The one time I’ll kinda defend Sarah Palin.
October 22nd, 2008 | by Scott Jennings |Surely by now you’ve heard all about how the RNC spent $150,000 on wardrobe for Sarah Palin, and surely it seems pretty ridiculous on its face. Yeah, there’s hypocrisy, there’s tax issues, there’s bad associations with the man who did the personal shopping. I don’t want to argue that this issue should be glossed over entirely, but I do think that the flash-obsession with this might just be a tiny bit sexist.
I’m pretty sure that a man campaigning for vice president could do it with one suit, two shirts, and four or five ties, and no one would ever say a word. Any attempt to focus on what a male candidate wears rarely sticks; for better or worse, the focus is usually on the words that come out of their mouth. We saw this to a certain extent with Hillary Clinton and now again with Palin, but there’s a certain gossipy cattiness to some of the coverage, especially around wardrobe. There’s plenty of blame to go around for that, but call it what it is.
If a female candidate campaigned in one suit, two shirts, and four or five different accessories, we’d notice, and we’d say something. (We made fun of Hillary for something along those lines, right?) We expect women to look good, men and women alike, and we call it out when they don’t, men and women alike. Did the RNC need to drop 150 stacks of high society to keep Palin in different looks for her up-to-three different appearances every day? Probably not. But is that kind of schedule going to require some coin? Absolutely.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Sarah Palin — she’s a fucking idiot springs to mind. But the fact that they put her in pretty clothes because we expect pretty women to look pretty and appeal to horny middle-aged conservative men sort of seems like less of an indictment of her and more an indictment of our bullshit society. Maybe?
2 Responses to “The one time I’ll kinda defend Sarah Palin.”
By Jill on Oct 23, 2008 | Reply
Why Mr. Jennings, what a salient point.
By Chris on Oct 23, 2008 | Reply
Meh.
I don’t mind the need for new clothes. I guess I’ll even concede that the reaction of most of the media is grounded in some form of gender bias, though probably not malicious sexism.
That said, here is my problem with it. Hypocrisy. I know, I know, all politicians are hypocrits. Fine, but this seems a little more — basic — somehow. She’s a “hockey mom” (my sport is shamed) who is a “real American” (kind of like Hulk Hogan, only he supports Obama) who shuns all of those “Georgetown elites” (me) and their culture. Then she buys, or allows to be bought for her, either way, $150,000 of clothes — more than most “real Americans” make in 2 years?
Do we want her to look good, sure. The McCain campaign needs her to so that they can attract horny, pathetic conservative men, and the rest of us need her to look good to soften the blow when we have to listen to her speak. But if I need to look good I go to Men’s Warehouse rather than Niemen Marcus or even Brooks Brothers. Am I running for VP, no, but I am also not deamonizing the very culture that I have now so flagrantly embraced.