After this week's flap between Sarah Palin and David Letterman, which started when Letterman cracked a joke about Palin's "slutty flight attendant look" and another about her daughter getting "knocked up" by New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez, the National Organization for Women has condemned Letterman's jokes and is asking its supporters to write to CBS and voice criticism.
"The sexualization of girls and women in the media is reaching new lows
these days -- it is exploitative and has a negative effect on how all
women and girls are perceived and how they view themselves," the group
writes on its website, pointing to Letterman's jokes as an example.
But, for NOW, it's not about politics: the group says conservatives
have been just as guilty, over the years, of sexism. "NOW hopes that
all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately
will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who
aren't professed conservatives," NOW writes.
Despite Sarah Palin's ascendancy as a female vice presidential
candidate, NOW did not support her. Far from it, in fact: NOW's
political arm called Palin "a woman who opposes women's rights" and her nomination a sop to disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters.
File this under "money sucking non-profits justifying their existence."
Eagerly awaiting NOW's condemnation of Sarah Palin for sexualizing herself before her every public appearance by slapping on the amount of makeup worn by state beauty pageant contestants and female Fox News anchors and commentators. Or slutty flight attendants. By NOW's standards, it's fine for women to use (excuse me, "exploit") their own sexuality for career advantage, but not for men to notice that's exactly what's going on. Buy a clue.
"...Eagerly awaiting NOW's condemnation of Sarah Palin for sexualizing herself before her every public appearance by slapping on the amount of makeup worn by state beauty pageant contestants and female Fox News anchors and commentators. Or slutty flight attendants. By NOW's standards, it's fine for women to use (excuse me, "exploit") their own sexuality for career advantage, but not for men to notice that's exactly what's going on. Buy a clue...,
Eagerly awaiting your rationalization for not including - "makeup worn by female" CNN, MSNBC (granted, no amount of makeup could ever make Rachel Maddow look like anything less than a long-lost Manning brother), CNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. commentators.
Why aren't you decrying Campbell Brown's makeup, or Katie Curick's, or Connie Chung's? Do you think that it's fine for them to be news bimbos as long as they just regurgitate the party line you agree with? Do you believe Katie Curick got her job for her staggering intellect? Please....
Buddy, you couldn't rent a clue.
Not only that, but forgetting entirely the googobs of makeup worn by Anderson Cooper and John King, and the fact that their sex appeal is certainly a part of why they are in their roles. The problem isn't people using sex appeal as a part of their overall appeal, its that women are punished and harrassed for it.
QT
Didn't include all those folks 'cause the comment would have been more clunky, less snappy. Plus the Fox News female anchors tend to pull off the more obviously highly made-up, hot look, better than the cadre of female personalities at any other network, in my opinion. Include all of those other newswomen and the point remains: NOW's got a double standard attacking a man for making jokes about a woman who consciously sexualizes herself for career advantage, and not criticizing the woman. I'm all for women looking as hot as they care to, using makeup or not. I'm against sexist criticism directed at men that could just as well be directed at women. Criticize both, or neither.
Nickfff, the joke about "Sarah Palin's daughter" getting hit on or knocked up by Eliot Spitzer and A-Rod was referring to of-age Bristol, not underage Willow or Piper for goodness sake. Bristol is the one who has chosen to become a public figure based on the very fact of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy, so the jokes, which were primarily directed at Spitzer and A-Rod may have been in bad taste but were fair game.
At this point it's also abundantly clear that a handful of harmless jokes that took about 20 seconds total to tell are being exploited by, as Buzz Feedback put it, a money-sucking non-profit justifying its existence, and an ambitious politician seeking publicity and martyrdom.
I'm pretty sure I referred to the "18 year old" ergo I knew the daughter in question was Bristol rather than the other two, even if there's been some confusion about who Letterman was referring to.
Also, I'm pretty sure she accidentally got pregnant before her mum was tapped up for the veep slot on the republican ticket, and by several accounts I've read Palin didn't really consult her kids about it. So when you say that it was her choice to become a national figure because of those factors (the surprise pregnancy, the surprise run at the white house) would suggest that choice didn't have much to do with it.
All of that said, I don't really think any 18 year old girl is fair game - call me old fashioned but I think it's just ungentlemanly calling a teenager loose on national telly. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all the posturing in the world by Palin doesn't change the fact that the Letterman joke was just plain nasty and more becoming of the likes of Limbaugh.
Hmmm... a 60-something guy picking on an 18 year old girl from his slot on national teevee... classy. I think it was pretty damn offensive myself, on a par with all the oh-so-tasteful jokes about Chelsea Clinton wayback when.
I can't stand Palin, but there's not a lot she could do (wear makeup! ye gods!) that would justify that sort of comment about a teenager.
In fact, he was picking on her 14-year-old daughter.
As someone who is more of a feminist than the humorless ladies at NOW, may I suggest that before they condemn Letterman for the "sexualization of girls & women," they take a look at the organization from whom Britol Palin reportedly (MSNBC) receives compensation -- Candies. I have posted a few of Candies' "tasteful" ads targeted at tweenies on my website -- the nature of the ads forced me to include an announcement that I had not converted the site from political matters to soft porn. The Palins simply have no credibility here.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
nickiff-You understand that this 60 year old guy is a comedian, right? That he gets paid to pick on people? That he apologized publicly and that Palin rejected it just so she could get more press because Alaskans get tired of their sled dogs and occasionally do watch TV?
AMERICA needs to lighten up. We all hate Simon from American Idol but that doesn't stop us from watching, does it?
Good job though, I'm sure NOW needs all the spokespersons they can get, what with their recent history of condemning such evil rapists as Bruce Springsteen(song lyrics) and Sylvester Stallone(never a female lead to spar with him(and win no less) in his Rocky movies)