This is a fucking joke, right? Barack Obama uses a terribly cliche’ analogy – “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” – to describe McCain’s strategy, and in response, the McCain campaign* turns around and accuses Obama of making a sexist attack on Gov. Palin. Check out the ad they put out today:
McCain has yet to apply any of his much-vaunted “honor” to his presidential campaign. Indeed, his campaign is everything but honorable. But, you know, I’m not really shouldn’t be surprised by McCain’s willingness to use breathtakingly dishonest tactics. McCain has an almost preternatural belief in his inate goodness and incorruptability (his “maverickness,” if you will). In his mind, he’s allowed to run a ridiculously dishonest campaign, since his shameless lying is “in service” of his country, and thus doesn’t really “count.” And so we see McCain repeatedly distort and lie about every aspect of Obama’s record:
- Obama supported sensible legislation allowings schools to teach kindergardeners how to identify sexual predators, and McCain attacks him for promoting “sex” to children**.
- Obama supports slowing the Pentagon’s Future Combat Systems program, a major (and very, very expensive) effort to upgrade existing military technology and implement advances in computer technology and robotics. Considering that it’s largely designed for set-piece warfare, and we’re currently focused on fighting an insurgency, slowing it’s development seems like a sensible thing to do. So sensible in fact, that McCain supported it. But now that he’s running for president, he’s entirely willing to radically distort Obama’s statement, and portray him as being against general military funding*** (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, frankly).
- The McCain campaign has been telling middle class audiences that Obama’s fiscal plan will raise their taxes. Which is funny, because the general consensus thus far is that Obama’s plan will lower taxes for the middle class. Moreover, while Obama’s plan will add 3.5 trillion dollars to the national debt, McCain’s will add a staggering 5 trillion dollars to our national debt. But, of course, McCain is a Republican, which means he’s a “fiscal conservative.”
McCain and Palin are engaged in serial total fabrications. And almost no one calls them on it. The New York Times, which found the space to run a puffy piece on Palin’s family on its front page the other day, hasn’t found similar space to run a story under a headline like, “McCain-Palin Claims Stretch Credulity, Some Say.”CBS and CNN have finally gotten around to running reports that pretty much state outright that Palin is lying about the bridge. ABC’s Jake Tapper plainly called out the “truth squad” on the lipstick story. McClatchy did a strong fact-check of the McCain education ad. But for the most part, the media treats it all as entertainment, a matter of which side has seized the offensive.
The McCain team knows all this. So they consciously promote lies, knowing that no real mechanism exists to stop them from doing so. [...]
Once again, the media is completely abdicating it’s responsibility to be an honest broker in our political process, and once again, that abdication might result in another manifestly unfit Republican ascending to higher office.
But this race is now a test of the media too. You’d think after being told in the run-up to the Iraq war a bushel of things that didn’t end up being true that they printed anyway, they’d have given some thought to the question of how not to let themselves be manipulated like that again. But it is happening again, and the media are getting played in exactly the same way.
It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.
{ 4 trackbacks }
{ 38 comments }
Agree with the bulk of this post, but the lipstick on a pig analogy IS sexist, from Obama or McCain.
The media is doing an awful job covering the election. They are going straight for the sensationalism and neglecting the issues. Also they haven’t gone after McCain for his immoral ad’s accusing Obama of basically being a weirdo for wanting to teach kids about sex.
Too bad that one article is from a UK paper. It makes sense though the American media are a bunch of fucking pussy’s. Hopefully the bloggers like yourself can turn back this election to Mr. Obama.
I heard that on NPR this morning. How is what Obama said sexist? If it was, then it was also sexist of Sarah Palin to compare hockey moms to dogs (Pit Bulls, specifically).
I hate Republicans.
Whatever you do, do not scroll down and read the youtube comments on McCain’s ad. *headdesk*
RMJ,
How is the analogy sexist?
I wonder why the five McClatchy newspapers in South Carolina — The State in Columbia, The Sun News in Myrtle Beach, The Herald in Rock Hill, The Beaufort Gazette and The Island Packet in Hilton Head Island — didn’t write an editorial about this in their papers today? I am hoping that they will all sharply criticize McCain over this tommorrow.
How is the analogy *not* sexist is the more appropriate question.
Unfortunately in this universe, McCain/Palin are a complete travesty *and* Obama can’t keep the sexism out of his own rhetoric.
One, I agree with this post. Two, I was also rubbed the wrong way by the lipstick comment when I first read it.
However: After thinking about it, I had to conclude that I reacted the way I did first because the “pitbull with lipstick” comment saturated many of the articles I’d been reading lately, and consequently made a leap to it when I read Obama’s quote. (Over at Hullabaloo, dday says “Ben Smith picked up on this too, claiming that “The crowd apparently took the “lipstick” line as a reference to Palin,” because I’m sure he asked them all.” I think that there’s a good chance that many of the media blowhards made the same connection, because the “pitbull” comment has seeped into their minds as a ‘cute’ way of referring to Palin.)
There’s a good article over at Shakesville right now, dealing with the “lipstick” kerfluffle, and using context as a way of differentiating between a dog-whistle and a common turn-of-phrase. In this particular case, I wish the Obama campaign had realized what the media was going to do and used a different metaphor; but the fault lies with the McCain campaign for pitching hissy fits simply for their own benefit and with the media for making this an issue and not McCain’s disdain for feminist issues like Lily Ledbetter or the New Jersey 4.
Q Grrl,
That, unfortunately, didn’t answer my question. How is the analogy sexist? I can see how it would be sexist if applied to Sarah Palin, but it wasn’t, in fact, Obama didn’t even mention Sarah Palin. So again, how is it sexist?
I don’t really think it’s appropriate to refer to a woman as a pig, or as any sort of animal. She is a woman. Refer to her as such. (This goes for Palin too – why call yourself a pitbull? It doesn’t make you or the dog look good.) It’s disrespectful to do otherwise. McCain’s camp claims that Obama was going off of her pit bull joke, so it was specifically directed towards Palin and not caricaturing the Republican party as a whole. I think they’re overstating the case a bit – looking at the context, I don’t think that Obama was referring so much as alluding to the pit bull joke.
But the “lipstick on a pig” joke is plain old sexist regardless of whether it’s referring to the GOP or a health-care plan. I don’t take the idiom by itself to mean a literal pig with lipstick – I believe it’s referring to an unattractive woman who tries to gussy herself up with makeup but is still ugly. Is that not sexist? Is there some level to this joke that I am not getting?
It is harmful to repeat such jokes, even in different contexts. I was irritated when McCain made the “when did you stop beating your wife” joke in reference to gotcha questioning, I was irritated when he made the “lipstick on a pig” joke in reference to universal health care, and I’m irritated that Obama perpetuated the idea that harmful, sexist jokes/analogies are appropriate with this reference. He needs to be more careful with his language if he wants real change.
@Andy
Excuse me, the American media are a bunch of fucking WHAT???
One other thing, Jamelle – and thanks for being so patient and respectful of our comments:
One of the most quoted-lines from Palin’s speech had to do with comparing herself to an animal with lipstick. I don’t think that Obama’s use of a similar analogy – animal, lipstick, and how the latter doesn’t change the former – can be seen as NOT referring or alluding to Palin. The pitbull-lipstick reference is fresh – less than a week old – and Obama and his speechwriters knew exactly what it would remind listeners/readers of. I think it’s a pointed reference/allusion, even if it’s not explicit. It’s disrespectful and disappointing.
RMJ,
As far as I know, the “lipstick on a pig” meant to be literal. It’s not referring to an unattractive woman, it’s literally referring to a pig with lipstick on. Indeed, the power of the analogy comes from it’s sheer absurdity. That is it’s accepted meaning, whether you take it as such or not.
The “lipstick on a pig” line refers to trying to dress something bad up and make it good. Sort of like changing the curtains in a room–you can change the curtains, but if the room was a mess before, it will still be a mess after you change the curtains.
I can see that in the context of Sarah Palin’s remarks about bulldogs and lipstick why this choice of phrase might be ill-advised, but as Jamelle pointed out, Obama wasn’t talking about Palin at all.
Yeah, Andy… welcome to a feminist blog. If you’re going to leave ridiculous comments that are totally inappropriate in a feminist space, at least know how to spell “pussies.”
It… it wasn’t sexist. It would be sexist if you referred to Palin that way, but Obama was referring to McCain’s policies, suggesting that you can dress them up anyway you want, (put lipstick on a pig) but that won’t change what they are (a pig). He also said you could wrap a fish in newspaper but it would still stink, and so on. Please, please don’t buy into this bad-faith decrying of sexism.
Jamelle – Women are never referred to as pigs? A cursory internet search didn’t turn up any conclusive results as to its origin, but the gendered nature of the object being used to fancy up the “pig” strongly suggests to me that this is not literal. As long as we don’t know the origin of the term, I don’t see why we should assume that this is not sexist. Obama doesn’t get a pass on this from me at least.
And, as I said in a previous post, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Obama makes a lipstick/animal analogy a week after Palin’s well-publicized pitbull/lipstick joke at the RNC.
RMJ,
I hate to sound like an Obama apologist – which I’m not, even though I really like the guy – but the “lipstick on a pig” line has been a part of his stump speeches for awhile now. I doubt that he had Palin in mind when he said the line, now, I’m sure that he realized it as soon as he said it, but I don’t think it was intentional.
Even McCain has used this same anology. As have many other politicians before them. It’s regularly used in almost every election.
Why, oh, WHY would Obama say something like that about Palin? It could very well ruin his entire campaign if he actually did that. He’s not a moron. He’s certainly not McCain or Palin, both of whom make sly sexist comments all the time (the whole Pitbull thing is a good example).
RMJ,
I never said that women are never called pigs, I just don’t think that this analogy refers to women in particular. Yes, lipstick is a gendered item, but it is also something commonly associated with beauty. Which is why, again, it is effective in this analogy.
My approach to a lot of things like this is simply to apply Occam’s Razor; in this case, it seems like you have to go through a lot of interpretation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion that the analogy is sexist. Considering that the analogy is effective on it’s face, and that it clearly relies on absurdity as a means to communicate it’s meaning, I’m inclined to say that it isn’t intrinsically sexist. And, as an aside, I don’t think it’s a terribly good idea to presume sexism in the absence of any evidence. Unless we’re talking about someone like Rush Limbaugh, then it’s a little unfair.
RMJ said: “I don’t really think it’s appropriate to refer to a woman as a pig, or as any sort of animal. She is a woman. Refer to her as such.”
My response: Obama wasn’t talking about Palin when he said this. He was talking about McCain. Watch the video again. You’ll see that Obama was clealy talking about this whole change meme that the Republicans are now appropriating.
I agree that there are some sexist connotations to the phrase lipstick on a pig (i.e., women wear lipstick to make themselves attractive, but if you’re a “pig” no amount of lipstick in the world will make you attractive to men).
One concern I have, though, with yours and others condemnation of Obama for saying this is why are we holding him accountable for a phrase that’s been repeated for hundreds of years? It’s like Obama can’t be just an average politician, he’s got to be a messianic politician–which is an oxymoron. I have no problem attacking the sexist root of the phrase, but we need to address this on the cultural level and not expect a politician to take on the cause of deconstructing linguistics.
“As far as I know, the “lipstick on a pig” meant to be literal. It’s not referring to an unattractive woman, it’s literally referring to a pig with lipstick on. ”
If this were the case, then the comment would run more like “you can put a bow tie on a pig, but it’s still a pig”. The part about the pig is true in both scenarios, but nothing has the degrading quality quite like lipstick.
Let’s clarify something: Obama didn’t make up the “lipstick on a pig” analogy. It is an analogy which is in fairly common usage throughout the United States.
This is a good point. We live in a society where the default (when we’re speaking exclusively of gender and not including other parameters like race, class, ability, sexual orientation, etc.) is invariably male, but in this analogy, it isn’t. I don’t think it’s reaching to question why that is, and if there’s a sexist reason behind it.
I only saw this on headlines this morning and was dismayed — when I thought Obama had actually referred to Sarah Palin as a pig with lipstick on. It turns out this was a huge lie — and I think it’s a huge stretch to say that just because she also made a comment involving an animal wearing lipstick in the last week, that it was an underhanded reference to her intended to smear her as a tarted-up pig. Taking a sentence out of context and juxtaposing it with something else — in effect, changing the context and therefore the meaning — is one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book.
That said, I agree that the whole “lipstick on a pig” thing is sexist. But it’s sexist because of the “peacock role” sexism of our culture in general. Lipstick’s used in this aphorism because prettying and dressing things up, visual artifice, concealing ugliness or fat, and false appearance of attractiveness is all much more strongly associated with feminine roles than with masculine ones. That’s why the bowtie analogy that Q Grrl made doesn’t have the same “ring” to it — it doesn’t have centuries upon centuries of misogyny and negative connotations associated with it. In fact, by conventional wisdom you probably COULD put a bowtie on a pig and it would make the pig “sharper dressed.”
But all of that is a little different than targeting a political opponent who’s a woman with a sexist attack. It comes as no surprise, unfortunately, that deeply ingrained, normalized sexism like “pig in lipstick” idioms are everywhere in our public discourse, being employed by both campaigns. It’s a dog bites man story, as gross as that is. The man bites dog story is what the McCain campaign is trying to manufacture from whatever scraps they can find — and it’s using faux-feminism to very cynical ends. That feels like something new to be, and something disturbing.
Felicia, I’m not trying to hold him accountable for the phrase, but he absolutely is accountable for his use of a phrase that’s questionable at best. I am not condemining him more than McCain, only questioning him. Actually, I think that others are going out of their way to defend him, and I have to question that. I am an Obama supporter, but this did not sit well with me, and I wonder why everyone else is giving him a pass.
I am aware that he was not directly referencing Palin when he used the phrase. My argument is that his choice of analogy was pointed and intended to recall Palin’s pitbull/lipstick comment.
And jamelle, I don’t think that Occam’s Razor applies just because I analyzed his use of a phrase. My logic wasn’t roundabout or circuitous; language is murky and tricky and should be analyzed in depth, especially with the carefully considered words of a seasoned politician. Furthermore, I don’t think that anyone here said or implied that Obama coined this phrase – part of the point of this discussion is that McCain used it too.
@RMJ
Isn’t pig a fairly common insult to men too? (In fact, I think it’s even more commonly ascribed to men, as I shown in this delightful ad campaign for condoms! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6krr40mdHM) Maybe Obama was being sexist… but against men! Men who like to wear lipstick. Is there a whole transvestite/transexual angle to this ridiculousness that we haven’t discovered yet?!?
Crap, I don’t know. This is hard.
I think I’ll just avoid using the word pig in any form, since it has been used as an insult. Maybe if and when I am trying to dispel the false notion that I am elitist and want to use a country colloquialism I will say something like ‘You can coat a muskrat in molasses but it’s still going to be a medium-sized semi aquatic rodent.’ That will really show that I am one of the common people.
@Jamelle Yeah I am with you about Occam’s razor bit, or as I try to think the whole innocent until proven guilt (at least beyond a reasonable doubt). I think this is even more important when it comes to language.
Also, thanks Jamelle for writing this article. I would direct you over to the Reason article about this latest media hyped bit of fluff (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128711.html) but I have a sneaky suspicion that the audience for that blog and the audience for this blog wouldn’t get a long. Still, they do a good job about showing every friggin time a republican has used the phrase, which -if nothing else- show how stupid it is for Reps to make a big deal about this.
I don’t buy that Obama’s use of “lipstick on a pig” was a calculated move. The folksy but tired phrase has been in use for a lot longer than Palin’s convention speech. Yes, Palin has characterized herself as “a pitbull with lipstick” but to assume that “lipstick” is reference closely associated with Palin in the public’s mind (or Obama’s) over repetition over years of an American English idiom, strains credulity.
The standard shouldn’t be “could someone draw a connection between these two elements” (i.e. women and lipstick) but rather context, popular use, and intention. Melissa over a Shakesville made a good point about this: lipstick on a pig isn’t inherently sexist because it contains a gendered element (it isn’t holding up some sort of negative standard for beauty nor is it criticizing women for failing to live up to a male-defined standard).
Is McCain ready to own up to his own apathy around and roundly condemn Citizens United Not Timid? How about owning up to giggling at the “how do we beat the bitch” question, and promise to not encourage misogynist language like that anymore on his watch?
If find his crocodile tears about misogyny *now* when he’s been quite the beneficiary and peddler of that drek himself to be downright insulting. I’m not stupid, McCain. Have a nice hot cup of STFU.
@Lokon
“Crap, I don’t know. This is hard.”
Everything about Palin is very very challenging for me. It’s so murky to defend a candidate whose views you hate. But she needs defense – I feel like all sides of the media, liberal, feminist (not this post specifically), conservative, and apathetic, have said some really fucked-up things about her. Even though I want to see her go down, I want it to be for the right reasons.
OK, new rule, everyone — NOBODY on the Democratic side gets to so much as MENTION the word “lipstick” until the election is over, because Sarah Palin used the word lipstick in a speech so now it’s hers, and ANY mention of it by anyone remotely politically opposed to her must automatically be construed as sexist and insulting.
I mean, that’s basically what the McCain/Palin campaign is going for here, right?
Holly:
I think a “bow-tie” in particular is a bad choice of comparison, since that was Porky Pig’s common attire. The goal of the “lipstick on a pig” analogy is to create an absurd image in the mind of the listener. A bow-tie wearing pig isn’t very effective, because there’s a well-known bow-tie wearing pig in the American culture: Porky Pig, of Looney Toons fame.
Would you consider “dress up a pig” to be similarly gendered? I’ve seen a number of uses of that phrase as well, and I think it’s just as effective.
Or I could be totally wrong. At any rate, the McCain campaign’s claim that Obama was calling Palin a pig is a flat-out lie, regardless of any latent sexism embedded in the turn of phrase.
RE: Comment #34, where Doug says, “… that’s basically what the McCain/Palin campaign is going for here, right?”
Exactly. McCain’s staff wrote every word of Palin’s convention speech, including the “lipstick” phrase, which was a foreseeable setup in classic GOP style [this is not argued sarcastically].
Obama should have been prepared for this. Voters will forget the “lipstick” SNAFU, but Obama has to start recognizing GOP traps and tactics and be prepared to move around them.
I’m just going to put Melissa’s take out there [link] and voice my disappointment that the mainstream media isn’t taking McCain/Palin to task for real pigs-in-lipstick lies, like how goddamned important opposition to earmarks (i.e. pork barrel spending, no pun intended) is to their campaign when Palin is, like, the reigning queen of pork barrel spending, with or without lipstick.
I agree with Jamelle on the issue of whether or not the phrase is literal. I’ve always taken it literally, as being about the animal with a snout that rolls around in dirt. That being said, something has always rubbed me as slightly off about the phrase, which is partially why I don’t use it. And I honestly think that you can make arguments about whether or not it’s sexist in either direction. I do think that calling Obama sexist on the basis of using a very common if silly phrase towards a concept rather than a person is rather iffy. The “sweetie” thing was sexist and condescending. But “lipstick on a pig” as a dig at Palin, or even as a negative reference to women and/or femininity in general, I’m not at all buying.
“But “lipstick on a pig” as a dig at Palin, or even as a negative reference to women and/or femininity in general, I’m not at all buying.” One wouldn’t, without the context of a praised line in Palin’s own speech. That makes it a reference to her, with enough deniablity for Obama to pretend he didn’t mean it (and divert a lot of energy into discussing this instead of his many other flaws). If only as much passion had been spent defending Hillary Clinton against the far more ridiculous claim that her reference to RFK amounted to putting out a contract on Obama.
I think it’s obvious that Obama used this phrase with Palins comment in mind. But so what, that doesn’t mean it’s sexist or a personal attack on Palin. It’s just good rhetoric. I don’t see why he can’t play on other candidates words. I bet he has played on some of McCains words in the past. So has McCain in regards to Obama. It’s politics, it’s rhetoric. But not sexist or any kind of personal attack.
On the other side though, Obama probably shouldn’t have said what he said, but who could know the republicans would spin this? It’s absurd!
I am so tired of the repubs using ANYTHING and I do mean ANYTHING to jab at Obama with that I could puke. I’m ready for him to just let McCain have it. I wish he’d just up and read him the riot act. A man can only take so much!
Comments on this entry are closed.