Another aspect of the Palin phenomenon bears examination, even if the mere act of raising it invites intimations of sexism: she is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights in national politics, the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs. This pheromonal reality has been a blessing and a curse. It has captivated people who would never have given someone with Palin's record a second glance if Palin had looked like Susan Boyle. And it has made others reluctant to give her a second chance because she looks like a beauty queen.I think some more thinking could have helped this graph. A lot. It is, in my estimation, certainly arguable that Sarah Palin's appearance has played into her reception. My sense is that it's helped.
Purdum thinks the mere mention of this notion invites attacks from people who spend their days waiting to accuse people of sexism. He is wrong. They invite attacks from people who wonder why he's speaking as though there have been a parade of women who have scaled the national political heights. In the literal sense, there has only been one other--Geraldine Ferraro. Thus Purdum is basically arguing that Palin is better looking than Ferraro. A more charitable interpretation throws Hillary Clinton into the mix.
More seriously he invites attacks from people who think his notion that Palin is "the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs" is fairly ridiculous. Indisputable to who? The underlying argument holds that anyone whom the author doesn't deem attractive, is somehow disputably fertile.
What we are talking about is who is fuckable, and who isn't. Frankly, speaking as a man, I'm always skeptical of the "fuckability" concept. I've seen to many men step to with women carnal intent, and then deny it later. Usually after rejection and dismissal, but sometimes after success.This game of fuckability, or "indisputable fertility," is exactly that. It allows men to assert control over a situation, in which, most frighteningly, they often have very little
Hillary Clinton haunts the dreams of no less than half the men who rag on her appearance. And should she ever step to any of them, there'd be very little dispute of any kind. Indeed, it would offend the senses of a polite society were we ever to honestly contemplate exactly how large a portion of womankind men regard as "indisputably fertile." Some of them are scientifically infertile. But brothers don't really care. Let's not act like we do.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I'm laughing too hard to know whether I agree with you or not.
I think his point about her fertility was simply a reference to the fact that she recently gave birth: a pretty indisputable sign of fertility.
If memory serves, Ferraro was in her 50's when she ran with Mondale. It's likely she was no longer fertile--in the literal sense.
Perhaps. But then why is it in a sentence where he's talking about her physical appearance? I'm trying process this--is the point that Sarah Palin is the first attractive woman to be nominated for the VP slot who'd recently had a baby?
While not defending or attacking the paragraph, I do think that recent motherhood got her more flack from people t than recent fatherhood would have for a male candidate, despite the fact that Todd Palin could easily make the transition to stay at home dad, as there's not many snowmobile races in DC for him to compete in.
Charitably, that was the point that was being made. Uncharitably, it was about her fuckaility.
Ferraro was 49 (maybe 50 not sure of the date). Furthermore, at 44 giving birth is not demonstrable proof of present fertility.
It's worth actually reading this sentence and figuring out what it means:
I cut out unnecessary words. The sentence is clearly saying that these two things are, together, one aspect of the Palin phenomena: she's the best looking and she's fertile. So, yeah, he's not just stating that she's fertile, he's saying that it's a quality equivalent to looking good (fuckability's as good a word for this "aspect" as any).
"More seriously he invites attacks from people who think his notion that Palin is "the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs" is fairly ridiculous. Indisputable to who?"
Zuh? Palin had a child last summer, whereas Ferraro was 49 when she ran for VP, and Hillary is 61.
He's claiming she's indisputably fertile. She just had another kid. How is that ridiculous? Are you the one disputing it?
Whether it's a relevant point or not...
"looks like a beauty queen" ?
Since she _was_ a beauty queen, don't know why you're taking this on.
Not defending this Purdum fellow, whom I've never heard of, but think you may be missing a point by conflating fertility and sexual attractiveness. It's possible that Purdum was making two separate points here, and not just using fertility as a euphemism for "fuckability". Think about this. You could argue that Palin's fertility is a bigger threat to elite liberal whites than her looks are. Hillary Clinton had exactly one kid, and (so far) has no grand kids. Sarah Palin has a bunch of kids, and is now a grandmother already. Educated, coastal, liberal whites tend to have few children and have them late. If their kids don't qualify for competitive admissions public schools (e.g., Stuyvesant in NYC), they tend to be wary of putting their kids in public school*. So they have to pay for private school, which makes having more children extremely expensive.
Being highly educated, these liberals know that if prole whites like Palin (whose family does icky stuff such as hunting, going to church, working on oil fields, etc.) keep lapping them in fertility, Palin-types will gain political power at the expense of Hillary-types (i.e., educated liberal women who have few if any kids).
*In fact, a Sunday NY Times article on seven NYC valedictorians (which I blogged about elsewhere) noted that one of the seven valedictorians featured -- the one from Stuyvesant -- was home schooled up until he went to high school.
I'm tempted to try and deconstruct why, precisely, you think that coastal, liberal whites are "threatened" by Palin because of her five children and one grandchild (me, personally, I'm just frightened by the idea of someone that ill-informed holding that much power), but really, I think I'll leave it at: Dude, you're generalizing. And it's a particularly nasty, ill-founded generalization at that.
Like most fallacies, the 'proles out-breeding intelligentsia' one has already been lampooned/busted on XKCD:
http://xkcd.com/603/
Highly educated liberal white (university professor) with three kids here. They go to city public schools, thanks. We even go to church! Icky!!!
Since my grandparents were definitely proles, though, and so were my husband's parents, maybe I don't fit into your little box.
Dave,
I am fine with the dissent. But you have to deal with the fact that entire paragraph is, very much, about her attractiveness. The fertility point is a mere phrase, and having thought about, I'd add that it's put there to make the point that she is not just physically attractive, but sexually active, and that that sexual activity makes her somehow more attractive.
Again, here is the entire quote:
He refers to her status as "best looking" and her indspitable fertility as a "pheromonal reality." Perhaps that isn't a reference to the concept of fuckability. It seems, though, to be a very clear reference to her sexual attractiveness. He isn't discussing Susan Boyle because of her status as a mother--he's discussing her attractiveness. The entire graph is about that. It strikes me as dishonest to pretend that it isn't.
Me thinks that Conservatives are doing a wee bit of projection in their claims about how liberals react to Sarah Palin.
Remember Rich Lowery and his startburts? There were other posts on NRO about how her combination of attractiveness and fertility was a threat to liberals. They are projecting their own hang-ups about female sexuality onto us.
And I don't want this to turn into a debate about how attractive she is, but I think this is relevant. I don't find her that stunning, I think she has the generic attractiveness that you find in TV anchors. Why I think this is relevant is we pretend that attractiveness doesn't matter for male politicians, but that simply isn't true. How many male politicians are basically little more than well spoken generically handsome men, Achorman looking types, not Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Hell that probably just described at least half the Republicans in Congress. Basically Palin is the female equivalent, minus the well spoken part:-)
Ta-Nehisi,
You could be right that Purdum may only be using fertility here as a proxy for sexual activity. In that case, I think he's missing more important aspects of the Palin phenomena (both her grass roots appeal and the wrath she attracts from some elites).
I am missing the controversy. What has Purdum said that is demostrably untrue?
Perhaps you should solicit the opinions of some women of accomplishment on Palin's bona fides and see if their conclusions are substantially different from those rendered by Purdum.
Yeah, I saw that movie. It was called "Idiocracy." Not a great movie, but when it works, it's very entertaining.
Dave,
Palin may appeal to many prole whites (particularly to ones like her husband Todd), but she is no more a prole white than Rod Blagojevich is. A politician who is elected to a statewide office (even in Alaska) is by definition not a prole.
Moreover, you are making the mistake of conflating all female voters with liberal leanings with your stereotypical cosmopolitan elite professional woman (a Sex and the City type). The average liberal female voter is not someone like Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw or even Candice Bergen's Murphy Brown, but rather someone like Rosanne Connor or Claire Huxtable or Meredith Birney's Elyse Keaton; a socially conscious urban or suburban resident with kids who wants them to have greater opportunities than she ever had, and thus is drawn to politicians who believe that government plays a key role in allowing access to such opportunities. Therefore, I am not sure that conservative mothers are outlapping liberal mothers in the overall number of kids that are born in US, even if conservative mothers have a higher fertility rate (since liberal leaning women greatly outnumber conservative leaning women, even when we limit the female population to women with kids).
Even if the Sarah Palin types are having more kids than the Hillary Clinton types, there is no guarantee than the majority of those kids will actually be conservative, and even the ones that are conservatives won't necessarily be as conservative as Sarah Palin.
The thing is, Sarah Palin did not actually rise to the position she holds in national politics; she was placed there when John McCain selected her to be his VP. Had McCain not done that, she would be no more prominent than any other sitting GOP governor, such as Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Haley Barbour, Linda Lingle, Jodi Rell, Mark Sanford, and the Governator. Therefore, her actual popularity is probably greatly overestimated, since she didn't achieve her spot on a national ticket after going through a nomination process. One wonders how far Palin will actually go in the 2012 Republican presidential primary, once she actually has to compete with Rommney, Huckabee, Newt Gingich, Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Pawlenty, Perry, Jindal, Crist, Barbour, Lingle, and maybe even Dick Cheney.
While I do agree to Sarah Palin is an attractive woman, I think her looks are somewhat overrated. Certainly Michelle Obama is far more attractive than Sarah Palin, and the First Lady is in the same age group as Palin. In addition, when Hilary Clinton became First Lady, she was about the same age as Sarah Palin is now, and Hilary at that age was much better looking than Sarah Palin is now. Finally, the young brunette Hilary Rodham puts the young beauty queen contestant Sarah Palin to shame.
So what does it mean that your colleague Mr. Sullivan spent so much effort disputing her fertility?
Andrew Sullivan is Andrew Sullivan, a party of one with a basically unclassifiable mix of views, he is hardly representative of liberals since he isn't one, not being a mainstream conservative doesn't make someone a liberal.
Go ask him.
Would love to, but he's too cowardly to have a comments section.
Come on now, that's not fair. I love the community here, and selfishly, I hope it stays small enough to police and have a meaningful discussion. Andrew's blog is one of the most widely read on the web. The man was head of The New Republic. He's a gay conservative. All that adds up to a recipe for disaster in terms of comments.
I'll also add that he recently did respond to commenters here on his conservatism. And he was humble enough to admit when the commenters that called him out were right.
It is unfair. If had Andrew's traffic, there would be no way I could maintain a comments section.
Would love to, but he's too cowardly to have a comments section.
Last year or so he put up a vote to have comments and it came in overwhelmingly in favor of not having comments. You could also e-mail him since he does read e-mails and sometimes posts them on his blog as well.
"It is unfair. If had Andrew's traffic, there would be no way I could maintain a comments section."
If you had Andrew's traffic, you could hire someone to maintain civility in your comments section.
Let's face it though, Sullivan has a widely read blog and he himself selects the "dissents" he decides to publish. He may have many reasons to do this, but it is a system that certainly lends itself to cowardice. He can write whatever nonsense he wants, knowing that it would only be debunked on a comparatively lesser level because he has created the biggest soapbox.
And, yes, I realize that Sullivan conducted a vote about comments last year. He counted the votes himself and, I should note, stopped the voting before the scheduled end.
Dave let me put this briefly,
That is bunch of utter nonesense.
Sometimes you offer pretty smart commentary, but all too often you just do seemingly politer versions of Fox News crap.
Cultural Conservatives have this idea that us coastal liberals are obsessed with them and constantly worried about them. Here is the brutal truth, we don't think about you much at all. The opposite of love isn't hate, it is apathy. We don't care if you have 15 kids each, we don't care if you hunt or camp or go to church, or whatever. What we care about is issues, Sex education and access to birth control, abortion, Gun Control, Separation of church and state, Gay Marriage and so on. We care about Cultural conservatives to the extent that they oppose us on those political issues, we don't care how they live their private lives.
This was supposed to be in response to Dave above not sure why it didn't go in the right place.
true that, eric...big gub'ment conservatives who don't speak in monosyllables are less dangerous than those who do, despite the fact that the latter greatly outnumber the former.
It's been that way since at least the birth of the Southern Strategy, if not before.
As for "elites" and "elitists", I refer any and all to the insights of the brilliant mind of David Rees, @ Get Your War On:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bdVR-JIDi2g/SUxnPq4kg7I/AAAAAAAAL9c/Fpyl4Q33Oew/s1600/east-coast-elitist.jpeg
I think you should interpret "such heights in national politics" more broadly. In the literal sense, yes - Ferraro's the only direct comparison. But Purdum doubtfully intended it to be taken literally. I'd argue that Nancy Pelosi certainly fits the bill, as do Madeleine Albright, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Elizabeth Dole (who ran for the GOP nomination in 2000). You could throw in Harriet Miers and Sonya Sotomayor, too.
None of these women were "fertile" (by which he does seem to mean "fuckable"), and none were terribly attractive to the majority of the population. And under this reading, his commentary makes more sense.
In point of fact, none of these women were ever in serious contention for being one step from the presidency. In point of fact, the only person to scale "such heights" is Geraldine Ferraro.
Sexism is the major reason why that's the case. To concern-troll about being called a sexist, while ignoring that fact seems silly.
That's entirely fair. I should've quoted "dare to dance with the big dogs" instead of "such heights in national politics" as the other women have dared, they just never had a chance (in large part, as you say, due to sexism).
I guess the other side to it is your definition of "such heights in national politics." If the judiciary is truly on par with the executive branch, as it's intended, then Ginsburg, Day O'Connor, and perhaps Sotomayor (if confirmed) have risen to higher heights in national politics than has Palin - actual participants instead of mere candidates. And by another barometer, Albright and Clinton have risen to higher heights, as they're in actual national policy-making positions, which Palin never reached.
It's certainly semantics to some degree, but I maintain that Purdum was referring to all of these women for all of these reasons, and not intending to compare Palin simply to Ferraro. It's understandable to take it literally, though.
Jennifer Granholm and Patty Murray come to mind.
There's a reason why, from beginning to end,
WOMEN
always had Palin's number.
We knew exactly who she was from Day One.
As time went on, those on the fence realized that their first suspicions about her were true.
WOMEN sunk Sarah Palin.
I would love to go with you on that one, but remember the crazed diehard Hillary supporters who declared they'd support McCain-Palin simply because there was a woman on the bill? I know they didn't translate into huge numbers on Nov. 4, but they're out there, and we share that ol' double-X with them. And that's not even getting into the Republican women who happily marched to Palin's drum (and still do). Plenty of ignorant women in the world to go along with plenty of ignorant men.
What, all 20 of them?
Interestingly enough, the average Vanity Fair reader is a well-educated 40 year old woman who clocks 80K annually. She's probably not voting for the "Well by golly, you betcha!" lady with the Svengali Snowmobile Champ at her side.
Hah!
TNC,
I think a VF article could've been written about Palin without referring to her sexual attractiveness, but to do so would be silly given the effect that Palin's attractiveness actually had on people. (Remember how Rich Lowry responded to Palin's "starbursts" during the Biden debate?) In terms of American electoral politics, Palin is the most attractive candidate to reach such heights, and she's also the only one who gave birth in such close proximity to the election. Given the fervor among the conservative women who adored her in part for being a still-fertile mom, and given the fervor among conservative men who wanted to fuck her brains out, I think it's fair to bring up her physical, sexual appeal.
Also, it's Vanity Fair, so we should expect a little bit of sex.
I don't think anyone's asking for no mention of her attractiveness.
I think a VF article could've been written about Palin without referring to her sexual attractiveness,
I really don't think it could be. That was, and remains, her primary asset. That's why she seemed such a formidable opponent right up until she did her first interview.
It's not just that she had a new baby -- it's that she carried that child with her everywhere she went. Deplaning for campaign appearances, onstage at rallies. And OMG did she ever make every possible effort to play up the cutes. Those boots, and the winking, with a six-year-old holding her hand on one side and a baby on the other hip. And no complaints from the campaign when college republicans put out a t-shirt with "VPILF" on the front, "coldest state hottest governor" on the back.
I haven't read the article yet -- does it mention how truly blatant was the attempt to pander to disgrunted Hillary voters? Sarah's very first public statement, at the announcement, was "Hillary put cracks in the glass ceiling, but the women of America aren't done yet..." The feeling my sister and I got, that day, was that John McCain was telling us "one cunt's the same as another." (yes, just that crudely. is there a filter on comments here to let that through?)
This guy Purdum is a huge moron.
"This pheromonal reality has been a blessing and a curse."
One SMELLS pheromones -- they don't work when you watch someone on TV.
As someone else pointed out, she did not "rise" but was placed -- by a guy who (big surprise) left his first wife for a hot younger woman.
Also he says "This pheromonal reality has been a blessing and a curse. It has captivated people who would never have given someone with Palin's record a second glance if Palin had looked like Susan Boyle. And it has made others reluctant to give her a second chance because she looks like a beauty queen."
That's like saying it's a blessing and a curse to win a million dollars, because you might have some trouble dealing with the money -- the fact is that being good looking is a huge net positive for any politician (think Kennedy-Nixon debates and the radio/Tv distinction of who won the debate).
Finally, the idea that anybody is 'threatened' by Palin because she has many kids (some just before the election cycle) is laughable -- her personal story was a huge asset until it revealed a brainless narcissistic twit.
To me, "indisputably fertile" doesn't so much mean "fuckability" as it does "currently demonstrably fucking" with Trig as evidence. And, yes, this does set her apart from other women politicians. Hillary may be fuckable but there is a whole punditry class that likes to speculate that she and Bill never have sex, and/or that she is a lesbian. If she dares not to wear a boring, safe pantsuit, a riot ensues ... Does anyone remember the front page article in the Washington Post about her cleavage a few months after she declared she was running for President?
To date, there have been very few (any?) women "allowed" to be demonstrably currently fucking while running for office, and even more importantly, showing that they like to get fucked by wearing red high heels, lots of makeup and fancy eyeglasses.)
I hate saying fuck so much, but I figure it's okay since you said it first!
Hmmm ... my feminist conscience is telling me that I should have said "showing that they like to fuck", rather than "showing that they like to get fucked."
I can't believe I am actually clarifying that sentence.
I knew what you meant but that sentence stopped me as well! Funny where one finds the offense, not in the "fucking", but the assumption about who's getting and who's taking. Your clarification just made me laugh at myself all the more, but it made me feel better too.
Are you familiar with Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)? Check out her Christmas cards:
http://demo.wonkette.com/221348/loretta-sanchezs-christmas-card/
http://wonkette.com/404962/california-congresslady-loretta-sanchez-proves-its-really-christmastime-with-her-latest-horrific-holiday-card
That is a very funny way to start the day. Not just a motorcycle, but a pussycat, too? Thank you.
"The Congresswoman from the State of California is hot as balls!"
-Detective Herc of THE WIRE, Baltimore PD
I didnt say it folks, Herc did. You know he's a meathead.
What about Condoleezza Rice? She's reasonably attractive and must have been fertile back when she was far and away the most powerful woman in U.S. history.
That said, Jennifer D. has a point. Condi never gave the impression she was having sex with anybody. (Fucking people, sure, millions of them, but that's a different topic)
Yup, Condi is very cute, but did we ever see her out on a date? The implication was that she was a sex martyr in love with W.
During Dubya's second term, the tabloids (the ones that you see in the racks at the supermarket checkout) were continually running stories about an affair going on between Dubya and Condi. Some of the headlines went so far as to claim that a heartbroken Laura Bush had secretly moved out of the White House after discovering said affair.
Not only do I see them in the supermarket checkout line, they are frequently in my bathroom. How else would I have known about Edwards' love child?!
Lol. I think "sex martyr" should be on a line of t-shirts.
Hmmmmmm ... as long as I never become one!
Dunno, calling POTUS 43 "my husb--errr, the President" gave ME a certain impression.
And given the hilarity that ensured when Will Ferrell did his sexy Michael McDonald burlesque with a Condi stand-in, others got it too ;)
Not the least of which is probably Mr. Coates himself! ha ha ha
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0330,coates,45701,1.html
That was a great, funny tribute to what makes Condi so attractive. (Love the story in the jewelry store.) I have a thing for Condi despite her politics and I don't even swing that way. But isn't "I'd swear off Heather Hunter in a minute if I could get Condi Rice's press conferences on demand," much nicer than "I'd hit that?" (smiling emoticon here.)
Sure it is. "I'd hit that" is undeniably crude no matter what the origin.
I know this post is old, but fuckability and fertility are indeed separate concepts, and I think he's pointing to the idea that each creates a separate obstruction to professional advancement. Everybody here is familiar with the complications of a female being sexually attractive and simultaneously a professional. But women are denied jobs or wrongfully terminated all the time for getting pregnant, or trying to, or even just being the typical age and relationship status (mid twenties, newly married) that hiring partners and HR personnel see as likely to lead there. "Fertility" is a liability for women, in that it makes them less viable and appealing to the professional world. Palin's fertility - which includes the "currently fucking" stigma articulated above - would go even farther than her sexuality in disqualifying her from professional advancement in the normal workforce. For obvious reasons (by which I mean obviously bad, but whatever) motherhood takes over a woman's professional identity, or at least encroaches on it, at least as much as physical attractiveness does.