Michael Seitzman would like you to know that he's the expert on sexism, and anyone who argues with him has no sense of humour.
In his September 11 column, Seitzman was ripping apart anyone who thought the Palin interview was good, but not before he wanted us all to know how incredibly heterosexual he is.
And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup." I married well.)Apparently, when mocking a woman's intelligence (or lack thereof), it's very important to point out how fuckable you find her. But! Mr Seitzman tells us: That's not sexist! It's funny! It's satire! It's irony! It's not sexist, and anyone who tells you otherwise shouldn't be listened to. (It certainly isn't transphobic! If it were, I'm sure Mr Seitzman would tell us so.)
Seitzman goes on to explain why he's the expert in sexism (and people like us here at Shakes totally aren't):
• His dictionary-definition of sexism means that bringing up a woman's fuckability and her make up isn't discriminating against her based on her gender;
• He totally deserves a break anyway because he never wrote about Senator Clinton's gender during the primaries. Obviously since he is such a reliable narrator I shall take his word on this. I know no other people in the blogosphere bashed Senator Clinton for being a woman, just ask them;
• He wrote a movie on sexual harassment! He's studied it. Who are you gonna trust—women who react to discussions of another woman's fuckability and appearance, or a totally-neutral-on-the-subject man who has written a movie?
Then he randomly compares her to a contestant on The Bachelor.
Would we be sexist if we commented on her looks? Of course not. Sorry if you don't like it, but in my mind, there's not much that separates Sarah Palin from the attractive yet vapid winner of a reality show. As far as I'm concerned, she IS the attractive yet vapid winner of a reality show.Mr Seitzman, it is so easy to criticize Sarah Palin while focusing on the issues. One can write about her seeming unprepared for the realities of the job of Vice President, let alone President. One can look into the allegations around Trooper-gate. One can exam her support (or lack thereof) to funding "special needs" classrooms. One can examine her record and come away with the decision that this isn't the person you want as Assistant Leader Of The Free World.
Commenting on her appearance and how much you find her attractive? ISN'T RELEVANT. That's what makes it sexist, Mr Seitzman. Her fuckability, or lack thereof, should never be part of the political discourse.
But, of course, no fauxgressive rant against the silly wimminz and their weird desire to not have female politicians brought down based on appearance is complete without:
And one of those things is a padlock on your uterus. Now let's talk about sexism.Roe! ROE!!!
I don't know about y'all, but I'm going for a drink.
[Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]