In their sixth poll since November 2007, Lifetime’s Everywoman Counts campaign assessed what women were thinking, post-election. Their latest survey had partners WomanTrend and Lake Research conducting a nationwide telephone poll of 600 women. The live interviews took place from November 21–24, with sampling controls to ensure proportional demographics reflecting race, age, and region. The focus was on “women’s reaction to the presidential election and it’s impact on the future of female political leadership.”
Zoning in on what women felt should be the primary issue for the incoming Obama administration in the first one hundred days, it should be no surprise that 71percent of women pointed to the economy. 51 percent of those responding said they had been directly affected by the economic “downturn.” Almost one-third of retirees and at-home Moms (31 percent) acknowledged that they might need to go back to work to cover household expenses. A major apprehension was the possibility of losing retirement savings as a result of the financial crisis.
Proving that capabilities superseded gender when it came to the selection of who should be in Obama’s cabinet, 67 percent of women said Obama should focus “just on qualifications.” Regarding the nomination of Hillary Clinton to the post of Secretary of State, 51 percent “definitely” supported her, with 20 percent at a “somewhat” stance. It was clear to 65 percent of women – across the political spectrum – that male and female candidates were held to “different standards on the campaign trail.” 79 percent felt it was easier for a male candidate to be taken seriously by the voters, and 71 percent believed that the media covered male candidates more seriously. When addressing specifics such as national security and terrorism, 70 percent of women gave men the edge.
Regardless of party affiliation, women saw the coverage of both Clinton and Palin as “too negative” and without adequate substance. 70 percent of women found that too much reporting was devoted to Palin’s wardrobe, and 44 percent had the same complaint in regard to Clinton. However, despite these perceptions, in a margin of more than 12-to-1, women believed the 2008 election was “a step forward” toward the future election of a female Commander-in-Chief. The candidacies of Clinton and Palin led 93 percent of women to think more women would be encouraged to run for office.
When the topic switched to the “preferred role” women would like to see Michelle Obama take in the White House, 49 percent wanted to see her tackle a few issues (33 percent suggested an education agenda; 22 percent pointed to work/life balance). Devoting herself to the responsibilities of wife and mother was the preference of 38 percent. The majority of Republican women (53 percent) favored Michelle Obama prioritizing her duties as wife and mother compared to 41 percent of Independent voters and 25 percent of Democratic women.
During the telephone conference call, there was a discussion of the negative verbiage used to describe both Clinton and Palin. In what could be characterized as two extremes, Clinton was labeled as “anti-male and a she-devil,” while Palin was assigned the role of “a ditz and an airhead.”
When Kellyanne Conway of WomanTrend was questioned about the response to Palin, she asked, “Why wasn’t she [Palin] charged with a platform to discuss? Why was she given the Bill Ayers agenda?” Her advice to Palin was to “reintroduce herself on her own terms.” Conway added, “She also needs not to do this now. She should wait, plan, and get re-elected in 2010.”
In the historic and exhaustively covered 2008 election, this poll showed there was one factor that a majority of American women concurred on. They weren’t satisfied with the way either female candidate was covered.
Palin wasn’t “…given the Bill Ayers agenda.” She took it on herself to make those ridiculous attacks. Her rallies started to sound like the KKK without white sheets.
Even though she was touted as an “energy expert,” she has very little knowledge of any issues at all. She’s delegated almost all her responsibilities in Alaska to others, rarely attends meetings, and is usually engrossed in her Blackberries when she is present. Most of her appointment as governor have been of friends, church and high school buddies and ideologues. People with a year of college or less and little experience are directing major departments in government. She’s gotten away with it so far because Alaska oil was selling for $143 a barrel just five months ago. Now it’s down to about $37. The state gets every 7th barrel of North Slope oil. The 2009 state budget projections quickly deteriorated. Alaska is in desperate shape with the prospects of soon going deep into the hole.
The only reason any attention was paid to her clothing was when the figures were publicly released as required in a publicly financed campaign. Purchases included not only the high fashion attire but items bought at a series of high end exclusive stores for such odd purchases as silk boxer shorts for Todd. The media weren’t interested in her clothes as much as the bills for her clothes. Even items from Victoria’s Secret didn’t attract much attention as did the escalating costs.
My personal hope is that coverage and treatment of Palin showed us what NOT to do, who NOT to vote for, and how NOT to run — but the statistic that 93% of women thought Palin and Clinton’s runs would lead more women to participate in public office is (I hope) a promising one. It’s all about riding the momentum; female candidates are going to be all over the board in terms of their qualifications, character and abilities. So are the men! That’s the point: that our system will ideally allow a diversity of people to be ABLE to run, so that the most qualified candidate can be picked out of the crowd. This system isn’t perfect and doesn’t always work effectively, but it’s up to all of us to encourage this diversity and support the system working how it is supposed to (which requires UNDERSTANDING the system, but that’s a whole nother point), and to set aside whatever biases we may have internalized so that we can choose based on qualifications and experience. Sounds simple, but is surprisingly hard for most people, since so much of what we believe is unconsciously digested and expressed. I’m sure Palin learned a whooole lot about her country and about her own beliefs that she may not have realized before. Here’s hoping these are lessons that will do her well in the future.
Sarah Palin wasn’t “assigned” the role of ‘a ditz and an airhead’, she simply demonstrated her total unsuitability for a position in national politics, and did so repeatedly. No one instructed her to refuse to answer such simple questions as Katie Couric’s “Which newspapers do you read?”; her speeches in support of Saxby Chambliss, long after the McCain camp had folded their tents, were substantially the same as during the presidential campaign.
Palin is a mediocrity, a provincial politician whose ambitions far surpass her abilities. Somehow, the media and the American electorate were supposed to be swept away by the fact that she was a woman, and an attractive one at that, and not notice that the empress had no (intellectual) clothes. (Are we really that stupid?) Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a woman of great intelligence and political talent. Obviously she has a lot of detractors, particularly in the media. They may have disliked her, they may have been against her positions, they may have been negative in covering her campaign, but few, if any, insinuated that she was intellectually unfit for the job.
As a 60-year-old woman who has stood up for decades for her right to be treated equally in the workplace, I was profoundly insulted by the Palin candidacy. Palin was chosen only because of her sex; a man of her capacities would have never made the ticket. If anything, her candidacy had the potential for weakening the future of women in politics. Sarah Palin, who tried to wink, flirt, and b.s. her way into national office, is no model for professional women. The media is not to blame for that.
I am continually shocked by the naivete of women who SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
Fiona says: “Palin wasn’t “…given the Bill Ayers agenda.” She took it on herself to make those ridiculous attacks. Her rallies started to sound like the KKK without white sheets.”
Fiona obviously has no idea whether Palin “took it on herself.” She wasn’t part of those discussions. She simply thinks this is the case because that is what the media told her. Nor does Fiona have any proof that Palin rallies sounded anything even close to KKK events. That is because this is not true.
Christine says Palin “wasn’t “assigned” the role of ‘a ditz and an airhead’, she simply demonstrated her total unsuitability for a position in national politics, and did so repeatedly.” Of course Palin is not a “ditz” – if she were, she would not have been elected the Governor of Alaska nor would she have had high favorability ratings. Did Christine ever read, listen to, or watch Palin’s speeches from Alaska? Probably not. But she listened to the media call Palin a ditz, and Couric ask Palin highly insulting, ridiculous questions like “which newspapers do you read?” — as if she’s an illiterate hick who never heard of the Wall Street Journal – and swallowed the story hook, line and sinker. Moreover, while we constantly heard about Palin being “hidden” from the press, no one mentioned that Joe Biden was put under virtual lockdown towards the end of the campaign because the man can’t stop himself from sounding like a buffoon.
Christine says Palin was chosen “only” because of her sex – sounding very much like those people who complain that a woman or a black man was promoted “only” because of her or his sex or race. But it is widely known that Palin is a favorite of the evangelical community; that evangelical women voters were the base of Mike Huckabees support; and that McCain had big problems reaching out to the evangelical community. By choosing Palin, he energized those voters (without picking up the baggage that Hucakbee carries).
Likewise, Christine says Palin is no model for professional women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Palin showed, for the first time EVER, a female politician with young children running for office while her HUSBAND stood admiringly by her side, holding the baby, acting as full time caregiver. Every time a television camera showed a close-up of Todd Palin as caregiver, it was a giant step forward for women AND men with children.
The response of the feminist community to the candidacy of Governor Palin is a story of abject failure. The failure to recognize classic pernicious sexism and misogynist smears; the failure, even when such smears were recognized, to hold anyone accountable; the failure to tell the truth when the truth was inconvenient; and the failure to show even basic respect for class differences.
While it should have been common knowledge in the feminist community that Governor Palin supported medically accurate sex education, supported teaching about birth control, did not believe in teaching creationism in schools, did not use her position as Governor to push a conservative social agenda (including an anti-choice agenda), and did not – as some so noxiously claimed – “force women to pay for their own rape kits” – these lies were repeated as gospel truth. Some feminists went so far as to say that Governor’s Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy was proof that her “support” for abstinence-only programs was stupid. But in fact Governor Palin supports teaching kids about birth control in the schools, and Alaska is not an abstinence-only state. So to follow the logic of these feminists, its support for medically accurate sex education that is stupid. Wow, what a smart message that was.
It would help the feminist movement as a whole if every woman asked herself some simple, bottom line questions whenever they read or hear a news story about a woman politician:
- how do I know that this story is true?
- is this “fact” a fact? (Do your own spot check- Google is your friend).
- could these facts be interpreted differently?
- does the characterization of the woman politician’s actions / words fit into convenient stereotypes about women – for example, too ambitious / too cold / too ditzy / too flirty / etc. (Has any male presidential candidate, ever, been criticized for being too ambitious?). It is commonly understood that women in positions of power are frequently perceived as either “competent, but cold and unlikable” or “warm and likable, but not competent.” Ring any bells? (Clinton / Palin).
- is the standard applied to the woman politician the same as the standard applied to male politicians (for example, Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are questioned; Al Franken’s qualifications are not).
We are not going to move forward until we start thinking critically about our own interpretations, our own words – as individuals, and as a movement. And there is simply too much information, from too many sources, available to us now to excuse swallowing sexist media narratives hook, line and sinker.
I completely agree with Nina. I’d like to make a complaint to the admin; on a feminist website, these nasty attacks against Palin should not be renewed.
One obvious point. This year Palin was campaigning for other people: first for McCain, then for Chambliss. It was McCain’s team and then Chambliss’s that requested her to be an ‘attack dog.’ Going into detail about her own accomplishments in Alaska would not have been appropriate. To judge Palin’s handing of energy, financial reform, etc, we’d need to examine her own debates in her Alaska elections.
To add a point about contraception: Palin has stated that she is not just for education about condoms, but also promotes other kinds of contraception. Abortion is not a problem in a vacuum; contraception and other alternatives are her approach to it.
As for Couric and iirc Gibson, McCain’s campaign should have done what Obama did on Fox: grant the interview ONLY on condition that it be live and unedited.
I hope teamsarah will have some defense for this; also see http://www.palinrumors.com
I applaud Nina and Flora for taking a stand for Palin. The main difference between the Feminist movement of today and the Feminist movement of Susan B. Anthony is that today’s Feminist movement is no longer about supporting women, but about supporting liberal ideology. While I do not agree with many of Palin’s positions, I believe that conservative women deserve a voice, too. We, as feminists, should be standing up for the rights of conservative women, not just liberal women. It seems that many Feminists only take a stand when liberal women are being subjected to misogynistic treatment, but nothing is said when the same happens to conservative women. Many feminists, throughout the 2008 election season, have shown that the Feminist movement has a double standard against conservative women, much like the double standards our society has against women, that we protest so intensely.
Many conservative women care about the same issues liberal feminists care about, such as providing quality healthcare, ending violence against women, closing the wage gap, and preventing unwanted pregnancies. We cannot truly bring an end to misogyny without the help of conservative women. Conservative women can prove to be powerful allies, if we can just stop fighting them. We need to embrace the conservative women, and come together as a powerful force for the basic human rights of women.
So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that we must remember that all women are women, not just liberal women. Our job, as feminists, is to support other women. That does not mean that you have to vote for women because they’re women, but that we should, and must, come to their defense when they are facing sexism.
Nina and JR – well said. Thanks!