Comments from the giant thread: inside the mind of a former Palin-hater!
Dr. Socks sewing new curtains for the Spirit Smoking Lounge.
A couple of days ago I wrote a rambling, inside baseball kind of post about feminists and Sarah Palin. I just thought it would be something to chew on over the holiday weekend while I worked on a few refurbishments here to the Spirit Smoking Lounge.
Instead, the thing went viral and landed at the top of Memeorandum, among other unexpected places. The result was 370 comments (and counting) from a wide variety of readers, and a remarkably thoughtful discussion. Also some batshit crazy stuff, of course, but on the whole not too much.
Several of the comments deserve closer attention, either because they’re novel or pithy or add an interesting dimension. I think this week I’ll pull some of those out in posts to keep things cozy here while I continue sewing the new curtains for the lounge.
First up, this practically perfect post from a young feminist Obama supporter who got caught up in the crazy:
Violet, I just began reading your blog a few months ago and I’m absolutely fascinated.
I want to comment on this post as someone who formerly harbored the irrational hatred for Sarah Palin that you refer to in your post. For me personally, I thought McCain’s decision to pick her as a running mate was his way of pandering to democrats, women, feminists, his way of “diversifying” his campaign to compete with Hillary and Obama’s historically significant campaigns. I was terrified that this would give him the necessary edge to become president, thereby resulting in another Republican presidency. I automatically assumed, like many others, that feminism and Republican ideology were incompatible, and so between McCain choosing her for the fact of her sex (my assumption) and Palin milking the “hockey mom” feminist thing, I was horrified that they were going to beat us at our own game, under the guise that they were ideologically fit to play. In the wake of the Bush presidency, McCain’s choice of a female VP seemed like an audacious ploy to differentiate his campaign from Bush’s, to redeem the Republican ideology by distancing itself from the Bush presidency. The idea that this (Republican) woman could throw the whole election somehow gave me every incentive to hate her, to believe everything I heard about her, to brand her “one of those women that make other women look bad.” She was definitely a hate receptacle. McCain wasn’t a hate receptacle, despite his Republicanism, because he was a man. I thought, Palin should know better. Someone said in the comments that feminist women judge other women more harshly, and looking back, I totally agree. It was a personal, intense hatred, because Palin didn’t represent all of my feminist sentiments. I thought she gave feminism a bad name, a bad look. I didn’t like how she winked; she was trying to be cutesy. I didn’t like what I heard about the amount of money she spent on her wardrobe. It seems so silly to me now, but I hated her because she appeared too feminine. I didn’t realize at the time that what I was partaking in was blatant misogyny.
Also, it was the hip thing to do. I’m twenty two years old, I attend a very liberal university; in this environment, Palin-bashing constitutes some kind of bizarre camaraderie, like she’s a joke that everyone’s in on. In retrospect, really bizarre, and really embarrassing for the fact that I jumped on the Obama bandwagon to hell.
The comment is a model of clarity, economy, and self-awareness. I suspect hilary g’s story is one that could be told by a million other young women — if, that is, they were capable of this kind of reflection and perspective.
I just hope to hell hilary g is real and not Andrew Sullivan in disguise.
121 Responses to “Comments from the giant thread: inside the mind of a former Palin-hater!”
-
Lori says:
Misogyny has been cool for a long, long time. Look at film noir. Pulp fiction. James Bond. Mickey Spillane. Once we embraced cool as a desirable state, woman hating was quickly and naturally incorporated.
Hating Palin was kind of like buying a great new phone. It proved that you were hip and cool. You weren’t getting suckered by some hockey mom who’d deluded herself into thinking she was governor (even though she was), you were on the side of the cool guy who had everything under control - and by extension, you had everthing under control.
Check out this piece of hero-worship from Politico:
Let’s be honest: Barack Obama is better than you are.
He’s a better father — taking breaks from running the world to cheer on his daughters at soccer and basketball games.
He’s a better husband — zipping his wife off for dinner in New York and Paris.
He’s got a better diet — nibbling on vegetables from his homegrown garden to keep his love handles in check.
And he’s got a terrific jump shot.
You? Not so much.
Call it the politics of personal perfection. The Barack Obama brand is as much about being a personal example to the nation as it is about being a political figure. But the danger of that frothy mix of glamour and domesticity is that President Obama could become in the public mind something he never sought to be: the Martha Stewart of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....BfnA&C
July 7th, 2009 at 12:26 am EST -
Violet says:
It all seems to me like a younger, hipper version of the way Reagan was glamorized and feted. He was so funny! And Nancy was so stylish! And they were so cool and sophisticated! And on and on on.
Except that during the Reagan years, there was always a thread of criticism from some quarters, whether that was Doonesbury or Saturday Night Live or the Tonight Show. With Obama — nothing. It’s pure hero worship. Cult of personality.
For the life of me, I can’t see what’s so appealing about the man. Crooked Chicago politician, narcissist, empty suit.
-
Northwest rain says:
It looks like the comments aren’t posting. Glitches are a pain.
I’m going to repost my comments — Violet — please delete if this is a repeat.
0zero is a packaged illusion — sort of like the sitcoms of the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. “Father Knows Best”, “The Donna Reed Show”, “Big Valley”, Pondarosa — etc. The actors put on a show — and that is exactly what 0zero is doing.
Meanwhile each side (Demos and GOP) have their version of reality — and they have a product.
I’m reading an interesting book — “Kluge” — how the human brain (and emotions) work. It is really a repeat of a lot of Psychology research that those of us with Psych degrees have read — or even done some research in various sub areas. People just are not rational creatures — very often we don’t use the most evolved part of our brain to make decisions.
The Advertising folks know this — and they are using psychological warfare. Enter the sleaze factor — Axlerod — adviser to da Prez — and we are in for big trouble. Axlerod has created an illusion. But those of us who are paying attention realize that the illusion has been bought and paid for — 0zero is not a liberal and he sure as h#ll isn’t a feminist.
I made a comment on TC (the Confluence) that I’ve been watching the body language of Palin haters — and it is becoming clear that Palin has triggered something primitive in some people. Body language is what I was trained to look at during a counseling session.
Body language is one thing we don’t get when people comment. I think that if Violet Socks could have seen the body language of the individual who claims to be a 0zero bandwagon survivor — she might have had a better chance of knowing if this person was for real.
This is what I wrote on TC — because I am also trying to figure out what it is about Palin that brings out the primitive illogical behavior of SOME people.Also what we are missing in the “written” word in the vile comments about Palin — are the body language and the voice used when speaking about Palin. I’ve noticed that people doing their hate speak about Palin get a real ugly look on their face — as if they are talking about a war criminal or other life form. Their voice also gets strange — and I hear memes repeated. Their body becomes rigid — but it especially their face. It is as if each of these Palin hating people has a little recorder stuck in their heads — and they can only repeat what is in their recorder. That recorder is stuck deep in the most primitive part of their brain. I can detect no complex reasoning — a product of higher brain function. It is sort of like animals out on the hunt and ready to kill their prey.
The post on TC is by Bostonboomer — “on-being-sane-in-insane-places-sarah-palin-and-the-rosenhan-study” who is also trying to understand the reaction to Palin’s resignation as Governor of Alaska. The Rosenhan study is a classic in Psychology — and Bostonboomer is correct in drawing the parallels between Palin and the hate reaction to Palin. I don’t know if the effort of the media’s initial message about Palin was deliberately played to make Palin look like she was/is crazy — (bimbo etc.) But that was the message RECEIVED by most TV viewers.
I’m an artist with degrees in Psy, Anthropology and Sociology — so what do I know?
by Northwest rain
-
Lori says:
I found this rant over at the Bartcop forum fascinating because Daldem cannot admit that Palin is governor. She’s presenting Sarah’s presence on the ticket as if she went from sportscaster to vice-presidential nominee without any steps in between.
“Sarah Palin is a power hungry ignorant evangelical tongue speaking slu…”
Author daldemAuthor Info Member since May 12th 2002
2037 posts
Date Sat Jun-13-09 04:18 PM
MessageIn response to Reply #0
She has pimped out all of her children by dragging
them across a stage in their store bought new outfits every opportunity that she got
during the campaign. She proudly called Obama a terrorist
in front of them (and btw still slanders him). And she never apologized when her right wing nut fans used racial slurs toward Obama. She can
dish it out but she can’t take it. She is a whinny
Alaskan corn ball would be beauty queen sportscaster who just happened to be thrust into a campaign that that needed a distraction from the real issues. She is a would be if she could be…….but will never
be. She is an entertainer just like Limbaugh.
She will milk this Letterman thing as long as she can because
she has nothing intelligent to offer. She and her entire
Hillbilly Clan belong on Jerry Springer (if he will have them).
She is a disgrace to women IMO. -
Unree says:
Looking at white people over the last couple of decades, I’ve observed an increasing fraction of them eager to declare their opposition to racism. Especially white women but white men too. Commendable, I thought (and still think).
For white Americans in this demographic, Barack Obama offers a lot. He has carefully kept civil rights in general, and race in particular, away from his voting record and campaigns. He demands nothing from his white supporters. He causes no discomfort.
His greatest gift of all, of course, is fending off feminism. Obama is a boon to fauxgressive dudes and the women who want their favors. White supporters get to keep whatever privilege they now have–economic, gender-based, you name it–along with their self-label of progressive. For the cohort I’m thinking of, anti-racism is the best banner to cover up their misogynous resistance to gender justice. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin had to pay the price.
Given this bag of treats for both privileged voters and MSM opinion-makers, it really is pretty extraordinary how many voters have said no to Barack Obama, from both the left (that would include HRC voters; Clinton ran left of Obama) and the right.
-
Vanderleun says:
What is appealing about Obama? Well there’s…. and then there’s… and…
Nope. Sorry. I’m trying but drawing a blank. No matter. I’m sure someone here or at the Politico will be along any second with the list.
BTW: Am I the only one that’s noticing a kind of whistling through the graveyard bit of silence from all those Obama enthusiasts of last November. Not in the media but in the people around me in daily life. I’m just not hearing him brought up much in conversation. And I live in Seattle.
-
Violet says:
Northwest rain, I’m sorry about the comment glitch. Not sure what the problem was.
-
Unree says:
Vanderleun, same here, but I’ve been assuming it’s the divisiveness. During the primary Obama and Hillary Clinton split my circle of friends exactly in half. So much bitterness went down that I’ve assumed we’re all tiptoeing around one another.
-
elaine says:
I read an article a while back about mobbing behavior, bullying in the workplace. While researchers are interested in this aspect of the behavior, I find women tend to do this within their own groups, as well. Basically, it’s psychological warfare against a target.
In the case of Palin, the media was more than happy to put forward the memes — “she’s a yokel” “a stupid b!tch” “a crazy Christianist.” Whatever. And the people who were inclined to believe the worst about her — those who disagreed with her politics — were more than happy to swallow the memes as truth. After all, it confirmed everything they feared.
Feminists were more than happy to join in the mobbing, just because she was — in their perception — an affront to everything they held dear, that being their democrat leanings. not their feminist cred.
Given past feminist double standards, I didn’t find their behavior all that surprising.
On an unrelated note: does anyone remember how Oprah refused to invite Palin on her show, as she didn’t want her program used as a campaign device. (Even though she repeatedly had Obama on…) She added that she’d be happy to have Palin on AFTER the election. Any word on why she hasn’t invited Palin in the eight months since the election?
Not that I’m holding my breath, as Oprah seems more than willing to use her show as a bullypulpit for her own causes, but god forbid she allow the other side that same access.
-
Violet says:
Also what we are missing in the “written” word in the vile comments about Palin — are the body language and the voice used when speaking about Palin. I’ve noticed that people doing their hate speak about Palin get a real ugly look on their face — as if they are talking about a war criminal or other life form. Their voice also gets strange — and I hear memes repeated. Their body becomes rigid — but it especially their face. It is as if each of these Palin hating people has a little recorder stuck in their heads — and they can only repeat what is in their recorder. That recorder is stuck deep in the most primitive part of their brain. I can detect no complex reasoning — a product of higher brain function. It is sort of like animals out on the hunt and ready to kill their prey.
Thank you! Northwest rain, I cannot tell you how glad I am you re-posted that here.
I saw your comment at The Confluence earlier tonight and was mesmerized. The look! The Palin Hate Look! I’ve seen it too! In fact I thought about posting a reply over there, but decided I’d better get back here to the lounge and work on the new curtains.
Palin is the designated hate receptacle. She’s the object of everybody’s lizard brain Hate.
-
myiq2xu says:
What I find interesting is the lack of moderation in the hatred expressed for Sarah Palin.
The Palin-haters don’t merely dislike or disapprove of her, they HATE her as if she had committed some atrocious crime or caused direct harm to them.
The reality is that Palin is a fairly mainstream politician - she a conservative but not an extremist. Millions of Americans share her views, but only Palin gets hated for it.
-
Reader says:
The Feminists Against Women are all riled up:
-
Northwest rain says:
The reality is that Palin is a fairly mainstream politician - she a conservative but not an extremist. Millions of Americans share her views, but only Palin gets hated for it.
This is exactly true — Palin is no different in her political views than my relatives. She is in fact a moderate — smack dab in the middle — and that is where most Americans are — in the middle. Remember the bell curve — the top of the bell curve — that’s were Palin and my relatives (both sides of my family). I’m the black sheep — ah what am I — I used to call myself a liberal. At one time Palin would have been a liberal Republican.
Watch the body language of the deranged Palin haters — I’d like to know how wide spread this syndrome is. It wasn’t until I saw nearly identical body language when the person was ranting about Palin in at least a dozen people that I started thinking that I had spotted a pattern. It’s sort of like a reverse religious fervor — 0zero is “perfect” and god like to some people — therefore Palin has to be the inverse of god 0bama??? Or a marketing example — brand A will clean your clothes and get rid of that ring around the collar. Brand — leaves the crude ring around the collar. Obama has been marketed as a brand — the perfect one.
We’re all struggling to explain what we are seeing — basically it is misogyny on steroids. There is no logical — reason for this wide spread reaction.
-
Richard Aubrey says:
Hilary g.
“hip” “inside joke”. Something the youngsters had to do to not be left out in the cold, away from the positive regard of their friends and professors.
Seen it before on campus forty plus years ago.
Very, very easy dynamic to get going, and it sustains itself, since the folks who go along with it to be “in” are now part of the group which it is not desireable to be out of.
You’d almost think an adult would consider it unfair, it’s so easy to work on The Kids. -
RKMK says:
Y’know, I’ve been mulling this over since the megapost, because I’ve been trying to nail down the actual cause - and “they’re jus’ jellous!” and “they’re threatened by her!” don’t really pass the smell test - and this comment really helped elucidate it for me.
Mainstream feminists are ashamed of themselves. They know they were wrong in supporting Obama - or rather, at least, in not supporting Hillary on feminist grounds throughout the primary, alongside The Chosen One. Maybe initially, they really DID think Hillary was a corporate-kiss-up/ war hawk; an embarrassingly post-sexual second-waver who was slightly dorky and awkward (and racist?), certainly not “cool.”
But by the time Hillary finished up the primary season - both with her “18 million cracks” speech when she suspended her campaign, and her subsequent class-act performance at the Convention - they had a nagging feeling that Hillary Clinton: Media Creation and Hillary Clinton: The Person were two entirely different entities.
And then McCain announced Palin as his running mate, and there, right in front of them, was a living embodiment of someone who was - in theory - the polar opposite of Hillary Clinton, So-Called Despised Politician. Clinton had been pilloried for being old, post-sexual, and “establishment” Washington. Palin was young, attractive, a fresh-faced outsider with limited experience (like Obama). Hillary was too educated, an intimidatingly smart know-it-all, a boring policy wonk; Palin was a folksy charmer, state-school educated, and (like Obama) didn’t overburden herself with such things as detailed policy. Republicans hated Hillary Clinton, she was “so divisive”; but Republicans loved Sarah Palin. Hillary Clinton was “cold” and “calculating”, her family values suspect; Palin was a warm and fuzzy mother of five.
So when Sarah Palin came onto the national political scene, she stood there as a living embodiment - straight from central-casting! - of what the American public supposedly wanted in a female politician - and her very presence instantly exposed what bullshit the criticisms levied at Clinton had been.
Hillary Clinton was brilliant and exceedingly competent; she knew her shit inside and out, and wiped the floors with Obama in the debates; she was demonstrably experienced and battle-tested, tough as nails, and was an avowed, solidly pro-choice feminist. She was exactly the kind of candidate the feminist blogosphere should have been backing throughout 2008, and nearly perfectly embodied the kind of person who “should” be the first female President of the United States. She was right there in front of them, and they took her for granted, or outright abandoned her - and Sarah Palin is the living reminder of their blind betrayal. And every day that Obama proves himself the inferior politician we all knew he was, the vitriol and ridicule spewed at Palin increases - because they can’t face their own responsibility in creating this situation.
-
bob coley jr says:
As I watched and read the news I was struck by the opposing political tacks taken by Palin and Sanford. If Palin thinks she will not be effectual as a governor and steps aside early, why would Sanford fight so hard to stay. Makes it hard to trust anyone in politics. While the truth may be out there, it seems the political machine does it’s best to keep us guessing. I’m guessing women know why! This site is awesome!
-
m Andrea says:
Northwest rain, do you suppose there is any corelation with IQ? Because in my experience I notice that most of these folks can remember and recite facts, but they can’t reason through most types of problems in general. Not by themselves, anyway.
-
Sis says:
A propos link Reader. I think parents, whether conservative or liberal, will be crossing the floor on that one. Palin did say she would compromise to advising parents but they would not have to give consent.
-
SweetSue says:
Just testing and good morning. Last night, my commments were all disallowed but I don’t know why.
-
SweetSue says:
Fabulous comment, RKMK.
-
Richard Aubrey says:
SweetSue.
Seems kind of hit and miss.David Kahane at NRO has a piece, “I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin” explaining why Palin had to be destroyed.
Great insights.
Unfortunately, even this does not address how so many women were co-opted into the effort, thinking themselves independent. -
janicen says:
Been lurking for a while now and I wanted to say thanks for initiating such a stimulating discussion.
Northwestrain, I’ve seen the body language before from misogynist friends and family. When discussing any woman they want to disparage whether it’s Hillary Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro or a relative who is an independent, successful woman, their faces contort into a sneer and the tone of their voices become dismissive and filled with contempt. It’s automatic until you point it out to them.
I think it is exagerated when they talk about Palin for many of the reasons RKMK points out in comment #15. Palin’s entrance onto the national stage, and subsequent victimization, exposed the fact that people didn’t support Hillary because she was a woman, not because she was THAT woman, as the attack dogs had claimed.
If Bill had been running rather than Hillary, he would be President right now.
-
femina says:
Northwest rain — Interesting comments, by the way. I’ll be looking up links/readings about interconnections of the workings of the primitive and evolved brains (or lack of interexchanges).
I’ve suspected that internet anonymity has driven the primitive brain into over-drive as there’s no reason to edit knee-jerk reactions. Examples are the hateful comments on the Hillary supporting site I frequented in ‘08 (and now) and the net and media Palin-hate.
-
Violet says:
RKMK, I agree with your analysis in #15, except for this one bit:
Mainstream feminists are ashamed of themselves.
I’m not seeing it. I don’t think they’re self-aware enough to even know what they’re doing.
The feminists (or FAWs — Feminists Against Women!) who were most vicious about Hillary are also the ones who are the most vicious about Palin. And in both cases they show zero understanding of their own behavior. What they are, really, is unexamined misogynists who somehow accidentally got a feminist label stuck on.
And posts which question their behavior, like the giant thread here, don’t penetrate their skulls. They just snipe and carp even more and continue to repeat the same slanders. These are not serious people.
-
Mel says:
I have to go with November Rain.
When I got my communications degree, we studied marketing/propaganda techniques and the science behind them. Some of the techniques Obama used, after admittedly hiring behavioral scientists to advise on their use, were mainly used in totalitarian regimes until recently (although they were used in US war-time domestic propaganda campaigns that were later declared unconstitutional).
For instance, having audiences chant slogans, like “Yes, I can.” is intended to shut off reflection or thought about what they’re hearing. Faux predictions like that of record turnout in response to Obama’s candidacy, disseminated through the media, were a powerful form of “peer pressure” taken to the extreme. We can go on to the “blank slate” candidacy, the “truth squads,” the planted trolls meant to interrupt online debate/criticism, the race-baiting, the cult of personality, the “iconic” imagery, the pre-emptive presidential iconography, etc.
When I saw his campaign strategies, they screamed totalitarian. Unfortunately, people who don’t recognize these techniques in use are easily taken in.
-
femina says:
There’s one little last thing I wish Palin would do. I wish she would call Hillary and tell her that she now understands the burden Hillary has been carrying for decades. Palin doesn’t have to apologize for her “whining” statement.
I’d like that closure. I’d like to put those two together in my mind.
-
RKMK says:
I’m not seeing it. I don’t think they’re self-aware enough to even know what they’re doing.
Oh, definitely. It’s an unconscious shame that’s niggling at them under their skin. But their shame is subliminating into their consciousness as raging, irrational hate directed at Palin.
-
m Andrea says:
I am still fascinated by Northwest rain’s comment. Oh gosh would I love to buy a book, written for a layperson, which delves into all the psychological mechanisms which fed the Palin hate recepticle machine.
The book I have in mind would be a great compliment to Stanley Cohen’s States of Denial: Atrocities and Suffering. That book is like the holy bible of denial, for anyone who is interested.
Needs to be well-written, though, coz I’m picky, and want one just as good as Stanley’s. And get it published before the next election. Wonder if ole Stan is busy?
-
anne says:
The feminists who hate Palin and Clinton fit almost exactly into the same box of feminists who defend pornography and prostitution and claim they are a woman’s choice! so they can’t be criticised. There were quite a few of that kind who actually described Palin as a porn star too.
I knew they were misogynists already, so I’m not very surprised at their reactions to two women who threatened male power during the elections, but I suppose it’s important for it to be brought out in the open for everyone to see.
There is a branch of feminism, mainly white middle/upper class feminism learned in academia, which is more about controlling other women and sucking up to men than it is about female liberation.
-
kaija says:
don’t know how to send to you directly, so am posting in the comments section - found this at another blog
http://susiemadrak.com/2009/07.....is-coming/
the new public health care plan on the table now contains an article stating that the public plan will *not* cover abortions!
I love the fact that we were hit over the head about Roe vs. Wade during the 2008 election (as in, “vote for Obama otherwise you will not have the freedom to choose”) and he is just as conservative about this as others (i.e., non-Clinton others). And now that the domestic “conscience rule” is going to be strengthened…well, all I can say is “I told ya so.”
-
yttik says:
“I’d like to put those two together in my mind.”
I’d like to put those two together and get them out in the public eye. And why not, we talk about the importance of bipartisanship for everything else, shouldn’t women’s rights and representation in government warrant the joining of forces?? If Hillary and Palin ever step out on stage holding hands together, just that one simple act would send the patriarchy into a tail spin. Sisterhood is unbelievably powerful.
-
octogalore says:
From Lori’s quote at #4 from “daldem”, I find the ridiculing of Palin’s and her kids’ “store bought” clothes to be idiotic. This echoes the policing-of-women and classism themes sounded earlier. Is Palin supposed to find time to sew her family’s clothes? How many of us do that?
It’s hard for her to win. There’s no “coolness” factor in designers giving her clothes such as they’ve done with Michelle Obama. If she buys expensive suits, she gets hit with spendthrift policing. If she buys cheap suits, she gets hit with classism.
-
3DC says:
your blog was noted and commented on in yesterday’s edition of Rantburg
Of course these are not the sort of people Leftist enjoy but they did enjoy your discussion.
Just back up to Monday’s issue. -
Mel says:
Just noticed I called Northwest Rain, November rain. Sorry.
As for a Clinton/Palin partnership, I was thinking that very thing. We desperately need to start producing more female political talent. Too often, the old boys’ network makes it almost impossible for women to advance into politics. Who better to prepare them than those two?
-
Three Wickets says:
I personally would not blame female stereotypes in mass media entertainment, much of them anachronisms anyway, with the escalation of misogyny in the newsmedia and political sphere in the past year. The women of Bond, Pulp Fiction or even Martha Stewart are hardly the reason why Palin was savaged for her imagined intelligence and policies, hung by the neck in effigy, or had her children called whores and objects – all flamed by the media in a frenzy of ratings glee. No, for me this was not so much about the inherent sexism of traditional gender roles, though there was some of that. This was much more about electoral politics. The nation wanted its first black Potus, and Palin was a valid threat for a few months. She appealed to an electorate which at least on paper offered a direct counterpoint to Obama. So the pile-on sexism from the media and political elite, well practiced with Hillary, came gushing forth with visceral ease. The bigotry was a means to an end. The establishment offered her up as the religious fanatic, the anti-abortion fanatic, the fiscal fanatic, the racist white trash fanatic, the stupid beauty queen fanatic, the mother with campaign props for kids fanatic. And way too many men and surprisingly too many women bought into it. One might have thought more people would have learned from Hillary’s experience. Anyway, I don’t think Palin has the experience (yet) to be a viable candidate for Potus, of any party. But in my opinion, she has twice the integrity of Obama, and she sure busted the longer term credibility of the mainstream newsmedia and also shed some light on the confusion if not hypocrisy of the current feminist movement. Whatever.
-
maddie says:
yttik
Yep–the two of them on stage together would speak volumes. They wouldn’t even have to hold hands–just walk out, shake hands, sit down and open it up for discussion.
Knock Patriarchy out with one strong punch!!
I want to be there for the standing ovation.
-
Gender2010 says:
Bob Coley Jr: you brought up a great point about Sanford. The difference between Palin resigning for reasons due to frivolous lawsuits and Sanfird grasping at staying in his position is that she is being assertive and he is passive, crying, sniveling.
Yet, Senator Kerry would rather Sanford stay and Palin disappear according to his joke.
Many accept the male status quo and actively try and maintain it. This is evident in Kerry’s joke and in all the supposed liberals who laughed at Kerry’s joke. -
quixote says:
[I]t was the hip thing to do. … Palin-bashing constitutes some kind of bizarre camaraderie
That sparked an association with something I read on the BBC about a remorseful rapist in South Africa.
(First: I am NOT saying that hating Palin is the same as rape. What I am saying is that criminal hatred and — I’m not sure what to call it — say, social hatred, share roots.)
Before the incident, I was constantly jeered for not being man enough. … A friend and my cousin pressured me to prove that I was man enough, by taking part in the rape of a teenage girl in the village. This was termed “straightening her up”, since she did not want to go out with any of the local boys. … The following day, when we went for our soccer practice, this incident was reported to all the other football players. On hearing the news, they sang and clapped as if we had done something right. This helped to stop the jeering somewhat and I was allowed to associate with the other boys.
Chilling parallel.
-
quixote says:
(Erm, fell into bad language filter. Rescue, please?)
-
octogalore says:
I would have a little less difficulty with the non-purely-substantive biases called out by Reader in #12 if it weren’t for the fact that this and other sites’ “feminist” priorities seem to be drifting madly. Somehow, “feminist” has been redefined as “liberal issues presented by women, with no requirement that women’s issues be specifically mentioned” with the caveat that these women should with very few exceptions be 20-something or teenage, in the case of one recent poster.
-
Joan says:
Well, octogalore, it was pretty outrageous that Palin broke the long-standing tradition of national candidates solely outfitting themselves in thrift store finds. The Salvation Army store is where the men candidates get those Bespoke suits, isn’t it?
-
propertius says:
I dunno, Violet, her whole comment looks like something from an AA meeting:
“Hi, I’m Hillary G. and I’m an Obamaholic.”
-
Alison says:
Femina,
Palin never said that Hillary whined. She said that responding to sexism can be perceived as whining by the media. Which yes, is exactly what the media does. You respond to sexism and you are characterized as playing the victim card. Which is exactly what is happening now to Palin.
When Palin made this comment she was talking about stategies in regard to dealing with sexism. The strategy she had suggested as she started her campaign as VP was to simply ignore it and work extra hard. But yes, I think she did discover that this strategy does not work and that you have to respond as Hillary was doing and she is doing now.
So no need for Palin to apologize. She did not call Clinton a whiner. But it would be interesting for her to discuss her change in strategy and perhaps a new understanding for why Clinton HAD to respond to sexism.
-
octogalore says:
True, Joan. Apparently, the DC branch of the Salvation Army is called “Barney’s”.
Note, the same article refers to HRC’s suits as “boxy.” Please.
-
djmm says:
This post and the previous one on Gov. Palin had been wonderful. Thank you! And the comments have been incisive and thought-provoking.
I started to post on the previous thread, but after reading over 300 comments did not have anything new to say. Except that I believe the people most seriously affected are feminists in name only (like the President — probably why they voted for him) and project not only his flaws but their own on Gov. Palin and SOS Clinton. The conflict between who they believe they are (and maybe even want to be) and who they really are creates the depth and ugliness of the reaction. But that’s just my take.
Every national candidate has his or her family (sometimes including children from different spouses)on the road with them and on stage with them. I note Lori’s quote from DU (where I never venture these days — she must have a stronger stomach than I do), where she has quoted someone saying of Gov. Palin, “She has pimped out all of her children by dragging them across a stage…”
Where have I heard that phrase used before? Oh yes, when then-Senator Clinton was running for President. Hmmm. Why is it only used to describe Gov. Palin’s and Senator Clinton’s actions?? I have never heard it used to describe Gov. Romney’s campaign or Pres. Obama’s or Senator Edwards’s or Senator McCain’s or even Sen. Gore’s — all of which included their children.
Funny thing, that.
djmm
-
AM says:
Three Wickets says:
“The nation wanted its first black Potus, and Palin was a valid threat for a few months. She appealed to an electorate which at least on paper offered a direct counterpoint to Obama.”
This may be it. No rage like that of the thwarted true believer. And woman-hating is endemic, so easy.
-
cellocat says:
janicen says:
If Bill had been running rather than Hillary, he would be President right now.
—The thing is that I heard a lot of people here in Seattle on the lefty fringe I have been used to inhabit say that they “regretfully” couldn’t vote for Hillary, because Bill was fill-in-the-blank (too corporate, too centrist, etc.) and that, besides, Obama was such a Great Man who would Unite The People. So the implications were that either Hillary had created Bill (power behind the throne) and so we’d get him, but even more so with her, or that on the flip side, that Bill would tell Hillary what to do, and we’d get another Bill term with horrible fighting in the government. Who wouldn’t prefer the rainbow?
I actually think that Obama was the only creation that could have denied Hillary the win, even with all the Media hate. The duality of Obama/Messiah and Hillary/Witch was necessary in the media narrative in the effort to bring her down.
And then, once the Messiah had been created, He had to have an opponent of equal stature in order for His divination to be continually justified. And what do we like to hate on in our society even more than Mom? Well, a sl-t, of course. A man-trap who’d force a guy into chains with her gross fertility. And since this is the supposedly intellectual left we’re talking about, a stoopid man-trap, too. A bimbo who let her husband sit in on state meetings, because she was too dumb to understand what was going on.
There’s something about our perceptions of women that lets the hate get so deeply personal, too. Obama was god, but Hillary was your ex-wife nagging you to take out the garbage. Obama was the great uniter, but Sarah Palin was a bimbo your wife would let you do as long as you laundered the sheets afterwards.
Ugh.
-
hilary g says:
i am real, violet- NOT andrew sullivan :)
-
Reader says:
…with the caveat that these women should with very few exceptions be 20-something or teenage, in the case of one recent poster.
Actually many of the feminist bloggers who credit themselves with speaking for young women are now in their early thirties, making them 12 years or more older then the women who just graduated high school.
-
Toonces says:
There’s something about our perceptions of women that lets the hate get so deeply personal, too. Obama was god, but Hillary was your ex-wife nagging you to take out the garbage. Obama was the great uniter, but Sarah Palin was a bimbo your wife would let you do as long as you laundered the sheets afterwards.
I know you and others know this, but I feel like it can’t be repeated enough. The reason is because women are not real people. We’re not humans with feelings. We’re caricatures: vindictive, slutty, mean, petty, nagging, whining, dumb witches. If you can’t relate to someone, you can’t hear them and their pain isn’t real if they themselves are not real to you. So anything goes. It’s like beating up a scarecrow, an inanimate object. Inanimate objects don’t have boundaries to be noticed and respected. The inanimate objects we call women are there for our use, in whatever way we need at the time, including taking out our rage (which is apparently often wrapped up with sex for a lot of (often public) men because they have mommy issues, I guess).
Said a different way, if you see all women as one big confusing jumble of stereotypes, you just see whatever mirage you want at the time (the saint, the whore). And it gets personal because women have no right to say no, to contradict the projections, to assert themselves/the truth.
-
Toonces says:
I also agree that RKMK really hit on something.
-
sister of ye says:
I, too, would love to see Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin walk onto a stage holding hands. Just as long as they and we are prepared to see the headline: “Hillary and Sarah: Are They Having a Lesbian Affair?” Article probably by Andrew Sullivan.
The idea of them running a training/mentoring foundation to support women politicians absolutely rocks! I wonder how we could actually reach them to make that suggestion and offer our assistance to accomplish it?
-
octogalore says:
Reader, granted, three that I can think of have crossed that rubicon. However, care to speculate on the percentage of contributors who are 40+? I’d lay odds that it’s below 10%. Anyone want to take me on?
I think there are two issues — representing, and “speaking for.” At 41, I would have no problem being “represented” by someone HRC’s age. I would credit her and people of her generation with having more experience than I do about issues women my age will deal with in the next decade or so. Of course, I’d expect people “speaking for” my age group to be in the ballpark of that age group.
Similarly with young feminists, I don’t think it’s necessarily in their best interest to only hear from or be represented by women who are below 40. Most of those women haven’t dealt with key obstacles many women face, in terms of balancing if multiple kids or parental illnesses happen (as many 20- or 30-somethings still have relatively young parents), having a wealth of career issues and knowledge to pull from, having lived through various iterations of feminism, etc. And all women of any age who don’t die prematurely will deal with ageism, many even before 40. Although many feel it’s not relevant to us yet, it’s the height of patriarchy denial to feel we can take a long slow breath before it is.
The dismissing of the voices of older women is precisely why it was “cool” (to come back to Lori’s comment #1) for various sorts of feminists to take the “not *that* woman” line on HRC.
-
janicen says:
To #47, cellocat, I lived in Seattle during the primary, and I didn’t really hear anyone say that they would not vote for Hillary because of Bill. I remember that the people adored Bill and lined up for miles in Issaquah when he was there for a book signing. It was the hottest ticket in town. Now these same people, a few of them friends of mine, could not articulate why they couldn’t vote for Hillary. They all hid behind the Obama worship along with hope and change. People grasped at any excuse not to vote for Hillary rather than confront their deep seeded misogyny.
Addressing my earlier comment that, If Bill had been running rather than Hillary, he would be President right now, I meant that people didn’t hate the “Clinton” part of Hillary, they hated the female part.
-
Alison says:
In regard to young vs. old…. The 3rd wave itself is aging. Many of them are young thirty somethings… There are new women being born everyday. I will be interested in seeing what direction the 18 year olds of today will go. And the “oldies” (I guess I’m old at 39?) we can help and influence the truly young probably more than we can influence the already indoctrinated 3rd wave cultists.
-
Reader says:
Actually, Alison, many well known Third Wavers (Rebecca Walker, Jennifer Baumgartner, Amy Richards, Naomi Wolf etc.) are almost 40 or over 40. Naomi Wolf is 46.
Rebecca Walker claims to have coined the term “third wave feminism” in 1992 - 17 years ago, a generation.
-
cloaking device says:
I also think RKMK hit on something there in that theory why feminists didn’t want to vote for Hillary and then piled on Palin afterwards. In addition, I think the “white guilt” in the Third Wave is very prevalent, given that most of them believe the propaganda that Second Wave feminists were not inclusive of WOC in the 70s ERA movement. I know this, because, up until Violet skooled me on this bit of history, I believed it too. (I’m 40yrs old & was a little young for the 70s ERA movement, but now I’m too old for the Third Wave!)
Perhaps many young white feminists wanted so badly to prove that they aren’t like the old guard white feminists, they were desperately looking for a reason to stand with their AA sisters against the white woman candidate. When the Obama campaign began smearing the Clintons with the racism charge, they jumped on board and never left. (Not to say that a goal of standing with our WOC sisters is wrong or silly, just that the way it manifested into smearing a politician that, up until that point in time, had a good track record with POC, was not an honest way of achieving solidarity).
I also think that many of them wanted to prove that they didn’t vote with their vaginas, but they would never admit it.
This would be doubly true for Palin, since she was a woman AND a Republican. Which is why so MANY of my friends who “didn’t like” Hillary, then piled on Palin as if she were the Devil Incarnate. They felt “insulted” that Mcain had obviously chosen Palin just to get their vote. And that was Palin’s fault too, btw.
-
Alison says:
Thanks Reader,
As a recovering 3rd Waver at 39 years of age you are absolutely right. I grew up with Camille Paglia as my feminist heroine, ugh.
So the 3rd Wave is older than I thought! Old. Just like all of us;) I’m tired of 3rd Wavers characterizing themselves as young and current. Everything they are saying just speaks of bad times that are just starting to pass.
-
octogalore says:
cloaking device: yes. That is a huge factor. Among young white feminists, the fear of being perceived as racist is much stronger than that of being perceived as sexist (similar to society generally; ask Anita Hill what was more publicly acceptable).
Unfortunately for these young white feminists, the desire to be hip seemed in many cases stronger than the desire to find common cause with their WOC sisters. So from what I noted, at least, there were not strong alliances that sprung up over simply drinking the BO kool aid.
-
Sis says:
Racism is the membership card for the 30s generation.
The majority haven’t even thought it out, they just go by rote. If it was an actual thoughtful response to racism, they would include native people (who in Canada are invisible because racism means against Blacks as delivered by the music culture in the U.S.) and you wouldn’t see Black people represented as ‘other’ in Canada. Where they aren’t ‘other’.
-
Alison says:
Sis,
I noticed that when I visited Canada. I was told by a book store owner in Canada that sadly, he could not point me to any native children’s literature because native people were not very esteemed in Canada and were actually looked down upon. And yet I have met many Canadians who speak loudly against the racism in the U.S.
This also happened when I lived in Argentina. So much talk about the U.S. and our history of slavery and yet they turned their noses up whenever their indigenous population was mentioned and would say things like “we are not like them” and “that is not Argentina”.
-
Sis says:
In other ironies: Over at Feministe, someone is contorting themselves into paroxisms of political correctness about what to call people who are not disabled. Shall we say they are normal, how about able-bodied. Temorarily able-bodied?
This in contrast to no discussion whatsoever over there (and similar progressive sites) about what to call Palin.
-
hilary g says:
Propertius…for the record, I was never a full fledged Obamaholic. I wanted Hillary, but when that didn’t work out I figured Obama was the lesser of two evils. Woops.
-
adagioforstrings says:
re: all the people who want Hillary & Palin to sing kumbaya together.
I seriously doubt that this will happen since HRC wants to be a good foot soldier in the Obama administration. During the campaign, HRC cancelled her appearance at the anti-Amadinejad UN rally when Palin was also invited.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I too would love to see a sisterhood moment with Palin and Clinton. Maybe Sarah will address Hillary’s campaign in her book? I can hope, right?
-
Sis says:
Hey. (ring ting ring…) Here’s a video from Palin, in her fishing waders. From Huff Po. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....26787.html
-
Sis says:
Alison it’s been branded. Racism=Black Americans.
And Obama represents the ‘bathing of the feet’ by the progressive left.
-
octogalore says:
It’s odd that women responded to Palin, on experience grounds primarily (since her substantive positions were typical for a Republican) with “how stupid do you think we are, that we’d vote for this lightweight.” Some of them claimed that other right wing women with more experience, even if they were pro life, would not have been seen as a token.
And yet, Obama wasn’t seen as a token by blacks, in large part, or by women, in large part. But what is the difference, experience-wise? His active Senate career was only about a year and a half tops. He had more prep time on his talking points, and it showed, but beyond that it was tough (for me) to see why the virtuous anger on the part of women. Why was it “refreshing, new, not from DC” when it was Obama, and “token, lightweight” when it was Palin?
OK, stupid question…
-
jeannie says:
Here we are. This from today on MyDD…..
“Because she is disingenuous, corrupt, dishonest, ignorant, cowardly, hypocritical, and unintelligent.
Also because she is a political and ideological nightmare, a stuttering idiot, a bumbling moron, a blubbering fool, a dangerous power-hungry lunatic, and a hyperventilating tinfoil hat-wearing disgrace to the state of Alaska.
Not to mention, she is just generally unqualified to hold or run for public office, as she has proven time and time again with myriad displays of stupidity and incompetence, most recently by resigning because things got a bit too hot for her, or because she’s trying to avoid whatever upcoming scandal her family has undoubtedly brought entirely on itself.
You believe in women’s rights. As such, you do yourself a disservice by defending this vile, disgusting filth of a politician, who has engendered your sympathy solely because she has a vagina, and who — despite possessing one — would send women’s rights back to the stone age if ever she were given the chance.”
What can you say? It is horrifying.
-
RKMK says:
Here we are. This from today on MyDD…..
… Crike. *rubs temples*
-
Sis says:
Should it stay here? These people are imbalanced. “Vile … filth”? I blame Obama. I do.
-
jeannie says:
It shocks me every time. The utter hatred of such an opinion (if it can be called that). Not one word true - just vomit. DK is often worse. There was a blog on DKos a couple of nights ago - asking why they hated Sarah. There were 500 comments, not one giving her the benefit of slight doubt of their ugly opinions. And many commenters are women.
I think there is a lot of fault that should go to the media. My two grown daughters are not political, and when Sarah came up in conversation talked about her faults, as heard on CNN, and were shocked at my good opinion of her as a governor and her spunk. They had not researched, and didn’t understand how much of what they had heard was totally false. The feminist daughter I turned around - the other is still wobbling….. -
angienc says:
I’ve never been to MyDD, but who ever asked about the Palin hatred being linked to low IQ — I believe you have your answer.
-
myiq2xu says:
I’m glad you said “low IQ” cuz I ain’t a Palinhater
-
Sis says:
#74 did you used to call yourself Mandos?
Sheesh. Enough.
-
octogalore says:
Kind of a case in point that may be good for some laughs (or more likely, some tears):
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016552.html
1) Palin called an “asshole”
2) Palin accused of “hating women”
3) (in comments) It’s OK to trash Palin’s parenting because, after all, it was mentioned on this site that Michael Jackson was a flawed parent. -
mo says:
But that’s just it: it’s those who consider themselves of superior intelligence, discernment and sophistication who are the “sheeples” here. They simply do not see how they are being played; their opinions and emotions manipulated, their capacity for independent thinking dismantled, their self-righteous hatred deliberately inflamed. They do not see that such corrosive hatred is as self-destructive as it is damaging to civil society. Such blind fury is frightening and it’s vital that we understand it.
Thanks to Dr. Socks and to all thoughtful posters on these threads.
-
donna darko says:
Palin didn’t talk about feminism until PUMA blogs talked about it and everyone should know by now PUMAs are real feminists. Third Wavers should not be “insulted” or think Palin coopted feminism. McCain and Obama have read and responded to PUMA blogs from the beginning.
It really bothers me when “feminists” say Palin uses her children as props because Obama uses his children as props more in photo ops and articles. Every candidate trots out their family at the Convention. Bristol became pregnant on her own and this was simply a fact Palin had to deal with. The only heavy handed moment was Levi showing up at the convention in a show for carrying to term and “life”. Piper is cute but do are the Obama girls who are in more photo ops than the Palin children proportionally. There was one shameless moment in February I forget which controversy he was covering up for when he said he went into public service for his children but this is belied by his policies.
-
donna darko says:
As far as rape kits, Palin did not charge for rape kits but Illinois and a few other states charge for rape kits.
-
donna darko says:
Obama must be an asshole who hates women.
*rim shot*
-
JLawson says:
@ #77, Mo -
But that’s just it: it’s those who consider themselves of superior intelligence, discernment and sophistication who are the “sheeples” here.
Fully agree - they congratulate themselves on how independent-minded they are, as they stampede off a cliff.
They simply do not see how they are being played; their opinions and emotions manipulated, their capacity for independent thinking dismantled, their self-righteous hatred deliberately inflamed.
And they don’t want to know, either. I’ve literally had conversations where I’ve gotten people to think about what they’re spouting - and they’re appalled for about a day. Then it’s like a reset button is pushed, and the old programming is in place. They’re uncomfortable with thinking they’re wrong, or hateful, or intolerant - so it’s necessary for them to forget that they were. The easist way for them to do that is just go back to the old thinking.
And it’s very Orwellian at times. I was having a conversation back when Hillary was still potentially in the running - the guy I was talking with was a rabid Hillary supporter. Comparing Hillary to Obama - Obama came up real short, and he couldn’t diss Obama enough… until he became the candidate. At that point, Hillary turned into a complete incompetent, and he couldn’t say enough bad things about her and praise Obama enough. I called him on the reversal, and as far as he was concerned he’d ALWAYS felt like that about Obama and Hillary.
They do not see that such corrosive hatred is as self-destructive as it is damaging to civil society. Such blind fury is frightening and it’s vital that we understand it.
I’m not sure, but I think it may be too late to avoid a lot of the damage. What’s even worse is that although a lot of people simply refuse to acknowledge the damage in the first place, there are those who deliberately foment it. After all, a little hate keeps people coming back, and that’s good for the blog rankings. Just like in TV or radio - the more eyes you get, the more you make on ad revenue.
-
nevermore_a_Dem says:
adagioforstrings says:
re: all the people who want Hillary & Palin to sing kumbaya together.
I seriously doubt that this will happen since HRC wants to be a good foot soldier in the Obama administration. During the campaign, HRC cancelled her appearance at the anti-Amadinejad UN rally when Palin was also invited.
Oh, dear. Much as I’d love to see HRC acknowledge Palin in some way, or collaborate with Palin on something (Palin mentioned HRC in her convention speech, remember? Even if it was a calculated political move, it was still an actual acknowledgment of HRC’s accomplishments by a GOPer - unlike her fellow Dems!), I think adagioforstrings is right about HRC’s being bound totally by her loyalty to the party to the very bitter end. I think HRC does not want to be sidelined in the party (that left her blowing in the wind), and will do anything for the party, even sacrifice her own ambitions and goals for it. Recall also how she campaigned for BH0 after he stole the candidacy? She made how many appearances on his behalf now? And what did she get for it - a check from the Os for some ridiculous amount to help her debt payment - instead of him actually asking with vigour and enthusiasm lots of people who were listening to his crap to help her pay off her campaign debts? (And his weak appeal to this end at that dinner event came only as an almost-forgotten afterthought?)
Nope, that Palin-Clinton cooperation ain’t gonna happen, sadly.
-
angienc says:
The “new” thing seems to be that “Yes, sexism is wrong, but don’t be too concerned about what happened to Palin because she is a conservative pro-lifer who shouldn’t be dog-catcher, much less governor.” Talk about cognitive dissonance. Am I supposed to not be disturbed by the “burn the witch” mob mentality fomented by the msm & the Obots because I disagree with her politically? Is the fact that I am disturbed by her treatment automatically mean I am advocating for her political beliefs? I’m disgusted & saddened by it all.
-
myiq2xu says:
#74 did you used to call yourself Mandos?
No - I used to call myself myiq2xu
-
Briar says:
It’s mobbing. We have always been prone to it as a species. The internet however, far from promoting fact-base reasoning, has turbo charged it. Now everyone gets the incitement to mob some hapless victim delivered straight to their living room. They don’t have to go out or make an effort to join the mob: they just have to log on and tap out some cruelly cool message. Done in an instant and voila, you are a fully paid up member of the crool squad, sharing in a little of their ruthless power. And it’s such fun, too!
-
Gayle says:
Just so we’re clear, there will be no thoughtful introspection done by the on-line third wave feminist set:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016552.html
Sexism is (to put it mildly) underplayed with the whole “she asked for it” argument. Oh, and she shouldn’t have used her children as props like that and it’s obvious she’s as bad a mom as she is a politician. There’s even a mention of how she’s has not yet been sufficiently humbled. That’s how we like our women: HUMBLE.
In other words: same old, same old talking points. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.
I’m pretty much convinced the so-called third wave is really a front for anti-feminist propaganda. It’s too bad some well meaning women get caught up in it.
-
anne says:
It really is time to take back feminism from the woman-haters. They’ve been dominating the discourse for far too long.
Hilarious that Samhita at Feministing wanted to see Palin humbled. What next, the ducking stool?
-
Lorenzo says:
For the life of me, I can’t see what’s so appealing about the man. Crooked Chicago politician, narcissist, empty suit.
Violet, this strikes me as the other side of you being so sane over Palin and so bemused and appalled by the hateful insanity towards her.
There are two sides of the Obama hype, apart from Democrats being happy that they are in. One is the perfectly understandable enthusiasm for a black man becoming President of the United States. It is the culmination of the promise in Martin Luther Kings “I have a dream” speech and, regardless of what you think of Obama the man, his performance or his policies, a great and seminal event in American politics.
The other is supporting Obama as a marker of righteousness. The notion that one is a good person because one supports Obama and a bad person if one does not. So, in extolling Obama, they are actually extolling themselves. (And suggesting certain other outlooks, as I discuss here.)
Clearly, you do not think like that. You judge Obama according to how you see him–on the Martin Luther King criteria of “the content of his character”. Just as you see feminism as about advancing women, not merely women who agree with you.
I am not on the left politically–my politics are roughly what Americans call libertarian–but I have found that I can far more enjoy discussing politics with a sane person on the Left–someone with the “but the facts matter” empiricism that is central to such sanity–than a person the right who is all about Correct Opinion.
I would also suggest that is why the comment thread on the previous post is so engaging: the viewpoints are varied, but the general “but the facts matter” sanity level is high.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
More from My DD, in a diary:
Word is out this morning that the scandal which prompoted Alaska governor Sarah Palin to quit office is of a sexual nature.
My sources in Alaska (I volunteered there for three years back in the late 90’s) tell me that this will break by the weekend at the latest.
Journalists have tracked down her lesbian lover, but have refused to release her name thus far. However, my sources tell me it is a certain J.Klein, a government worker in Australia.
Ms Klein, known as an ardent pro-life activist, worked with Palin in early 2003 as some kind of assistant. We now know that the only ‘assistance’ she gave was sexual.
This makes perfect sense to me.
Why am I less than surprised?
-
tinfoil hattie says:
feministing is a horrible site. That post and the accompanying comments prove it.
-
m Andrea says:
I have to agree with everyone, all at once. Except Threewickets, who is wrong on everything.
Vanilla girls were threatened by Palin, felt jellus, was ashamed, and then were too self-absorbed to figure out why their ensuing rage was irrational. A shrinky person could probably throw a few other fascinating psych mechanisms in there as well, which is probably why we’re having such trouble nailing the “one” right answer.
No, the general consensus among those who study such things is that those who believe they can see through a con are the most susceptible — which IS corelated to high IQ but these folks are constantly conflating their fweelings for actual reason so obviously they are stupid and there’s something else in addition.
Personally, I have noticed vanilla girls assuming that something is all black or all white and never bothering to look for a hidden agenda in those whom they admire. As a fun exercise right before the election, I casually asked some of them to name one GOOD thing about Palin. They sputtered “nothing” and reeled off a laundry list of vitriol. When a seperate group of vanilla girls were casually asked to name one FLAW regarding their messiah, they were shocked into jaw-hanging silence. I also discovered that you couldn’t ask the same vanilla girl both questions and get such extreme reactions to both questions, it only happened in response to the first question. By the second question, they caught on that I was really asking if they could see the world in shades of grey — they can’t. See Bob Altmeyer’s The Authoritarians which proposed left-wing A’s are slightly different from right-wing A’s in some regards but Bob also thought LWA’s couldn’t exist in large quantities.
-
JadedByPolitics says:
I personally just want to thank you for being a bridge for feminists from the right and left! I have shared your site with my girlfriends and we have discussed how relevent you are in your take on these wave’s.
I look forward to the enlightened wave of new feminist’s who can see that the FIGHT is for respect for all women no matter their political affiliations!
-
SarahG says:
If anyone is interested, James Taranto over at WSJ has a column up contrasting Biden’s statements on Israel with Palin’s (identical) and the reactions thereto (NOT identical).
-
okasha skatsi says:
Lesbian lover, huh? Didn’t we get that with Hillary, even though she personally killed Vince Foster to conceal the torrid affair she was having with him?
Gods, what lack of imagination. If they’re going for Australia, couldn’t they at least make it a lesbian kangaroo?
-
Gayle says:
octogalore,
Sorry for posting the same link. I somehow missed your comment entirely. Until now, that is.
-
octogalore says:
No worries, Gayle. It’s reassuring to see we were on the same page. Even my husband, who’s a decent dude but not on the cutting edge of feminist thought, sat with his jaw agape after I told him of the Michael Jackson parenting comparison. Talk about a false equivalence
-
TeresaINPa says:
“Sarah Palin is a power hungry ignorant evangelical tongue speaking slu…”
Author daldemAuthor Info Member since May 12th 2002
2037 posts
Date Sat Jun-13-09 04:18 PM
MessageIn response to Reply #0
She has pimped out all of her children by dragging
them across a stage in their store bought new outfits every opportunity that she got
during the campaign. She proudly called Obama a terrorist
in front of them (and btw still slanders him). And she never apologized when her right wing nut fans used racial slurs toward Obama. She can
dish it out but she can’t take it. She is a whinny
Alaskan corn ball would be beauty queen sportscaster who just happened to be thrust into a campaign that that needed a distraction from the real issues. She is a would be if she could be…….but will never
be. She is an entertainer just like Limbaugh.
She will milk this Letterman thing as long as she can because
she has nothing intelligent to offer. She and her entire
Hillbilly Clan belong on Jerry Springer (if he will have them).
She is a disgrace to women IMO.I can guess who this poster is and IMO he is a brain dead women hating 25 year old with a fear of vaginas having teeth.
-
Andrea says:
I’ve been mostly lurking here, blown away by the fact that a whole bunch of people are actually having a rational discussion about Sarah Palin.
But I do have a question for #81 JLawson, or anybody else who might have insight.
JLawson said:
“And they don’t want to know, either. I’ve literally had conversations where I’ve gotten people to think about what they’re spouting - and they’re appalled for about a day.”How do you even get people that far? My experience with the people whose opinion switches are so easily flicked on and off is that they can’t listen, can’t have a conversation, they can only rant and spew. I’ve tried different dialectical approaches (in the rare instances I can get a word in) and if I happen to catch them up in their own nonsense, it’s like I got the ball past their goalie. They lost the point, but it didn’t really mean anything, they’re quickly on to the next round. Either that or, as Violet has pointed out (”But she’s for abstinence-only!”), they just deflect, change the subject. I have no idea how to get them to think about what they’re saying.
-
JeanLouise says:
For feminina, Palin did make a comment that she had no real understanding of what Hillary had gone through until she was named as McCain’s running mate. It occurred during the infamous Thanksgiving interview where the turkeys were being beheaded behind Palin. It wasn’t an apology but it was an acknowledgement of the horror that Hillary had endured for many years.
-
sister of ye says:
At the risk of igniting someone’s “lesbians took over feminism!” indignation, I have to ask: What would be wrong if the extremely unlikely were true and Clinton and/or Palin were lesbians? Actually, the possibility gives me a nice warm feeling and a little sadness that I’d never have a chance with either.
And, Australia? That’d be worse than Sanford and his Argentinian lover. I mean, Alaska and Australia both begin in A and border the Pacific, but it’s a long way to go to get a little cuddling.
Guess it wouldn’t be politically practical for Clinton and Palin to come on stage holding hands after all, but if it were me, I’d do it just to rattle everyone’s cages. Which, I suppose, is why I’m not the politician.
P.S. I got a big chuckle over the lesbian kangaroo. Maybe somewhere there’s a penguin with a toaster oven.
-
RKMK says:
At the risk of igniting someone’s “lesbians took over feminism!” indignation, I have to ask: What would be wrong if the extremely unlikely were true and Clinton and/or Palin were lesbians? Actually, the possibility gives me a nice warm feeling and a little sadness that I’d never have a chance with either.
From what I gather, sister of ye, is that it would be “bad” because it’s “proof” of their cold-blooded manipulation and deceitfulness, blatantly using a man and bearing his children so they have a chance to run for public office. (i.e. Hillary stayed with Bill after he cheated because she’s a lesbian anyway and they don’t really love each other or have sex anyway, they just use each other for the image and the PR.) Or something. I have trouble decoding the thought processes of the clinically deranged.
-
JLawson says:
#98 Andrea -
I could say it’s a ‘unique’ approach, you ‘nique up on them slowly on other ideas, get them to agree on valid points, then you gently steer them to the first reaction. If you gauge them right, you ask them just why they feel so strongly… and then ask if they think it’s a rational response. But it’s a fine line - too angry and they’ll miss the point.
But when they get it, a light dawns.
(Sorry about the ‘unique’ joke - the offspring asked ‘How do you catch a unique rabbit? You ‘nique up on him, of course!’ and I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to use it…)
-
Sis says:
Oh dear. It’s one or the other. Either it’s ok to be a lesbian, or it’s the tool you use to spread dirt. You don’t get it both ways, prog lefties.
-
mo says:
A sincere question for Jillian C. York #483 from the previous thread:
Would you please explain to me why you “hate” Sarah Palin because she holds different views than yours on abortion and wearing fur?
I can understand having a passionate commitment to your point of view, I can understand strongly disagreeing with another’s opinion, but why, and how, does that become hatred for someone who disagrees with you? -
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Red Tent Feminists and PF Flyers « The Confluence says:
[...] had transcended gender and race. Instead, they were clobbered by race. I found this comment by Unree at ReclusiveLeftist that sums it up: Looking at white people over the last couple of decades, I’ve observed an increasing fraction of [...]
-
Andrea says:
JLawson — Thanks! I like it. I’ll have to ‘nique your approach. Or something.
-
Violet says:
Hey! Unree’s comment #5 is in a post over at The Confluence (see the trackback). I thought that was pretty fine comment myself.
-
Sis says:
It is so hard to keep up. What I like about the posts here is they are so thoughtful. They aren’t just rim shots. I think that’s because of your example Vi. You teach me something about ‘conversation’ and examining my thinking and how I can make a connection, every time you post. And the rest of you just lay me flat, time after time.
-
angus says:
Nice debate, but you are over thinking this. It is just politics.
In politics you attack the other party by building a detrimental and probably slanderous narrative of minimal complexity about them. Whilst at the same time building an equally simple (probably untrue) and praise filled narrative of your own party.
If you were a patriot in 04 who backed the war on terror, you were probably “aware” that in Vietnam Kerry was a gloryholic paper soldier who got a purple heart for scrathing himself on a door.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
Sorry but I just now made it through all the posts in the giant thread, and there was an angle I wanted to ask about:
Rush and Coulter. Said awful, awful things about Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, Secretary Albright, etc. in the 1990s. Yet today, they are among Palin’s stoutest defenders among right-wing media. (If you don’t bother to read right-wing blogs, there’s a huge fight over Palin going on right now among conservatives and Republicans and Rush and Coulter are steadfastly in Palin’s corner.) Aside from making these two even more hypocritical than before (if that’s even possible), why is this? How can two of the most vile, misogynistic voices in the media also be so pro-Palin? Is it just to get hits/views/listerners or sell books/records/advertising? Or has Sarah actually managed to tame those two beasts?
-
gxm17 says:
To all of those who keep interjecting the “just politics” meme, I ask you to consider that during last year’s campaign racist attacks were not carried out by the candidates or the MSM or, to the best of my knowledge, by women claiming to be feminists. Of course the attacks against Palin are political, but why are they sexist and misogynistic in nature? Why is her family maligned? And why are women, some who call themselves feminists, participating in the gender abuse? The hatred we are seeing transcends mere politics. The attacks on Palin, IMO, represent more than a political war between two parties. This is a cultural and gender war. And I really hope Palin stays in the fight.
-
hilary g says:
alwaysfiredup: I would venture to say it’s because she’s a Republican.
-
gxm17 says:
alwaysfiredup @ 110.
I’ve stopped watching the “news” and even when I did I avoided Rush and Coulter. But when I was still tuning in, I recall that Coulter actually got behind Hillary and said she’d vote for her over McCain. Heaven only knows why she suddenly found solidarity with her sisters.
-
hilary g says:
…because I don’t have much faith in Rush or Coulter. In Rush’s case, it probably doesn’t hurt that Palin is attractive; after all, this is the man who wondered if America “really wants to see a female President age” (in reference to Hillary).
-
hilary g says:
…and the same man who famously said that feminism was created “so unattractive women could get ahead in society.”
-
harkin says:
Been lurking here a few days. Just want to say this discussion coming from what appears to be a die-hard nanny-state liberal is refreshing. Someone who is as fact-based on Obama should also be more fact-based on conservative principals. You also should be able to see the many faults of Sonya Sotomayor, esp regarding Ricci. I would also ask you to consider how you would react if Obama had appointed a ‘wise black man’ and said he could make better decisions than a latina woman. It’s ridiculous no matter which race/sex is invoked
I have to say that I never supported Palin for vice president because she has never given me an indication that she was the best we could do, sex has nothing to do with that. The fact that she was more fit for office than Obama, Biden or (sorry) Hillary does not change that. I think we can do better. She might make a good senator though.
Some of us conservatives are still waiting for the real thing, the Thatcher of our own country. I hope we don’t have to wait too much longer.
-
angus says:
gxm17,
On racism there were a few hints put about that voting Republican was a vote for a continuation of white dominance.
-
tdraicer says:
Palin is hardly a moderate and if she were President I expect (as a liberal) I’d oppose almost everything she’d do. I might even hate her-as I did RWR and Bush II. And Obama.
None of that changes the fact she was a victim of the sexism stirred up in the primary for use against Clinton. Or that she was a victim of the Beltway anti-populism (in which working class people of either party are seen as an alien threat to our Corporate Masters) that also was used first against Hillary.
Now liberalism used to be about fighting sexism and standing up for the working class. Actually I think it still is. But “progressives” are clearly not “liberals.”
-
julia says:
I am so sick of the Media. They protect Obama like he’s a top Pentagon secret. We don’t know if he’s a good father or husband - maybe he and Michelle have what lots of Hollywood stars have: a strictly business relationship. And his abs? With men’s slimming fashions (invented by men) we can’t tell.
It was ‘cool’ to hate both Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton in my ‘liberal’ town last year. You can not please men or sexist women. So stop trying!
We have to live and do as we like, and if this dosen’t prove it, I don’t know what will.
-
Michele Braa-Heidner says:
I know this thread is outdated, but I really need to express how disgusted I am! Recently when my friend started a poll on Facebook “Would You Vote For Sarah Palin in 2012?” Let me tell you the haters all came out for this pole!! No matter how much I tried to inject any rational thinking into the mob brawl, no one listened. Instead they began to attack me, and I had to retreat!!
So Violet, your statement about Northwest Rain’s theory is correct!!
“Palin is the designated hate receptacle. She’s the object of everybody’s lizard brain Hate.”
It’s disgusting how these haters are using Sarah Palin as a scape goat for their own anger, fear and shame.
-
seattlegal says:
Michele Braa-Heidner post #120 says:
I know this thread is outdated, but I really need to express how disgusted I am! Recently when my friend started a poll on Facebook “Would You Vote For Sarah Palin in 2012?” Let me tell you the haters all came out for this pole!! No matter how much I tried to inject any rational thinking into the mob brawl, no one listened. Instead they began to attack me, and I had to retreat!!
So Violet, your statement about Northwest Rain’s theory is correct!!
“Palin is the designated hate receptacle. She’s the object of everybody’s lizard brain Hate.”
It’s disgusting how these haters are using Sarah Palin as a scape goat for their own anger, fear and shame.
I’ve had some success with bringing the Gen X-ers who disagree with Sarah’s politics back to rational thinking regarding all the hate, but the Boomers are more of a challenge. {Habitually entrenched in scorched earth culture wars, perhaps?}
