Take it like a man!

One of my pet peeves, particularly in the summer, is that female attorneys seem to try to get away with dressing so casually as compared to the men.  The male attorneys that I see are universally in coats and ties, and usually in suits.  (Makes it a lot easier to spot the pro ses and clients.)  But the women often show up, even when they are arguing motions, in sleeveless tops, slacks, unstructured skirts, skimpy sandals, etc.   They don’t look lawyerly; they look like they’re heading to the mall or a casual dining restaurant. 

The way I see it, if you want to be treated like a man, and I’m sure that these female attorneys do, you should ensure that you are presenting yourself as professionally as the men are.  I know it’s hot, but, for crying out loud, be thankful that you aren’t expected to wear a tie! 

Anyway, on that note, one of my new favorite blogs is Corporette, which bills itself as “a fashion and lifestyle blog for over-acheiving chicks.”  They generally discuss things to wear to work, and also foray into work-related dilemmas, often with an emphasis on the female perspective (for example, a guest blogger did a post on breast pumping at work, and a recent discussion went into how to control your tears if you feel the urge to cry at work).  I think it usually strikes a good balance between recognizing the uniqueness qualities of being a woman but not expecting special treatment or worship because of sex. 

The Corporette comments very often mention the book “Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office,” recommending it as a warning against things that professional women tend to do to hurt their chances at workplace success.  Since I’m going to be out in the “real world” of law pretty soon, I thought that might be a good read.  After all, I’m always told that I am nice.  (For example, recently, on Althouse, I told a commenter who was going on about Sarah Palin’s “big tits” to stfu with the misogyny, and commenters chimed in that if I was telling him to stfu, he must really be out of line.  If I’m known as “the nice one” when using an assumed name on an internet political blog, I must be an absolute peach in real life.)

Anyway, I was looking at buying the book, but then I thought, would a man read a book called “Nice Boys Don’t Get the Corner Office”?  That sounds kind of lame; men, particularly successful men, don’t usually navel gaze like that.  Or, if they do, they don’t let on.  So, maybe girls that get the corner office don’t read books like Nice Girls Don’t Get the Corner Office?  Now I’m torn.

Advertisements

“If all women are feminists, then this strategy can work. But if the most attractive women are Republicans, then it will start breaking down.”

Good looking conservative women threaten the liberal status quo.  Or, in the alternative, Republicans are the new sexy. 

But seriously, the writer here is saying something I’ve noticed for a while.  Republicans have always had the stereotype of being old, and, with that, unattractive.  People, particularly young people, (and, I hate to say it, but even more particularly, young women) eschew the unattractive and unsexy, and gravitate towards that which they would like to emulate.  Women like those described in the article were brave enough to buck that, and now they’re changing our impressions of what is attractive.  Interesting.

Some Things Just Take a Special Kind of Crazy . . .

like moving in next to someone, in particular someone who doesn’t even hold any sort of public office, in order to dig up information to write a book on her

Of course, when that person is Sarah Palin, there’s simply no end to the special craziness out there.

Update: Special kind of crazy journalist fires back.  Hey, where do I get one of those buttons to unleash the Hounds of Hell?

Sarah Palin is one of us

Matthew Continetti, in a piece titled “Palin in the Mainstream” (via Instapundit) writes:

Sarah Palin delivered the keynote address to a breakfast of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony’s List this morning. The speech was typical for Palin: attacks on big government and the media, a robust defense of the culture of life using her personal narrative as an example, and support for a “frontier feminism” opposed to the version of women’s liberation found in faculty lounges at “East Coast” schools. You can watch the speech here.

As I listened to the speech, I was struck by how Palin’s positions are widely shared. She opposes the health care law — so does the public. She’s concerned about the federal deficit — so is the public (see question 10b). She supports the Arizona illegal immigration law — so does the public. She supports the right to life — and the public is moving toward her. She supports the Afghanistan surge and the current course in Iraq — both Obama administration policies.

This is something that has really troubled me about the public reaction to Palin for a while.  She’s constantly and unequivocally painted as a conservative extremist, the most extreme of the extreme. Yet, I never see actual facts to back up these accusations, or the facts are completely made up.  As far as I can tell from actually watching Palin, she’s center right, but no more to the right than many prominent conservatives, and certainly not extreme.

“Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them.”

 In 1991, when Clarence Thomas came before Congress for his nomination process, he was bamboozled by a former employee’s outlandish, and heretofore completely un-complained of, allegations of sexual harassment.  I was only 11 years old when this happened, but even I could see that this was nothing but a shallow and desparate attempt to derail his nomination process.  But I didn’t understand why.  When he famously referred to that incident as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blackswho in any way deign to think for themselves,” I didn’t really understand what that meant.  Now, I do.   

The Democratic party, the liberals, believe that they have a hold on black Americans.  They have no reason not to believe this; blacks have, in recent memory, supported the Democrats by enormous majorities.  So Thomas was threat; he could show the public an intelligent, high ranking black man who openly and unapologetically rejected the liberal line.  “Uppity” used to refer to a black person who thought that he could rise above his rank and be on par with whites; for Justice Thomas, it was no different.  He was uppity by thinking for himself and rejecting the norm.  He had to be stopped, and Anita Hill was to do it.  While these allegations did not, fortunately, derail Thomas’s nomination, they put a serious dent in his prestige as a justice. 

But this is about far more than race.  More recently, we have seen the treatment of women who dare to speak against the liberal ideal.  Democrats have never had as tight a hold on women as they do on blacks, but they do have some significant grip.  More importantly than the sheer number of voters, though, is that outspoken women are largely liberal.  Many conservative women stay quiet; they have families and jobs and lives; they keep their heads down and don’t make waves.  Not seen means no real threat; Democrats can continue to tell us that Republicans are the party of sexism, and who’s going to challenge them?  Some man?  Hah! 

But enter Sarah Palin; enter Michelle Bachmann; enter even Carrie Prejean, and we have a problem.  If women start seeing that they, too, could speak out about their conservative beliefs, that they could do so passionately and honestly, well, Democrats could lose what hold they have.  So they don’t engage these women on their beliefs or positions.  Intelligent debate is too great a risk. These women must be destroyed, with slander, threats, and more.

And now, it’s the gays.   In case you aren’t familiar, the blog HillBuzz, which is run by some gay men who originally wanted to throw their full-fledged support behind Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, got a lot more buzz when it brazenly and defiantly rejected President Obama and the present Democratic leadership.  And how does this leave them?  Well, the fabulous gents at HillBuzzare now finding themselves working to uncover a plot against them that they describe as “defamation, threats, and harassment.”  And, from what they’re hearing, this is more than just an internet prank:

Someone told us to be very careful with digging too deep into this, because if our hunch is right and this does lead back to the DNC and Organizing for America themselves, there are many people who will do us physical harm to keep us from exposing them.

We should have seen this coming.  Gays are also beholden to the Democratic party; they’ve long voted for the D almost without thinking, and the Democrats must do no more than throw them a few crumbs every now and then to keep them onboard.  There’s reason to believe that this might be changing.  Change is bad, if you’ve already got a group under your thumb.  HillBuzz has publically broken ranks with the Democratic party, and criticized them at every turn since 2008.  HillBuzz must be stopped. 

But, HillBuzz notes something that the liberals didn’t count on:

Well, they’ve made the mistake of targeting single, gay guys with no children, no one depending on us for anything, and no real reason to sit back and let them attack us unchallenged.  We live in Chicago.  We’ve been mugged.  We’ve been physically assaulted before.  We’ve been dealing with nonstop harassment from Obama supporters for over two years now — all in service to their “Lightbringer” of Hope and Change, whose message can only, it seems, be spread through violence and thuggery.

Godspeed, Fellows.  You might just lick this thing for all of us.

No “Game Change” Here: Just More Sexist Gossip About Palin

When it comes to Sarah Palin, people aren’t even creative about the rumors they “report” about her; just pick the most sexist stereotypes about how women handle themselves in high pressure situations, and the world will eat them up.  At least that’s what the authors of the uber-buzz generating book Game Change seem to think. 

Now, I don’t make it a habit to take to heart much of anything said about a public figure in cases where the supposed witness is not willing to look a camera directly in the lens and personally attest to his or her story, or give a really good reason (I’m thinking mob threats might qualify) why that’s not an option.  That goes doubley-so for anything said by anonymous sources about Sarah Palin, who has faced no end of efforts to besmirch her character

As if those prejudices weren’t enough, even the authors of Game Change admit that their stories are not really based on what could strictly be called “reliable facts.”

Halperin and Heilemann tell ABC News their book is based on interviews with over 300 people. They add that many of the revelations aren’t based on quotes, but paraphrased statements.

So, the paraphrased statements from anonymous sources apparently add up to: an image of a woman that is completely at odds with the image of a woman who managed to be a mother,a successful two-term mayor, and the most popular governor in the country.  They claim (HT: Ann Althouse):

“Game Change,” the 2008 deconstruction, says the stress of vaulting onto the national stage caused Palin to have wild mood swings.

“One minute, Palin would be her perky self; the next she would fall into a strange blue funk,” the authors write.

The morning of her ill-fated CBS interview with Katie Couric, Palin – “her eyes glassy and dead” – was unresponsive to attempts to prep her as she was being made up.

“As they were about to set off to meet Couric, Palin announced ‘I hate this makeup’ – smearing it off her face, messing up her hair, complaining she looked fat,” the book relates.

Palin went on to give answers to Couric that were so incoherent the interview permanently damaged her.

Palin went into a tailspin. She stopped eating or sleeping, and drank only a half a can of diet soda a day, recounts the book written by John Heilemann of New York magazine and Mark Halperin of Time magazine.

“When her aides tried to quiz her she would routinely shut down – chin on her chest, arms folded, eyes cast to the floor, speechless and motionless, lost in what those around her described as a kind of catatonic stupor,” the book says.

“If I had known everything I know now, I would not have done this,” the book quotes Palin as saying.

She talked often about her baby, Trig, who spent most of the time in Alaska, and some John McCain aides thought she might be suffering postpartum depression.

There is not a single bit of mush in these rumors that doesn’t go straight to the heart of the most backwards, outdated, unprogressive ideas about women in the workplace.  She talked about her baby (something I have heard that parents do on occasion!), so she must have had postpartum depression; she threw tantrums and “shut down;” she complained about looking “fat;” she had mood swings.  I can imagine an old school good ol’ boy in an office somewhere listing these as lame excuses why not to hire a perfectly acceptable female candidate.  In the 1950’s.  His character today would be so over-the-top that nobody would buy it. 

It really goes to show how sexist liberals are at heart.  These stories are completely unbelievable; the person described here could not manage a bank account, much less successfully govern a state, nor could that person make multiple public appearences, hair and make-up intact, mind you, over the course of a presidential campaign.  The only person that could accept this is the sort of person who already believes that women are inferior and incapable.  Yet, liberals accept this without question.  It makes me sad.

Are we keeping around old stereotypes just to have a hammer against people who might use them?

There’s an apparently racist photoshop pic floating around the web that depicts Barack Obama shining Sarah Palin’s shoes. 

Obama Shines Palin Shoes

My first reaction is that it’s really a pretty poor photoshop job; in this day of great workmenship, you’d think they could have made it look a little bit more realistic. 

My second thought is that I don’t really get it.  I assume that the maker was going for a play on the idea that President Obama is not fit to shine Ms. Palin’s shoes.  But here, he is shining her shoes, so that doesn’t really work, now does it? 

My third thought is, of course, RACIST!!  Shoeshine boy = Black and that’s racist!!!  No, actually, my third thought is somewhere more along the line of the idea that the person who created it and the registered democrat who got in trouble for forwarding it at work should have known that it would be taken that way, intended or not. 

But then, I have to think, why is the image of a shoeshine boy associated with racism in my head?  I don’t think that I have ever, in my life, seen a shoeshine boy, girl, man, or woman, so I certainly can’t have my own preconceived notion of them being a certain race.  (I seem to recall that some airports had shoeshine stands, but I’ve only ever seen them sit empty.  And I want to say that they were automated, anyway.  And I don’t think I’ve even seen one of them in years.) 

My only association with shoeshiner as a racial stereotype comes from the musical Hair, where one character lists off just about every black racial stereotype, chanting “So you said.” 

I’m a
Colored spade
A nigger
A black nigger
A jungle bunny
Jigaboo coon
Pickaninny mau mau

Uncle Tom
Aunt Jemima
Little Black Sambo

Cotton pickin’
Swamp guinea
Junk man
Shoeshine boy

Elevator operator
Table cleaner at Horn & Hardart
Slave voodoo
Zombie
Ubangi lipped

Flat nose
Tap dancin’
Resident of Harlem

And president of
The United States of Love
President of
The United States of Love

Judging from the rest of the lyrics, it looks to me that these stereotypes were seen as out-of-date even in the late 60’s when the musical was penned.  Elevator operators virtually don’t exist anymore, cotton pickers and slaves had been gone for almost a century at the time.  I must confess to not getting the “Horn and Hardart” reference, but table cleaner, which I assume is what I would call a busboy (or busser, in a non-sexist restaurant), doesn’t raise a bit of a racial stereotype in my mind. 

There’s simply no reason to hold on to this stereotype, just to use it as a stereotype against someone.  Let’s stop it.