Stop the lies
Here’s Sarah Palin on contraception and sex ed:
“I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also.”
I put that right at the top of the post so you wouldn’t miss it.
The Letterman embroglio is giving the faux feminists another opportunity to spread lies about Sarah Palin. According to them, Palin is some kind of hypocritical purity queen, and as such, she and her family are fair game:
By dragging Willow into the dust-up, the Palins are again able to divert attention away from the real issues involving their oldest daughter. Bristol is an 18-year-old unmarried mother who is going through baby-daddy drama. As such, her life mocks the family values conservatives such as her mother preach.
First of all, Sarah Palin doesn’t preach anything. As for what she believes, look at the top of the post! See? See the words, “I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues”?
Less clear is what she believes about premarital sex. She herself had sex before marriage, and she may or may not believe she made a mistake. I’ve never heard her say anything about it — which is kind of the point. The commonplace claim that Sarah Palin is some kind of godbag warrior who rails against premarital sex is simply false.
Bristol Palin, bless her heart, does seem to have decided after a few months of motherhood that abstinence is definitely the best policy. That isn’t hypocrisy, either; it’s obviously a response to her own experience.
Stop lying. Just stop it.
For the record: Sarah Palin on feminist issues
Sarah Palin on combining motherhood with a career: “To any critics who say a woman can’t think and work and carry a baby at the same time, I’d just like to escort that Neanderthal back to the cave.”
Sarah Palin on her ability to govern Alaska while raising children: “My answer would always be … that I’m going to do the job just as well as any male governor who had kids, you know, I think we can handle this.”
Sarah Palin on raising her children to embrace gender equality: “Because I have both boys and girls I have a greater respect for equality and making sure that gender is not an issue and that everyone is treated equally.”
Sarah Palin on being a “pro-life feminist”: “I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life.”
Sarah Palin on contraception and sex education: “I’m pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also.”
Sarah Palin on whether she would support an abortion ban in Alaska if Roe v. Wade were overturned: “It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.”
Sarah Palin on a woman president and endorsing McCain instead of Hillary (March 2008): “But I have to admit a little bit of guilt there for not being able to jump on Hillary’s bandwagon, because I would so love to see a woman president. I think our nation is overdue there. So, I’ve said along, ‘Heck yeah, America’s ready for a woman president.’”
Sarah Palin on being the first female governor of Alaska: “I’m the first female governor in Alaska, so that’s brought with it kind of a whole new chapter in Alaska’s life. Like my husband — up here they refer to him as the ‘first dude,’ not the first gentleman. And Todd… A whole new chapter here when Todd is asked to do things like — and he graciously complies and he has a good time doing it — hosting, as he did a couple of weeks ago down in Juneau, our capital city, the former first ladies tea party. And he does just great at things like that, as well as working in oil fields, with snow machines and in commercial fishing. That’s a dynamic here that’s of interest to others.”
Sarah Palin on Title IX, sports, and growing up with gender equality: “You know I grew up with Title IX, and sports were so big, and in my upbringing very instrumental in shaping my character and a need to compete and really to win. So because of a very athletic background and growing up in a family, a busy large family, where gender never was really an issue there. My dad expected us to be back there chopping wood and snowmachining with the rest of them, hunting and fishing and doing all those things that are quite Alaskan.”
Sarah Palin on sports, scholarships, and the beauty pageant: “Graduating high school in 1982 there weren’t a whole lot of high-school athletes, females going on to college to play sports yet. That’s what I was looking for, a scholarship in athletics. I didn’t get one, the next best thing would be the Miss America scholarship pageant where at least you had to show that you had a talent. I played the flute and was really into music so, you know I won a couple of titles there, and it paid tuition through four, five years of college. So, that was OK, it wasn’t really my thing, I was never really comfortable with it, but it paid for some college, though.”
Sarah Palin on the challenge for Hillary and other women candidates to appear “tough”: “I recognize that Hillary seems to be trying real hard to be tough, but I say, more power to her. I think she’s had to do that. It’s unfortunate that she’s had to do that, but she comes across to me as tough, capable. I can respect that in her, that she is that tough, capable and experienced and all that….I recognize that’s what she’s trying to do and I think it’s unfortunate that maybe a woman candidate feels that she has to go there. You don’t see male candidates doing that.”
Sarah Palin on dealing with the double standard applied to women candidates: “Fair or unfair—and I do think that it’s a more concentrated criticism that Hillary gets on so many fronts; I think that’s unfortunate. But fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it, really. You have to plow through that and know what you’re getting into. I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo. But when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don’t think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or not fair it is there. I think it’s reality and it’s a given, people just accept that she’s going to be under a sharper microscope. So be it. Work harder, prove to yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate.”
Also related:
- What Palin ACTUALLY said…: Palin on global warming, evolution, abortion, etc.
- Just imagine: a woman in the White House who’s proud to call herself a feminist: Palin on what feminism means to her.
- This is what a conservative feminist looks like: Palin’s address on women’s rights.
- Feminists Against Women strike again: debunking the rape kit smear.
- If you vote for Obama, this is what you’re voting for (Reminder #14): debunking a variety of campaign smears, including this lie-filled email sent to a women’s rights mailing list (annotated by me with links):
“Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education [false], birth control [false], the pro-choice platform [true, but more nuanced than reported], environmental protection [false], alternative energy development [false], freedom of speech [false], gun control [true], the separation of church and state [false], and polar bears [debatable].”
86 Responses to “Stop the lies”
-
disgusted says:
It’s nice to read something by a true feminist.
As opposed to the bullshit put out by Feministing.
June 13th, 2009 at 9:40 pm EST -
Anna Belle says:
You’re darn tootin’ about Bristol’s natural reaction after her experience. After I found myself pregnant and deserted by my mate, I didn’t have sex again for almost four years. I didn’t miss it, either. I know, what gall. Heh.
I’m so glad you wrote this. I am already sick to death over this story. My husband started to tell me about it the other night, affected by the macho media as he often is until I reset the frame for him, he presented as something that was overblown and stupid. I asked him if he knew that the daughter Palin had with her NY was 14 year old Willow and NOT 18 year old Bristol, and he changed his tune right quick. He hadn’t known, but once he did, it was obvious on the face of it. What Letterman did was unforgivable and he ought to be fired. His rating suck anyway. If his bosses were smart…
-
Toonces says:
Publicly critiquing Clinton for “whining” AND for being too tough are examples of Palin’s feminist cred? I’m not arguing she isn’t one, or that she is, just…HUH???
-
Violet says:
None of those quotes are “examples of Palin’s feminist cred.” They’re just Palin’s own words — her actual statements and beliefs, as opposed to the nonsense attributed to her.
I suspect that now, a year and a half after that remark, she has an amplified appreciation for the sexism thrown at women politicians.
My own estimation is that Palin’s views are about average for American women.
-
Nora says:
It disturbs me that Palin and Clinton are treated as “whiners” by the Media if they don’t excuse the inexcusable sexism and misogyny when it’s directed at them. Palin brushes off the “slutty” stewardess remark and Hillary laughs off the ‘breast fondling’ antics of Obama’s lapdog Favreau. They can’t count on feminist leaders or women journalists to condemn the actions.
As for Palin’s remark: For years the media treated Bill and Hillary’s claims of right wing media bias as sour grapes and even ‘whining’. A lot of people woke up and saw the truth behind Hillary’s claims during the 2008 election travesty. Based on Palin’s conduct after getting into the race, I believe her experience changed her view as well.
-
Lexia says:
Thank you for posting these yet again. Can’t believe they’re still needed, but then “feminists” have yet to admit their “Donate to Planned Parenthood to spite that anti-contraceptive Sarah” campaign had no basis in reality. The same feminists who backed Zero against a real Democrat “just because”.
Just for a cute break: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNy9jTeolUk
(h/t shopstewardess at Twisty’s place)Not that Gov. Palin resembles them in anything but attitude, but I love the way momma moose don’t take nothin off anyone. Anyone who’s ever been around these critters knows not to mess with their babies.
-
sister of ye says:
More than one male politician, such as John Kerry, has stated that while he personally is opposed to abortion, he’d respect the law of the land. Progressives patted these guys on the back. Yet for having the same position, Palin is dragged over the coals.
Palin assumes that women are capable of deciding either way on our own. Unlike a certain “feminist” who states that women get abortions becausse they’re blue, and feels they must drag in their husband, other family and a religious advisor to decide what to do about their own bodies.
-
myiq2xu says:
If Sarah Palin is so terrible, why do they have to lie about her so much?
-
soopermouse says:
bingo.
Maybe they’re scared because consevative women are not supposed to have brains. Seems to me many of the feminist scarlet crusade feel that their is the only way and anyone who doesn’t comply is either a monster or a stepford wife. -
SYD says:
If it were not for a few PUMA blogs… I really do not know where I’d get my news!
Making the rounds paying for my morning reads today…
Thanks Dr. Socks!
SYD
-
anon says:
Thank you for gathering these quotes, it is really interesting and helpful to read. It is hard to fight through the 2-D stereotypes painted by all media, and this is an interesting picture of sarah palin here.
-
SYD says:
Dr. Socks,
Just dropped you a little donation… for being one of the best commentators on the web!
Thanks again!
SYD
-
yttik says:
Palin has always been pro-contraception.
But I remember when abstinence only became a talking point of the right several years ago. Back than I got that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach over the way people ridiculed it. I’m not a fan of abstinence only, but the criticism of it was filled with misogyny. One of the foundations of a our patriarchy, is that girls exist to serve men, sexually. They must be constantly primped, ready and willing. In fact, about 80% of their value to society involves being sexually available and desirable. If you don’t believe me, watch Degrassi High or the Disney channel.
Anyway, a piece of the abstinence only message involved telling girls they could say no. They could decide they weren’t ready, they wanted to wait, they wanted to focus on other things, like getting an education, like setting themselves up in a career.They could invest their energy in something other than sexuality. You don’t have to have sex to have value. The backlash against this was amazing. How dare you imply girls have a choice? How dare you send a message that they can say no? But it got all lost and hidden behind politics. If you even mentioned that girls could choose to be abstinent, you were a rabid right winger, a christianist, a godbag. Eventually, in my progressive little community we went back to the very “liberal” approach to sex ed. Girls have a “choice”, they have a “choice” to say yes and have sex, they have a “choice” to bear all the responsibility for preventing pregnancy. They have a “choice” to be educated about boys uncontrollable urges. They are receptacles and it is their responsibility to protect boys from any inconvenience or consequence. They have a “choice” to be ridiculed for getting pregnant, for getting an abortion, for saying yes or for saying no.
I got to participate in a really good date rape prevention program for teens a few years ago. One of the scariest things was talking to these girls and listening to how they had been programmed.They didn’t believe they had a right to say no and they thought that 80% of rape was a girls fault. We introduced some “radical” ideas, like if he really does have uncontrollable urges, nature gave him a hand to take care of himself with. No means no, and it’s actually his job to determine if his partner is enthusiastic, not how much she is resisting. The bad part is that once again this was group that focused on educating girls, when in fact the responsibility for all things to do with sexuality should be shared between the sexes.
-
datechguy says:
I oppose Gay marriage but it pretty pathetic to see a president so willing to play his supporters and his supporters doing their best Baghdad Bob impersonation to convince themselves they aren’t being played.
Neither is healthy for the republic.
-
datechguy says:
oops wrong thread too many windows open
-
Kali says:
yttik, I used to be puzzled by the left’s anti-abstinence position. They seemed to be against it even as a choice, even as something that could be included in sex education along with education about contraception. Pro-abstinence was equated with anti-contraception. Some of this was the fault of conservatives who pushed for abstinence-only programs, but the left even demonized those who taught anstinence as an option.
Now I am no longer puzzled. Many people on the left, especially men, are using the reproductive choice issue to push girls into being sex objects. They are doing this with Bristol Palin now, claiming that she is fair game for sexual abuse because she is advocating abstinence, even as a choice! They claim that Bristol Palin is opposed to sexual freedom for women because she is advocating abstinence. What twisted logic. Liberal dudes want women to have freedom to say only “yes”, but not “no”. What kind of freedom is that?
-
Elise says:
Thank you so much for this, Dr. Socks. I’m sorry it still has to be done but I’m really glad you did it. It means a lot to me that you are willing to take the time and make the effort to honestly and energetically represent a woman whose policy positions are so different from yours. More bloggers like you would make a world of difference to the level of discussion on the Internet.
And thanks also to the commenters who point out that part of abstinence education is - should be - teaching girls and young women they have a right to say no. I particularly like the comment about uncontrollable urges and hands. It gives a whole new meaning to the expression “talk to the hand”.
-
Sharon says:
This is why I always stop on this blog. It is one of the few places where sanity prevails. I couldn’t believe feminists didn’t scream over Letterman’s remarks. But hey, it was Palin, so she’s fair game. I hate that. The notion still prevails that feminists need to protect their own, but all women are not necessarily included in their own, and if not, then hey, it’s green light to take them down.
Seems like we almost need a way to distinguish between the feminists that think it’s ok to do this kind of thing (NOW, Feministing, etc.) that don’t really speak for feminists anymore…kind of like calcified feminists…as distinguished from the group of feminists that I would say Dr. Spock is leading, as a thought mother type…maybe tidal wave feminism?
-
Nina M. says:
Whoa - Violet, brilliant lady doctoress, blessed be the fruit of thy looms, but I’m not sure where the “faux feminists” charge is based - tepid and diminished as they are, NOW did say something about Letterman. As for Feministing et al - I confess I have no idea what they said or didn’t say, as I ignore them (for the good of the whole). Did they (and their ilk) fuck this one up too?
We (feminists) don’t have a powerful organization dedicated to media advocacy, the way we have powerful organizations that cover law, sexual and reproductive health and rights, lesbian (and gay) rights, diseases that affect mostly women (breast cancer, etc). Regardless of whether NOW or Fem Majority or one of the blogs like Feministing should be that group - they’re just not. There is a big gaping gap in the feminist landscape (or whatever).
What is my point? I’ve lost track of it myself. I think it was - which faux feminists, and also, personally, I’m beyond caring about those candy-coated suckers. Just point me towards an entity or idea for an entity that *can* and *will* get the job done.
@yttik and kali, re: abstinence only - I know what you mean about the tin ear among some progressives with regard to teaching / reinforcing to girls their option and right to say “no.” This was never the case with the feminist groups that actually work on sexual health and adolescent girl issues. The “how dare they teach girls that they shouldn’t have sex” attitude - I heard it myself many times - was more a problem of individuals spouting off, or feminists working in fields a few steps (or more) removed from actual living, human girls.
Once again, I forget what my point was. Oh well. Keep up the good work, and cheers, everyone. :-)
-
Violet says:
I’ve resisted using the term “faux feminists” or any other label, because hey, feminists aren’t perfect. But I do keep finding a need to refer to those soi-disant feminists who act like misogynistic freakazoids. I have a new category on the blog: Feminists Against Women. It makes me laugh, which is important. It’s for the “I’m a feminist but I’d like to murk that cunt” people. For the “We’re a feminist organization but we’re going to use the money you sent us to orchestrate a massive email smear campaign against a female politician” people. You know.
-
Toonces says:
Thanks for the clarification, Violet. I apologize for missing the point.
-
Nina M. says:
I like it. Thanks, Violet.
-
bluelyon says:
Thanks so much for this post. It came just as a Letterman/Olbermann apologist left a massive comment to my “Do You Have Our Back” post, in which he repeated this very lie and used it to justify “open season” on Sarah and Bristol.
In linking to your post I added:
For the record, this bleeding heart liberal had exactly the same view of contraception and abstinence as Sarah Palin when raising my daughter. I told her that waiting was better because sex really does complicate things, but if she couldn’t then practice safe sex and use contraception.
-
Sarah Palin and the Abstinence-Only Lie « Blue Lyon says:
[...] this lie in the comments below, and very coincidentally, Violet addresses this lie (and others) One More Time. Go read. Here’s Sarah Palin on contraception and sex [...]
-
sonia says:
Seriously. Thank you.
I grappled with the Palin virus during the election! People do assume things about her. That because she’s a Republican, blah blah blah. She’s also a parent and the head of her family, and her career takes precedence in her family life. I have never heard her personal character or obvious determination mentioned as personality traits-everyone is way more interested in the fact that her daughter had sex (at the age most people do), and the kind of shoes she wears. Her “hotness” completely blinded people, right wing and feminist, and her location on a Republican party ticket made feminist women simply unable to say anything supportive about her. I’m sorry, but I’m a woman first, and any bipartisan American political association comes second. Isn’t that a basic tenet of feminism? Fuckin A. We will get nowhere until women stop trashing women. Yeah, she’s pro life. I can’t change that. But I don’t have to tear her to shreds. There are way bigger jerks out there.
thanks for this-
-
JR says:
I don’t know what Palin’s views are about premarital sex, but I do know she favors forced pregnancy (i.e. abortions totally illegal) in cases of incest, and also in cases of rape. (see e.g. http://www.juneauempire.com/st.....9031.shtml) Palin would allow only a health-of-the-mother exception.
That doesn’t excuse sexist attacks on Palin, obviously - it’s totally unrelated.
But let’s not characterize Palin’s views on feminist issues as “about average for American women.” She is way off in right field. Even John McCain and President George W. Bush each always said they favored allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest!
-
Violet says:
But let’s not characterize Palin’s views on feminist issues as “about average for American women.” She is way off in right field.
She is only way off in right field if you consider abortion to be the only feminist issue. I don’t. She’s definitely in right field on that one — though I think her beliefs on that are less doctrinaire than people imagine. She talks about what she would “advise” or “counsel” a woman to do, she says she would not be in favor of any kind of penalties for abortion, she describes herself as having common ground with pro-choice women, and so forth. I suspect she’s like a lot of anti-abortion women I know: they think abortion is wrong and they don’t want anyone to ever have one, but they’re also unwilling to actually treat it as a crime. It’s a muddled, mixed-up kind of stance. I’m not defending it; I’m just saying it’s not quite as black-and-white as people pretend.
But back to your point: in terms of feminist views overall, I do think Palin is about average. That’s because I’m taking into account the full range of feminist issues and attitudes, and also taking into account the actual behavior of American women. Even many self-described feminists, as we learned last year, are basically misogynists. They hate other women, they’re deeply sexist, they have no compassion for or even interest in women who are victimized by pornography and prostitution, and on and on and on.
Also, most American women won’t even describe themselves as feminists, or use the kind of pro-woman language that Palin does.
So yeah, when you look at the spectrum of American women, I think Sarah Palin evens out.
-
Egallantry says:
@18 Sharon,
Rogue Wave Feminism.
“Media figures continue to suggest Clinton will pursue rogue agenda if named secretary of state” http://mediamatters.org/research/200811180015
“Palin’s ‘going rogue,’ McCain aide says” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html
-
JR says:
Well, if Palin is about average, I guess the spectrum of American women’s views looks scarier than I thought.
I agree that abortion is not the only issue, but I disagree with the suggestion that Palin’s position on abortion boils down to some view that she’d “advise” or “counsel” women not to get abortions. She does sometimes talk that talk, but she also explicitly takes the position that the law should force women to carry fetuses to term in cases of rape and incest, period. She has restated that position many times without weasel words like “advise” or “counsel.”
Leaving abortion aside, and I know this is off topic, but the crisis of rape and sexual assault in Alaska is massive and horrific. The stats say the rate of rape is more than double the U.S. average, but there are a lot of good reasons to believe it’s worse than the stats indicate (this is an old article, but a good one http://www.ruralwomyn.net/rape_rural.html). This issue was boiling over before Palin came on the scene. You can’t lay the blame for this horrific situation at her feet. But I do think it’s notable and profoundly depressing that she has done nothing to address the crisis.
Alaska is in crisis here; policy action is needed yesterday.
-
myiq2xu says:
JR:
Please provide a citation for your assertion that Sarah Palin “explicitly takes the position that the law should force women to carry fetuses to term in cases of rape and incest.”
also:
Please describe what actions Sarah Palin has taken to restrict or outlaw abortion in Alaska.
-
cellocat says:
JR says:
I don’t know what Palin’s views are about premarital sex, but I do know she favors forced pregnancy (i.e. abortions totally illegal) in cases of incest, and also in cases of rape. (see e.g. http://www.juneauempire.com/st…..9031.shtml) Palin would allow only a health-of-the-mother exception.
In the article you link to above, there is this pertinent sentence: “Smith said the important thing about Palin’s abortion views is that she wouldn’t be proposing new anti-abortion legislation, and that while her views on the subject are firm, she’s not running for office to advocate for them.”
Obama never made any secret of his opposition to gay marriage, but many people voted for him assuming that he wouldn’t actually actively work against it. Of course, that is turning out not to be the case…
But the point remains that having a certain view doesn’t necessarily mean political action on the part of a pol.
-
Kiuku says:
I don’t get it. I just don’t get how people can live in a world that is so radically different from reality.
-
Sis says:
Talk about weasel words. You are right, you can’t say the higher rape rapes are Palin’s fault. You just mention the two unrelated half-assed thoughts together, and the people who take gossip and slander for news will do the rest for you. As you know. What a coward you are, and also an object lesson in how the lies were propagated in the first place.
-
yttik says:
Often in places with higher rape statistics it simply means women are living in a community where they feel safe enough to actually report rape. I would never trust a community with low sexual assault statistics, (such as the one I live in), because all it means is that women have learned not to report rape because the system’s response will be almost as awful as the crime you just went thru.
-
Kat says:
In an earlier thread, we discussed the position that Letterman’s misogynistic attacks on Palin’s daughters were only bad insofar as they put (real, worthwhile) liberal women at risk. Example:
http://www.democraticundergrou.....id=5852733
And this poster was roundly *attacked* for saying this.
I honestly don’t think a lot of folks who identify themselves as Democrats and/or feminists see those who disagree with them as genuinely human. And it’s all the more disturbing because they have political and media power. It’s hard to know how to counter it.
-
Sameol says:
According to everyone I’ve ever met from Alaska there are more sex offenders there per capita than anywhere because criminals from the Lower 48 flee there to disappear. It’s a vast longstanding problem that may require more than Palin’s 2 years in office to solve.
-
yttik says:
“A belief in equal opportunity is not just the cause of feminists. It’s the creed of our country.”
-sarah palin
It’s kind of ironic that people would attempt to critisize palin for not doing enough to stop sexual assault in a post that points out how palin is trying to confront a system that believes joking about the statutory rape of young girls is an acceptable form of entertainment.
It is precisely the acceptance and glorification of violence against women, as well as the way it is permissible to dehumanize women, that has created the rape culture that we currently live in.
-
BabeinLA says:
This is a great compilation. I’m going to store it in my “rebuttal” file. There’ll be ample opportunity to send it off to some person who has annoyed me with a Palin comment.
-
Sis says:
Yes, Sameol. The same in Canada’s Arctic. Also, where there are fly-in mines and rigs, there are men who can’t get work anywhere civilized and who live in hideous porn soaked camps. And in Alaska and Canada’s Arctic, the majority of the resident population where they may take r&r is native. Native women are viewed as disposable as kleenex by these rig pigs.
-
Sis says:
I think apart from the defense of Letterman and all, we have to keep reminding ourselves who rapes. Men rape. Palin and the women men rape are not the problem. Men rape. What you’ve never raped a woman? All men who do not vociferously denounce this are rapists too.
-
Nell says:
Speaking of rebuttals, I need some help on this one.
A male friend of mine, who is an aficionado of late night talk shows, says that prison rape jokes are far more prevalent than jokes about men raping women or girls. He claims these jokes are equally “sexist” thus rendering rape jokes “gender neutral.”
I call BS. Claiming rape jokes are gender neutral is like saying that lynching jokes are race neutral. Furthermore, prison rape usually involves heterosexual male inmates preying on weaker men (who may be either hetero- or homosexual) , but who, in either case, are a substitute for a female victim. Prison rape victims are often referred to as “bitches,” given female names, and made to perform menial “women’s work.”
I say even prison male-on-male rape jokes are fundamentally misogynistic. What say you?
-
kenoshaMarge says:
I am often offended when watching some Law and Order show, like Law and Order and some remark is made about how some pedophile or rapist will be taken care of once he’s inside.
Which says to me that what we don’t have the guts to do in our judicial system we will allow criminals to do for us. (Note: I do not want an “eye for an eye”. I would prefer that miscreants be incarcerated where they can never harm anyone ever again.
As for the whole thing about the cretinous David Letterman and his penchant for making sexual remarks about teenage girls and his calling the Governor of Alaska a slut I am confused. Why do some women excuse this? Margaret Carlson, Tina Brown, several at Salon seem to find Sarah Palin the problem.
For me, it’s not the who, it’s the what. It doesn’t matter who is slandered or who’s child is spoken of in an inappropriate way. It’s the act that’s wrong. If you only care about the who then you obviously don’t give a damn about the what. And you also obviously aren’t a feminist. Partisanship gets in the way of being a feminist. IMHO.
Or am I missing something?
-
Kali says:
Nell, regardless of who is raped, it is almost always *men* who rape. They rape women/children whenever they can find women/children to rape. They rape men as substitutes for women/children when they can’t find women/children to rape. Rape is not gender-neutral and your male friend knows it. He is being intellectually dishonest and making self-centered justifications for rape-jokes he enjoys. Frankly, he doesn’t deserve to be your friend.
-
JR says:
Nell: yes, jokes about rape are fundamentally misogynistic, even/especially if they’re about men. If we make rape a laughing matter, who loses? Not the rapists. Also, the whole point of prison rape jokes is to laugh about the feminization of men. This is deeply, deeply, misogynistic. Joking about it obviously reinforces patriarchy.
miiq2xu asked for citations re Palin’s position that there should be no abortion exceptions for rape or incest. I don’t want to keep hammering at this point b/c I take Violet’s point that abortion is not the only issue; it’s also true that Palin (in the face of political opposition, according to the Anchorage Daily News) did not push additional abortion restrictions in Alaska as governor. But if you want citations re her position re rape and incest exceptions, see here:
(Annotation by Violet: note that the citations provided below by JR are not to statements by Palin, but to articles which simply assert what Palin believes — with no backup documentation.)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI.....index.html
(”Palin opposes abortion in all cases, including rape and incest, except when a mother’s life is in danger, and said she believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the decision given to the states.”)
or here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....0065_x.htm
or here:
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/518512.html
or here, where Palin told Dobson that McCain would implement the Republican Party’s draconian anti-abortion platform (which was actually closer to her views than McCain’s, I think):
http://marcambinder.theatlanti.....p_abor.php
etc… there are tons. These are not a bunch of pro-choice blogs - just your basic generic media reporting. In her famous Charlie Gibson interview she at first tried to fudge, but eventually did answer: “GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger? PALIN: That is my personal opinion.”I know this thread is really about jokes attacking Sarah Palin, so none of this is really on topic. But I thought I’d respond since somebody asked for cites. Among national Republican leaders, you are not going to find anyone with a stronger position than Sarah Palin on the point that abortion should be illegal. Don’t pretend that it’s just a “personal opinion,” as she tries to characterize it, when her opinion includes the necessity of overturning Roe. (And yes, I appreciate that Palin says she doesn’t want women going to jail, but every single national anti-abortion leader says that; whatever their personal views, they know Americans won’t accept locking women up for having abortions.)
-
alwaysfiredup says:
JR said:
“Don’t pretend that it’s just a “personal opinion,” as she tries to characterize it, when her opinion includes the necessity of overturning Roe.”Um, how exactly would she singlehandedly go about overturning Roe? And since when does wanting abortion law to be returned to the states mean she thinks “the law should force women to carry fetuses to term in cases of rape and incest, period”? You are projecting Randall Terry onto Sarah Palin. If she was so adamant about ending all abortions she’d have done something about that by now in Alaska. Instead she proposed a parental notification law that was rejected by the Alaska Legislature and once they did she sat back down. Sarah Palin understands that an Executive doesn’t get to make the laws. Do you?
In other news:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06.....174315.htm
What the hell?!?
-
Violet says:
First of all, JR, those articles you cite don’t include Sarah Palin actually saying those things; those are reporters saying those things about her — with no backup documentation.
Well, shit, I can find you a million articles saying all kinds of stuff about Palin.
Among national Republican leaders, you are not going to find anyone with a stronger position than Sarah Palin on the point that abortion should be illegal.
I disagree. I think Palin is sincere when she says she doesn’t think a woman should actually be punished in any way for having an abortion; I think she’s sincere when she says she understands why women make that decision. And I think when she says it’s her personal belief and what she would “advise,” she means it. Particularly when she’s confronted with an actual example, like her daughter. I say that because I know lots of anti-abortion women who are just like that. Their opposition to abortion co-exists with a genuine compassion for other women as individuals. That’s why their answers seem contradictory and their position muddy — because it is muddy.
Male anti-abortion leaders, on the other hand, are in my experience far more doctrinaire. They are the ones who really think of women as simply baby-making machines.
Also, Palin is always clear about honoring the will of the people. She’s shown that in her responses and in her actions as governor. She even appointed a veteran of Planned Parenthood to the bench (and it’s true that the other candidate was also pro-choice, but Palin selected the more liberal candidate).
-
Kali says:
JR, what do you expect someone who is campaigning on a Republican ticket to say about abortion? Gov. Palin has not imposed any restrictions on abortion. She appointed a pro-choice justice. She is not an ideological extremist, based on her actions. Obama, on the other hand, is less pro-choice than he claimed to be when he was campaigning. He was willing to vote for anti-choice, anti-equality Roberts. He couldn’t care less about Sotomayor’s opinion on abortion. He has expanded Bush’s faith-based initiatives - the back-door way to restricting access to abortion and contraception. He has refused to overturn the conscience clause. It is extremely hypocritical to give Obama a pass on this and then tie yourself up in knots about Palin’s position on abortion. It seems that Palin’s “crime” is being female, not her views on abortion. Her position on abortion is just a justification given for hating on her and her daughters.
-
Sis says:
It’s so shocking to me to see adults who sound fairly intelligent, and must have graduated from high school at the least, not understand what a primary source is. So I give this link to educate JR, but really, I think he/she isn’t dumb, just prejudiced.
-
Carmonn says:
“Um, how exactly would she singlehandedly go about overturning Roe?”
She’s a shapeshifter and morphed into all the Democratic Senators in order to put Roberts and Alito on the court, thereby all but ensuring that there are enough votes to overturn Roe whenever they please?
Took a shot.
-
Nell says:
Just to be crystal clear, I DO NOT condone prison rape in any way, shape, or form. I’m a lawyer and former prosecutor, and even after 30 years of practice, I believe with all my heart and soul in the rule of law. Prison rape is a violation of human rights, and when ignored and condoned by prison authorities, violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Thanks to all for your thoughts. You’ve helped me to crystalize mine.
-
Instapundit » Blog Archive » DAVID LETTERMAN APOLOGIZES TO SARAH PALIN AGAIN. And this time it’s kinda real. I credit the rig… says:
[...] I credit the righteous anger of AlfonZo Rachel. Or maybe Dr. Socks. [...]
-
JR says:
Well, this has certainly been an interesting little educational experience for me. In general I am as distrustful of media reports as the next liberal, but I’m surprised at the pushback against secondary sources in this particular case, for the simple reason that when media outlets report a politician’s actual _positions_ (as opposed to gossip or factoids or innuendo or whatever) most politicians react immediately to correct any misstatements, asking the media outlet to retract the mischaracterization and state their official position. So if you really believe that all the mainstream media outlets like CNN, USA Today, Palin’s local Anchorage Daily News, etc. and lots of others were mischaracterizing Palin’s basic position on abortion, is the theory that she didn’t try to correct the mischaracterizations for some strategic reason, or that they all nefariously refused to run the corrections, or what? I’m not sure I get what the theory is here. I mean, take the Seattle Times, describing Palin’s comments and saying, “She also described some areas where she differs from McCain, including her belief that abortions should be banned even in cases of rape and incest.” http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....lin13.html - if that paraphrase wasn’t an accurate representation of what Palin said, wouldn’t somebody from her campaign staff ask for a correction? Or when Palin’s spokesperson says, quote, “She doesn’t make exception for rape and incest, only for health of the mother,” http://www.juneauempire.com/st.....9031.shtml - if that wasn’t her actual view, or if her spokesperson didn’t really say that, wouldn’t we see a correction? Sure, not in every single case, but in some of them? This is a simple factual question - what did Palin say, what did her spokesperson say, what is her position. We see corrections on this kind of thing all the time. Thus I really don’t see an adequate justification here for refusing to believe all secondary sources, particularly when there are so many of them, reporting on remarks made at different times and in different contexts, and they all say exactly the same position is coming out of Palin’s mouth (or her spokesperson’s, etc).
But apparently some feel that all secondary sources are suspect — and feel so strongly about that that it strikes them as helpful to paste a wikilink to a definition of “primary source” to educate me about my “prejudice” (?) in believing secondary sources on this point. Okay then.
If you insist on Palin in writing, how about Palin’s written answers to the Eagle Forum’s gubernatorial questionnaire from July 31, 2006 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070430110729/http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html, but don’t take my word or link for it — google it yourself!). The first question was:
1. Complete the sentence by checking the applicable phrases (you can check more than one).
Abortion should be:
Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
Legal in case of rape and incest.
Legal if the baby is handicapped.
Legal if the baby has a genetic defect.
Legal in the first trimester.
Legal in the second trimester.
Legal in the third trimester.
Other:__________________Palin’s answer, in full, was:
I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.
Now, I guess on one really creative reading she’s just saying what she’d personally “condone,” or something, not stating what should be legal. But that reading requires willfully ignoring the actual question she was answering. If you can read this Q and A and _not_ conclude that Palin clearly picked the second option - “Legal to save the life of the mother” - then I’m not sure what else there is to say. (If Palin just meant to write, ‘I won’t answer when it should be legal, but I’ll tell you my personal beliefs,’ then why does she specify that it’s up to the _doctor_, not the woman, to determine whether the “mother’s” life is at stake?)
Violet and others are right that true fetus zealots, like Randall Terry, sound a lot further to the right than Palin on abortion - and less compassionate toward women who have abortions. Violet is also right to point out that most of those people are men. All of that is correct. But you’re never going to see one of those zealots become a national political leader.
The most extreme you’re going to see among national political leaders (on abortion) is Palin. Heck, even Cindy McCain distanced herself from Palin’s abortion position (see the AP here, re “Sarah Palin’s opposition to abortion in cases of rape and incest,” Cindy McCain said: “I don’t agree with that aspect, but I do respect her for her views.” http://www.adn.com/palin/story/515750.html - Cindy McCain’s made this point not only on Good Morning America in Sept. 2008 but also on The View that same month, and in various other places).
And no, I don’t think Palin as VP or President would have magic powers to overturn Roe. I just think it’s important to correctly characterize people’s actual policy positions. I very much understand and strongly agree with the importance of defending Palin against sexist attacks. But I am totally baffled about where this impulse comes from to misstate her clear, repeated policy position on abortion, and pretend it’s less extreme than it is. I don’t see what the point is of doing that. I genuinely don’t.
Okay, that’s enough from me.
-
Violet says:
I’m surprised at the pushback against secondary sources in this particular case
And I’m surprised that you’re surprised. 99% of what has been published about Palin since last August is bullshit.
There have been about a billion articles about Palin. Is it your theory that unless Palin’s staff requests a correction, and unless that correction is appended to the online article, then the contents of said article are Infallibly True? I mean, this is just weird.
Of course Palin is anti-abortion. She says so. No argument. But as for what she would really do about it as a politician, that’s another matter.
If you can read this Q and A and _not_ conclude that Palin clearly picked the second option - “Legal to save the life of the mother” - then I’m not sure what else there is to say.
Actually, what strikes me is that she didn’t pick any of the given options. Instead she wrote out something that is capable of being interpreted multiple ways.
In fact, that ambiguity is the single most noteworthy thing about Sarah Palin’s various remarks on abortion. I believe that she really is extremely pro-life, and really believes that abortion is wrong for any reason except to save the life of the mother. No question that’s what she believes. But she repeatedly shies away from the full legal ramifications of that belief. She does that partly because she’s a politician, no doubt, but I think she also does that for the same reason so many anti-abortion women do: because she’s not a cartoon figure, and she knows that other women aren’t, either.
Edited to add: it’s not just the way she answered that questionnaire. She has a pattern of stating an extreme anti-abortion stance while simultaneously managing to hedge it.
-
Sis says:
I’ve never heard of that type of retraction you describe. There’d be hundreds a day. Media just wouldn’t do it unless it was legally threatened, from a corp that buys a lot of space and time. Media does not have to, and resists, actually, firmly resists, retractions unless it’s a strongly standing legal possibility they’ll be sued.
I think the purpose of all that schoolyard gossip was to take her off track. Good girl. She refused to play.
-
JR says:
I agree with Violet that Palin tries to use hedging/fudging words. But when people ask her point blank if abortion should be illegal in cases of rape or incest, she may use some hedging/fudging words but she never, ever says no. (Or anything like ‘no’.)
The point is not that secondary sources are ever “Infallibly True” - the point is that whenever the media widely reports that a politician’s position is X, if the politician’s position is not X, they almost invariably loudly let the world know. You’ve seen the stories a million times, ‘President Clinton clarifies position on ____.’ Candidate So-and-So clarifies that she doesn’t oppose ___. You can’t be a consumer of news and not see tons of these stories. Politicians do not just let lies or serious mischaracterizations of their _positions_ (as distinct from other stuff) float out there in the breeze, especially when the mischaracterizations are so widespread as to be the certain, established-fact, consensus view of their position. (I find it particularly funny that ‘Sis’ above was throwing wikilinks at me, because if you look up Palin in Wikipedia, it’ll obviously cite some subset of the many secondary sources readily available and report the fact that Palin’s position is what it is.) When the media says things that aren’t true about a politician’s personal life, past activities, and so on, often there’s nothing to be done about it. But policy positions are different. When the media universally mischaracterizes a politician’s current policy positions, it’s very easy for that politician to hold a press conference and correct or clarify - tell the world they heard me wrong, they misinterpreted, and here’s my real position.
We NEVER saw Sarah Palin do that. And I think that means something. It means that while you’re right that she likes the hedgy weasel words, she fundamentally does NOT want to back off from the clear message that everybody heard, over and over, when she stated her views on abortion policy. That’s because whatever her ambivalent personal feelings may be (and I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure what’s in someone’s heart), she stands on a solid platform against abortion, with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest.
-
Violet says:
the point is that whenever the media widely reports that a politician’s position is X, if the politician’s position is not X, they almost invariably loudly let the world know.
Except that when they’re Sarah Palin, nobody pays attention.
I guarantee you that right now, you can run a search on Sarah Palin and find countless articles affirming (wrongly) that she favors abstinence-only sex ed, that she is anti-birth control, that she doesn’t believe in global warming, that she wants creationism taught in the public schools, that she doesn’t believe in evolution, etc., etc., etc.
When the media universally mischaracterizes a politician’s current policy positions, it’s very easy for that politician to hold a press conference and correct or clarify - tell the world they heard me wrong, they misinterpreted, and here’s my real position.
JR, were you actually resident here on the planet last year? I feel like you’re talking about some other Sarah Palin on some other Earth, one where people actually listen to what she actually says, instead of just playing an endless game of telephone with quotes from Saturday Night Live skits.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
Not to mention,(a) she was so busy she really never read or saw the things that were said about her during the campaign and they had settled into “truth” by the time she noticed; and (b) the mccain campaign thought it would be better just to ignore any criticism not based on policy so it forbade her from defending herself. The few times she did she was “going rogue.”
Nearly everything people believe to be true about Sarah Palin is false, and it is a consequence of an extremely short campaign (just for her, not anyone else), a candidate/media that was momentarily terrified that she would take their election win away, and the availability of some ready-made misogynistic attacks that had been honed by fighting Hillary. It was the worst political attack I have ever seen, way worse than Kerry’s swift-boating. You simply cannot believe anything that was said then.
-
myiq2xu says:
Obama hedges his answers on abortion too. So do lots of “pro-choice” Democrats.
Lots of people still think premarital sex is wrong but that doesn’t mean they want to make it illegal.
-
Sis says:
Oh I’d never cite wp on anything but a definition. I think wp is pure crap.
Give it up JR.
-
Sis says:
I’ve truly not seen the type of retraction you talk about. I’ve been part of editorial boards that made decisions about retractions, for major news media. Of course, it wasn’t American. :/ We would have laughed such a request off the floor. This post started with questions and answers from an interview with Palin which forms a beaut of a retraction. Apparently you didn’t read or hear it?
-
Jamie says:
JR, for heaven’s sake. Your basic assertion, if I understand it correctly, is that Gov. Palin’s personal beliefs that (a) Roe should be overturned and (b) that abortion is a tragic wrong, translate into “If elected, Palin will criminalize abortion!! Or at least try her darnedest!!”
Which is the problem with Roe. I also wish wish wish it were to be overturned (note the subjunctive), not primarily because I’m pro-life but because I don’t believe in Constitutional auras, or penumbrae, or whatever the heck the deal was - I want law to be made by legislatures, and I want those powers not explicitly given to the Federal government to be reserved to the States. But Roe being by judicial fiat the law of the land, it has given you and a lot of other people the idea that all it takes to produce massive societal change is to convince five people. Sadly, it’s proven true in the particular case of Roe.
Does Gov. Palin’s actual record count for nothing? Here she is, governor of the State with the worst male:female ratio in the country, loooooong, boring, cold nights a lot of the year, and a culture wherein basically the impression is that there’s not a lot to do sometimes but get drunk and have sex (no offense, Alaskans - I lived in Seattle for seven years and all anyone ever did in bad weather was drink coffee or beer). Rape is a problem. Unplanned pregnancy is, undoubtedly, a problem. Has she attempted to limit abortion there, in the State where she’s Chief Executive? Only by introduction of parental notification legislation for minors, which didn’t pass and which non-passage she didn’t fight. So in what way is she this terrible threat to anyone’s ability to have an abortion?
-
lexia says:
I have a new category on the blog: Feminists Against Women.
FAW feminists? Ha!
Like those Ladies Against Women that used to show up at the DC women’s rights marches, with their pillbox hats and purses swinging from their arms, carrying signs like “Equal Pay Is Unladylike”.
Only, sadly, the FAW feminists aren’t kidding.
-
Elise says:
Here’s the portion of the Gibson interview where Palin talks about abortion. Please take this with a grain of salt. The first day of the interviews was edited fairly heavily before being shown and I assume the ellipses in this quote mean the same was done to this day of interviews. There also seems to be a word missing between “abortion” and “allowed” and I assume there was something after the “differing”. I have not been able to find a full, unedited transcript which is too bad - I’d love to know what’s in the missing segments:
GIBSON: Roe v. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?
PALIN: I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue… I am pro-life. I do respect other people’s opinion on this, also, and I think that a culture of life is best for America… What I want to do, when elected vice president, with John McCain, hopefully, be able to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life. That’s my personal opinion on this, Charlie.
GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?
PALIN: That is my personal opinion.
GIBSON: Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?
PALIN: My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain’s position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing.
-
Julu says:
I just want to thank you for this website! I stumbled across it through Ann Coulter’s website. Until now I could never call myself a feminist. Now that I have read your blogs I can be proud to use that label and fight for equality for all women.
-
JR says:
Violet,
I don’t expect you to allow this comment to be posted, nor am I asking you to post it. This is just a message to you personally. I was genuinely surprised to see that you decided to censor my comments from appearing on your blog (and to write critical annotations on a comment of mine that you had already posted!). I have participated in many blog discussions on sites with various points of view. I have never once faced this treatment.
Apparently you believe some of my comments were so beyond the pale as to be worthy of being censored. This makes it abundantly clear that your blog is not what I thought it was; you are not the “leftist” I thought you were. It’s too bad. I was a longtime (occasional) reader of yours although I did not comment before yesterday; while I frequently disagreed with you, I took you seriously. I thought you were interested in pursuing a genuine debate with those of us on the ‘mainstream left.’ It’s disappointing that that is not true. I won’t be reading your blog in the future. Good luck.
-JR
-
Violet says:
JR, I don’t think I have “censored” you, but I did annotate your comment because I felt it was potentially misleading. Too many people look at links and assume that it contains what the writer says it contains, and yours did not. I annotated your comment because I have a policy of not allowing Palin misinformation to be propagated from this blog.
-
Violet says:
I was genuinely surprised to see that you decided to censor my comments from appearing on your blog
All of your comments are right here in the thread. Can’t you see them?
-
myiq2xu says:
I have a new category on the blog: Feminists Against Women
AKA: Misogynist feminists
-
Kiuku says:
JR’s argument is right up there with the impossibility of raping someone with jeans on, and why didn’t she fight back if it was rape?
-
Kiuku says:
My lie must be true if she didn’t correct it. The truth is that Palin did ask for corrections to be made and was actually refused. She talked about this.
-
Yet Another Palin Post « The Confluence says:
[...] gave a half-assed apology which Sarah accepted. This upset the Failbots who reacted by recycling old lies and saying even more disgusting shit. Violet Socks rocks, others not so [...]
-
Sis says:
I wonder why it’s ok to make rape jokes about any woman, whether she’s 14, 18, or 37.
There was not one Palin supportive comment following the apology story in Canada’s major newspaper. Someone even posted a list of all similar slurs to Palin, as though that made this one ok. I don’t have tv, and don’t read gutter press, so it was a shocking list to me. Women are so hated. It is frightening to be a mother of daughters.
-
TeresaInPA says:
Violet, it has been a long while since I was here but thanks to a link at the confluence, I am back.
Great blog, great comments…I forgot where the rest of the smart women and men hang out.JR…how do you square the fact that Palin appointed a pro-choice woman judge a few months ago with your liberal media induced opinions about her?
Also, “leftist” is NOT far left liberal. Leftists hate liberals and blame them for saving capitalism. They hated Clinton, Gore, Carter and probably hate Obama. You are not a leftist, you seem to be a quite ordinary blogger type and NOT in the mainstream left. The mainstream left supported Hillary Clinton. -
Phlinn says:
Sis, I’m not quite grasping comment 40. “Men rape. What you’ve never raped a woman? All men who do not vociferously denounce this are rapists too.” I suspect you are being deliberately over the top, but I’m not familiar with your comments enough to be sure and I don’t see a purpose to it.
-
Yet Another Palin Post « Klownhaus says:
[...] gave a half-assed apology which Sarah accepted. This upset the Failbots who reacted by recycling old lies and saying even more disgusting shit. Violet Socks rocks, others not so [...]
-
Reeclm says:
What a fabulous post!! The comments are for the most part, just as thoughtful and insightful.
I am a conservative. I almost don’t want to mention it because it is usually met with crazy flames in this kind of blog. But I have got to say I agree with this post so much on so many levels.
Why are women the worst enemies of other women? I learned that lesson hard and fast when I first entered the work force. It almost got me fired!
I can’t tell you how much I respect Palin. I mainly do because of her actions. She is a wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt and gee, Governor of Alaska. Critique her policy, don’t make up stuff.
I was amazed at Democrat (female) friends and their crazy hatred for Palin. It was like the 2 minute hate in 1984. They talked about wanting to physically harm her and beat her. WTF? If a conservative said that about a woman on the other side of the spectrum, they would be (rightly) run out on a rail! And yet, this was tolerated…
I also noticed a lot of the same “open minded” sorts didn’t believe Palin could or should be VP because she was a mom of a young family. Again, WFT?
Next, I can’t tell you how much I agree about abstinence!!!!! I knew girls in High School that thought they had to put out for their boyfriends. They didn’t know they could say “no”. Isn’t that crazy? But still, that info remains… Spot on observation about how our girls are to look amazing, and have the right contraception handy when their guy starts wanting her to put out. Never mind about her feelings or ideas about it.
Lastly, I didn’t agree with Hillary on much, but by golly I had immense respect for her after her campaign! I thought she did get a real raw deal by the Obama campaign. I couldn’t understand why that was considered OK.
Sorry to ramble so much, but I so thoroughly enjoyed reading this post and amazing comments.
Have a great day everyone!
-
Sis says:
No. My comment wasn’t ‘over the top’. If you’re male, you’re here somewhere. And to anticipate your next comment: women get to define rape, not men.
http://archiveofthebitingbeave.....st-repost/ -
myiq2xu says:
This isn’t “over the top?”
You are a rapist if you ‘nag’ her for sex. Because you manage to ply an eventual ‘yes’ from a weary victim doesn’t mean it’s not rape. You are a rapist.
-
Violet says:
Did someone say that here?
If that’s a quote from the BB site, then please, this will turn into a massive threadjack.
Actually, maybe I should just start a parallel blog where people can use my blog to talk about stuff that’s been said on other blogs. That seems to be popular.
-
myiq2xu says:
Sorry, that came from the link Sis posted.
I kinda have a problem with redefining rape far beyond the legal definition.
-
Violet says:
There’s a whole literature on what feminists call the “rape culture,” which refers to much more than physically holding a woman down or threatening her with a weapon to rape her. That post at BB is about a lot of that, and it’s a vast topic. It’s not about redefining legal rape but about understanding the extent to which our existing culture normalizes male aggression and male entitlement to sex, as well as women’s burden as “gatekeepers.” It also involves recognizing that women experience rape or forced sex to a far greater extent than men realize.
But, as I said: vast topic. It’s a whole study in itself. Not appropriate for this thread.
-
Instapundit » Blog Archive » SARAH PALIN TO resign as governor? UPDATE: Thoughts from John Hawkins and The Anchoress. I do… says:
[...] don’t know if it has anything to do with her decision, but she’s been subjected — along with her family — to more abuse than any other non-national-officeholder I can [...]
-
GayPatriot » On Palin’s Intentions to Resign as Governor of Alaska says:
[...] national office had been subject to as much venom as she, Glenn contends that she has been “ been subjected — along with her family — to more abuse than any other non-national-officeholder I can think [...]
-
dicentra says:
Violet:
First, thanks for presenting the truth in list form, with links, so that we can all turn this posting into a handy-dandy rebuttal form.
Second, I don’t know if it’s been discussed here before, but Palin’s opposition to abortion in the case of rape is not as horrific as it might seem.
I was a bit startled when I heard her take that position, but then I heard one justification for it — if you allow abortion only for life of mother, incest, or rape, then suddenly you’re going to get a lot of accusations of rape where none occurred. I wish I could say that no woman would lie about being raped just to get an abortion (should such a legal structure exist), but unfortunately, enough women would, and it would be a disaster.
As for the incest thing: I don’t know if I can get on board with that. You can prove that the father of an unborn child is a father, brother, or uncle, so it’s hard to make a false accusation stick for very long. I’d have a hard time saying it was immoral or should be illegal to have an abortion in the case of incest.
-
Palinpalooza 2009 « The Confluence says:
[...] continually amazed about all the lies that get told about her, and all the petty things blown out of proportion. Sarah didn’t [...]
-
Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Feminists and the mystery of Sarah Palin says:
[...] Stop the lies [...]
