Let's pretend for a moment that U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley or Sen. Tom Harkin was able to land in an uncomfortable, yet potentially advantageous position on a piece of legislation. In this hypothetical, both men would be simultaneously courted and despised by both sides, but also in a unique position to make a change within the given bill that was most definitely good for the citizens of Iowa and most likely a good compromise overall.
Now, imagine that Harkin or Grassley used this newly found political clout to enact that change -- a political exchange for allowing the bill to proceed. What do you think people would say? Would they immediately be labeled as whores and prostitutes, or would they be heralded as politically savvy individuals who did what was necessary to provide for constituents?
If either of them had breasts, we wouldn't have to wonder.
Mark Halperin, who is employed by Time magazine, used the above graphic, based on the comedy film "There's Something About Mary," to show who knows what about his view of U.S. Sen. Mary Landreiu of Louisiana announcing that she was still reading the Senate health care reform bill and had not yet made up her mind on Saturday night's cloture vote. (Hat tip to Jason Linkins.)
For those who have not seen the flick, the picture represents a scene where Mary, played by Cameron Diaz, mistakenly uses her date's recently discharged semen as hair gel. ... Yeah, I don't get the whole reason for the Photoshop either.
But, we need not worry. The two primary stalwarts of conservative virtue, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, were more than happy to voice their opposition to Landrieu's policy choices in concise sentences with few syllables.
"So, we know you're hookin', but you're just not cheap," Beck said of Landrieu's decision to stop a Republican filibuster of the health care bill.
Limbaugh was even more clear, calling Landrieu "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."
The Louisiana Democratic Party was quick to respond to the outrage, calling on its other federal senator to denounce the comments -- and they were quite right and proper to do so.
But just as we wonder about how Harkin and Grassley would be labeled if they attempted to secure much needed funding for their state in a political maneuver, we also need to stop and wonder if the Louisiana Democrats would be as quick to respond to certain things if Republican Sarah Palin was a resident of their fine state.
If Newsweek wants to try to make a case that Palin is bad for the GOP (and for everybody else, too) surely they are intelligent enough to do so without using some stock photograph of her intended for use in a fitness magazine.
The truth is that both political parties benefit from the contributions of their female membership. They benefit greatly -- as do our communities, counties, states and nation -- from the unique perspectives and approaches to public policy that women provide. Based on those two things alone, all political people, regardless of which voter card they carry, should have a vested interest in ensuring that women politicians are not subject to personal or sexist attacks.
Americans need to make it clear that it is no longer acceptable or appropriate to use personal attacks to show discontent with policy decisions. If pundits, journalists and bloggers aren't adult enough or intelligent enough to form complete sentences based on something other than sexual innuendo, hair style or body type, we need to make clear that they aren't intelligent enough to have gainful employment in the field, much less a voice on today's issues.
Women should not be attacked for doing their jobs, wearing a red skirt, walking in heels (or flats), exposing cleavage, being assertive or any other silly misogynist thing that can be construed. When you see it happen, call it what it is: Juvenile sexism.
Now, imagine that Harkin or Grassley used this newly found political clout to enact that change -- a political exchange for allowing the bill to proceed. What do you think people would say? Would they immediately be labeled as whores and prostitutes, or would they be heralded as politically savvy individuals who did what was necessary to provide for constituents?
If either of them had breasts, we wouldn't have to wonder.
Mark Halperin, who is employed by Time magazine, used the above graphic, based on the comedy film "There's Something About Mary," to show who knows what about his view of U.S. Sen. Mary Landreiu of Louisiana announcing that she was still reading the Senate health care reform bill and had not yet made up her mind on Saturday night's cloture vote. (Hat tip to Jason Linkins.)For those who have not seen the flick, the picture represents a scene where Mary, played by Cameron Diaz, mistakenly uses her date's recently discharged semen as hair gel. ... Yeah, I don't get the whole reason for the Photoshop either.
But, we need not worry. The two primary stalwarts of conservative virtue, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, were more than happy to voice their opposition to Landrieu's policy choices in concise sentences with few syllables.
"So, we know you're hookin', but you're just not cheap," Beck said of Landrieu's decision to stop a Republican filibuster of the health care bill.
Limbaugh was even more clear, calling Landrieu "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."
The Louisiana Democratic Party was quick to respond to the outrage, calling on its other federal senator to denounce the comments -- and they were quite right and proper to do so.
But just as we wonder about how Harkin and Grassley would be labeled if they attempted to secure much needed funding for their state in a political maneuver, we also need to stop and wonder if the Louisiana Democrats would be as quick to respond to certain things if Republican Sarah Palin was a resident of their fine state.If Newsweek wants to try to make a case that Palin is bad for the GOP (and for everybody else, too) surely they are intelligent enough to do so without using some stock photograph of her intended for use in a fitness magazine.
The truth is that both political parties benefit from the contributions of their female membership. They benefit greatly -- as do our communities, counties, states and nation -- from the unique perspectives and approaches to public policy that women provide. Based on those two things alone, all political people, regardless of which voter card they carry, should have a vested interest in ensuring that women politicians are not subject to personal or sexist attacks.
Americans need to make it clear that it is no longer acceptable or appropriate to use personal attacks to show discontent with policy decisions. If pundits, journalists and bloggers aren't adult enough or intelligent enough to form complete sentences based on something other than sexual innuendo, hair style or body type, we need to make clear that they aren't intelligent enough to have gainful employment in the field, much less a voice on today's issues.
Women should not be attacked for doing their jobs, wearing a red skirt, walking in heels (or flats), exposing cleavage, being assertive or any other silly misogynist thing that can be construed. When you see it happen, call it what it is: Juvenile sexism.
Leave a comment