aWpTiMuS

Some have said the attacks on Sarah Palin over the clothes controversy are sexist. Their arguments are that if she were male she wouldn’t be getting this criticism. This ignores the hair cut controversy with the now shunned John Edwards. Yes, the invective may have been sex specific — calling her a diva — but the criticism really has to deal with a disconnection from the “common man” with respect to how much one thinks they need to spend on looks. The most I’ve ever spent on hair was $75, and to me that’s the upper limit of expense. I was really concerned with looks at that point, but it’s still my upper limit.

However, I do accept the explanation that they bought many sizes, styles, etc because they didn’t have time to take her shopping and fit everything, and that Gov. Palin herself had nothing to do with the matter and would not have wanted these expenses in her name. I just want to say that it’s not sexist, it’s about exploitation of expense accounts for looks, and it’s only the characteristics that involve sex.