Campbell's Calls Create Cognitive Dissonance

Campbell Brown, host of CNN's flagship program No Bias - No Bull, is currently outspoken and offended at the level of coverage regarding the recent RNC shopping spree for Governor Sarah Palin. Brown makes the valid point that women are disproportionately judged by their appearance, putting them at a disadvantage before even one policy statement is spoken. As I listened to Brown expound on her position, I found myself feeling a bit uncomfortable. In my analysis of the many Palin missteps, including the egregious amount of money spent on, shall we say, "appearance enhancers", have I entered the dangerous territory of throwing out the baby with the bath water? As a devout proponent of an egalitarian society,have I still been guilty of perpetuating negative stereotypes against women?

In these particular scenarios, women are placed in a no-win situation. If we neglect our appearance, or make choices that fail to register as "attractive" in the court of public opinion, we risk dismissal at first sight. Hillary Clinton would probably be the first to vouch for this phenomenon, considering the intense scrutiny her appearance has received from the moment she became a public figure. Unfortunately, her substantive campaign, more often than not, was upstaged by her looks. Her message got lost in critiques of her pantsuits, providing a clear mirror for the female archetype imposed by society. The 18 million cracks Hillary successfully struck in the glass ceiling did not remove the reflection of one's appearance, ostensibly the primary criteria used to evaluate women.

So, given all of these facts, let us return to the issue of current import. While this is a debate that is certainly worth the public's attention, it must be noted that Campbell Brown has championed Sarah Palin throughout the whole campaign. In late September Brown, on her program, implored Camp McCain to "Free Sarah", calling for a release of Palin to the press, giving her permission to speak freely. We've recently learned that Republican insiders have known Palin was being deliberately cloistered; Brown would have been privy to this information, being married to Republican consultant Daniel Senor, a contributor at Fox News. Now, as Palin's clothing allowance has come under the microscope, Brown has used this story as a platform to emphasize the fact that women are held to a different standard. I would never quibble with this claim. We are held to an almost impossible standard, so much so that during the Primary season it led me to speculate on what constitutes the ideal female image. We are expected to give good face, project a sense of balanced strength ( feminine and tough), and demonstrate proficiency in all intellectual matters. The last expectation is reasonable; the middle expectation is a bit more of a challenge ( how does one meet a standard of feminine, yet tough as nails?) but the first one is a downright double standard. Unattractive men have made fine leaders since time began. Where is the logic in a system that demands a woman be both an intellectual AND a beautiful fashion plate?

Campbell Brown has, indeed, offered us an opportunity to examine our priorities as a nation, particularly as they relate to measuring female fitness for leadership roles. However, while the emphasis on Palin's spendthrift whirl through two luxury department stores may have been overly played, let us not lose the significance of the judgment issue. It is definitely unreasonable to assert Palin would have been taken seriously had she campaigned in "Hockey Mom" attire, as has been suggested. It is also, however, reasonable to conclude Palin could have vastly reduced the cost of her "make-over", selecting Anne Klien or even Ralph Lauren in favor of Dolce and Gabana or Valentino. Campbell Brown complained about the "Diva" label attached to Palin, claiming it is one more extension of the unfair double standards applied to women. Upon further examination, I must say, if it walks like a Diva, and talks like a Diva, and demands like a Diva..... it's certainly not a duck.