For the record, asking questions about Sarah Palin’s record, experience, or policy positions is NOT sexist. But selling/wearing T-shirts with designs like this certainly is:
The real sexism against Palin, like the designs above, has been the flip-side of the sexism against Hillary Clinton. A sadly perfect illustration of the Catch-22 women face. You’re either a scary, ugly, old, mannish harpy. Or a ditzy, perky, fuckable bimbo. You’re either cracking nuts between your thighs or dressed up like Britney Spears. The sexist remarks about Clinton and Palin are like our hate mail (“you ugly man-hater!” followed by “gimme a blow job!”) writ large. It doesn’t matter that, in reality, neither Hillary Clinton nor Sarah Palin fits these stereotypes. Both are attractive women who have made their fair share of political enemies. But reality doesn’t matter much in terms of how they’re portrayed.
Which is why it’s (almost) hilarious to see someone like David Brooks declare that feminists’ problem with Palin isn’t based on her anti-woman stance on the issues, but that she’s “not a real woman because she doesn’t hew to their rigid categories.”
Excuse me, our rigid categories? Last I checked, feminists were outraged at Palin being labeled a MILF and Hillary being labeled a bitch. Putting women in sexist little boxes is exactly what we’re against. Maybe we need to send Brooks a copy of Jessica’s book on double-standards?