Media Misogyny

Nothing liberals do surprises me but they sometimes amaze me. The misogynistic way the media has treated Sarah Palin is the most recent example. In a post here on FHK a few days ago, Phyllis Chesler made the point that they did the same to Hillary Clinton, though not so overtly.

How else to explain the media frenzy to dig up any dirt, no matter how irrelevant, on Palin? The point has been made repeatedly that the MSM would never ask a male candidate whether his candidacy would be bad for his daughter. Yet that media feels completely justified in asking such questions of Sarah Palin.

That the MSM have a liberal bias is well established. Organizations like Times Watch give daily examples of the double standard when it comes treatment of Republicans vs. Democrats. But the ferocity with which the MSM has gone after Palin is unprecedented. The only thing comparable was the treatment of Clarence Thomas, another minority the MSM seemed to think should know his place.

In Palin’s case, the media has implied or outright stated that a woman can’t possible be a good mother while serving as Vice President. This is spite of those same people claiming for years that women can do it all. I suppose they can do it all until they reach this level of politics, then they should just stay home and raise their kids and be good mommies.

CNN’s Campbell Brown is a case in point. In an interview with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, Brown repeatedly implied that Palin was a bad mother by virtue of accepting the VP spot on the McCain ticket. Here’s what Brown said in that interview.

Putting this young woman, Bristol Palin, smack in the media spotlight at what’s already got to be a very challenging time in her life, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this kind of scrutiny by accepting this kind of high profile position?

Bounds attempts to answer the question but Brown interrupts him as she does repeatedly throughout the interview. (In my view Bounds should have told Brown that her questions were idiotic and he wasn’t going waste his time giving credence to them.)

In an ideal world it would be private but you know this is a presidential campaighn and nother is private. The world is watching. As much as everyone might want to give this young woman her privacy, you know that’s not gonna happen. So, you do risk putting her (Bristol Palin) through an incredibly difficult proces by accepting this job if you’re her mother. You can’t deny that, right?

Can anyone imagine the same line of questioning about a male candidate whose teenage child had a similar problem? Of course not! It would never happen. The fact is, many presidential and vice presidential candidates have had children with assorted problems. While those problems may have come out in the media, no one ever suggested that the candidate was a bad parent by virtue of running!

The clear implication is that Palin is being singled out for this treatment simply because she is a woman and a mother. I think that’s basically the definition of misogyny. Even ultra liberal Campbell Brown seems to think that mothers should avoid any sort of public service that might subject their families to any media scrutiny but she never applied that same standard to a man running for high office.

Campbell Brown is by no means alone in this apparent belief. You can’t turn on the a news program without seeing the same line of thinking or questioning from someone in a reporter’s chair. It is disgusting.

Feminism holds different meanings for different people. NOW has one definition while the average American woman who calls herself a feminist has a quite different definition. One thing that seems clear is that John McCain and the GOP have a definition that actually puts an accomplished and talented woman in the VP seat. The Democrats can’t make that same claim.

See also:
Michelle Malkin