Well sheesh -- that doesn't make sense to a jerk like Patterico or the NYT.None of you men have ever had your intelligence and competence challenged because you don't fit the CW that plain women can be somewhat smart, but good looking women must be dumb.
I didn't see the interview, but I know the drill.
Smart women, especially good looking smart women, are expected to continuously prove that they're not a one trick pony. It's infuriating.
I've seen it many times in academe where most of the women are on the far side of the looks curve. Palin getting furious about more of the same, especially from a demonstratively dumb woman, is very understandable, if not very politic.
There's nothing to be gained by answering gotcha questions. There are an endless supply of them and eventually they'll come up with one you either don't know or can't remember.
Biden's multiple gaffes are chuckled over while if Palin made even one far less grievous, it would be up there with potato(e). She has nothing to gain by talking to Couric and her ilk.
She's a sitting governor and a candidate for vice-president, not a media star plugging her latest movie or TV show.
Palin's lasting contribution to women may be that she puts to rest the notion that a girl can't be a looker and a brain.
2 comments:
"...she puts to rest the notion that a girl can't be a looker and a brain."
I don't know. When I was at MIT our carefully measured empirical evidence indicated that:
brains * beauty * beauty = constant. :-)
That's a pretty small self-selected sample sir.
Post a Comment