One understands that politics are dirty, and that when one enters the political arena, be it a male or a female, they are subjecting themselves and often their family, to the proverbial microscope of the press. No matter how frivolous a charge or alleged “scandal” might be, and no matter the position sought, a “leak” of the most ridiculous sorts, suddenly becomes “national news”. That said, the disparity between the opposition attacks against women, regardless of party, is fairly prominent, and especially true this past week as the nation has less than 42 days to determine the shape of the 112th Congress, and incidentally immediately following, the candidates for the Presidential primaries for 2012.
One which stands out more than most is the embattled “Tea Party” Candidate Christine O’Donnell, of Delaware. O’Donnell: If one Googles' O’Donnell is the search engines News feature, they will find thousands of articles regarding a videotape of Ms. O’Donnell as a teen, making a silly comment about being involved with Wicca (witchcraft). Of course, Mr. Maher, the HBO talk show host, who if one reviews his past videos will find remarks made by the host that would elevate Ms. O’Donnell sainthood.
For example the video below shows a younger Maher, comparing dogs to “retarded children”. This is the same man who is taken seriously when dismissing a Senate candidate for a comment made while a teen. That said, the media jumped on this nonsense and moved it to the spotlight, which certainly distracts from the issues at hand that affect voters in Delaware. Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent on the other hand, is an avowed Marxist and believes in increasing the size of the U.S. government Of course, nothing to concern Delaware voters about Mr. Coons, also dubbed Harry Reid’s Pet must, according to press logic, be the better candidate.
Aside from the ridiculous, serious charges have been leveled against Ms. O’Donnell, specifically regarding a lean placed upon her by the IRS, which is running in an ad throughout Delaware, what the ad fails to mention (given that it is a DNC ad), Ms. O’Donnell received an apology from the IRS for their mistake. In fact, for every spurious accusations against the woman, she has asked and answered with full documentation (the actual documents) on her website here at Chrstine2010.com. Meanwhile, nothing is being asked and answered by either candidate about issues. But, as a woman, the “witch” tag is sticking and the word “teen” has made its début.
Although one could argue it is partisan politics (dirty, agreed), it is an attack on O’Donnell personally and as a woman. (Bill Maher remarks in his video with a then high school age O’Donnell “what’s with the 90’s hair?”.
Speaking of hairstyles: Hillary Clinton, the woman who should have been President (opinion with a basis in fact (i.e. popular vote in primary dismissed by super-delegates in favor of the brilliant Obama who has failed to show his brilliance) is to this day, under the fashion microscope, this time, her faux pax is a hairstyle. How silly. Yet, in some ways, not at all, as it is the beginning of firing “salvos” should the former New York Senator decide to run against this particular sitting president as rumors suggest. This article by the New York Daily News, goes into detail on Clinton’s “new hairdo” for a UN meeting. Apparently, Clinton had worn a banana clip of sorts, looking as if she had more to worry about, and chose a “banana clip” to get the hair up and away from her face. Herein lies the crux – perhaps Ms. Clinton’s hairstyle is big news to those who hit the salon on a daily basis, but for those of us who work for a living, it looks familiar, and comfortable, and lastly “normal”. The end result, in trying to dismiss Clinton via hair, or what she wore on a particular day, etc., is that she becomes more human to the rest of nation that might find themselves in that same pantsuit situation.
One can, however, bet the house that should John Kerry assume the role as Secretary of State, (rumored to be replacing Clinton as she seeks a way out), then the press will undoubtedly not fixate on the type of tie he wore on a particular day, or the cut of a suit.
Finally, Sarah Palin, who has been criticized on wardrobe, and more, continues to be a target, as she has taken a prominent place in politics and is possibly one of the 2012 candidates for President. One can anticipate the attacks on Palin to be "ramped u a bit" and, should Clinton join her from the opposite side of the aisle, attacks on her as well, not on the issues but on what both women wore, their makeup, their hairstyles, ad nauseum.
This is nothing new in the political arena, when women attempt to cross over into a predominately male “club”. The first woman to break the political glass ceiling (Vice President, not President), Geraldine Ferraro, was also treated with the same hair brush, discussions regarding her were national news.
That was in 1984. A mere 26 years ago, which is current in the scheme of women in politics.
Two stunning Women and politics facts:
1920 - Given the right to vote – last “group” to be given that right.
Ongoing - Categorized as a minority (seriously women and minorities)
Observations:
Are considered to have broken the glass ceiling by merely being a, candidate
Progressives for all their “solidarity” are as sexist as a men’s only club.
However, there are more women candidates for state and federal offices in 2010 than in previous years, specifically in the GOP. Philosophically, (Feminism) and legally (EEO) regardless of party or politics, women should be treated no differently than their male counterparts when applying for the same position, be it in the private sector or the public sector. It is far past time, for there to be two qualified candidates for the nations highest office, and should those candidates be women , then all the better. As the press would be forced to speak on issues, rather than what dress one wore, or what hairstyle the other chose for a particular meeting.
Opinion and Commentary on state, regional and national news articles from a conservative feminist point of view expressed and written by conservative moderate: Tina Hemond
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Demeaning women isn't a progressive strategy -- it's a male strategy. How else does one explain Karl Rove & others in the GOP going after Christine O'Donnell and the Senate yanking certain responsibilities from Lisa Murkowski because she's not listening to the menz and is going to go forward with her write-in campaign?
Hello PunditMom (one to another)
I do believe that it is a Progressive strategy to maintain women as a “base” by keeping the “majority” of women in the chains of state aid, beginning with high schools that one the one hand encourage young women to have children, (multiples) and on the other hand, discourage them from graduating high school, noting it would be too hard for them to complete while trying to raise a family. I had a very interesting conversation with a young woman and her mother this morning about how “the state promises you everything, and the school as well, and then, you are trapped” – This particular young lady decided to beat the odds, she finished high school (she has a supportive family) and is in her first year of college, but, she did tell me that had there been fewer of her friends given the same encouragement, and had the consequences of taking chances (even with the contraceptives they hand out in schools, not 100% effective) and then having to pay the price, both young men and women would be more focused. In the last 10 years, we have lost a generation by allowing this to take place on the taxpayer’s dime (no less).
Oh the GOP and the Beltway think that shows how spoiled some can become – especially when knocked down off their lofty perch. I did not include Mr. Rove nor did I include Murkowski – as a woman who has basically gone round the same bend. (As to the men yanking her for not listening I believe there are other women involved who are with those “boys”.) They are not being anti-feminine – they are being sore losers. Just my point of view . Once the backlash over Christine O’Donnell was in full bloom, (think Tea Party for a moment), that is when “they” began to issue restrictions on “Murkowski).
None of the GOP made fun of the way she wore her hair, or references to any feminine attribute that I can recall – If I am incorrect, please let me know – those will be the men to watch inwardly implode in 2011 - 2012.
Post a Comment