Feminists Against Women strike again

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 · 70 Comments »

Unfuckingbelievable. Those lying twits at Feministing are doing it again: they’re actually repeating the rape kit smear.

The bogus story about Sarah Palin and the rape kits was one of the ugliest smears I’ve ever seen in politics. It was orchestrated by the Obama campaign, fueled with conference calls to reporters and stories planted in the blogosphere, and spread with the complicity of hypocritical feminists who were willing to say or do anything to slander Palin. Like Jessica Valenti, who actually included it in her hit job on Palin for the Guardian. And now Feministing is repeating it again.

No shame. No shame at all.

You know, I would really like to just ignore these woman-hating hypocritical Third Wave “feminists” who made such a goddamn mess last year. I never want to mention them or deal with them at all. I’m glad they want to be feminists, and hey, maybe someday they’ll realize what complete and total fuck-ups they are. Power to ‘em. But jesus fucking christ, when they start in again with rape kit thing, helping to perpetuate one of the most cynical of smears (from a campaign that was chock-fucking-full of cynical smears), it’s too goddamn much.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

70 Responses to “Feminists Against Women strike again”

  1. Modem XX says:

    They’re still spreading the rape kit smear over at Democratic Underground today, mostly in conjunction with outrage that anyone should be outraged at what David Letterman said about Sarah Palin and her daughter. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, DU has always had many misogynistic and classist posters. I was a longtime poster there but now I just pop in occasionally to see if the Obots are still running the place. The good news is that a number of posters are now saying Obama is a disappointment. I smile at that.

    Your blog is so sane, Violet. It’s really a treat.

  2. myiq2xu says:

    Feministing either edited the rape kit smear out of the post or it’s buried down in the comment thread which is too disgusting to sift through.

    The general reaction of the faugressive bloggers is outrage that Letterman apologized.

  3. Modem XX says:

    I just discovered that the Daily Howler is taking on Letterman again today, and it’s an excellent read. An excerpt about a TV news discussion:

    “He didn’t call Palin a slut, Seder said. He was talking about her slutty appearance! There really is a big difference there, the gentleman thoughtfully said.”

    “The cluelessness there is just stunning. Presumably, this resembles the way most white people “reasoned” in 1935. In that era’s majority entertainment, it was routine to subject African-Americans to standard forms of ridicule. People like Seder couldn’t see the problem with that. The jokes weren’t “racist, per se”—and everyone laughed! What was the fuss all about?”

    “As we told you last week: Many people in today’s “progressive” movement have zero sexual politics. All that second-wave analysis, from Betty Friedan on, might as well never have happened. Seder seemed eager to let us know that he belongs to that “clueless cabal.” Here were his earlier comments, this time concerning the joke about Willow and/or Bristol Palin getting “knocked up” by Alex Rodriguez:

    BROWN: Where is the line? Where do you draw the line between being provocative and being offensive when you’re commentating, as these guys do, on the late-night talk shows?

    SEDER: Well, I don’t know if he’s commentating. He’s making a joke. But, that said, I am a father. And if someone made a joke about Alex Rodriguez knocking up my daughter, I would take offense. But that’s because I’m a Red Sox fan!”

    I don’t even know who Sam Seder is but I think that joke should be grounds for divorce and loss of contact with his daughter. Unbelievable!

  4. Sweet Sue says:

    Oh and I forgot, on Larry King, Kathy Griffin said she wanted to make fun of all the Palins, including the baby!
    What the hell is wrong with Griffin that she wants to make fun of a baby with Down’s Syndrome? What’s happened to people?

  5. Violet says:

    Sarah Palin is the Designated Hate Receptacle for self-described feminists. They know they’re not supposed to hate other women, but they do anyway because their feminism is not quite as strong as their patriarchal brainwashing. Sarah Palin is the culture’s designated Hate Receptacle.

    I wasn’t just being all poetic a few days ago when I said that every joke about Sarah Palin is a joke about you (if you’re female). This is pure misogyny. It’s rage against women, channeled onto one woman.

  6. AM says:

    Seems like women are the one and only class in this society that’s fair game for public trashing.

  7. myiq2xu says:

    This is pure misogyny. It’s rage against women, channeled onto one woman.

    That was sure nice of Sarah to give Hillary a few years off.

    Hillary was the Designated Hate Receptacle for 16 years.

  8. Lori says:

    I live in a nice condo complex in Sherman Oaks, California. And I have several women neighbors, over the age of 40, who were huge Obama fans. They campaigned for him. They donated money. They know I can’t stand him. One by one, they’re calling me to tell me how angry they are with him. They’re also talking about how angry they are with Democrats – and we’ve all been party activists for years.

    I think there is a big problem brewing in the Democratic party. You should read the threads over at the bartcop forum where the guys are justifying calling Sarah a cunt, because, well, you know, it fits. This one guy in his fifties referred to her daughter as skanky. How pathetic is it for a grown man to be picking on a 17 year old single mom? I think this is going to be costly to Democrats. Why the hell vote for them? I skipped the presidential race this time out. I may be skipping all of the elective offices for a while if this doesn’t stop.

    I just don’t get it. We’ve been bemoaning the loss of moderate Republicans for years. We get one and what do we do? We piss all over her.

    By the way, just how far left of Palin is Obama? I’m not sure there’s a dime’s worth of difference between the two of them other than the fact that she’s got more experience. :)

  9. Northwest rain says:

    OK — so those women are feminist — ah ha. I’m sitting here shaking my head in confusion.

    I don’t go there — do not have the time to waste. So it is interesting to know that a bunch of women have NOT grown up. They are still acting like pre-teens who have discovered boys and have learned to play DUMB. How old are those women on THAT blog anyway?

    They are probably part of the Mrs. 0bambam fan club — and Mrs. 0 has made it clear that she likes the status quo. After all she’s made a bundle being the dutiful wife of the white guy who looks, you know, sort of like a black guy. OK — I stole that stuff from Afrocity and Sugar — but hey I grew up in Hawaii and I KNOW where 0bambam went to school and where he grew up. Being of color was a huge advantage in Hawaii.

    But a whole lot of 0bots believe that 0bambam was raised by a single mom in the ghetto. Some don’t even know that his mom was white. It is amazing what the fools believe about their messiah.

  10. Briar says:

    The more information we have and the more means we have of accessing and disseminating it, the more rumour, gossip and tittle tattle trump fact and spread like Japanese knot weed, driving out reality and reason. The internet seems to have driven the standard of debate down in communities, not up. We seem to have devolved into a cyber mob, ready to virtually lynch readily demonised hate figures at the drop of a lie.

  11. Sandra S. says:

    Lori,

    I think an argument could be made that Palin is further left than Obama. She’s certainly shown less homophobia and sexism. Most of her policy stances are about as center right as Obama’s.

  12. kenoshaMarge says:

    I don’t care what the hell Sarah Palin’s politics are and neither should any real feminist. She’s woman who was called a slut on national television by a misogynist creep who claims he was trying to be funny. Then he went after said woman’s children. Her two teen-aged daughters to be exact. (And if he didn’t know which daughter went to the ball game with Governor Palin,he should have kept his filthy mouth shut.)

    Any women that supports Letterman is indeed support the right of men everywhere to attack us and our daughters at will. What these female creatures can’t seem to understand is that these attacks are not about the “who” they are about the “what”. These are attacks on all women.

    And with the help and gleeful support of “some” women who I will never suggest are feminists. Opportunists,haters and 5th Columnists for the Patriarchy, not feminists. Not even close to being feminists.

  13. Nora says:

    There are some Conservative bloggers and commentators who argue that the the viciousness of the Dem’s attacks against Palin illustrate their fear of her in the coming elections. I do think there is could be some validity to their fear.

    If Sarah Palin can unite and organize enough women from both parties she poses a major threat to the Dems. Women constitute the majority in many jurisdictions and, if we voted as a block, we could control who gets elected. Look at the Letterman affair. Enough Conservative and Liberal women finally came out against Letterman and showed support for Palin to force the issue into a problem for CBS.

    This show of solidarity with Palin could not be allowed to stand. Right after, the Dem’s resurrect the old Palin smears like the rape kit.

  14. m Andrea says:

    I swear many of the folks at feministing don’t ever bother to proofread their posts prior to publishing, and it’s painfully obvious they don’t even make an outline first. So fact-checking is clearly out of the question.

    Most of the posts over there are a mess, no matter how you look at it. Wish I’d saved the study which discovered that the more time someone spent texting and talking on the cellphone, the dumber they become. Literally dumber — the ability to string disparate thoughts together actually shrinks.

  15. m Andrea says:

    Btw, does anybody else ever have trouble signing in, or staying logged on, over there? I’ve always had trouble, but now I can’t log in no matter what I do. Since it’s mostly a vanilla girl site, and I typically only post to delineate the hypocrisy, I always wonder if they are simply trying to prevent me from posting. (Whereas people like Violet will straight up tell people to f*ck off. lol)

    I deliberately give them zero reason to ban me, though I’m sure they want to, so I always wonder if they are just making it impossible for me to post. Which is exactly how you would expect a vanilla site to behave.

    But perhaps my tinfoil hat needs adjusting?

  16. yttik says:

    Ahh gees, this really pisses me off! I’ll go so far as to say anybody who falls for the rape kit myth is a faux feminist keyboard warrior who’s spent more time picking cheetohs out of the sofa cushions than walking around in the real world.

    Women all over this country are still occasionally billed for rape kits, even though many of us spent three decades working to change the laws and secure the funding. For the most part, the state now picks up the tab. It feels especially offensive to have women use this issue in an attempt to smear Palin. It’s as if she is being blamed for sexual assault, for women’s inequality, when in fact she has actually been out on the front lines speaking up for women’s rights.

  17. liberaldissent says:

    No, Palin didn’t order victims to pay for the rape kits, but under her administration the city government stopped paying for them, so the hospitals predictably started billing the victims. Still a pretty ugly thing to do.

  18. samanthasmom says:

    Nora,
    That’s the basis for the whole patriarchy thing – it’s not just politics. If women get equal pay, then since the resources for paying people are limited, it means less pay for men. If men are expected to also get joy from removing “yellow waxy buildup” and “ring around the collar”, then they have less time to watch football. Women becoming more powerful requires some sacrifice from men. From the young men that I know, I would say that they are quite pleased with having better connections with their children – until the boss asks them to work overtime, and they have to stay “no” because the daycare center closes at 6.

  19. m Andrea says:

    So then it’s equally acceptable to blame Obama for everything which occurs during his administration?

  20. Sis says:

    I read through that document with her signature. Nowhere did I see it say rape victims would now be paying for their own kits. Could you point out the exact sentence liberaldissent? I’ve got very poor vision.

    It all seems so hypocritical to try to stretch and contort this to be something SHE did, when there was Jon Boy, clearly laughing and acting out sexual assault with Obama’s permission. Yes. Permission. Because if you don’t make a clear direct comment against that, and say so in a dedicated press conference, you have sanctioned it.

  21. Sweet Sue says:

    What these female creatures can’t seem to understand is that these attacks are not about the “who” they are but about the “what”. These are attacks on all women
    Very well said, kenoshaMarge.

  22. Sis says:

    Hospital administrators and department managers decide how a budget cut will play out. The mayor doesn’t decide. Here, for a time, the city hospital went to multiple-use (sterilizing) needles in emerg. The mayor didn’t decide that when he cut the hospital budget that year. It was hospital admin made that decision.

  23. soopermouse says:

    Alaska has a special fund that taes care of rape kits btw. This is just a horrible smear, btu what can we expecvt from those twist? They still think Obama is a feminist, an dthat’s all you need to know abotu their moronitude.

  24. yttik says:

    The rape kit smear is a totally stupid argument. Wasilla is a town of 7000. The highest reported rape statistic available for them for one year, wa 3. That means between 1998 and 2000 the maximum possible number of rape kits completed would have been 6. We have yet to meet any one of those possible 6 Wasilla victims who has complained about being billed for a rape kit. We don’t even know if anyone ever was. In 2000 the Alaska state legislature passed a state law banning the billing of victims.

    Palin has repeatedly stated that she does not support billing rape victims for their exams.

    The current Wasilla police chief, Angela Long, made this statement:

    “A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims being billed for forensic exams. State law AS 18.68.040, which was effective August 12, 2000, would have prohibited any such billings after that date.”

  25. Yet Another Palin Post « The Confluence says:

    [...] Violet says: Sarah Palin is the Designated Hate Receptacle for self-described feminists. They know they’re not supposed to hate other women, but they do anyway because their feminism is not quite as strong as their patriarchal brainwashing. Sarah Palin is the culture’s designated Hate Receptacle. [...]

  26. yttik says:

    Did I mention that in 1995 Wasilla had no reported rapes at all and in 2000 they only had one? Not only do we not have any evidence of anyone being billed for a rape exam, we don’t even have any proof that anyone reported a rape to the police during that time period. (Of course women were raped, women are always raped, but if there were no reports there would be no rape kit done.)

    Also, the police chief moron who wanted to bill victims back in 1998, wasn’t really trying to bill victims, he was protesting budget cuts. He was shooting off his mouth, hoping to get an emotional response so that he would get more funding. Wasilla was growing and his budget was not.

  27. sister of ye says:

    Nora, I’d agree that Sarah Palin scares the Democrats. I’d add that she seems to scare a lot of Republicans as well. There are some conservative voices speaking up to defend her now. But there was an eerie silence during most of the presidential campaign.

    Just as there has always been an odd silence among Democrats defending Hillary Clinton (and her tainted-by-association husband). We just have to look at last year to see how gleefully many Democrats dug up old Republican smears and manufactured new ones.

    Damn, we need a women’s party! Maybe not in name, but in effect. Challenge some of the sexist guys and their collaborators. Clinton/Palin for a presidential ticket. We could draft from places like here for offices down from there.

  28. angienc says:

    Of course they have to recycle the “rape kit” lie. What else can they say about her? That she signed same-sex benefits for state employees into law & appointed a pro-choice woman to the Alaska Supreme Court?

  29. Carmonn says:

    Didn’t Obama’s district have a policy of billing victims for rape kits?

  30. Alison says:

    I think the women at Feministing are at war with the 4th wave just as much as they are at war with any woman who does not meet their card carrying Democrat standard.

    Their recent post in which they are defensive in regard to criticism that they do not support all women – and then this… it just shows they are feeling the heat of the 4th wave which is ushering in their irrelevancy.

  31. TeresaInPA says:

    sister of YE, I agree that we need a women’s party or maybe we just have to start voting only for women. When democratic women start voting for republican women maybe the democratic party won’t take us for granted anymore. And who cares anyway, the idea is for us to hold 51 percent of all political office.

  32. Lori says:

    liberaldissent,

    I’ve been all over this story for the past two days and have read everything I can find. With some luck, I’m going to get copies of the testimony at the hearing. I’ll let you know how it goes.

    Lauree Haugonen, who was with the Alaska Network for Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence (or something like that) testified on BEHALF of the bill (meaning she is one of the good guys) that the problem was the hospitals were charging the kits to the insurance companies (this is a profit oriented decision), not the police departments. It was never the case that the hospitals picked it up when the police department didn’t. It was something that simply never got worked through as a policy. Hospitals will charge for anything they can.

  33. Alison says:

    Liberal Dissent and Lori,

    The problem which has already been stated, is this way of getting insurance companies to pay vs. cities is happening all over the friggin’ country! So to make it look like it’s just something that Sarah Palin legislated in her tiny townn….

  34. Sis says:

    So how’s Obama’s healthcare plan cracking out for hospital charges?

    I’d love for someone to do a post on that.

  35. alwaysfiredup says:

    Would someone post a link to the document with Palin’s signature on it? (mentioned in #20) I’m looking for primary source material to refute this lingering smear.

  36. votermom says:

    sister of YE, I agree that we need a women’s party or maybe we just have to start voting only for women.

    Count me in.

  37. Sis says:

    allfiredup I can’t find it now. I got it by linking through to the FAW site Vi mentions, and then somemore linking. I just tried to duplicate that and couldn’t. But maybe you can, or there might be other sources.

  38. Violet says:

    From Confederate Yankee’s debunking of the rape kit smear:

    We have fresh information regarding poorly-researched claims made in the media (including CNN, US News & World Report, USA Today, Chicago Tribune, the Associated Press, and literally dozens of other “professional media”) that Sarah Palin presided over a Wasilla, AK city government that charged rape victims for the forensic medical examinations designed to collected physical evidence of sexual assaults. With very little variation from one media source to the next, media accounts attempted to portray Palin as a callous monster out to re-abuse victims.

    Emphasis mine. The reason the story sounded so familiar in every news story is because the reporters were taking their talking points directly from the Obama campaign.

    Charlie Martin also has a thorough debunking of the rape kit smear.

    Later last fall someone else also published a report showing definitively that no rape victim was ever charged and never would have been charged under the rules, but I don’t have that link handy.

  39. Unree says:

    Dorothy Samuels also repeated the smear on the editorial page of the New York Times. Her essay ran shortly after the Confederate Yankee piece you linked. Here’s the lede:

    “Even in tough budget times, there are lines that cannot be crossed. So I was startled by this tidbit reported recently by The Associated Press: When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the small town began billing sexual-assault victims for the cost of rape kits and forensic exams.

    Ms. Palin owes voters an explanation. What was the thinking behind cutting the measly few thousand dollars needed to cover the yearly cost of swabs, specimen containers and medical tests? Whose dumb idea was it to make assault victims and their insurance companies pay instead? Unfortunately, her campaign is shielding the candidate from the press, so Americans may still be waiting for answers on Election Day.”

    Ms. Samuels owes US an explanation, I say. After the Swift Boating of the last campaign, shouldn’t she have been suspicious of that AP story?

  40. Stubby says:

    I truly believe that by 2012, the economy will be in such a horrible, horrible state, and all the people who swallowed Obama’s BS long past the point of any excuse will be so enraged, that the Dems might not run him again. I know that sounds ridiculous right now. But the consequences of his incompetence will be much, much worse than most people envisage right now.

    Oh, and did you see how Barney Frank got a Come to Obama meeting and says that the DOJ DOMA memo is fine and balanced and appropriate? And the federal govt. is still busting medical marijuana growers. And Dick Cheney supports gay marriage and some Republican Congressman was discussing the futility of the Drug War. Bizzarro World, it is.

    Haven’t been to Feministing since they linked approvingly to an unteachably stupid chick who wrote a screed about the violent misogyny of Joss Whedon’s Firefly.

  41. Elise says:

    The link to the rape kit smear is still up and in the body of the post Violet linked to. It’s in the line:

    let’s not forget that Palin’s actual stance that has been legislated and made into policy is far worse.

    Click on the hyperlink attached to “far worse”.

    Haven’t been to Feministing since they linked approvingly to an unteachably stupid chick who wrote a screed about the violent misogyny of Joss Whedon’s Firefly.

    I’m almost sorry you mentioned this. I, of course, had to go look it up and that was one creepy write-up on Firefly. (Although I have to admit I agreed with the reviewers about the ending of the last Pirates movie.)

  42. Carray says:

    Violet, I don’t much think it’s the patriarchal brainwashing. I think that we women are very often just plain stone-cold bitches wrt other women. We’d be bitches even if there were no men. When the woman is good looking and has a hot-looking man who looks like he knows how to do a thing or two, the bitchiness of many women goes into overdrive. Sarah Palin has committed three unpardonable sins in the eyes of some feminists: 1) she’s a beauty inside and out; 2) she’s not whining about male oppression; 3) she dresses to strut her stuff. The last, especially, infuriates a lot of feminists who seem to think women should be burqa-clad, sans make up, and foot be-clogged.

  43. Violet says:

    Violet, I don’t much think it’s the patriarchal brainwashing. I think that we women are very often just plain stone-cold bitches wrt other women. We’d be bitches even if there were no men.

    Well, no, I disagree. I think the bitchiness you describe is an artifact of patriarchy. In a patriarchal system, women derive their value from men, so they are divided from each other and in constant competition for access to and approval from men.

    Without patriarchy, women would no doubt display the full range of human character, good, bad, and indifferent. And there would be quarrels and sexual jealousy, like in all human communities. But the particular snake-pit you describe is very much a product of our particular social system.

    2) she’s not whining about male oppression;

    Feminists don’t “whine” about male oppression, anymore than Martin Luther King “whined” about segregation. Sarah Palin is a feminist, and she acknowledges sexism and the importance of gender equality. That, to me, is the most appealing thing about her, and those feminists who get past the lies to actually read her words seem to feel the same.

    3) she dresses to strut her stuff. The last, especially, infuriates a lot of feminists who seem to think women should be burqa-clad, sans make up, and foot be-clogged.

    I fail to see how wearing your basic Ann Taylor business suits and parkas is dressing to “strut her stuff.”

    And as for feminists being infuriated by that, you have it completely wrong. The feminists who are most hostile to Sarah Palin are of the Sex and the City generation, the kind of young third wavers who wear makeup and stiletto heels and think pornography is empowerfuling.

  44. dennymack says:

    The rape kit thing had to come up again. Sarah Palin has to be turned into a mean,crazy b*tch, because she is a real threat to Obama.
    No good challengers on the horizon, except there is this one charismatic woman from a state that is famously in favor of staying out of your business.She could appeal to women in both parties, and men on the right and center. Her appeal could be broad because she is more reasonable than dogmatic, and most people like that. And she is not (yet) beholden to the homophobic southern bible thumpers who both empowered and ruined the Republican party.
    She had to be made to appear crazy precisely because she isn’t. She had to be made to seem dogmatic, uncaring and hypocritical precisely because she isn’t.
    And those clothes! They are trying to pin the “trophy wife” character on her.
    Never worry that it doesn’t make sense. If you can get it shouted from every newsroom, who will call you on it? How many individuals are confident enough to challenge the narrative? Next someone jokes about her stupidity or sluttishness, will you challenge it, or smile along with the joke?
    This is why Obama is dangerous. It’s his total control of the narrative. It is the closest thing you can get to absolute power in America. No one should have that kind of power.
    Palin is a self-made successful politician who married and stayed with one man, who is her stay at home husband. If Obama can maker her a stupid slut trophy wife who just wants to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, he can destroy anyone.

  45. JadedByPolitics says:

    I have found your site twice through Instapundit and I don’t think I can tell you enough WE are the answer…the WE being women to the left and right who have had it with the “feminist” ie: N.O.W. who have beoome the “man” they despised. I thank you for showing me there is common ground in the parties and it’s women and our rights and the way we are treated and respected. I personally have NEVER found the man to be the enemy of the good, he ends up being a great team member in our push to be whatever our hearts desire.

    Sarah frightens N.O.W. and leftist because she walks her talk…she loves her husband and children and OBTW she wanted to change the way the old boy network in Alaska did things AND SHE DID IT! BRAVO! along with her husband and children striding side by side with her…..that my friends is true feminism :-)

  46. Tex Lovera says:

    Violet @ 43:

    “The feminists who are most hostile to Sarah Palin are of the Sex and the City generation, the kind of young third wavers who wear makeup and stiletto heels and think pornography is empowerfuling.”

    Actually, aren’t they really the “philosophical” offspring of Madonna?

  47. Alex Bensky says:

    The other day I was channel surfing between innings of the Tigers game and came across Margaret Carlson and Keith Olberman joking about Palin’s statement that she could see Russia from her house. Of course, Palin never said that; Tina Fey said it in a comedy sketch attacking Palin.

    If the msm had reported fairly they would have mentioned Palin’s response when an interviewer pointed out that Tina Fey made her out to look like a bubblehead when she imitated her. I thought it was one of the best lines of the campaign.

    “That’s funny,” Palin said. “When I imitate Tina Fey I make her out to be a bubblehead.”

    I assume it no longer need be pointed out that establishment feminism does not demand respect for women generally, just women they approve of.

  48. James Salmon says:

    The cognitive dissonance required to defend Letterman’s comment about Palin’s “slutty flight attendant look” and his smirking claim that Willow – or Bristol – was “knocked up by A-Rod is jarring isn’t it?

    The same cognitive dissonance reigned when the left and feminists around the country defended Bill Clinton’s “right” to have Monica Lewisnky on her knees under his desk sucking his cock while he chatted with other world leaders and otherwise conducted the peoples business from the oval office.

    My recollection it the “Clinton defense” was that Monica is a big girl – 18 or 19 years old at the time – and there is nothing wrong with THE MOST POWERFUL MAN on the planet using the power and prestige of THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICE on the planet to lure an 18-19 year old girl into his office, flip out his cock, secret her away under the desk, and have her service him while he goes about his business.

    My guess is that if a Republican President, a male CEO, a male principal at high school or almost any other maie on the planet had engaged in the same conduct it would have been deemed – rightly – outrageous and unacceptable. But because it was Bill Clinton – the saviour of the left, the first “Black President” and – I guess – the first “Feminist President” he got a pass and ALL THE WOMEN who complained about his outrageous behavior – and even Lewinsky who remained a pitifully loyal supporter – were TRASHED by the same so-called “Feminists” who are trashing Sarah Palin today.

    I remember watching the Clinton scandal unfold and thinking, “Wow. I guess He will resign tomorrow.” But that never happened. And as a result politics in this country has been irreversibly coarsened – to the detriment of women – as the current treatment of Sarah Palin and her daughters. In the immortal words of Barack Obama’s warm and loving pastor Jeremiah Wright, “The chickens have come home to roost.”

  49. SarahG says:

    “There are some conservative voices speaking up to defend her now. But there was an eerie silence during most of the presidential campaign.”

    I’m guessing you don’t hang out with Republicans. The shoddy treatment of Sarah Palin was a constant topic of discussion among conservatives, both on the internet and in living rooms. In fact, McCain’s perceived disrespect lost him a lot of conservative votes. Now I’m no partisan, but for my money there’s no question which party treats its woman better.

  50. Burke says:

    “There are some conservative voices speaking up to defend her now. But there was an eerie silence during most of the presidential campaign.”—sister of ye

    Just to correct this–there has been strong and vocal conservative support of Sarah Palin all along–from, among others, Rush Limbaugh and most of the staff of National Review. The problem has been that we have our turncoats too–those who see their influence waning in the age of Obama, and are willing to compromise their principles, and make nice to the new people in charge. Some of them (David Brooks, Bill Kristol, Kathleen Parker) write for the NY TImes or the Washington Post, so you’re more likely to have heard of them.

    As a former liberal-turned-conservative, I’ve always thought it was a real shame that our politics has become so completely polarized. Most of the liberals I talk to only know about conservatives via the mainstream media, where they are fed a string of nasty, largely false, stereotypes. Although we see the world in different ways, the fact is that conservatives and liberals are often working towards the same or similar ends–we differ about the means, and even then, there are times when we could work together.

    Bravo for supporting Sarah Palin and speaking out against the crude and unwarranted slanders she and all women have been subjected to in recent days.

  51. SarahG says:

    Er…”women,” sorry.

  52. susan says:

    My mother always said “there is nothing worse than being a woman scorned by Feminists”

    I do not understand how Feminists are so easily swayed by the Smooth-Taking-Bad-Boy-in-Chief who is in the process of pillaging, looting, violating, indenturing herself, her children and her grand-children.

    And what is particularly disturbing is that the Feminists will, out of love and respect, defend by every means necessary the Smooth-Talking-Bad-Boy-in-Chief.

    I am Woman hear me roar, keep the Feminist abusers away from Liberty’s door.

  53. Violet says:

    N.O.W. who have beoome the “man” they despised. I thank you for showing me there is common ground in the parties and it’s women and our rights and the way we are treated and respected. I personally have NEVER found the man to be the enemy of the good, he ends up being a great team member in our push to be whatever our hearts desire.

    For heaven’s sake, feminists don’t hate men. That is the way right-wingers parody feminism; it’s not the truth. Never has been. I’m a far left radical feminist, as are many of my friends, and we all like men just fine. What feminism objects to is the dominance of men-as-a-class over women.

    Most feminists, including NOW feminists, are married with children and they love their husbands/brothers/fathers/sons as much as any woman. Really. This “man-hating” lie is just that — a lie.

    Normally I wouldn’t feel compelled to explain such a basic point, but I seem to have a lot of visitors who are not familiar with feminism.

  54. Violet says:

    Just to correct this–there has been strong and vocal conservative support of Sarah Palin all along–from, among others, Rush Limbaugh and most of the staff of National Review.

    Right, except that those same Palin defenders are guilty of years of misogyny and sexism against Democratic women, particularly Hillary Clinton. Limbaugh was talking about Hillary’s “testicle lockbox” just last year, and Tucker Carlson was saying Hillary made him cross his legs in castration anxiety. For them to suddenly start talking about sexism is the most hypocritical thing in the world.

    If they’ve had a true awakening, great. I look forward to their non-sexist treatment of Democratic women going forward.

  55. Violet says:

    My guess is that if a Republican President, a male CEO, a male principal at high school or almost any other maie on the planet had engaged in the same conduct it would have been deemed – rightly – outrageous and unacceptable.

    Okay, somebody help me out here with the looooong list of Republican men who have had mistresses, paid for prostitutes, dumped their wives (repeatedly), etc., etc., without suffering more than a brief opprobrium (if that) before beginning their career resuscitation.

    But because it was Bill Clinton – the saviour of the left, the first “Black President” and – I guess – the first “Feminist President” he got a pass

    Actually, he got a pass because he was doing a fairly good job as president, while the Republicans had basically shut down the government and spent a billion dollars on a witchhunt to find anything to impeach him with.

  56. Monchichipox says:

    Sigh. I stumbled on your website quite by accident. It’s got me longing for the days when feminism meant empowerment and not permanent victim status. Permanent victim status was what we were fighting to get out of.

    My Grandmother would have called Sarah “a chin up tits out kinda gal” and I would have agreed.

  57. Gayle says:

    “For heaven’s sake, feminists don’t hate men. That is the way right-wingers parody feminism”

    In fairness, it’s not just right winger who parody feminism in that way.

    But I’m pretty sure you know that already.

  58. Violet says:

    True. I should have said, that’s how anti-feminists parody feminism.

  59. Sameol says:

    Not only have Republicans used gross misogyny to attack Democratic women, I’m far from convinced Palin won’t get the Hillary treatment in the primary. As Violet mentioned, there’s a class and gender issue here as well, as with Hillary. Like Hillary, Palin has grassroots support, but she doesn’t seem to have much support among party leaders. I think we may see other Republicans attack her with the Obama script.

  60. James Salmon says:

    “Actually, he got a pass because he was doing a fairly good job as president, while the Republicans had basically shut down the government and spent a billion dollars on a witchhunt to find anything to impeach him with.”

    Wow. Just wow. Does he / did he get a pass from YOU?

    The long list of POLITICIANS who have engaged in conduct similar to that of Clinton grew SUBSTANTIALLY after Clinton proved you can spit in a woman’s eye – or at least on her little blue dress – and then give the voters the finger IF “you are doing a pretty good job as” President / Governor / Senator / etc. etc.

    IMHO Patton in Kentucky, Craig in Idaho and John Edwards – among others – were emboldened by Clinton and all shat on their wives with little or no thought as to the consequences.

    Such actions should be inappropriate and unacceptable. If any rat bastard ever treats one of my daughters like that there will be hell to pay. Any man that demeans women and uses the power and prestige of his office to gain sexual favors ought not be hailed as hero. But that is EXACTLY the way N.O.W. and Ms. Ireland treated Bill Clinton. And those SAME people are turning their backs on Sarah Palin. Their actions are despicable and wrong in both instances.

    Again, I see a lot of cognitive dissonance here and Violet proved my point by leaping to Bill Clinton’s defense.

  61. Violet says:

    Again, I see a lot of cognitive dissonance here and Violet proved my point by leaping to Bill Clinton’s defense.

    Search this blog for “stick test.” You’re flunking it.

  62. Sameol says:

    Are you joking? You think the numbers of politicians engaging in adultery grew because Clinton inspired them?

    Uh–how old are you, if you don’t mind my asking? JFK ring a bell? Wilbur Mills? Gingrich? Hyde?

    I don’t care about Clinton one way or the other, but that’s not a very persuasive argument.

  63. Sameol says:

    And the many of the SAME people who are defending Palin used the exact same sexist trashing techniques against H. Clinton. Let’s be honest, the only ones who have proved their bona fides here are Hillary supporters who are equally horrified by Palin’s treatment and Palin supporters who have a documented history of speaking out against sexism targeted at Democratic women.

  64. Toonces says:

    Monica was 22-24 when the whateveryouwanttocallit was going on, not 18 or 19. It may not seem like an important detail, unless you’ve been both an 18 year-old and a 22 year-old (college educated) young woman. There’s still obviously a huge power differential between a young intern and a president, and in no way did Monica deserve to be feasted on by the media the way she was, and I do not lay the responsibility at her feet but she was a savvy, upper-middle-class young woman (hence, being an intern at the White House), not some fresh out of high school, small-town girl.

  65. DisenfranchisedVoter says:

    Feministing is absolutely disgusting. I stopped going there last year after one of their “feminist” bloggers called Geraldine Ferraro a “bitch” and posted cartoons about older women guilting their daughters into voting for Hillary Clinton. I emailed them and was met with an offensive response saying that not all of their bloggers were Obama supporters. Yea, right! That site was gave a fair and balanced feminist perspective. What kind of “feminist” hates old women, calls other women bitches, and held a Democratic female candidate for president with animosity? Those feminist bloggers seemed like really young, naive Obamabotts. I will NEVER go to feministing again. I don’t miss it at all.

  66. SarahG says:

    Speaking for myself, Violet, I do know what feminism is…but as a conservative (though not necessarily Republican) woman, I imagine I’ve had a vastly different experience of it than you have. But different angles can yield different insights, right? So please be kind to us “visitors.” I, for one, would like to hang out for a while, if that’s okay.

  67. Gayle says:

    Jessica Valenti was on CNN today. They were doing another one of those “is feminism dead” segments. You know, the ones they do about once a year. They asked if feminism was still relevant in this one.

    In total, the viewer feedback was really good.

  68. Yet Another Palin Post « Klownhaus says:

    [...] Violet says: Sarah Palin is the Designated Hate Receptacle for self-described feminists. They know they’re not supposed to hate other women, but they do anyway because their feminism is not quite as strong as their patriarchal brainwashing. Sarah Palin is the culture’s designated Hate Receptacle. [...]

  69. The Haunted Vagina « The Confluence says:

    [...] cause mass hysteria at the mere mention of her name.  These vaginal demons can turn feminists into lying misogynists and make a gay man obsess about nasty lady parts.  They can induce the pimping of [...]

  70. Reclusive Leftist » Blog Archive » Feminists and the mystery of Sarah Palin says:

    [...] ago I came up with what I think is the most plausible explanation yet when I said: Sarah Palin is the Designated Hate Receptacle for self-described feminists. They know [...]