From the halls of social science, a theory: “Sex Appeal May Have Hurt Sarah Palin.”
The conclusion is based on interviews with 122 undergraduates. Basing anything on interviews of undergraduates is suspect to me. This is research?
“We hypothesize that focusing on a woman’s appearance will promote reduced perceptions of competence, and also, by virtue of construing the women as an “object,” perceptions of the woman as less human.”
I prefer this explanation, written from a male perspective:
Palin exudes sexual confidence and maternal authority, which in a relatively conservative culture like ours is the most recognizable and viscerally comprehensible form of female power. It makes a lot of men uncomfortable, but that’s because it’s the kind of female power they are most often subject to, and most often fail to successfully resist.
Or this, from a female perspective:
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.
Sarah’s persona — her good looks, her America-is-great attitude, her happy marriage — was a threat to many in the Democratic / liberal / academic / women’s movement world at many different levels. You don’t need to be a freaking social scientist to figure that out.
Regardless, a good excuse to run a picture of Sarah.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Too Sexy?
NO!
Not in any sense of the word.
Yes, she is good what she is and what she does.
We need more of that.
Get over it, losers.
“Sarah’s persona — her good looks, her America-is-great attitude, her happy marriage — was a threat to many in the Democratic / liberal / academic / women’s movement world at many different levels. You don’t need to be a freaking social scientist to figure that out.”
This may come across as a little crude, but I won’t apologize for it.
When you look at Piper Palin, and Bristol Palin you see people who are aware of who they are, are happy with who they are, and who are happy with their life in general and their family in particular. (I’ll use other words in a minute–stay in touch with this ‘graph.)
When you look at Todd Palin, you see a man (and all the positives that that implies who is satisfied. Think about all the places you have seen the word “satisfied used. I mean them all, especially the ones that might account for the little smile he seems always to have on his face.
Do I need to go on in talking about Sarah Palin?
I didn’t think so.
The Palins are a representative American family. Son who extensively used drugs in HS, but may have straighted himself out. Daughter who admits that her mom’s abstinence only pitch to teens is “naive”, and doesn’t plan on marrying her child’s son right away – which looks like a good thing considering the standard of living she can provide with her parent’s resources, and what she’d be limited to with Levi right now.
Real people dealing with real issues with the tools they have. In their case, Track was fortunate enough to have not gotten busted and ruined his record, Piper is fortunate enough to have a family with the resouces to provide for her and her child, the Palins are fortunate enough to live in a community that doesn’t ostracize them for what some would call flaws, but sees the greater good the family contributes, and Sarah is fortunate enough to be part of a Political Party that never condemns their own for things they demonize others for. It’s all good.
RonClark, you’ve had some good comments before, even if I disagreed, but you’re beginning to sound like you are reading from the MoveOn or Media Matters talking points.
Sorry. Then again, the tone really was in line with the entire tone of this thread, which was pretty damn fluffy. I really do believe, for example, that a black candidate for office who had a daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock would be savaged for that fact. Had he or she had a son whose HS classmates talked openly to the media about his drug use in HS, it would have been discussed daily on many talk radio shows. You may disagree. It’s not a point we can resolve in the hypothetical.
I’m fine with standards, although you may guess that on social issues I tend to be much more libertarian. But I do believe that if we’re going to talk about social mores, we need to make sure that the knife cuts both ways, and that credits flow both ways. Otherwise many social criticisms seem much more like pure partisanship than like firmly held beliefs – and if our standards are actually intended to teach something to our future generations, like we usually claim they are – consistency is an absolute requirement, because youth detects and rejects hypocracy with laser-like precision. And unfortunately, that rejection of hypocracy can provide a mechanism for them to reject the values that we want and do need to transmit to them.
Understood, but I don’t think beating up on Bristol and the other Palin kids advances any argument. And this thread was supposed to be about how sexy Sarah is, so how did we get here?
Well, we got here with Larry Sheldon’s taking us down the pathway of Palin’s children being indicative of her being something special. My argument is that were the context different, her children would be being held up as a sign of failure. As I said – I consider her children a work in progress, just like all our children are until we turn them loose into the world. I’d be happy to never discuss them again.
But I’ll be happy to acknowledge that the GOP is much better off putting Sarah out there as a representative of Republican sexiness, rather than Rush. Personally, I’d argue that Sarah’s attractiveness significantly upped her value as a calling card during the campaign, and probably helped McCain’s fundraising and bumped his attendance at rallies.
None of which is relevant to whether she was ready for prime time yet. IMO the McCain campaign did a disservice to themselves and to her by putting her out front and center before she had developed her own political chops on many issues that people across the spectrum think a Presidential or VP candidate should have mustered.
She’s fine for me, certainly more ready for prime time than Joey Biden who is mocked even by his boss, or Obama who can’t speak without a teleprompter and is hell bent on destroying our capitalist system. Yes, she wasn’t as smooth talking as someone who had spent a long time in Washington, D.C., but I’ll take her common sense over our current administration’s hubris anyday.
Yes Sarah is sexy and a threat to most women. Funny thing about women they will kick the teeth out of a woman trying to reach to the top. Men aren't as threatened normally. Sarah is the new woman, the new liberated woman, she has it all and can do it all. She speaks from common sense and her heart, a political era hopefully. We don't like our pre-packaged politicians. Obama's speeches have become boring and his lack of experience in every are noticeable! We need new talent fresh and young and accomplished and Sarah fits the bill! We want to take America back and take back the importance of the american family. Obama is just not American enough and we want our good old Demoracy back too!!
Sarah is the sexiest woman alive.
She is all woman, She does not swing her hips and does not pretend to be anything but who she is. She is drop dead georgous. She is leveal headed, She is not afraid to speek the truth and call the libs out for who they realy are. She has the most beautiful smile and personality. There is not a man a live who would not like to go home to a women like Sarah. She is sexy without trying to be sexy. It is something you can not creat in Holly Wood. You can not even creat what she has in the best of Movies. She is the real deal. She can hang 10 where ever she goes and fit right in. She will not bitch about what you brought home for dinner. She will skin it and serve it up. She will humble you in the board room and drive the hardest bargan you ever signed. There is nothing about Sarah that is not sexy. If you did not know anyting about her you would know what a class act she is by the way she carries herself and you would know she is at piece with herself by the smile on her face. She would get my vote for being the sexiest woman of all time. No one else has ever come close and my wife is beautiful inside and out. There are many sexy women in the world. It is in the personality more than anything else but is does not hurt to be good looking as well. Just my thoughts.
Another thought on Sarah.
She is not a threat to woman or man. For those of you who have commented that she is a threat you are the one with a problem. No one can indimidate you unless you let yourself be indimidated. If she is a threat to you then you are jealous. People who look at others as a threat need to get thier life in order. Sorry you are not bright enough to keep up. Liberals are holding the had of Satin and don't even know it. You can not be a Christian and be a libera. Conflict of intrest.
Nope your are wrong. I am Jewish. I go to confession before I tell the Rabi
RonClark says: "…Piper is fortunate enough to have a family with the resouces to provide for her and her child…"
It was Bristol who was pregnant and had an out-of-wedlock baby.
Try to get your facts in order before ranting. This kind of mindless error just destroys whatever credibility you brought to the site. Now I question the accuracy of anything you say. RonClark says the sun rises in the east? I'll want independent corroboration.