A truly great comment from Zacksback:
When it comes to Palin, there's an intersection of sexism and age that the Republicans don't understand (which is why they keep crying sexism and wonder why it's not working).
For many Boomer women, the primary sexist experience of their lives is: "Those men gave the job to that guy instead of me, even though I am more qualified and/or have more seniority."
For many Gen X women like myself (and Palin is Gen X) the primary sexist experience is: "Those men gave the job to that clueless chick instead of me, because the boss thinks she's hot and/or will be a yes-man with no ideas of her own."
If, for some Boomer women, Obama's win over Hillary represents the guy they lost the promotion to, Palin's selection plays the same role for Gen X women. We've seen it: first the incompetent yet babelicious woman is promoted over her head, then the boss orders the attention of the entire team/department/etc. to focus on ensuring that "we" shield her from "mistakes" (or worse, we get blamed for her mistakes). Palin reminds us of when we got screwed by this sort of bullshit. And it shows in voters' response to her.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
he moderator of Thursday's vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to "shed new light" on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other "emerging young African American politicians" who are "forging a bold new path to political power."
Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service program "Washington Week" is promoting "The Breakthrough," in which she argues the "black political structure" of the civil rights movement is giving way to men and women who have benefited from the struggles over racial equality.
Ifill declined to return a WND telephone message asking for a comment about her book project and whether its success would be expected should Obama lose. But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
But she has faced criticism previously for not treating candidates of both major parties the same.
And what journalist hasn't?
Ya know, putting a random "fact" in a discussion thread that has nothing to do with said "fact" only makes you look petty and annoying, and makes me waaaaay less likely to take what is posted seriously.
On topic: this commenter is on the money. I have seen this happen everywhere- hell, the entire sales industry is based on rewarding hotness instead of skill or intelligence.
That's a good analysis. My own feeling with Hillary (as another gen Xer) was that she brought out all those women who claimed everything bad that happened to them was because of sexism--if you start with the lens of sexism as your hammer, then all your setbacks become nails of gender bias, without examining whether Bob is actually just better at the job. To women who don't view themselves as victims, this sort of whining is infuriating--but also the sort of thing that gets "mmmm, uh-huhed" rather than challenged.
I will say that the initial liberal reaction to Palin's existance had some nasty sexism to it, especially the notion that a working mother would be alien to social conservatives. That mopy woman for the NYTimes, Miller, going on about how women saw themselves in Palin because she couldn't do it all--the jobs, the kids, the special needs baby. At which non-Millers everywhere looked up from checking their kids' homework, before finishing a few work e-mails, and hissed "just crawl under a rock, Miller."
But as Palin looks more and more incompetent--not overwhelmed by kids and work as Miller would have it--that story won't fly like Zacksback's dimbulb promoted because she tells the boss what he wants to hear.
This is an interesting comment from Zacksback because I had not thought of Palin precisely that way.
I am a boomer woman who worked in what was a male dominated profession back in the late 70's. And, yes, I had to work harder just to be recognized. Getting promoted was pretty much out of reach.
That was a very long time ago and none of it factors into which candidate I support in 2008. I can't even begin to understand someone who would have supported Hillary solely on the basis of her being a woman of the same generation. This is not the way to settle old scores that, by the way, can't be settled anyhow.
I look at Palin the same way. What I see is a situation where the GOP has served up a gimmick to help McCain's campaign without regard for the consequences. Her inexperience and her incompetence to assume the presidency is finally glaring beyond dispute and that is what I am concerned about. And this pretense that Palin really is smarter than she is getting credit for is just infuriating. She is not qualified, period.
It's interesting, however, that McCain's gimmick reminds some Gen X women of their "primary sexist experience." If it turns voters against her then I guess it works for me. This woman should never have gotten past hockey mom or the the PTA.
John,
I won't delete that comment. But your basically trolling. Next one will go.
T.
Beautiful comment from Z, reads like poetry.
Thanks for making sure we saw it, TNC. We're waiting to hear more about your born-day reflections.
holding breath
d*3k
I must be in a contrarian mood today, because I don't think Zacksback's comment is profoundly true.
The primary sexist experience of my generation is not about unqualified hotties vs. qualified fill-in-the-blank. The primary experience is still the same as the previous generation: unqualified men vs. qualified women. But that's not the point.
Deborah gets closer to the truth: older generations are more apt to look at many experiences through the lens of sexism, whereas younger generations take a broader view. We don't tend to blame our setbacks on sexism.
My first instinct was not to view Palin as a babilicious governor given the nomination over more qualified Republicans like Dole or Hutchinson. Rather, I viewed it as a bunch of out-of-touch white guys nominating a woman in a desperate plea to reach women voters. You're a woman, she's a woman, Vote McCain!
I think the guys over at the McCain campaign were betting on the very women who look at life through the sexism lens, not realizing the sexism lens is actually able to identify sexism. And for younger generations taking a broader view, it was just as obvious.
A boss promoting a beautiful woman often says less about his preference for sex appeal and more about his clientele, for example the preponderance of good-looking pharmaceutical reps having nothing to do with their suitability as eye candy at the office, but rather in the field.
In many cases, its a subtle permutation of 'don't hate the player, hate the game' at work here - an employer would be insane not to consider appearance in so many industries where sex sells.
@Liza's comment: Several serious writers--Jong in the NYTimes, a woman writing in the Boston Globe, others--specifically cited Bill's cheating, and Hillary's taking him back, as something they themselves had experienced, and so they saw themselves in her. Very strong identification, "she is me." I never got this--even if my husband someday cheated, I can't see it as a reason to vote for anyone.
The pieces also cited that a younger man was promoted over them, which is another point where they lost some younger women--if you've worked in an office for a while you recognize that talent and age are not perfectly linked, and most young people don't like the idea of never getting promoted until all the older people have been.
As for the "Hillary has lady parts, so does Sarah" aspect, it makes me think McCain doesn't have many under 40 year olds in his circle.
I think the Gen X link is also the reason why there was a boost of interest in her at first.
I imagine a lot thought at first that she was an exceedingly competent executive libertarian-leaning conservative, not an uncommon attitude among Gen Xers. I was definitely intrigued with her for about 48 hours, along with a lot of libertarian Gen Xer pundits/bloggers (Andrew included). And then the wheels came off. And then the doors. And then the transmission fell out. And then the engine caught fire.
I actually feel disappointed about her, not pity or any of those other things. This is the first reach for national leadership from a Gen Xer conservative and this is what we get? A yes-woman for Boomer neoconservatives? We're supposed to be the antidote to that stuff.
Perhaps, Biden should just shut up & allow the train wreck to fully take her fatal course during tomorrow's debate; it's worked pretty well for Obama's camp, thus far.
"The primary experience is still the same as the previous generation: unqualified men vs. qualified women."
Sorry Tessa, I'm Gen X too, and know way too many highly successful (6 figure income ) women of our generation to buy that. My wife just turned down another promotion because we didn't want to uproot the kids again. She gets job offers from other companies regularly. I know more high income women of our generation than I do men.
There may be instances of unqualified men being promoted over more qualified women, but I've also seen the reverse in companies I worked for. I was also once on a hiring committee at a university, and the dean's orders were clear, though couched in euphemisms, that if we got a woman or minority applicant, they had better be the one recommended.
Right on the money. I was just writing about this yesterday - watching and reading about Palin makes me flash back to working for a consulting firm and watching the truly mediocre get kudos while the smart folks - male or female - who really did the work got passed over and sunk into obscurity.
(Or flashing back to the moment a boss of mine told me to quit it with the vocabulary because it intimidated her. Not my fault you didn't go to college, lady!)
I'm an X-er and I respect competency, ability, and mental agility. I don't respond to Precious Moments, cliched crap and, to me, that's what Palin epitomizes.
Hmm...
I think this is called "affirmative action."
Giving someone a job based on an outward characteristic like gender or race, not their qualifications, job skills, etc...
Maybe Sarah Palin is the Jayson Blair of the campaign...
So I know all of you liberals will come out AGAINST affirmative action now, right??????
JimS: "I know more high income women of our generation than I do men."
The plural of anecdote is not data.
CB: Your definition of affirmative action is biased already. By that rationale, I can say that this is any -ism I want, define it myself, and then triumphantly point out your hypocrisy. Except I won't, because that's not how to get people to understand your viewpoint.
Could you please provide a link for Zachback?
I'd like to read the whole thing. I think he hit the nail on the head.
Deborah, i believe you mean Judith Warner, not Judith Miller
Ta-Nehisi,
When it comes to Palin, there's an intersection of sexism and age that the Republicans don't understand (which is why they keep crying sexism and wonder why it's not working).
You have the parties mixed up. Clinton being passed over reminds Boomer and Gen X women of their own experiences. This gives them more of an incentive to vote McCain-Palin than Republicans pointing out sexism aimed at Palin is disincentive for voting for McCain-Palin.
Actually, I think the reaction among boomer women (and I think you see this reflected among the reaction of serious MSM media women of that age like Cokie Roberts, and the initial reactions of Sen. Hutchison) was the selection of a younger, hotter woman instead of the older more competent woman -- the optics were eeirily similar to leaving your long-time wife for a younger woman. It was somewhat captured by Jon Stewart on the show the night she was announced "Here's John McCain introducing his third wife! Oh, wait..."
Living to midlife as a boomer and now back in college full time, I find that despite the different perspectives, the perception of Ms. Palin is relatively similar. She is a politically chosen pawn. As a boomer, it was a fact of life that the majority of working women were hired into glass cages, many did get through specifically because they were individulaly exceptional- in qualification and courage. Those women who followed- generation X, found more opportunities, but also high expectations by those that paved the way. If there is one psychological difference between the two, it is the expectation of opportunity based on mean qualifications, not exceptionalism. Rather than applaud her individual rise to state governor and someday talley her success or failure, instead she was chosen for the VP slot based on immeasurable qualifications: gender, ideology, partisanship, attractiveness. No one can take pride in that.