Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Blogs and Stories
When Is It Sexism?
Left: AFP/Getty Images; Right: Reuters
In Sarah Palin’s case, it was (sorta). In Caroline Kennedy’s case, it isn’t. Here’s the difference.
What has become of feminism? A fine mess is what it seems to be in: In 2000, New York elected Hillary Rodham Clinton to be its first female senator—and her primary qualification was her previous position as first lady. Now that she’s moving on, Caroline Bouvier Kennedy is likely to replace her—and her primary qualification is her previous position as first daughter.
In the meantime, Gov. Sarah Palin, the only prominent female political figure this year with good liberated bona fides—which is to say, she draws a salary in her own name—went down with Wardrobegate. The GOP will probably never forgive Palin’s cross-country shopping spree. While Sen. John McCain might have been foolish enough to say the fundamentals of the economy were sound, Palin was dumb enough to act like that was true, partying with someone else’s Amex like it was 1999. This is likely to be the final word on Palin’s tombstone: Went shopping, R.I.P. Even stories about her attending campaign meetings in her hotel room—mind you, it was her hotel room—wrapped in nothing but a bath sheet and a hair towel, or tales of her believing that Africa is a country, or the latest news of Bristol’s would-be mother-in-law getting caught with crystal meth will all fade before the fashion bill is paid, psychically if not literally.
Sarah Palin is the sole occupant of the Venn diagram of those smart enough to be governor of Alaska and dumb enough to be vice president.
When people said the Palin-palooza was all just so much sexism, they were only sort of correct: After all, any woman knows it costs us way more just to dry-clean the clothes we already do have than any man would willingly spend on his grooming—John Edwards and his $400 Fekkai notwithstanding. But no one would have cared about those really quite gorgeous Oscar de la Renta suits if it weren’t for the perils of Palin all over the place: She was in over her head, being offered a job she wasn’t ready for by a presidential candidate who had missed his own moment in 2000 and was now in need of some cool Wasilla steam. Despite the misguided decision to include Palin on the ticket, McCain may have done the Republicans a favor: He pushed the party ahead into the future, he imagined the next generation of leadership, and if he had chosen the already acknowledged Gov. Tim Pawlenty or the also-ran Mitt Romney, there would be nothing new out there from that tired old party.
But perhaps the real problem is simply that the women who catch our attention in the policy arena tend to feel like novelty acts, pop idols who came from out of nowhere, who didn’t work the workaday ranks of their male competitors. This is, of course, the precise criticism that’s being leveled at Caroline Kennedy these days, and the dismissive greeting she’s received from so many in the press is being likened to the Palin experience. Now, of course, about the only thing these two women have in common is that they are two women—not nothing in a man’s world—but to say sexism is the issue is an insult to sexism. If Sarah Palin was the sole occupant of the Venn diagram of those smart enough to be governor of Alaska and dumb enough to be vice president, Caroline Kennedy is not even on the chart.
The truth is, Kennedy long ago made choices that so many women make—she opted out of professional life, perhaps to be a mom and perhaps because she could—and now she’s hoping to reenter the commercial world at a level that far surpasses her exiting locale. All women who take time off to mother their children face similar sticker-shock when they decide to work again. Not only have they lost their qualifications by remaining dormant for a stretch, they also find that their earning power is much less than it was when they went into labor. In fact, studies show that there is salary penalty on motherhood: A woman with children will typically earn 10 percent less than any man doing the same job. In the meantime, a man with a stay-at-home wife gets a nice premium—he will usually earn 30 percent more than the husband of a working wife because he has “zero-drag” at home. Just the same, a woman who works a 40-hour week still spends about 86 percent as much time with her children as a nonworking mom—not much of a difference at all—and she is still the primary parent, delegating tasks to the father, who needs a list of instructions before he doles out child care.
A career woman with children works a daily double-shift, which can be both exhausting and demoralizing—and many smart ladies decide it’s just not worth it. This explains how it is that well into the Third Wave of feminism—and despite the visibility of Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman—women are only 16 percent of the corporate executives in this country, 17 percent of the big-firm law partners, and in all, we hold only 8 percent of the white-collar managerial positions. It is, simply, impossible to take a timeout to raise kids and still compete in a man’s world.
Palin, to her credit, understood this. After a couple of days of maternity leave when her special-needs baby was born last year, she was back in Anchorage, running Alaska. Powerful female friends of mine with kids who maintain a high position in a man’s world all did the same thing: brief leave and back to the grinder; they didn’t want office politics and the forward propulsion of time itself—time the avenger—to put them out to pasture. For all the crap talk of “choice feminism”—whatever the hell that means—we are never going to feminize the world. Women who want to succeed pretty much have to work as long and as hard as men typically do, and that’s that. What does Kennedy know of this hellishness? She hasn’t held a paid position since her children were born, nor did she have a proper job even before that.
Kennedy is entering the political fray under exceptional circumstances: she’s a former first daughter, and her family functions as American royalty. No other women with less blue blood could even attempt to get away with what she seems to in fact be getting away with. This is not sexism; this is reality.
Elizabeth Wurtzel is author of Prozac Nation, Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women, and More, Now, Again. She has been popular music critic for The New Yorker and New York, and the film reviewer for Nerve. Her work has been widely anthologized.
Did a Scandal Sink the U.S.S. Palin?
Palin Resignation: 11 Theories Why
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Her Mind Works
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, causes, and individuals, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today’s rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Lance Is Back in France
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
The $1,000 Coffee Table Book
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How 'Public Enemies' Kills Its Gangsters
Stanley Crouch's culture pieces have appeared in Harper's, The New York Times, Vogue, Downbeat, The New Yorker, and more. He has served as artistic consultant for jazz programming at Lincoln Center since 1987, and is a founder Jazz at Lincoln Center. In June 2006 his first major collection of jazz criticism, Considering Genius: Jazz Writings, was published. He is presently completing a book about the Barack Obama presidential campaign.
Candidate Caroline Is Off to a Bad Start
Elizabeth Wurtzel is author of Prozac Nation, Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women, and More, Now, Again. She has been popular music critic for the New Yorker and New York magazine, and the film reviewer for Nerve.
Uh, Qualified?
Elizabeth Wurtzel is author of Prozac Nation, Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women, and More, Now, Again. She has been popular music critic for the New Yorker and New York magazine, and the film reviewer for Nerve.
What is happening to Caroline Kennedy is absolutly sexism. If it were 10 years ago and John Kennedy Jr (RIP) wanted to be appointed Senator of New York there would be a parade for him along 5th Ave.
He would not have been criticized as his sister has been. He would have been revered for taking his rightful place as American political royalty. He would not have been accused using his name. Many would have said "What took you so long". Before his untimely death, many were counting down the minutes and the seconds to when JFK, Jr would announce his candidacy to any political position. But, now that it is Caroline, she is accused of using her name and money to get appointed. Yes, she is not the most qualified person. But, if it were 10 years ago, Jfk, Jr would not have been qualified and I guarantee he would not have been criticized like Caroline has been.
Ms. Wurtzel, you and I have different views of sexism. Sure, Gov. Palin experienced sexism on the campaign trail, but even in your article you deemed her in over her head. Her bold ignorance on several vital fronts did her in, not her sex. The fact that she could have purchased a house for what she spent on clothes is outrageous, and would have been equally outrageous had it been a man (note your own jab at Mr. $400 Haircut). It isn't that Gov. Palin didn't experience sexism, I just think the example of injustice is a poor one for use in comparison. Too much time must be spent picking out instances of sexism from the lake of unqualified-for-the-task indicators.
I think the greatest act of sexism mentioned in your article is something you also reinforced; women do not have to work 'as hard' as men, they have to work harder. Not just do they as often as not do the majority of work in the home, they have to work much harder in the workplace to achieve the same title and (hopefully) pay grade as men. You recognized this, but you treated the choice a woman makes to stay home and raise her family as a throw away move. It isn't; raising a family does not have to mean social isolation and inaction. Women who make this decision need our respect if our society is ever to make strides in eradicating sexism.
I got the feeling reading your article that you have very little information about Ms. Kennedy, you didn't even seem to know precisely why she opted for home vs. office. If this article and the news feed comparisons are just another excuse to bring up the tantalizing topic of Gov. Palin, that ought to be acknowledged so we as readers do not think we are actually engaging in debate about feminism.
Reminding us that Sarah Palin was allotted $150,000 to look good is the real sexism here. When Obama made his speech in Berlin, he rented lights for $700,000 in order to LOOK GOOD. So what exactly is the difference? Be grateful she didn't need her teeth straightened as well.
You don't answer your own question in this piece. Basically it's a praise piece for Palin, I think, and prissy about Kennedy, maybe? Or just an excuse to bitch about how hard it is to have a family and be a CEO? It's much tougher to have a family and work a regular job, by the way - you can't afford the housekeepers and nannies. And while Kennedy's bona fides may be slim, somehow I doubt she's been sitting around the house watching Oprah and herding kiddies for the last 20 years.
Sarah Palin was opposed by those who did their research, not only because she was unqualified to be VP, "one heartbeat away from the presidency" but also because of her crackpot, fundamentalist views. No matter how much "experience" she gets, her views should disqualify her from holding any federal office. EVER.
The problem with how professional/political women are treated these days seems to be less about feminism (is it dead? is it alive?) but how those who write criticism about it seem at a loss to get their mind around it. Many seem to feel that it is dead but they wish it weren't (sort of) and the other half think it is raging and wish it were dead. No one seems willing to take the time to even define for us what it is while they throw the term around in a huff and in despair.
Here is another example. Is this an article about women in politics or women in the workplace? Wurtzel and no doubt others would claim they are the same thing, but they really are not. Politics is a very special and unusual job, not what most women -or men- will ever experience. It is far more symbolic in society, more akin to acting than the 9-5 (or 8-6) grind. Being symbolic makes it a great jumping off point for discussing culture at large, or for simply slinging arrows. Critiquing women's place in the work world, however, requires something much more sober and measured in order to make sense of what's going on. This is why a thorough analysis of where 'feminism' is today would be a very effort for us all. Yet, now most of what we have seen is a lot of smart people trying real hard to look clever.
The problem with embracing Palin as a latter day sufferer of sexism is that ignores the object in favor of the symbol. Palin is one who used her sex whenever should get away with it to get ahead. Unlike so many women who have worked so hard to be appreciated for their skills and intelligence, Palin has often been content to get by with a wink and smile. Palin is a tough as nails politician and very ambitious, but beyond that it is hard to see what her skills are. Palin's image is a throw back to the frontier woman who could both wield a weapon and satisfy her man -and cook moose stew, too! This image is what all these (mostly) old Republicans love. How this fits into idea of feminism that most of us grew up with is less clear. So, was Palin skewered in the press for her shopping spree because she was a woman or because she set herself up as a woman who was thrifty and had little use for East Coast types would call 'fashionable'? So much of Palin image is a microcosm of how the GOP wants credit for ideas they do not even try to live up to.
None of this is an excuse for the media which at times got very catty. But that the media is shallow is nothing new. This is why we reading and hoping for deeper analysis from people like Tina Brown and Wurtzel yet keep coming up short. On the other hand, Wurtzel's analysis of Kennedy seems spot on. There is an unease here with someone trying to assume a role she has worked so hard and so long to avoid. It is far from clear whether she understands how much work she has ahead of her. The media's notion that the name alone gives her a free ticket is yet another example of group think that has served us so poorly of late.
This user is no longer registered.
Elizabeth Wurtzel = Loser
Sudanb = Winner
The difference is that Sarah Palin was in over her head. Caroline Kennedy is (has always been) in over our heads. Palin looked great at first, but she will have to gain an entire life's education before she can live up to her promise. Caroline in brilliant--sure she'll need to learn a few interviewing skills but she has a lot to offer--she knows everybody, everybody takes her calls, and she isn't in it for the money. Giving Caroline a chance is a good bet. And if she bombs, she's up for reelection in two years. Like we saw with Sarah, breeding will eventually prevail . . . you betcha'.
Did Sarah Palin experience Sexism? Definately.
If she was a man, they wouldn't have even considered here as a VP.
Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy are women who understand their power and know how to use it. This makes a lot of men uncomfortable, who prefer women who "know their place". The People of the State of New York would have been ecstatic to have John John Kennedy use his power to benefit New York. Caroline also has connections and star power that will benefit New York. She knows her power and she wants to use it to help New York. She'll be a great United States senator. Go Caroline! As for Sarah Palin, she will continue to use her considerable power to attract attention to try to gain more power to. . . to. . . I have no idea how Sarah Palin wants to use her power to benefit anyone other than other low brow republicans. But I recognize that she's got guts and determination, and I admire that.
The savage and unfair attacks on Palin by the Obama-cheering press were caused by real fear that her measurable boost to McCain might actually cause the defeat of the sainted community organizer. And it might well have done so, had the disaster to the financial system not dropped like a bolt of thunder. The press and the Democrats (virtually identical) jumped like hyenas on any gaffe she made, while ignoring those of Biden. (Anyone remember "I have a three-letter solution - JOBS"?).
Palin did not have the benefit of two years of briefings, like Obama did, and of course revealed ignorance of world affairs,
though some of her alleged mistakes, like thinking of Africa as a country, were fiction.
She is a bright and articulate woman, and one of the formidable things about her is that she is all WOMAN, unlike the epicene
Hillary or blatantly mannish Democratic females - another reason for Democrats to fear, loathe, and lampoon her.
Caroline Kennedy holds a law degree from Columbia, one of the top law schools in the nation, and is a constitutional scholar and co-author of two well-regarded books. She also advised President-elect Obama on his VP choice. From an intellectual standpoint, she is better qualified for office than many sitting U.S. senators.
Caroline Kennedy's credentials for the Senate are admirable in an enlightened world. A candidate isn't better for having spent years shaking hands, promising rewards to donors and accepting money to be qualified for public office. CK is a lawyer who has written an excellent book on Constitutional Law and shown her humanist side with her poetry and family books.. She knows how to run a home and raise healthy children and shehas made outstanding volunteer contributions. Isn't that the kind of thoughtful leader we'd like to see in the US Senate? I certainly would. CareyRoberts
Sexism schmexism! The question is really about elitism.
Caroline is simply not qualified. That's got nothing to do with sexism. Her bid to be a candidate is all about her sense of entitlement. I do not agree that being a Kennedy is enough qualification. I don't even believe her good intentions are enough.
There are better candidates to replace Hillary.
By the way, Wurtzel, what is UP with that photo of you up there?
Yes! The political women on the celebrity media radar in the last year (Hillary, Sarah, Caroline) feel like novelty acts.
Thanks for being the one columnist to say it: Hillary walked into the spotlight as Bill's smart, ambitious wife with a great education, not someone who personally earned it through her own political dues of earning votes (for herself) and keeping them term after term.
Her own accomplishments were so admirable before she became a mother, but since have been largely wife, mother, and leader of that health care debacle in the early 90s.
I wanted to like and vote for her for many reasons but couldn't. She has not demonstrated an ability to lead other politicians and constituents, and she's had numerous opportunities throughout her adult life to do so apart from Bill.
Sarah Palin is the most qualified in the usual ways, yet she seemed least qualified to the (bare) majority because her willful, proud anti-intellectual logic only aligned her with George Bush.
That said willful, proud anti-intellectual logic goes over big with much of the voting public. Don't write her off, from what I hear around me the voting public hasn't and the Republican Party won't hesitate to support her if they smell a winner.
What exactly does qualify one to be a Senator?
Having been in the Military like McCain?
Having been a lawyer like Sen. Kyl?
Having been a Dr. like Se. Coburn or Bill Frist?
Having been a business man like Se. Bennet?
Having run the Red Cross like Sen. Libby Dole...who is btw married to an ex-Sen.?
It seems all kinds of experience will get you the job so why not Carolines fund raising for public schools and authorship of scholarly books?
Sarah Palin was the victim of Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol, who met her and developed huge crushes on her without thinking with their upper heads.
We can thank them for this candidate and all she did for us Democrats.
Many wives who are widowed are appointed to fill their husbands senate seats, so what is the problem with Kennedy?
Recycled, discredited anecdotes followed by non sequitur after non sequitur that ceaseth only in death with the concluding period...the going-out-of-business strategy par excellence for Old Media finds fresh game. New Yorker, R.I.P. Can The Daily Beast be far behind?
If you are going to criticize someone at least use accurate information. Palin did not allot the money for the wardrobe, the McCain campaign did. And her handlers did most if not all of the shopping. Palin also did not attend a meeting wrapped in a bath sheet. She answered the door to her room for some staffers wearing a terry cloth robe because she had just gotten out of the shower - hardly a terrrible thing to do. Had she made them wait for her to get dressed, she would have been trashed for that, too. How much of this kind of criticism (as opposed to more substantive concerns) was based in sexism and how much in elitism is hard to determine, but both were clearly at play,
Harlemita, I'm with you. Caroline Kennedy, since the day she was born, has been of the elite. How has she ever connected with the average New Yorker? Frankly, I don't think she has, and we need someone more representative of the people, please.
The predictable "contrarian" take on the ersatz issue "Palin v. Kennedy." With faux-knowing snark on how "shopping" done Palin in (in--wait for it--"Wardrobegate"), as opposed to her inability to give a coherent answer to the simplest questions.
Kennedy may be the left's version of a legacy hire, but this post is incoherent. I'm not even sure what "sexism" has to do with any of this. What "people" (sorry for all the scare quotes) claim Palin's downfall was due to sexism? It was due to "In what respect, Charlie?" and in her yammering non-responsiveness to Katie (a woman!) Couric.
Oh, and in the blatant condescension John McCain showed conservative and moderate women voters, in thinking that selecting a nitwit would appeal to them if she were a woman.
*There's* your sexism.
Thank you Wolynski! Good God, if I hear one more thing about Palin's wardrobe I'm going to scream. You don't even want to know how much Obama spent in the name of his vanity.
Palin and Kennedy both experience a lot of sexism but I don't think it is what is holding them back from these positions of office. They're just not qualified. What is more interesting is how equally unqualified men get elected (Obama). That is the real story here.
Btw, I continue to suspect that people who claim that Clinton's presidential viability was solely because of her husband are not New Yorkers. This argument was valid during her Senate race in 2000, but any New Yorker who has paid attention to her record in the New York Senate knows she has done more and worked harder than almost any Senator to hold that same position. She earned her presidential run by now - her presidential run via first ladydom is outdated and obviously perpetuated by people who don't pay attention to policy.
This whole election cycle has shown me how rampant sexism is. Unfortunately, I saw it far more from the dems than the republicans. As a democrat I was appalled at the way Hillary Clinton was treated. We talked about her laugh, her cleavage, her tears. When Palin came along, she was trashed over being a working mother, called unfit, and questioned about whether she could handle the job because of her children. Question her qualifications, that's fine, but not her ability because of her children. The male candidates have children also. Both Hillary Clinton and Palin were condemned for using their children on the campaign trail. I believe many male candidates including Obama had their children out in the public eye.
Now Kennedy comes along, and all these questions about her start, if it was her brother, he would have already been appointed.
Sexism is alive and well, and some of the worst offenders seem to be other womem, we are our own worst enemy.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.