In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

One of these things is not like the other

Sarah Palin. Michele Bachmann. …Nancy Pelosi?

They are all ladies in politics! Which makes them kind of like sorority sisters (if only I were making up that comparison):

In Minneapolis, Ms. Palin returned the favor, calling Ms. Bachmann “inspiring” and playing to the conservative, pro-Tea Party, largely female audience. Both women adopted a tone that any woman who has ever endured a sorority rush will recognize: aggressive, cheerful, empowered conformity, hostile to idiosyncrasy.

And yet, these G.O.P. B.F.F.’s share an extraordinary — you could even say idiosyncratic — trait with a woman who is not welcome in their club, the Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

What could it be?!

In reality, though, the three belong to what may be the smallest, most exclusive clique in American politics. The admission requirements are beyond most women, and all men: members must be prominent players in the United States political arena and must have given birth to not one, not two, not three, not even four — but five children, something that presumably gives them more in common than they might like to admit.

What does it say about this country at this moment that, of the small handful of women who have achieved highly visible political roles, three are matriarchs of such very large families? Could it be that the skills of managing sprawling households translate well into holding office? Or that such a remarkable glut of mom cred makes a woman’s bid for external power more palatable to voters? Or are they just related to more voters, which translates into a mysterious edge at the polls?

Whatever forces may be at play, taking a look at present dynamics, any American woman with long-range political ambitions might do well to also look to her nursery.

Needless to say, this was in the Style section and not the Politics section.

The article compares Palin and Bachmann to Romy and Michelle. It condescendingly calls them “GOP BFFs.” Now, to be fair, Palin and Bachmann are intellectual lightweights who do use kind of an “in-group” approach to getting new recruits, so the sorority girl commentary wouldn’t bother me as much on its own — it’s kind of up there with “George Bush is a frat boy” insults. But in the context of this article, which paints (for better or worse) three of the most powerful women in politics as airhead sorority sisters, and that ends with the suggestion that “any American woman with long-range political ambitions might do well to also look to her nursery“? I would say that any New York Times writer who covers politics might do well to look at the issues, and not be so condescending towards female politicians.


15 thoughts on One of these things is not like the other

  1. Jill,

    I flew F16’s in the air force and received a great education–along with a great deal of humility–when I was taught that what you derisively suggest is indicative of one being an intellectual lightweight, is merely a different way of processing information predicated on one’s early cultural conditioning.

    It was in UPT(Under Pilot Training) when I first met guys raised on cattle ranches in Montana, farms in Idaho, and who worked their family’s shrimp boats in Lousiana. They all graduated college but were almost comically inarticulate. Nonetheless, they had incredible smarts and despite an education some of us initially felt third-class to the Academy or Princeton, devoured our
    450 pages of manuals when guys with M.A.’s (and one with a Ph.D from Stanford struggled.)

    When those of who us tracked fighters were assigned for additional training, either in the F16 or f15, again these guys had something to teach us.

    The F15, for instance, requires the pilot to memorize more than 100 items to check before he climbs into the cockpit, another 50 or so, before the engines can be started, and another 100 before you actually get to launch.

    These “Jethros” ate it up and could absorb very complex procedures even though they didn’t know what the Missouri compromise was.

    My point: I came into the A.F. feeling intellectually superior and in very a very short time developed tremendous respect for the guys who used “bunkhouse logic” rather than the socratic method to get to the bottom of things.

    The likely implosion of the left will occur because people like you have been taught and take a certain pride in believing there is only one way to experience the world, process information, and to solve problems and those seemingly deficient in that way of knowing are considered intellectual inferiors.

    I know better. The brain is more than a repository of facts and a mechanism to employ those facts through language to manage our world.

    It was said of Terry Bradshaw that he couldn’t spell cat “if you spotted him the “C” and the “T”. He still managed to master one of sports’ most-difficult position and win four Super Bowls.

    There’s a lesson there for you if you’re open receptive to it.

  2. What bothers me in particular about the sorority girls comment is that it comes with this justification: they are “aggressive, cheerful, empowered conformity, hostile to idiosyncrasy.” I grew up in DC and have several family members who work in politics. That describes what it is to be a politician, period and the end. But somehow when we’re discussing women, those traits are labeled “sorority girl-“like. So they’ve been marginalized here for playing by the rules of the game, and that’s what sets it apart from George bush as frat boy, who got that descriptor by virtue of, say, being on vacation all the fucking time. Or by patting Angela Merkel or giving goofball nicknames to world leaders. He didn’t get the descriptor “frat boy” for traits that are completely standard to every politician in DC, save for rare exceptions.

  3. Hillary Clinton has a single child. Madeleine Albright is a divorcee with three children. Condoleezza Rice is single. Olympia Snowe is married with no children. (All gleaned from Wikipedia, take with a grain of salt.) Not to mention I don’t have any CEOs or doctors or teachers in the same age bracket as your average national-scale politician, so it’s not grounds to compare — many women are mothers, especially at an age where if they are going to have kids, they probably have them. And I could do the list with male congresscritters, cabinet-folk and governors, and you’d probably get the same kind of selection effect — off the top of my head, the last four (male) Presidents have all been married fathers, and Wikipedia says that Harry Reid can join the ‘five children’ club with Palin, Pelosi and Bachmann.

    Just saying ‘hey, three prominent female politicians have five children, therefore women entering politics should consider kids’ is an overt simplification.

  4. @Viper4, sure, maaaaaaybe Palin and Bachmann are smart in areas outside politics. So? They’re politicians. They’d better be smart in politics.

  5. “Now, to be fair, Palin and Bachmann are intellectual lightweights…”

    And Pelosi ISN’T? Have you listened to anything she has said, ever?

    Oh wait, I get it, it’s because Bachmann and Palin don’t agree with your twisted feminist worldview…that always equates stupidity in your view, n’est-ce pas?

    I love how you insult the intelligence of these upstanding, successful women, as you sit writing trite blogs beloved by people as insane and damaged as you are.

    What district hare you currently representing in Congress? What state have you been governor of? What have you achieved in your life that gives you (or any of their other detractors for that matter) the right to denounce these women as “intellectual lightweights?”

  6. Gee, could it be that the number of powerful female politicians is so small that a cluster this size is statistically meaningless? And is anyone surprised that the NYT is talking about a statistically meaningless cluster instead of the much more meaningful issue of why there are so few female politicians this powerful in the first place?

  7. @Rebecca and @Viper 4, I don’t know that I’d argue that they aren’t smart in politics, given they’ve achieved a decent amount of notoriety, attained high offices, and have leagues of dedicated followers. On the other hand, one definition of “intellectual,” the word that Jill actually used, reads as “given to study, reflection, and speculation.” I haven’t heard many accounts, self-stated or otherwise, that present Bachmann or Palin as given to study or reflection.
    And given that I myself am bipolar 1, ADHD and have two learning disabilities, I don’t so much require the helpful insight that there is not one way to process the world. But thanks, Viper4. Your comment did have a certain special entertainment value!

  8. It’s really shameful that they belittle Nancy Pelosi, an extraordinarily powerful and competent women.

    Palin is a… powerful woman.

    Bachmann, well…

  9. @Samantha b.: I don’t know, I consider being familiar with the law and political issues a precondition for being considered smart in politics, but fair enough.

  10. “Could it be that the skills of managing sprawling households translate well into holding office?”

    Perhaps. It could also be that “managing sprawling households” is largely responsible for keeping women out of politics. Encouraging women to have children (but seriously, five?) to increase their appeal in politics is illogical, if not completely intended to, in fact, keep women busy in their domestic roles and out of politics. Or it could be that women are just as capable of being effective in positions of power with or without these domestic skills. Glorifying two of the GOP’s most radical female voices just because of their sex is a weak strategy that gets (some) women excited about female politicians, but it also reminds women of their place in society (as moms and caregivers) while they endorse policies against women’s interests. I’d like to see a story on how Todd’s “fathering” of the family while Sarah’s working, promoting her mommy skills. Now, there’s a feminist angle. Do they have the family values to hire a nanny, or is Todd a natural nurturer, too? I’d like to see mothers in politics support policies that are important to mothers, like affordable, quality healthcare and childcare. Or are Palin and Bachman too privileged to understand the issues of middle America, whom they set the ideals for?

    Viper 4, Maybe if you avoided the comparisons to sports and airplanes, the “I know better,” and the assumption that you understand the subjective views of others, you wouldn’t seem so condescending. Politics is a science. Knowledge of it as such is a necessary aspect to effectively engaging in politics with the rest of the world, no matter your perspective. I can only hope that the “different way of processing information” you refer to, this “bunkhouse logic,” never becomes more valued in our society than that of the intellectual elites you’re so much better than.

  11. Viper4, you completely ignored the entire post. For what it’s worth, I believe “intellectual lightweights” was used to reference Palin’s lack of political knowledge. Should she be VP of this country when she knows nothing of foreign policy? Absolutely not. It’s not about what method of logic she employs, and I don’t care where she was educated – but you’re a damn good fighter pilot because you read the fucking manual, right? Why shouldn’t we expect Palin to read the fucking manual?

  12. Uuhhh, shouldn’t the question be how are they successful with 5 kids??

    With a follow up of “isn’t their children dumber for being put in day care or is their husband whipped?” [/sarcasm]

    I’m all for using the moms-make-great-politicians-cuz-they’re-moms, I mean whatever floats your boat–if that’s what we have to do so we don’t have “but how will she govern with 5 kids” questions, then I guess so be it.

  13. You know what they say…two is a fluke, three is a trend.

    (Or maybe it’s one is a fluke, two is a trend.)

  14. Referring to two of the most influential women in politics as “intellectual lightweights” is irresponsible for a feminist. I understand that you do not agree with their politics, but that does not make them stupid. Undermining women who have worked hard to be successful in politics is insulting and degrading to all women.

Comments are currently closed.