Check out this NYT piece, The Young and the Snarky, by the ever-snarky, elitist Judith Warner, whose contrived pity for Meghan McCain and Bristol Palin makes my blood boil.
Warner claims she, like the rest of the blogosphere, ought to be mocking Meghan McCain, but that instead she feels sorry for the young heiress. Ms. Warner proceeds to mock Ms. McCain anyway: not with humor, but with the kind of vicious sarcasm utilized by upper-class white women the world over and explained in painful detail in Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons. "You haven't paid your dues, daaaahling," Warner is saying, "and have no credibility with the established sorority" -- this from a women who regularly criticizes other mothers' parenting.
Warner argues that Ms. McCain cannot afford to go on Colbert and talk about her sex life, can't afford to tweet about licking Colbert's face, declare herself a pro-sex twentysomething, or assertively state she's a size 8. It's probably best that McCain leave out the face-licking stories, but Warner's attitude on the other stuff is sexist, ageist, and just plain old-school. Until the media stops reporting on women's dress sizes (Michelle Obama), shoe labels (Nancy Pelosi), and love lives (Elizabeth Edwards), Meghan McCain is demonstrating a fearless (dare I say feminist?) honesty in confronting head-on what journalists, pundits, and bloggers will speculate on anyway. Everyone knows her father is a frisky, flirty old bastard: well, now we know for certain that Meghan favors smart birth control over abstinence. Warner is a generation older and the product of a very different time for American women. Her criticism disguised as pity shows just how out of touch she is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ginger, I read your entire post before reading the article, and I must say that I expected something much different from Warner's article. Upon reading the linked article, I found myself agreeing with Warner more often than not, and I feel you have misinterpreted what Warner is saying. When she talks about "paying dues," I think she is referring to the fact that this girl is 24 and is only on the Colbert Report because her father is famous. She is a political Paris Hilton. She hasn't paid her dues, and when I say that, I mean that she isn't ready for prime time.
ReplyDeleteWatching that video was painful! The giggliness makes her seem like a little girl. Like it or not, it's true. Even without the face-licking comments, no young man who went on a talk show and giggled like that would be taken seriously. A woman who does the same should not be expected to be taken seriously either. Of course, she was not terrible. She made some good points, but I think that if she is going to stand up as the new, young, hip face of the Republican Party, then she needs a little help and needs to understand how she comes off on TV. Media Relations 101, if you will.
I'm not saying that she can't have a blog and her success, and frankly, often, I love hearing what McCain has to say. I often agree with it, in fact, but I don't think that I would have been ready to talk about the new Democratic Party on national television in 2004, when I was 24. I feel that way because I was young and had not learned a heck of a lot that I have learned now. I feel McCain is likely the same way. Warner's pity on McCain and Bristol Palin has to do with youth more than gender. I would not call her an ageist though. I think she values someone who can capably present her opinion over someone who does not understand the value of presentation. If McCain presented her honest opinions in a professional way, she would be taken seriously. Here, McCain is the one who made the event seem like a sorority event.
Also, I do not think it is fair to compare the response to McCain to all sexist behavior. I do not think that it is entirely sexism (though there may be a touch of it). I think that the criticism of McCain is both about how she comes off on television as well as the fact that this girl really has done nothing to deserve her spot on Colbert or her blog on the National Review except be born. I repeat: she is the political Paris Hilton. All she has done to deserve this place is to follow around her father for two years. I'm sure that was a wonderful experience, but doing so does not mean you are suddenly a brilliant political mind. If she had gone on Colbert and been professional and insightful, no one would have questioned it, but she didn't do that. She has a book deal yet she comes off as a giggly little girl.
It reminds me of how I felt in 2002 when I graduated from college and so did Chelsea Clinton. I started a fellowship that paid $24,000 per year. Chelsea started a job making six figures in New York. I think she was "consulting." What skills did Chelsea's liberal arts education provide her that mine did not? Probably none. The difference was our last name. McCain is the same way. Warner thinks the Senator's daughter hasn't paid her dues either, but it's not because she isn't part of some liberal elite sorority. It's because she's got a book deal at 24 without having ever done anything except be born.
P.S. If you want to see snarky, you really should be thinking about what Laura Ingraham has said about McCain. It makes me feel like I am in high school.