Why Women Don’t Like Sarah Palin
Public Policy has a new poll out on Sarah Palin:
Public Policy Polling released a study on Thursday revealing that, one year after bursting onto the national scene, Palin still has not made inroads among a variety of key demographic groups. Most significantly, among women the Alaska Republican has only a 37 percent favorable rating compared to a 51 percent unfavorable.
Most significantly among women. Significant, but hardly surprising… after all, women have seen her game played time and time again. We didn’t like it in high school and we obviously won’t support it in the voting booth. But what are women seeing in Sarah Palin that results in a 51% unfavorable rating?
Glad you asked. What I, and other women I’ve spoken with, see in Sarah is a classic game of I’m with the boys. Let me explain… An I’m with the boys women is a phony, eagerly embracing what boys like simply to garner their praise. The second part of this game involves mocking other women who don’t like all the things boys like. Basically this type of woman is a shape-shifter, adjusting her likes and dislikes to suit her intended audience. She’s insincere in motive and dishonest in practice, but once she snares her prey (in this case, the older white male) she’ll be forgiven for any and all inconsistencies.
Calling Hillary a whiner and then going on to break all whining records. No problem, the boys have her back. Quitting being Governor? Well… while they might not have been thrilled with the move, they understand. Unable to offer substance, let alone a properly constructed sentence, during a VP debate? Nothing that can’t be resolved with a wink.
The winking incident is a huge factor with women… unless someone thinks those winks were directed at women. This was the ultimate eye-rolling moment. And while certain men got all hot and bothered, women said, “Oh no she didn’t!”
Women aren’t buying into her persona. We simply don’t believe she is who she says she is, and we sense, given a chance, she’ll gleefully throw us under the bus. There’s just not enough room in the spotlight for any woman but Sarah, and I’d lay money that her recent Michelle Bachman gushing begins cooling.
Because it’s a guy thing.
And speaking of guys… Conservative men aren’t helping her cause by constantly dismissing concerns by women with the “you’re jealous because she’s hot” line. In fact, they’re only reinforcing what women already sense – that Sarah Palin is playing an age old sexual game and that some older men will forever be willing to play the fool for a pretty face. It’s this reinforcing of sexual stereotypes that result in a 51% unfavorability rating. It isn’t about her looks. It’s about how she uses those looks. It isn’t about her bombing interview questions. It’s about the pass given to the little lady, because, I guess, there are boy questions and girl questions. And… it’s the reaction of certain men to antics they should have outgrown years ago that have women rolling their eyes and turning away from Palin.
Tags: Sarah Palin
You have hit the nail on the head!! I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been told I’m “jealous” of her because she’s hot. That kind of response is juvenile and what I expect of an male adolescent. It’s also because the men who do it cannot make a rational defense of the cluelessness in someone who is aspiring to national office. There are a lot of women who are even better-looking than Palin, but who work hard to be appreciated for their intellectual merits. They have earned my respect, because they help to advance the cause of women. Palin, on the other hand, reinforces these sexist stereotypes with the cutesy, little-woman act that she is much too old for at 45.
Along with that act, she lobs inflammatory remarks about President Obama’s policies, regurgitating such nonsense as the Ayers association and the birther issue. But she is not held accountable, because some men think she is just SO adorable. Fortunately, there are other men who see through her as well, including Republican Conservatives.
But if she ever does run for president, she will get a rude awakening because she will definitely have to articulate something a lot more substantive than the canned GOP talking points. And she has a long record of saying inane things, and making definitive remarks when she doesn’t have a clue of what she’s talking about. I would not be surprised if at least one of her potential opponents uses them against her. It could be either a Democrat or a Republican opponent who does this.
In any case, I don’t care what she does as long as she never manages to reach the White House in any capacity.
She never will. I do think she has a very good chance of ensuring a 2012 victory for Obama. Either the GOP buckles and nominates her… in which case she stand no chance, or they dont. At which point she will un as a TeaBager and Ralph Nader the hell out of whoever the poor bastard is who runs as a Republican
She has already thrown one woman under the bus, namely New York State Republican DeeDee Scozzafava. What Palin and the other fools who fell all over themselves following her did was to snub this woman on the grounds that she was not “conservative enough,” and endorse Doug Hoffman of the Conservative party strictly because of ideology. It didn’t even matter to Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck,or George Pataki that Hoffman knew nothing about the issues of NY 23. They were very dismissive of those concerns.
In any case, they dragged Scozzafava through the mud, making all kinds of ugly and malicious accusations about her to the point that she withdrew from the race. But the last thing they ever expected was for her to turn the tables on them and endorse Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate who she felt knew and cared about NY 23’s issues, instead of kissing the hands that slapped her.
He beat Hoffman and went on to win a seat that had largely been in Republican hands for more than 100 years. So, rather than being a kingmaker, Palin turned out to be a kingbreaker. They tried to put a positive spin on this defeat by calling it a “moral” victory since they ousted a moderate in favor of a conservative. But the truth of the matter is that her endorsement was a kiss of death.
It’s also significant that the two Republicans–Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Chris Christie of New Jersey– who won as governors in their respective states did not want her to campaign for them. They rightly saw her as a divisive distraction when they were trying to get as many votes as possible.
So, if she ever does run, I hope that this incident and others will be remembered and brought up.
i dont! If she runs, i hope the lunatic right goes ape-sht over her like they always do. That Faux News even goes so far as to actually endorse her. She is 100% unelectable and if she ends up being the GOP nominee, or even better, a third party candidate, i see no way at all the Obama presidency wont last till 2017.
I think this is one of the more amusing miscalculations that the McCain people made last year. It seems obvious that one of the major reasons they chose Palin was to try and grab some of the disappointed Hillary supporters. Short of picking a cardboard cut-out like Carrie Prejean, I’m not sure they could have found a woman more different than Hillary. Fortunately, American women are far smarter than Grandpa McCain thought they were. Not that you would know from watching Sarah herself. I’m still amazed that someone could basically run for one of the most important positions in the world on the platform of “I’m not so smart and I have no qualifications — that’s why you should vote for me!” It’s like Clint Howard trying to be the Next Top Model by singing “I’m the grumpy old troll, who lives under the bridge.”
Scott, you are so right. It was an act of desperation on McCain’s part. They made a gigantic error in judgment when they assumed that women who were for Hillary would go for another woman just because she is a woman. HRC and Palin are poles apart, and you didn’t have to be a rocket science to see that. Although I didn’t like some of the things Clinton did in the primary, she has more than proven that she is both strong and intelligent. Like her or not, Clinton could never be accused of being frivolous.
Even now, 13 months after the last presidential election, Palin has shown no signs of political growth. She is still saying exactly the same things, to the effect that because she is average (if that), her mediocrity serves as a reason to vote for her. She still shows no grasp of national or international issues, and she is always saying ignorant, hateful things about the current president. For someone who couldn’t handle her gubernatorial obligations, she has the nerve to insert herself into national matters when it’s obvious she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
A case in point is the stupid coin conspiracy about the way U.S. coins have the slogan “In God We Trust” changed since the Bush administration. But she tried to blame it on Obama. A. Price, I’m sure you are right. I have the sneaking suspicion that if she does run, the far right WILL go rogue on her. If she runs,she’ll get more than she ever bargained for.
What really takes the cake, though, is this stupid poll that says her popularity is rising while Obama’s is falling. Since when does anyone compare two people when one is running a large country with myriad problems, while the other has no governing responsibilities but is on a book tour? Those “popularity” polls are a throwback to high school, and the fact that the two are in their 40’s makes those polls even more ludicrous. Anyone who still thinks she is presidential material is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
Sarah Palin is more unelectable than Hillary Clinton.
Wow! Welcome, Anne! You make some excellent points. When I was reading about Palin’s unfavorable rating among women my first thought was… duh.
I wrote on this in August 2008, and what I said then still stands.
Nemski, I don’t think Hillary was unelectable.
Excellent post, Pandora. I want to second the thought that Palin’s use of her looks to manipulate men in a male-dominated power system is loathsome. I spent 25 years working for a company that styles itself progressive, yet more than once promoted good-looking women far above their level of competence while leaning heavily on not-so-good-looking women to do the grunt work. A bunch of pigs, in short. But what I saw there was exactly what we see with Palin. Behind those women’s backs, the men who promoted them were drooling and making lewd comments. To their faces, they pretended to respect their actual work, and the result was good-looking, talentless women with a false sense of confidence in their own abilities — a smugness, you might say, of the same sort so obvious in Sarah Palin.
Why… thank you, Geezer!
Exactly pandora. This happens over and over. It seems to be a staple of Fox News/GOP. These kind of women are also the kind of women who fit into the stereotype of catty. They live for male attention and want to be the prettiest, most popular woman with the boys.
Yes, she makes it difficult for other women because she gets undeserved attention.
The kind of women Unstable Isotope describes are women who only seem progressive but actually are regressive, because they appeal to the worst kind of sexism in men like the ones of Fox News/GOP. I remember only too well how, in 2008 during the campaign, any criticism of Palin was called “sexism,” no matter how justified. This was from people who never seemed to acknowledge sexism of any kind before. I have talked to ultraconservatives who can’t understand why women didn’t support Palin, and I tried but failed to explain that it’s not about just being a woman. It’s about being the kind of woman whose actions are the antithesis of what true progress for women is.
I cannot respect one who uses wiles in the place of actual talent and intelligence to get where she is. Women like that make it hard for those who want to advance on their own merits. But most tragic of all, if you live long enough, you won’t be a “babe” anymore–and God help you if you haven’t developed any other attributes outside the physical. Because when that goes, it goes for good.
You know what gets me about all this. It’s insulting to both men AND women. It makes women into sex objects and men into people who are easily manipulated. I know most men don’t fall for this stuff but it’s depressing when there are men that do.
Sorta like dumb and dumber?
It’s even more depressing when that kind of behavior is tolerated, if not actually condoned, by one of the main political parties in someone they have chosen as a standard bearer. She doesn’t just have problems with women, though. Palin has also been unable to attract minorities in any significant number, particularly African-Americans.
As both a woman and an African-American, I am in two of the demographics where she has the most trouble. As a woman, I despise the coyness and the phony cuteness, which I see as an insult to all women.
As an African-American, I will never forget the kind of anti-Obama hatred she ginned up at her rallies during the presidential campaign. When she accused Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” she did nothing at all to quell the anger she irresponsibly incited in a number of crowds. Since he has been president, he has been the target of more death threats than any other president, and Palin and her ilk have done a great deal to stoke that hate.
What it boils down to is that while she plays to the worst kind of male stupidity by using her looks, she plays a dangerous game in helping to stoke and perpetuate hate. For that reason, although she is lacking in what it takes to be a national leader or any kind of leader for that matter, she is a demagogue who appeals to the worst fears and basest prejudices of her followers. And someone who appeals to the worst in people has no business being a leader of a country–especially one as diverse and complex as ours.
I wonder what a woman like Palin does as she ages? Palin is 45. How much longer will she be able to act cute like that? It’s tough because I’m sure there are younger, hotter wingnuts waiting in the wings.
Isotope, that is exactly what I was referring to in an earlier post. She can only coast along on her looks for so long before they fade. But there are plenty of good-looking women of all ages who have a lot more on the ball than she does. The coyness is already ridiculous, and what makes it look even sillier is knowing that she not only has two children who are legally adults, but is also a grandmother.
Don’t get me wrong–45 is not old. But it IS long past the age when it is excusable to act like a teenager. There is such a thing as carrying oneself with dignity. The only way for anyone to be respected is for him or her to act like he or she has some sense. One day, she is going to wake up and realize that she is not eye-candy anymore. Can you imagine the kind of attention she would get if she looked like Madeline Albright, for example? The male wingnuts wouldn’t even give her the time of day. So, when she gets old and hasn’t done any personal growth, she is going to be at a profound disadvantage. That saccharine cuteness really won’t work anymore.
“I know most men don’t fall for this stuff”
I don’t know if you do most of your work in a lab environment, UI. If so, spend a little time with the sales staff — preferably on the road — just to test that theory. I think you’ll find yourself changing “most” to “many.”
LOL Geezer. I do work with mostly men but they’re mostly scientists and somewhat unconcerned with the outside world.
Palin’s looks have no effect on Delawareans. Good Lord, we elected Ruth Ann Minner. We have inoculated ourselves against charges of sexism and looks-ism for a generation.
“we elected Ruth Ann Minner. We have inoculated ourselves against charges of sexism and looks-ism for a generation.”
I don’t think so. We all make snap judgments based on looks, and instead of digging into Ruth Ann Minner’s past to determine if she had any qualifications for the job other than being born in Slower Lower, we all assumed that such a nice, grandmotherly lady deserved a chance. We never bothered challenging our assumptions, so instead of a nice, grandmotherly lady, we got a lazy, vindictive incompetent who seemed uninterested in anything but the spoils system.
In short, just because she didn’t look like a cigar-chomping backroom pol, we didn’t realize she was one — well, sans the cigar.
What all these postings show is the fallacy of judging important things like character based on looks, and the accompanying fallacy of giving good-looking women a break that others don’t get. It’s an especially dangerous fallacy when considering whether to elect a woman to a political post or an influential position in her place of business. It’s just as sexist to give women power and attention they don’t even remotely deserve just because of looks as it is to keep women out altogether or limit access just because we’re women.
Disparaging a woman for her looks is the same thing. Both are judgment calls based solely on appearance.
Pandora, I totally agree with you. Disparaging a woman and denying her advancement opportunities is the flip side of giving good-looking women undeserved advances. The underlying factor for both things is sexism directed at women, and it often pits women against each other in places of business. It’s one thing to judge people as attractive or unattractive. It’s another to use those judgment calls to grant or deny advancement opportunities or a political office regardless of merit.