Ellington

When Sarah Palin resigned from her post as Alaska’s governor last week, national political commentary buzzed with possible reasons for her rash departure.

Many wondered if it was a clever ploy for a 2012 presidential run. Others claimed such a sudden political abdication reeked terribly of a publicity stunt.

But CNN anchor Rick Sanchez spouted off the most contentious remark this side of Bristol Palin’s abstinence campaign: “Hey, could she be pregnant again?”

My own rather unfavorable view of the Alaskan politician aside, this ludicrous speculation oozed sexism. Sanchez, unsatisfied with suggestions of legal issues or ethics complaints casting Palin as somewhat of a lame duck — this last possibility confirmed by Palin herself — turned to biology to resolve the situation that so baffled him.

I imagine his thought process carved the following path of logic: Sarah Palin is a woman. Women get pregnant and take time off from work. Therefore, since Sarah Palin took time off from work, she must have another bun in the oven.

While I must commend your excellent deductive skills, Rick Sanchez, your opinion of women is clearly lower than your IQ. You seem to imply that a pregnant woman is incapable of adequately doing her job, forgetting that, as with men, there are numerous reasons a woman might resign.

Sanchez’s reasoning proves even more foolish when compared to Palin’s personal history. The last time Palin gave birth, in April 2008, she didn’t let being the mother of a Down syndrome-afflicted child interfere with her job. She entertained a whopping three days of maternity leave, and then it was back to “huntin’ and fishin’ and watchin’ hockey” — I mean, running the state.

This is just one example of the sexism female politicians face for choosing such a public career. Either they’re portrayed as sexless vehicles for their little tykes, or, conversely, they’re hypersexualized and commodified.

During voting season, the nation swelled with disapproval after receipts from Palin’s lavish campaign makeover went public. When Hillary Clinton dared to don a V-neck blouse, we couldn’t stop gabbing about her cleavage. What’s wrong with us? Are we unable to separate female politicians from their gender?

Barack Obama doesn’t make the tabloids for committing any fashion crimes, and you can bet that no one cares which color tie he wears to the next global conference. And while we may clutter cyberspace with ruminations on male politicians’ notorious affairs, we’re not demeaning them with endless chatter about such privacies as vasectomies or Viagra use.

The bottom line is that when women in power are publicized for their baby bumps or their taste in pantsuits rather than their policies, they’re being treated unfairly. We’re telling them that we’re more intrigued by their bodies than what comes out of their mouths, and this is a sorry, sexist precedent.

Yes, Palin’s resignation was oddly unanticipated. But let’s maintain a little respect for those who opt to live their lives almost entirely in the public eye, subjected to a kind of scrutiny most of us can’t possibly fathom.

Reach Features Editor Rachel Solomon at opinion@dailyuw.com.