty people" are not taken seriously in the job market, have to work harder to prove themselves, are hated by others who are jealous, and have it harder because they can never tell who is with them for their looks versus their personality. Basically, that means that you can use appearance as an excuse for a persons success/failure/popularity no matter what they look like and take it in which ever direction you want.
You keep mentioning Roe vs Wade.
Do any of you "really" know what Roe vs Wade was all about? The Roe vs Wade legislation was intended to protect people like ME (victims of real rape) .... not women who do one-night stands and then cry "give me a quick fix" (abortion)!
Where are the women of my generation? Why do they not speak out in this forum?
You keep mentioning Roe vs Wade.
Do any of you "really" know what Roe vs Wade was all about? The Roe vs Wade legislation was intended to protect people like ME (victims of real rape) .... not women who do one-night stands and then cry "give me a quick fix" (abortion)!
Where are the women of my generation? Why do they not speak out in this forum?
This article caught me by surprise. It seemed like conservatives were creating an illusion for their candidate creating stereotypical reasons why the regular girl in high school doesn't like the captain of the cheerleading team.It seems since it's been unreliable to depend on Palin's double sided ideas in the past supporters are now trying to use her looks and confidence to create the ideas to voters, well she looks the part.
This reminds me of the movie Killing me Softly. Her image is what is perfect for the job! That makes me so upset because it almost seems to be saying let's put a woman in office just because she's pretty and confident not because she deserves to be their. Her supporters are trying to create more votes by making other woman feel that it's just jealousy that they don't like her ignoring the fact she's always too timid to put her foot all the way down on issues, their in for a long campaign.
Georgia Girl -
Abortion is not "a quick fix." To say that it is suggests that you have very little understanding of the abortion process across the country. And why do you assume that the women seeking abortions are doing so as the result of one-night stands? Women seeking abortions come from all demographics and they choose abortion for many different reasons.
Time... Newsweek...you may as well call them People-fuckin'-Magazine. The printed version of Fox News. Come on. Not even worth a glance anymore, other than the fact that most people think it's "news."
Oh, and yeah "Georgia Girl," not only do I know the meaning of Roe v. Wade, I know why women should control (ALWAYS, NO MATTER THE FUCKIN' GODDAMN CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!) when WE give birth and when WE don't.
You see, when women are not in control of this, it tends to have shitty repercussions on the world in general.
The state of the world right now is a good example of my point.
"You see, when women are not in control of [whether they will bring a child to term], it tends to have shitty repercussions on the world in general."
S'true. There's even a section about this in Freakonomics: "Jane Roe, crime stopper".
Don't feel too bad, Georgia Girl. You're not the only one who thought that her choice was the exception.
@ mikkea1: I agree that Time is hardly sophisticated reading material. Fox in print, maybe even. But not worth a glance? The fact that, as you say, most people think it is news makes it more than just worth a glance. We need to be fighting against this destructive BS as much as we possibly can. The right-wing media is one of the most dangerous forces in our country. I look back on the last two elections and there is no way millions of US voters are simply blind; they were being fed the lies that won Bush those elections. Only in a nation with a powerful and poisonous mainstream media could anything like that happen, twice in a row...and I'm scared, I'm really scared, about this one too.