The Commonplace article I read for today’s blog was entitled “Bad Sex.” The starting line mentioned something about the saying “sex sells.” I immediately thought to myself (quite smugly I should add), “Ha, yeah, that’s pretty much why I chose to click this particular article.” I thought it was going to be about the actual act, which would have been pretty interesting in my opinion, but it was actually about sexism and how the two lady candidates for the 2010 elections utilized it in their campaigns. It compared Hillary’s use of sexism to rake in the “pity votes”, to Sarah’s use of it to show that remained unfazed by Barack Obama’s sexist comments (which I am completely unfamiliar with….) I found it interesting how they used it in completely opposite ways to target certain emotions in the audience and get votes because of their gender. The article basically says that both uses of sexism were excessive and ineffective, because being a woman does not say anything about a candidate’s political capabilities. It all boils down to talent and leadership skills; what chromosomes you have in your body does not indicate how well you can lead the world’s most powerful country. I really liked the article because it was well-written and an easy read, and I hope that I can write something like it for my commonplace article. I’m not too familiar with the guidelines of it yet, so I’m not exactly sure what we’re supposed to write about, but I’m hoping to hear more about it soon.
I agree that bing born a woman has nothing to do with her political capabilities. However, no one should deny women do have the talent and ability to make political decisions.
ReplyDeleteYes, gender definitely does not have anything to do with things like that. Candidates should be judged based on what he or she has to offer, and not the "he" or "she" part.
ReplyDeleteI read that article too. It was interesting the way the paper discusses how the pity vote did'nt work out for Hilary.
ReplyDelete