The XX Factor: What women really think.

Lilies that Fester: Palin and the Beauty Penalty

Sara, I was intrigued by your post (Palin May Be Pretty, But Her Poll numbers Aren't) noting that Palin's "supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes." I'm no Palin fan (though I can't get too worked up about the $150,000 wardrobe expenditure)—but I can't help wondering if Palin's sex appeal isn't actually hurting her, at this point.

I've blogged here before about the benefits—social and financial—our society hands out to those fortunate enough to be attractive. Reasearchers call it the "beauty premium." But ... it turns out that there's also a "beauty penalty." One 2006 study found that:

People are more likely to trust a pretty face, but when that trust is betrayed, the backlash can be ugly. ... Numerous studies have shown that attractive people generally make more money, get higher reviews from their supervisors and are viewed as being more intelligent and trustworthy. What surprised researchers in this study was that subjects deemed attractive also were penalized more harshly for failing to live up to expectations.

 I wonder if that's what's happening to Sarah Palin now. Quoth the Sage:

For if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.

Ahem.

Palin May Be Pretty, but Her Poll Numbers Aren't

What I find interesting about the whole Palin sex-pot debate is that her supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes--even in previously die-hard red states, such as Colorado, where dudes are plentiful, and ammo girls are to be admired. For all the hoopla surrounding her nomination, Palin's appeal is as inflated as Susannah's blow-up doll. In fact, she has turned out to be a significant drag on the McCain ticket. According to the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, her perceived lack of qualifications is the number one concern voters have about voting for McCain--even above their fears about the economy or that McCain will continue Bush's policies. Turns out flawless make-up, a $150,000 wardrobe and all those winks haven't actually resulted in a lasting boost for McCain. I don't think this is sexism; I think Palin is being judged on her merits. After all, Republicans as diverse as Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell have argued that Palin is simply not ready to be President, which is the top job of Vice President.

By contrast, Gloria Steinem's looks complemented her substance. In her day, she likely needed the former to sell the latter. I certainly don't begrudge Steinem her beauty. A smart, sexy woman shouldn't be penalized for her looks. But in the case of Palin, we are supposed to accept her sex appeal in lieu of her qualifications. This pitch hasn't worked, which I think also helps explain everyone's sudden, belated appreciation of Hillary. Six months ago, Hillary was seen as a scold, even by many in her own party. Now, the pantsuits, the unbecoming hair, the lack of a beguiling voice and feminine wiles have never seemed more attractive. People are falling all over themselves to praise her--including Palin! (Who'd have thunk a Clinton would be embraced by the Republican party?) Hillary has set the bar very high for any woman who wants to follow in her footsteps. Indeed, Palin has been surrounded by middle-aged women at the top of their games--Katie Couric, Tina Fey and the newly arrived Rachel Maddow. The contrast has not been pretty.

Sarah Shops Saks

John Edwards' $400 haircut mattered because it added to the impression that he was a pretty boy. Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe makeover, paid for by the Republican National Committee at the cash registers of Saks, Neiman Marcus, and Barneys, matters for a kind of opposite reason: It explodes the idea that she's a middle-class woman of the people. In a sense, this is unfair. If Palin was wealthy, she'd have had the leather boots and tailored suits already. And if her look is hugely important to the McCain campaign, or at least to the crowds she draws, why shouldn't the RNC pay for it? Isn't her image a legitimate campaign expense?

Two reasons why this doesn't fly, I think. The first is that the price tag is just too high, too many teacher and nurse and firefighter salaries. The second is that all this money spent on clothes, etc., points out exactly how much Palin is trading on her sexuality, her winks, her look. You're right, Hanna and Susannah, she's owning her sex appeal. All $150,000 of it.