“You’re not listening to me”
I don’t have any trouble understanding what Sarah Palin is saying, but Andrea Mitchell is baffled. She’s on the scene in western Alaska to “try to find out” why Palin resigned, even though Palin said pretty clearly in her resignation speech that she was quitting because it had become impossible for her to do her job without costing the state millions of dollars in fending off nuisance charges. Palin gives the same explanation in this interview, but she might as well be speaking Urdu. Mitchell still can’t get it.
“You’re not listening to me” is right.
And don’t miss the snarky presentation. Palin says if reporters want to see her, they can come out to the fishing grounds; Mitchell calls this “setting up a giant photo opportunity.” Footage of the family on the boat? That’s a carefully crafted bit of propaganda designed to dispel rumors of an impending scandal. Palin in waders? Obviously a refreshing change from “designer clothes” and “diva behavior.” Mitchell even gets in a crack about almost being able to see Russia. Brilliant!
I want new pundits.
148 Responses to ““You’re not listening to me””
-
myiq2xu says:
Stupid should hurt
July 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am EST -
yttik says:
It sure appears as if Palin has taken control and decided things will be done on her terms from now on. I love to see women pull this off, it’s not an easy feat. The culture is forever defining women, forcing them to respond to expectations and other people’s needs.
-
anne says:
She’s the real deal isn’t she? No wonder they hate her so much.
Hard working women rock.
-
femina says:
I wish there had been more of these types of interviews in the run-up to the election. She is so quick here and unscripted, showing her natural appeal and personality on her turf. What’s so difficult to understand about this normal, down-to-earth woman and her family that won’t fit into Mitchell’s and the media’s desperately slanted marketing of her for their own gain?
I’m betting on her to show everyone up.
-
wisetrog says:
A reporter from Time described the hippity-hop in their backyard as a “green Yoga ball.” Talk about elitism!
Another gem was reporter Kate Snow of ABC pointing out that Sarah had fish gut on her clothes. Diane Sawyer even commended Kate for her bravery to go near the fish gut and report!
And Andrea’s face speaks for itself.
-
TheOtherDelphyne says:
Fish guts - hahaha! Rather than shaking hands with Andrea, Sarah should have given her a big bear hug.
-
riverdaughter says:
Not the first time I’ve been disappointed by Andrea Mitchell. (So, what else is new?) I used to listen in on Hillary’s Campaign conference calls. Mitchell was infuriating. It quickly became clear that Mitchell was making the news, not reporting it. From the questions she asked, she already had a story and an outcome. No matter how upbeat and positive the news from Howard Wolfson et al, Mitchell could be counted on to tell them they were dreaming. Do you remember when HIllary would win a state and the media would report her as the flailing underdog who had no possibility of overtaking Obama? Pure Mitchell. I would listen to that so-called journalist and want to wring her skinny neck. She’s not a reporter. She is the worst sort of propaganda agent. Why do we concentrate so much of our ire at Bill O’Reilly and Chris Matthews? It’s Andrea we need to gang up on. She’s awful.
And Katie Couric is quickly becoming a stealth assassin for the media. I’ve had enough of the smirking, condescension and contempt. -
SweetSue says:
Wasn’t it Andrea Mitchell, in the Nineties, who bemoaned that she couldn’t tell if Hillary Clinton was a mother, a lawyer, or a politician?
Because she couldn’t be all three authentically!
Women must be squeezed into teeny, tiny categories. At least, that’s how they see it in the Village. You’re either Laura Bush (all good) or Monica Lewinsky (all bad). -
Gender2010 says:
By doing this interview the way she did it has already started to transform the landscape for women politicians. Palin has shown herself to be a major role model for girls and women seeking office. Andrea Mitchell us a cardboard cutout. Her questions were bland and Palin dominated. Any feminist who trashes Palin for this interview proves that she is no feminist.
-
TeresaINPa says:
I want no pundits.
-
Bella Donna says:
Am I the only one wondering if she made them meet her out there to get them to stop pestering her for interviews?
The look on Mitchell’s face reminded me of SNL’s only funny segment during Palin’s run for office, the debriefing of reporters about to go to Alaska for the first time in their lives.
-
Violet says:
Actually, I am surprised Andrea didn’t manage to work in the word “rambling” somewhere. Is it a rule that all references to Palin’s statements have to include the word “rambling”?
-
Sis says:
I just kept wishing I was going out on that boat. Oh, and where I could get some of that salmon. It tastes like a different species from what you buy in the fish stores.
Wild salmon, Arctic Char, Pickerel. Jackfish. I’d give my right arm (which for some reason is kinda achy these last couple days).
-
ralphb says:
She gives great interviews where her marvelous humanity just shines through. USA Today polled and found the following after the resignation.
“When it comes to a potential presidential run, the USA TODAY Poll displays Palin’s strength in the Republican base and weakness among swing voters, who traditionally decide national elections. Republicans by 71%-27% say they’d be likely to vote for her if she ran for president in 2012, while independents by 51%-44% would not.”
Considering the hellish coverage of her resignation, 51-44 among Independents is pretty good. Run, Sarah, Run!
-
Cheeky Bastard says:
And I’m pretty sure I didn’t hear her say “Uhh” or “Umm” once during the entire interview. Unlike the Chosen One.
-
run_dmc says:
All you need to know about Andrea Mitchell’s intelligence is that she decided to marry the man who ruined the world’s economy.
-
Sis says:
Ratings. Ratings is why they keep her on. And ratings come from you tuning in.
Kill your tv. Get your news on NPR. I know it’s not perfect. Watching and listening to these so-called reporters is like Cheetos is to food. Radio is best for news. Just get the one-liners on the hour, or the 30 minute newscasts from BBC, and you know what’s going on. You don’t need to hear all the spin and lies.
You know, once upon a time, you could tell the difference between a reporter and a pr flack.
-
Monchichipox says:
Why Sarah would want to give all this up is beyond me. I’d take my book millions and never be seen again. I’m not surprised at her speaking off the cuff without a teleprompter as I’ve watched many speeches and press conferences before she was “tapped(wink wink)” to be th VP nominee.
She looks refreshed and recharged and like she just might be able to pull it off.
I was so pissed off listening to Cookie Roberts yesterday morning on NPR. She “acknowledged” the sexism but said Sarah would “have to get used to it. It’s out there.” I wonder if she would tell Obama to get used to the racism.
And those poll numbers above are pretty good considering. I wonder if Molly Ivins would have liked Sarah.
-
lexia says:
Fish guts? I can’t imagine Mitchell having the competence to not get herself killed on a fishing boat, much less the courage to set foot on one that isn’t a tourist jaunt around protected waters or the skill to actually catch fish.
She’s pulled the shield of femininity tight against herself, but it a dainty little thing, far too small to cover the enormous insecurity she shows whenever she talks to or about another woman.
(I –love- that picture of Sarah Palin over at the Confluence, with that huge fish and that huge grin.)
-
Sis says:
Not Cokie Roberts.
What I’m wondering is, faint as it is, where was this acknowledgment of the sexism and misogyny DURING the past year? Why now do they comment on it? Sheep. Bought and paid for hacks.
I hope you’ll write that comment in to the NPR Monchichipox. Send them this blog.
-
donna darko says:
It’s exactly like Hillary. They found nothing on the Clintons who left the White House in debt. It took BC’s books to get out of debt.
She wasn’t used to the harrassment and violence. The attacks on Trig were from a mainstream, non-cable show, Letterman, and a DNC blogger not a tabloid or partisan radio talk show as in the case of Chelsea. The sexual violence was worse against Sarah than Hillary because of her working class background.
You can see Mitchell’s hatred of women and classism in that clip.
-
Sis says:
Did you know that was one of the fish caught last season, when she was on the boat? And that picture was used on the AK website, so because of that, using it was one of the ETHICS scandals she and AK had to fight?
I imageine the people of Alaska just love Obama.
-
gxm17 says:
Monchichipox said: I was so pissed off listening to Cookie Roberts yesterday morning on NPR. She “acknowledged” the sexism but said Sarah would “have to get used to it. It’s out there.” I wonder if she would tell Obama to get used to the racism.
Excellent point. One of the subtextual foundations of patriarchy is that sexism and male dominion over women are natural. Hey, them’s the breaks, ladies. Roberts’ response is a good example of the inability to disengage from the patriarchal script that dictates this cultural mindset. We have managed to move toward sustaining the belief that racism, whether natural or not, is destructive and should not be tolerated. We have a very long way to go before we put sexism in its proper place as the scourge it is.
-
lexia says:
Wait, didn’t Hillary Clinton slime fish in Alaska one summer?
We all got it wrong. All those feminists and pundits just hate fish and guts and Alaska (well, we knew about the guts part) but they especially hate anyone who guts fish in Alaska.
Nothing to do with misogyny at all.
Sis, WTH? How can anyone make that into an ethics violation?
-
JLawson says:
“Mitchell still can’t get it.”
It’s a combination of not WANTING to get it, and the little narrative voices in her head that guide her in shaping the perceived story for maximum ratings effect.
After all - if she simply came out and said “Yeah, I get it…” and explained it to the listeners the same way Sarah explained it to her, then where’s the conflict? Where’s the urge to tune back in and see if Sarah had managed to speak a coherent sentence (that Andrea Mitchell would admit to…)
As Sis says in #17 - it’s about the ratings. You WANT people to keep tuning in…
-
mo says:
Andrea is a fish out of water here!
-
votermom says:
I really want a chance to vote for Palin again. I just think she is an amazing woman.
-
Sis says:
votermom, apart from being governor of a state, there are many women like that in the north, out there on the fishing grounds or hunting, with their families, for their families. That kind of life is worth protecting. How come you haven’t packed your bags?
It’s a very true life. So different from the bullshit lives those pundits lead, and you know, I think *that* might be part of the problem. They so deeply resent running around in their cages, on their exercise wheels, eating pellets and living in their own poop and garbage. How dare she, just by her choices, make their lives a lie?
-
Val says:
I was horrified to hear a segment on NPR this AM in the ev-psych vein of “how men & women navigate differently”… so you must keep salt shaker on hand EVERYWHERE!
-
votermom says:
Sis, I hate winter, otherwise I might.
-
Boots says:
Once upon a time I worked in a newsroom. What should be obvious by now, even to those who have never set foot in a newsroom, is that the stories are all written before the reporter leaves the station. Stories are “covered” only to get fresh footage of the subject, and in case somebody makes a careless off-the-cuff remark that can be caught on tape. You’ve never seen a bigger bunch of lemmings than the people who decide what the news is going to be each day, hive mind doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Oddly enough, newsrooms have more women in them than ever, especially in positions of real power (news director, station manager, etc) but most women don’t exercise it. Perhaps they don’t feel as secure in their own skins as Sarah so obviously does in hers.
-
Sis says:
http://www.rssweather.com/clim.....Anchorage/
The kind of snow they get will be snowball snow, wet, big fluffy flakes when it’s falling, and a quick melt. Very nice I think. No storms and hurricanes, like the east coast. No 30 below, like Nunuvut.
-
Monchichipox says:
Another thing that has interested me since Sarah came on the scene, and hasn’t really been talked about, is who the real feminist men are.
It’s especially evident in this video. Todd is the typical “man’s man” but yet somehow I imagine him not being as sexist as some of his Eastern Ivy League brethren. So many women have been led to believe that it is the new age sensitive guy that is on our side. I’ve always argued against that. It was the so called educated blogosphere men who were tossing the ‘C’ word around. Not your local mechanic. I know there is someone else that can argue that fact better than I.
Having grown up on a farm I can tell you this is my experience. When my arm muscles were just as needed to carry a bag of feed or get hay bails in the barn at midnight because a storm was rolling in I was entitled to speak my mind and not take any shit off of anyone.
-
Violet says:
I think I have a secret crush on Todd.
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I believe NPR also ran an interview of Todd Purdum by Neal Conan that discussed how “normal” the criticism if Palin was and how odd she couldn’t cope with what was so “normal” for politicians…grrr…
-
nevermore_a_Dem says:
And Andrea, putting on that ugly, cold expression of hers, declares with such certainty at the end that everyone in the party leadership says she [Palin] has damaged herself politically.
Oh, really ? Haven’t heard that from anyone but you, Andrea ! And the Obots !
The more I hear from her, the more I love and admire this woman [Palin, not Andrea], so refreshing to listen to her direct talk, her unprocessed manner of speaking and her off-the-cuff responses that make so much sense, unlike the uhhhm…ahhhs of the truly rambling big Zero that always send thrills through the spines of Kool-Aid mainliners. Still flashing that bright smile, she does look recharged in this clip, and nothing that the deliberately stupid Mitchell says fazes her. And note how at the beginning, she thoughtfully runs towards the already stiff and condescending Mitchell, asking her if she’s cold or not (or something to that effect).
And as mentioned upthread, I do think that Todd Palin is very secure in his masculinity. He’s comfortable with his wife being the centre of attention, being a governor, and being a caring father to their children.
Here’s three lusty cheers to the real deal of Sarah Palin - and to Todd P and his rare kind - the men who actually consider women their equal (or superior?) by their very actions, and not just through cheap, politically correct verbiage that backed by no action !
-
Nina M. says:
Sis wrote: “So different from the bullshit lives those pundits lead, and you know, I think *that* might be part of the problem. They so deeply resent running around in their cages, on their exercise wheels, eating pellets and living in their own poop and garbage. How dare she, just by her choices, make their lives a lie?”
You hit the nail on the head. When you live in Washington and work in politics, your whole life is politics. What you do is who you are. Where you live, who your neighbors are, who your friends are, what restaurants you go to, where you shop for groceries, what you do on weekends - it all revolves around keeping your ‘place’ in the great DC hierarchy. And its pretty miserable. The only thing that keeps the machine running is the delusion that its all worth it. And how do you know its worth it? In this sort of work, unless you are at the very very top, its hard to measure your impact on the world. You can’t say “I taught this many kids” or “I built this many homes.” No, the only way you know that what you do is valuable is by the number of people who are clawing for your favor and your job.
So no, they can’t understand why someone would tell them to go screw themselves and walk away. They can’t understand it because they maintain the assumption that everyone wants to be who and where they are. The most threatening thing you can do to them is treat them like they are irrelevant. Because outside of their delusions of grandeur, they have zero quality of life.
Palin told them the emperors and empresses have no clothes. No wonder they don’t want to hear it.
-
donna darko says:
Steve Benen is one of the more misogynist, women-fearing fauxgressives and here is a typical fauxgressive Palin or Clinton thread for lurkers in which two commenters suggest the murder of Palin. I only post this to show lurkers this is typical of the left in the last 18 months.
Never Underestimate the GOP Rank and File (ooh I’m so afraid of Palin! You can never underestimate them cooties!$
-
donna darko says:
His anxious masculinity shows up in his headlines I have to read on Memeorandum. Substitute php at the end of that bad link. Itouch screws up my spelling.
-
Hedgepig says:
When did this blog turn into a Sarah Palin fan site? I’m in complete agreement that the hideous misogynist attacks on Palin and her family are symptomatic of the patriarchal conditions we are forced to live under and it’s a timely and important task to delve into the reasons that some women are actually taking part in these attacks. However, in order to defend Palin from this misogyny, do we have to think she’s great? She thinks women shouldn’t be able to have abortions, for crying out loud.
-
Jamie W. says:
nevermore_a_Dem said:
“Here’s three lusty cheers to the real deal of Sarah Palin - and to Todd P and his rare kind - the men who actually consider women their equal (or superior?) by their very actions, and not just through cheap, politically correct verbiage that backed by no action !”
But Todd P. isn’t all that rare. He’s of a type that is actually pretty common where I’m from — though I give you that he’s definitely the cream of his type! Men like him are raised by fathers to be strong, but also taught by strong mothers to respect women. My oldest son is one of them — it would never cross his mind to disrespect a woman or consider her less capable just because of her sex, he’s always ready to pitch in, he’s both sensitive and gentle with children as well as a darn good Marine. My brother is the same way — a genuine war hero (bronze star) and tough guy who would not DARE treat his wife as anything but an equal. My husband — same thing, just the best man in the world.
You know, they used to say that behind every successful man was a good woman. Well, Sarah Palin proves the obverse of that is true. I don’t know that she could be who she is today without Todd.
I’ve always thought it was one of the cruelest things the women’s rights movement did, to tell women they could not both be free and equal and also have men who were genuinely MEN. And I wonder if that’s what is really wrong with all these bitter, angry female media figures — that they bought it and took men who were less than ideal — married for selfish reasons instead of good reasons. Took the half-a-loaf.
I hope this came across right. I understand it in my gut, but it’s so hard to express in words!
-
allegro says:
I’m with Hedgepig re: When did this blog turn into a Sarah Palin fan site? I mean WTF?
It’s one thing to recognize mysogyny when it appears all too frequently and righteously call it out, but to exalt this woman as some sort of freaking goddess to the cause is simply beyond comprehension.
My issues with her are the same as they are with any male politician who clearly demonstrates the following qualities: self-serving, narcissistic, opportunistic, incurious and lacking in any demonstrable ethical awareness.
For the love of Pete, this woman is NOT your friend or advocate.
-
anne says:
Has Palin ever said she wants to legislate against women having abortions? If she has I haven’t heard it, Hedgepig.
Anyway I don’t see why someone who is sticking two fingers up to the liberal boys club and the media elites and making their poor little heads explode with her political moves shouldn’t be admired and given some applause for it. She’s taking the mickey out of them, dragging them all the way from their elite world in Washington or New York to some remote beach in Alaska to watch her gutting fish. Of course Andrea Mitchell, who has the imagination of a brick, thinks that Palin has been dazzled by the bright lights of Washington. I think she was saying the exact opposite by getting them to come up there. Who wants to go to Washington when you can go running beside Mount McKinley and a range of active volcanoes whilst whales swim out in the sea, or you can go fishing for salmon in your family’s fishing grounds?
I was thinking this just today that it’s fantastic that two such powerful women made their mark on US politics last year - Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. It’s a pity Palin is a republican, but once again, the advancement of women means the advancement of all women, not just the ones we agree with politically.
-
Violet says:
but to exalt this woman as some sort of freaking goddess to the cause is simply beyond comprehension.
Because unless we’re reviling her, we’re exalting her as a goddess? It can only be one of those two things?
Sarah Palin is an extremely interesting political figure. In fact, I think she’s the most interesting political figure on the scene today, largely because of her uniqueness. She is the first woman in our nation’s history to become a populist icon on the national level. It’s a damn shame she’s a Republican, but regardless: as a feminist and a historian, there’s no way in hell I’m going to watch these events unfold in my lifetime and not comment on them.
And on a personal level, I do like Palin. Watching Palin is, for me, like watching my cousin S or J (or a cross between the two of them) suddenly become a potential presidential candidate. It’s fascinating. I also take her seriously when she says she considers herself a feminist, though she is regrettably batshit crazy on the bay-bee thing.
My issues with her are the same as they are with any male politician who clearly demonstrates the following qualities: self-serving, narcissistic, opportunistic, incurious and lacking in any demonstrable ethical awareness.
That’s your opinion of her, and you’re welcome to it, but it’s not mine.
-
nevermore_a_Dem says:
Hedgepig, do tell us, when did Sarah Palin say she was against all women having abortions? Do get your facts straight, please. Sarah may be personally against abortion but has she pushed for legislation making it a law? She has always stated that she will respect what the constituents say, and what the law says.
So you know Palin and all of us here so well that you have decided for us - the others here who hold a different opinion of her from yours - what we should think about her? That’s rather arrogant of you, don’t you think? We DO have our own eyes, ears and brains to see, hear and decide for ourselves what we think of Palin. She ain’t perfect, heavens no, but as Violet has also observed, she is one of the most fascinating political figures to come onto the scene. She breaks stereotypes of various stripes - and that’s prolly why she drives some inside-the-pure-ideological-box-thinking types to an insane level of hatred towards her. Could be one reason for that bizarre phenomenon, at any rate.
-
gxm17 says:
Geez Louise, I admit that I like Sarah Palin and would vote for her in a heartbeat over Obama. But I come away from the last few posts applauding the many voices who have shared insightful observations about how and why the FAW (feminists against women) movement managed to get themselves plastered into the cement shoes of patriarchal collusion. Their complicity in the misogyny directed at Hillary and Sarah is an important topic that deserves the attention of anyone who takes women’s equality to heart.
-
AniEm says:
@allegro
If you think Soros, Axelrod, or Obama are your ‘friends and advocates’, you’re in for a rude awakening.
-
yttik says:
“For the love of Pete, this woman is NOT your friend or advocate.”
As only the second woman in history to ever appear on a US presidential ticket, she is indeed my friend and advocate. She has been a role model for women and girls all over this country. She has not only continued to put cracks in the glass ceiling, she’s defied stereotypes and expectations of women by appearing in interviews wearing hip waders.
I haven’t even mentioned her politics or beliefs. Simply having enough brass ovaries to step into the ring was an admirable feat all by itself.
It’s heartbreaking to watch other women claim that the worst thing to ever happen in politics was when the second ever female was put on a presidential ticket. That’s some serious patriarchal brainwashing. No wonder women have not yet achieved equality.
“My issues with her are the same as they are with any male politician…”
Yes, here we are with less than 17% female representation in congress and 44 male presidents, and suddenly people are all concerned about appearing to be “fair” and not judge people based on gender. Baloney, when our government has some gender equity than we can discuss judging female politicians just like we do male ones. In the meantime our lack of female representation is a glaring example of the double standard this country holds.
-
Unree says:
Palin is impressive in this interview. Delightful. And she makes mincemeat of Andrea Mitchell.
Reminds me of my journey with Hillary Clinton. I found her only meh as Bill’s wife but then was blown away by her as a candidate. Hmmm, if it takes a feminist like me this much time to get used to a female contender….
-
AniEm says:
@Unree
Yes. I had no feelings pro or con about Hillary until she ran for office. She really came alive and I developed a great admiration for her.
I have a great deal of admiration for Palin as well. The ‘engineered-hate’ for both very strong female candidates is right out of Orwell. I appreciate the time and attention and insights Violet and so many of the posters have provided.
-
SarahG says:
Oh, I did love the hip waders. Has any American politician ever been interviewed while literally covered in guts??? But then again, I loved the turkey interview that had everyone in vapors.
-
kiki says:
maybe you already know this, but it surprised me….I was slumming at Free Republic, where I haven’t been in ages, just bored I guess, and imagine my surprise when I read
“The Reclusive Leftist analyzes the feminist response to Sarah Palin”
here: http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....8519/posts
I never comment here but I read, and I never read or comment there (ok, truth - I used to but I got kicked off as a troll during the Bush regime, and have rarely been back). I just dropped in on a whim tonight and was so surprised to see Dr. Socks mentioned!
-
JadedByPolitics says:
#48 yttik
Great breakdown and I certainly couldn’t have said it any better….bravo! I really enjoy the intelligence of the conversation here on women’s rights. Oh this 43 year old woman is looking towards the day we have the first female President of the United States. It will be an event like no other!
-
octogalore says:
I find the allegations re “exalting as a goddess” to be oddly ironic.
Most of the commenters here, and the host, have taken many opportunities to insert caveats within the discussions of Palin, to clarify disagreements with her on issues such as choice, gay marriage, etc. So that the discussion is always clearly focused, and that while there is admiration for Palin as deserved, there is also the continual theme of caveats to that admiration. If I’m not mistaken, the large majority of commenters here (myself included) would have chosen HRC over Palin, and some may have chosen Obama over Palin.
Whereas in feminist discussions of Obama, there are only very rare caveats. And, as President, he has much more current relevance as someone whose policies will actually affect our lives, so arguably caveats are even more important there. But somehow it’s OK for discussions of Obama — who’s walked back from many campaign statements and promises, eg FOCA, DOMA, FISA, hints about maintaining conscience clause regulations — to be unqualified, with nobody having any problems with the appearance of “exalting as a god.”
-
Carolyn says:
Violet, thank you so much for starting this conversation. The last three threads have been full of excellent insight and I am happy they are being linked by many sites and getting the readership they deserve.
Northwest Rain had some great thoughts on the psychological aspects of what seems to be irrational Palin hatred. Is it possible that people have been brainwashed to some extent?
I say this having watched my own parents go from normal, to having Obama Worship Syndrome coupled with Palin Derangement Syndrome. My father was in the hospital last year following a heart attack, and granted wasn’t in the very best of shape, but I will never forget his unwavering attention to Obama on his television while I, his daughter he hadn’t seen in a year, was standing by his bedside trying to kiss him and talk to him. He just stared at the screen and said “I think he is going to be our best president ever…” his eyes never leaving the screen.
It creeped me out. About the same time I had read some article about mass hypnosis, and began to wonder if the only ones of us that were escaping the disease were the ones who had disliked him from the start and wouldn’t watch or listen to him. Sounds nuts, I know, but maybe there were little subliminal messages on our tv sets…we know how unbiased the media is…
Anyway, the similarity in the hate reactions, the clear suspension of rational thought, the inability to shake the untruths with facts, it just seems very, very bizarre. I think this points to something beyond misogyny. I fear we are being manipulated on a larger scale and misogyny is simply one arrow in their quiver.
When the people running things specialize in perception management and astroturfing, and the media has been bought and paid for, anything is possible, and the technology today compared to the 40’s is spectacular to proliferate propaganda.
Just a thought…
-
pax says:
I’ve deeply enjoyed reading the posts here over the past few days. Thanks for that.
Sarah Palin is a hero of mine, and will be for a long time to come, regardless of what she does with her life after this. If she runs for office in 2012, I’ll vote for her. If not, I’ll be happy that she’s doing something else she loves and that’s good too.
The one lesson I personally took away from the horrible and endless campaign season leading up to this past election — and from the endless campaign that appears to be following it — is that almost all people on the left side of the political spectrum hate me. They despise me, and people like me, with an utterly visceral contempt that even those who (mostly) share their views can’t always understand. And they think I am both foolish and self-loathing enough to give them my vote anyway despite their naked contempt for me.
See, I strongly identify with Gov. Palin. She’s only a little older than I am, and prettier by far. But like her, my husband and I have five children including teenagers who don’t always act like angels. Like her, I have a rural background and live in a western state. Like her, I’m a libertarian-leaning conservative (or maybe a conservative-leaning libertarian). Like her, I’m a Christian with pro-life morals and a fairly strong dislike for laws enforcing those morals. Like her, one of my children is special-needs. Like her, I love to shoot firearms, fish, and be outdoors with my family. Like her, I have an incredibly quiet and supportive husband who has taken an active role in raising our children.
Unlike her, I’ve never had any urge to get stomped flat and torn apart on the national stage.
Not that it matters: this past year, because Sarah Palin ran for VP, I’ve been torn apart by proxy. Everyone’s taken their turn: women haters, family haters, Christian haters (”godbags”), libertarian haters, pro life haters (”It isn’t ‘intense hate.’ … I want to see them dead”) and on and on it goes.
Her life and mine so closely parallel each other, how could I not take it personally when some banshee of a pundit screeches about Palin’s leaking amniotic fluid and her “obvious” stupidity in having lots of children with the man she loves?
… when otherwise friendly and generally sensible people suddenly become foam-mouthed and rictus-faced when Palin’s name is mentioned, simply because she holds the same basic political, social, and religious views that I do?
… when self-identified feminists of nearly all stripes angrily deny that this strong, sensible, capable woman could actually be strong, sensible, capable — or even a woman! — or a feminist, or anything else they believe to be good or right in the world?
So I’m glad to find this blog, of which the original posts and a few of the comments comprise a tiny and very welcome oasis in a sea of vitriol. Some of the comments here have nailed it: there’s a lot of projection out there. Some of it is political manipulation and in that sense everyone in America has been had. Sure. But a lot more of it … goes deeper than that.
We’ll join hands now and natter about sisterhood and dialogue and all that other good stuff. (Well, maybe not. Most of feminism has rejected me and my sisters, after all.) But if a break in the backstabbing ever comes, it will last only until the next election season, when the knives will come out again, all the sharper for having been whetted and wetted on Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton this time around.
Meanwhile, I know these people don’t hate me because I’m beautiful or successful or accomplished. I’m none of those things, but their vitriol for Palin shows what they think of me far more clearly than it shows what they think of her.
And I’ll remember.
-
donna darko says:
Palin is more of a feminist than the Obamas in the cultural feminist sense. She is like many conservative feminists I encountered in the last year. Conservative feminists are more interested in gender equality than Third Wavers who are mainly interested in choice, sex and abstinence. I am more interested in eradicating sexism and misogyny throughout the world.
Palin is not narcissistic, opportunistic, incurious or unethical but Obama is all these things.
-
Carolyn says:
Exactly Pax, and I think they have made a serious miscalculation. It’s not just Sarah Palin, it’s everyone who is not part of the political/intellectual elite…I have noticed for a sometime that everything they say about her, they MEAN about most of us…and some are desperate to prove they are part of the ok group so they aren’t savaged with the rest of us.
And I do think it is being orchestrated, not that a lot of it wouldn’t naturally occur, human nature being what it is, but this is being stage managed, coordinated, and most people are too busy to notice the signs of duplication, or take it as confirmation not collusion…the identical talking points, the same word showing up in every report, this week “rambling”, and on and on.
They are all reading from one script and they have taken in a lot of bright people who now can’t let go of the hatred as it would mean having to come to terms with how badly they have been used, and the virtual blood on their hands.
A lot of us will remember, and I think they have taken a stick to a hornet’s nest without realizing it. The idea that this woman wouldn’t just stay pinned to the sample board like she was supposed to has stunned them, because they can’t fathom stepping down as governor and foregoing the “perks” and “title”. That was not in their plans and I say bravo Sarah!
-
donna darko says:
Third Wavers are also interested in anti-racism because if they are called racists they can’t get laid.
Appreciating Palin as a feminist is the true test of feminism. Octogalore wrote a post a while back in appreciation of Cindy McCain and I said that was the true test of whether or not you were a feminist.
-
WMCB says:
@ allegro:
Sarah reminds me a lot of my pro-life sister, who is fairly conservative/libertarian. And she’s a damn fine woman, a STRONG feminist, supremely practical, has no patience with idiot pontificators, and is as compassionate and ethical as the day is long.
And because I personally know and love a Republican woman like that, and find many, many things about her to admire despite our differences, I GET Sarah.
And this liberal woman will make no apology or endless caveats for that admiration. I know who I am, and what I believe. My feminist or liberal “credentials” are not yours or anyone else’s to bestow - they are MINE, and I have earned them. I don’t have to justify it to you or anyone else. There are few enough women braving the treacherous waters of national politics, and I will cheer Sarah on if I darn well want to.
-
Violet says:
maybe you already know this, but it surprised me….I was slumming at Free Republic, where I haven’t been in ages, just bored I guess, and imagine my surprise when I read
“The Reclusive Leftist analyzes the feminist response to Sarah Palin”
No, I wasn’t aware, but thanks so much for that startling link. Freeperville seems to be the Republican version of YouTube in terms of comment quality. Good to know the wingnuts still think feminists are all fat ugly pathological liars who hate men and are consumed with jealousy of any woman who isn’t miserable.
Where’s that guy who was asking me “in what universe” conservative men are sexists?
-
sister of ye says:
though she is regrettably batshit crazy on the bay-bee thing.
Well, from my perpective, five is a nice cozy size family as long as you can afford to raise them. Of course, I had 9 siblings (would have been 10 if my oldest sister hadn’t died in less than a day).
Pax, don’t be so paranoid. I’m a liberal, and I haven’t bought into Palin hatred. I live in the Midwest, though I’m a city kid. But I’m not a pretentious faux liberal who is for working people (sorta) as long as they don’t have to mingle with the creatures. I am one of the creatures.
I bet any of us liberals could compile a nice compendium of insults we’ve gotten from conservatives and, yes, libertarians. I actually lost a job once for making the mistake of being honest in conversation about my beliefs, even though it had nothing to do with my work. Needless to say, I learned a bit more discretion.
I’m not cute, married or a mother, but I am working class and a woman, and I have to admire Palin’s style in sticking it to people who’d condemn her for being both of those.
-
Violet says:
though she is regrettably batshit crazy on the bay-bee thing.
Well, from my perpective, five is a nice cozy size family as long as you can afford to raise them. Of course, I had 9 siblings (would have been 10 if my oldest sister hadn’t died in less than a day).
Please note that by the “bay-bee thing,” I mean abortion. Not her children.
One of my cousins has six kids, another has five. My ex-husband was one of eight. My dad was one of 10.
-
AM says:
Over at the firedog place there’s a quote, posted at 8 pm, from that interview. The author of the piece professes to not understand what Governor Palin is talking about, means. I’ve been seeing that line of attack on her a lot, seems to be becoming the dominant form of attack. “You’re not listening to me” is a good start on confronting that line of attack, laying it bare, seems to me.
-
pax says:
I bet any of us liberals could compile a nice compendium of insults we’ve gotten from conservatives and, yes, libertarians.
No foolin’. That street runs both ways.
Unfortunately, the game for the elite types is to get us all hating on each other, so we don’t notice we’re being robbed blind and that the basic legal barriers that used to protect the weak from the strong are being steadily dismantled by manipulators on both sides of the aisle.
But the left was particularly good at the hate game this time around, both against Clinton early and Palin later. And the most extreme forms of vitriol weren’t directed at either woman’s politics — it was reserved for the women-AS-women. It was personal, only tangentally political. And all the mea culpas in the world won’t change the fact that most self-identified feminists happily jumped on that bandwagon, in part because a surprising number of feminists support only choices they themselves would make or could see themselves making, rather than supporting all choices including ones they themselves wouldn’t make.
The vitriol on the right against Clinton (of which there is plenty) disgusts me just as much, if not more, since so much of it is directed at her femaleness more than any other thing. But … well, it does not surprise me. We expect it from those folks. But feminists joining in the women-hate? Something is wrong with this picture.
Feminists — of all types — should be far more concerned about the rape “jokes” and the clear misogyny and the hatred of women’s bodies and all that other stuff that drove all this, rather than joining in. But both left and right are more worried about “our team” winning the political game than we are about whether women’s voices are heard in that sphere.
Sisterhood, solidarity, all that other stuff? Or even hating the way our society treats even women we don’t like? That’s not an option unless you care more about women’s rights than you do about politics in general.
-
cellocat says:
“Sisterhood, solidarity, all that other stuff? Or even hating the way our society treats even women we don’t like? That’s not an option unless you care more about women’s rights than you do about politics in general.”
Which is why it became clear to me in the past round of Presidential politics that in fact feminism and combatting sexism are more important to me than any other issue. Everything else flows from how we treat women.
-
Molon Labe says:
By the “bay-bee thing” you meant abortion? Really?
I guess I’ll get banned, but I must say that seems a poor euphemism for abortion.
Also, I do not understand why you call yourself a Leftist. The civil, reasoned discourse on this site is antithetical to Leftism.
-
Jeff says:
“Everything else flows from how we treat women.”
Perfect and elegant.
-
Fredster says:
You mean Mrs. Alan Greenspan is still on the tubes?
I entirely gave up on watching or listening to her during the 08 primaries. With her, the story is already written before she even gets in front of the camera.
The only thing I loved during the primaries was when someone took her on and called b.s. when it was b.s. Poor little Andrea would look so shocked and surprised! Really, she needs to fade into the sunset.
-
Hedgepig says:
So when a feminist overlooks misogynist attacks on another woman, or takes part in misogyny, she’s a “feminist against women”, but a woman who doesn’t believe in reproductive freedom for women is a legitimate feminist? I can’t actually think of anything more against women’s interests than a lack of reproductive freedom. Here’s a thought: perhaps neither Palin nor her female abusers are feminist! However, I refuse to believe that a woman who dislikes Palin and doesn’t think she’s a feminist because of her stance on abortion must be pathologically irrationally woman-hating.
-
Lorenzo says:
I do not get the “everything turns on abortion” notion of feminism. On that basis, someone who supports women working, holding elective office, maternity leave, inclusive rather than exclusive public language etc but cannot come at abortion is therefore not really a feminist, but someone who thinks women should be at home, not vote, not run for office etc but is entirely OK with abortion is better, feministically speaking?
I do get that, in the US, ever since Roe v Wade, abortion has been paraded as a signature issue but I do not think US public life is other than the worse for it. (As an aside, it would have been so much better if the issue had been resolved legislatively, as in other Western democracies.)
Really, having only the second woman nominated by a major Party for VP–so that now both sides have–is surely so much a bigger matter than her views on abortion. As is how the second woman to run for VP for a major Party was treated.
-
Joie says:
Yes, some of the reaction to Palin is obviously sexism, some of it is probably orchestrated, but has anyone brought up the idea of “narcissistic rage”? It’s a psychological concept I think that’s at the root of the extreme reactions Sarah seems to provoke in many people. Obama’s campaign was all about appealing to people’s narcissism (”We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”, etc.) and Sarah was the most effective person to poke holes in the utopian fantasy he was creating. It seems to me that people bought into the ‘magic’ to the point that they would feel personally slighted by any criticism of him. To quote Wikipedia:
“When the narcissist’s grandiose sense of self worth is perceivably being attacked by another person, the narcissist’s natural reaction is to rage and pull-down the self worth of others (to make the narcissist feel superior to others)…Narcissistic rages are based on fear and will endure even after the threat is gone.[5] To the narcissist, the rage is directed towards the person that they feel has slighted them; to other people, the rage is incoherent and unjust. This rage impairs their cognition, therefore impairing their judgment. During the rage they are prone to shouting, fact distortion and making groundless accusations… Two specific identified forms of narcissistic rage are explosive and passive-aggressive. The explosive form being an obvious anger, for example, damaging property (or people) and being verbally abusive. The passive-aggressive sort might be sulking or giving their target the silent treatment…Narcissistic rage is usually short lasting, but can provoke problems towards those that the anger is targeted towards.”
I would say that Hillary brought out this reaction, too, but as a fellow Democrat she had to be more restrained in her criticism of Obama. Once she was no longer a “threat” the fury died down. And this really would explain all those abusive trolls that have reared their heads on blogs that have been favorable to one or both women. They can’t just be doing it for the $8/hour.
-
Branjor says:
pax said:
***The one lesson I personally took away from the horrible and endless campaign season leading up to this past election — and from the endless campaign that appears to be following it — is that almost all people on the left side of the political spectrum hate me. They despise me, and people like me, with an utterly visceral contempt that even those who (mostly) share their views can’t always understand.***Don’t worry, pax, the lesson *I’ve* learned this past season and many years before is that almost all people on BOTH ends of the political spectrum hate and despise me, and those like me, with an utterly visceral contempt.
-
FLAConnie says:
It seems clear to me, more than ever, that the M.O. of the TPTB (the powers that be)is divide and conquer. We are all supposed to hate each other: “white” vs people of color, men vs women, rich vs poor, “abled” vs “disabled”, MAN vs Nature, humans vs nonhumans, young vs old, left vs right, religious vs non-religious and all religions against each other. I’m sure there are even more divisions, but you get the point. And as long as we aren’t willing to listen to the “others” and simply accept their description from the experts (politicians, media types, ministers/priests/mullahs) then we remain divided and stuck in wars, disagreements, and separate.
It also seems clear to me from the variety of comments that folks from all walks of life, backgrounds, ideologies have managed to carry on an enlightened and enlightening discussion without too much rancor and incrimination. Kudos to Violet for bringing together such a disparate group that can agree that injustice, especially in the form of misogyny, is WRONG. It hurts everyone, but women primarily.
THANKS VIOLET! A little bit of sanity in an insane world is a comforting thing.
-
AniEm says:
Pax
I retired to a rural area after having grown up, married and raised my kids in a major metro area. I used to admire the liberal east coast smart set, but recognize what empty shells they are. The herd mentality they have exhibited is idiotic and vicious. I value Sarah Palin because she embodies the myth of America’s Pioneer Woman.
Hedgewig
In the highly unlikely event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, consider moving to China. Abortion is mandatory there. Or do you think mandated abortions are a violation of a woman’s right to choose? There are many aspects of and differing opinions on abortion. Relegating them into pro-life and pro-choice “boxes” is an artificial and simplistic concept designed to keep women at odds with each other. You’re being played.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Hedgepig@69: Good points. You’re saying it much more clearly than I can.
Lorenzo@70: Reproductive freedome is more than just “everything turns on abortion.” All those other things feminists “should” be worried about are inextricably interwoven with reproductive freedom because they all fall from the tree of Women Are Not Sovreign Beings With Full Human Rights.
Reproductive freedom is the lynchpin because carrying and birthing other humans is something only women can do. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for this nation to have laws about what kind of medical and reproductive options are available for women. None. So we can’t just ignore this issue in favor of celebrating the second (2nd!) woman vice presidential candidate. I do not feel like celebrating. I feel anger that this is all women have been permitted to accomplish, and all the while men are making decisions and LAWS about our bodies.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
AniEm: Straw, much?
-
wisetrog says:
Man, Andrea Mitchell in that clip looks exactly like Candice Bergen swatting flies in Sweet Home Alabama.
-
SarahG says:
Violet, I don’t get why she’s “batshit crazy” on abortion. I’m not being argumentative here, it’s just that I hold more-or-less the same opinion, and it strikes me as fairly rational. To say that there’s no magic moment at which a fetus becomes a person doesn’t seem “crazy.” I agree it’s not convenient, and I wish it were otherwise, but after two pregnancies I can’t, personally, see it any other way. Which is not to say I’m not a passionate advocate of reproductive freedom in all of its other forms. And which is also not to say that I think my belief needs to be enshrined in the constitution: rational people disagree, so it should be decided legislatively, on the state level. I think Sarah Palin would agree with this. We may be wrong…but why are we “batshit crazy”?
I honestly don’t know how abortion got to be the feminist sine qua non, but it’s killing us. It keeps us distracted and divided; it hands TPTB an infallible scare tactic; and the men win either way. If they keep us pregnant we’re trapped, if they keep us NOT pregnant, we’re available. Because let’s be honest: forced abortion is every bit the problem that forced pregnancy is. Patriarchy is the issue, not abortion, and until we wake up and realize that, feminism is going nowhere fast. In my opinion.
-
SweetSue says:
Because let’s be honest: forced abortion is every bit the problem that forced pregnancy is.
Where in the United States is forced abortion a threat or a problem?
There are (too) many states where even a first trimester abortion is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
Let’s not waste our time building and swatting at straw men.
My full throated defense of Palin is against the rancid sexism she has endured, not an endorsement of her positions and policies which are same old,same old GOP -
octogalore says:
Hedgepig: the majority of commenters seem to agree (and I’m in that camp) that the feminist position on abortion is pro-choice. Speaking for myself, no, I don’t think pro-life is a feminist position. Whether Palin is pro-life in the personal sense (which could still be feminist, IMO) or in the sense that she’d attempt politically to enforce her views is unclear — requirements for her being on the ticket being what they were. But to the extent the “enforce on others” view is her true one, my feeling is that it isn’t a feminist view.
However, does that make it impossible for her to be a feminist, in many other respects that are meaningful for pro-choice feminists? I think not. There are a number of pro-choice so-called feminists who do not take what I believe to be the feminist view on a multitude of issues. Choice is a critical issue in my view, but I also think dismissing someone’s feminist contributions and beliefs wholesale because she doesn’t agree with me on one issue, no matter how critical, is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. Are we feminists so strong in our numbers that we can afford this kind of entrance exam?
That doesn’t mean that we nod our heads and support someone like Palin or Tim Kaine (head of the DLC, and pro-life) on pro-life policy grounds. But if it means that we cannot work with them on joint feminist goals and acknowledge that if they hold these goals, they are in fact feminists, then I think we need to question whether we in fact are.
-
SarahG says:
Well, we talk about pregnancies being “forced” by societal pressure, and abortions are forced in the same way. As in: “I want sex, but no babies, so get rid of it or I’m gone.” This is a particular problem when you’re talking about young girls with older men. And look at the nastiness we’ve seen about Trig Palin. My sister, who is completely pro-choice, teaches college, and one of her Freshmen (Korean, not great English) came to her to apologize for not being in class. Apparently she became pregnant, and her boyfriend’s mother drove down, picked her up, took her to the doctor (clinic?) where she was given an abortion. THe mother then dropped her off again at the dorm and drove off. My sister said the girl seemed like she’d been hit by a truck.
Abortion is win-win for the dudes. Patriarchy is the issue. I’ve felt differently at different points in my life, but that’s how I’ve come to see it.
And I’m really not attempting a threadjack here…I just wanted to know why Violet thinks Palin is crazy on this issue. To me, she seems like a model of moderation and good sense.
-
DancingOpossum says:
Andrea Mitchell is my “favorite” pundit, and I sincerely mean that. Her unwavering commitment to doing the least work possible is an inspiration to us all. I’ve never thought she was stupid or biased, just amazingly lazy, with an ennui that seeps from every pore.
I’m convinced that her “preparation” for an interview goes something like this: Get up from long, loooooong, nappy time, snuffle to wakitude over frothy assistant-delivered cappuccino, scratch head, yawn, stretch (not too much!), glance at the headlines, read gossip column, ask assistant what the gossip at the coffee shop is about the subject of the interview, catch a few Zzzz’s while getting hair and makeup, oops wakey wakey time for interview!, then sleepwalking through the Q&A with the help of a teleprompter and anxious production people at the ready to prop her up if she falls asleep or topples over, and then when it’s done–mercifully over–toddle back to her waiting room for another nap.
I am serious–just watch her. A sloth looks like the Jamaican Lightning Bolt in comparison.
-
nevermore_a_Dem says:
Just to clarify an omission I made in my comment #45: The second part of my comment #45 was addressed to this post by allegro:
For the love of Pete, this woman is NOT your friend or advocate.
To follow up that line, I do think that Sarah Palin, having done what she has on her own merits and efforts, with spunk and energy, ‘having it all’ - a family, a career with a position of actual power and ability to make things better - and not least of all, not shrinking from the deranged anti-Palin media onslaught but just responding with real, down-to-earth answers to lunatic, condescending questions - by her very own life of authenticity, Palin is already a (passive) advocate for me and all women and girls here in this clearly misogynistic society - she serves as a role model for how to live your life with conviction and a goal in mind, how to persevere to attain your goal(s), and how to handle all this madness that she has provoked in crazed segments in the media and so-called ‘liberals’ and ‘Democrats’.
Beyond that, we might part ways in some policies, but to dismiss her accomplishments and character wholesale because she happens to have an ‘R’ next to her name, is an avowed Christian, and lives her beliefs in her personal life is simply advocating for ideological purity. I’m past all that now - after last year’s fiasco/nightmare of an ‘election’. I look at the person him- or herself, his or her actual (as opposed to made-up) stances on issues, and not just the group s/he might belong to.
I’m also of the opinion that the established GOP leadership don’t want her on the national stage, either, since they’ve got their own version of Obama to push for 2012 - namely, the male Indian-American Bobby Jindal. I may be wrong, but what happened in the GOP Governors’ Convention last year spoke volumes to me. Palin is a threat to both Dems and some Repub leaders with agendas of their own. Anyone else think this is so?
All this brouhaha over Palin is going to be an interesting thing to watch (and I shall likely stay on the spectator side of things), and the media cannot resist keeping Palin on, even if they take every opportunity to destroy her, per their stated script given from on high - since she draws loads of viewers every time she’s on. Ratings, people, ratings is it !
-
kae says:
Pax @ 56
Very well said. It says how I feel about Mrs Palin. We know what she stands for and know that she will stand for it - forget the lies promulgated by the MSM and fools like this interviwer. Palin has the courage of her convictions, and lives her life honestly.I’m Australian and Australia could do with someone like her with intestinal fortitude to lead our federal Liberal Party (conservative, Labor are the liberals).
I will follow with interest Sarah Palin’s progress over the next few years and I’d be delighted if she gets a shot at POTUS. Not because she’s a woman, but because I think she would do an excellent job.
I notice that someone has mentioned how there should be more women in political positions of power and how they’d like a woman as POTUS. That’s a fine sentiment, but I hope that the first woman POTUS will be elected because of her ability, not because of her gender.
-
SweetSue says:
I wasn’t talking about pregnancies forced by societal pressure. I was talking about pregnancies forced by restrictive laws and the lack of doctors trained in the procedure.
It’s bad medicine.
I’m sorry for the young woman if she felt pressured into having an abortion. That, of course, should never happen. Nor should anyone be forced or presured into continuing a pregnancy that she doesn’t want. It’s pretty simple.
If you believe abortion is murder, don’t ever have one.
But allow those of us who have different beliefs to follow our own consciences. -
SweetSue says:
BTW, Pat Johnson has a very thoughtful essay over at The Widdershins. It’s about sexism directed at Clinton, Palin and Michelle Obama.
-
Salmon says:
“Palin is a threat to both Dems and some Repub leaders with agendas of their own. Anyone else think this is so?”
Palin is a threat to the rich elite that have taken over our political system. She’s not one of them, doesn’t need them and her very existence proves you don’t have to be one of them to succeed.
Her view that government should be small and actually work for people is abhorrent to them. To them, we exist to further their goals … not vice versa. We are raped continously by programs and policies designed to ensure their survivability. They steal us blind and most people still don’t understand the dynamic of Washington.
The elites hate the average American. They want our money and nothing else.
-
votermom says:
Palin became my hero,as Hillary is, just by my watching her valiant and unbending fortitude against terrible sexism.
I’m an immigrant from a country which is 90% Catholic; as you can imagine, abortion is illegal there. I know what it’s like to be a pro-choice minority. Nonetheless, my country of origin has had TWO women presidents, many anti-abortion feminists, and a history of strong women leaders. The abortion debate in the USA is a yoke that is used to keep women out of political power. -
yttik says:
Sigh. Everything always comes back to abortion. I don’t want to hijack this thread either, but women deserve better than abortion. We deserve so much more. We get so tangled up in believing women’s rights begin and end with abortion, that feminism stops right there. As a result, women are actually regressing. Sit down and shut up about the US being one of the few countries in the world with no paid maternity leave, you have Choice don’t you? Sit down and shut up about caucus fraud, about wanting to elect a woman president, you want to keep your Choice, don’t you? Violence is the leading cause of death to pregnant women? Well who’s fault is that, don’t you have Choice?
Women don’t have choices in this country, what we have is limited access to a medical procedure after our bodies have been disrespected. It’s not the golden calf or the holy grail of equality. We’re all just as bat shit crazy as the most rabid right winger if we fall for that line.
-
sharon says:
As a woman who’s had an abortion, in a red state, and a child, in a red state, and now lives in a blue state…and camps and fishes and all that, and is pursuing a PhD, I am going to admit that I do in fact, as a vocal feminist, adore Palin. And here’s why: she is who she is, and doesn’t apologize for it. I long for the day when we as women can stop trying to live up to images society has for us, and can stop apologizing when we fall short of those constructed images. Sarah doesn’t prostrate at the altar of feminism and try to fit into some of the rigid, and frankly, snooty, positions that libfemz sometimes cleave to. She’s married to a real man, and he’s comfortable enough in that manhood to support her ambitions. God, what woman doesn’t want that??? She does her own thing, even going against Republicans and conservatives, and they like her more for it, though some deem her as ‘rogue’. Personally, the more ‘rogue’ women, the better, in my mind. She reminds me of my other personal heroes: HRC, who didn’t care that middle American thought she ought to be home baking cookies instead of being a high-powered equal to her husband. And Shirley Chisholm, who was also considered a ‘nut case’, as the first black and first black woman within a major party to run for POTUS…in the 70’s! And she did that from within the Dem party. She said being a woman had put more roadblocks in her path than being black ever had. She also said she hoped to be remembered as a black woman who dared to be herself in the 20th century.
We take women like Chisholm, HRC, and Palin, and pillory them for NOT cleaving to the mold. But breaking the mold is exactly what’s needed. This is why mainstreamers hate Palin - because she defies stereotypes, as did HRC and Chisholm before her. They refuse to be hemmed in as women by a society that says what women ought to be, and don’t you dare miss your lines as a woman. This is why fauxgressives and fauxfemmes hate her so much. She won’t conform. Good for her! If you’re not sure what women ought to be, check out magazines targeted at women in the grocery store - fashion models, gossip, soap operas, and homemakers. That’s our lot, and we’re supposed to be content with it, and don’t color outside the lines, thank you.
BS. I want more rogue women. Going rogue ought to become the new black, to use fashionspeak. -
Puma for Life says:
I hope this isn’t a distraction to the conversation, but Justice Ginsburg made a pretty horrific statemant about her take on abortion. Yikes, I’m appalled. She just set back choice about 100 years. And I have always been pro-choice, but not for this reason. (I also am a Palin supporter because I do not see this issue as the most vital to women).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07.....4&_r=1
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
-
lisadawn82 says:
The abortion debate in the USA is a yoke that is used to keep women out of political power.
I need to remember that. It sounds about right.
-
SweetSue says:
Please don’t think that I am saying that women’s rights start and end with access to abortion.
But reproductive health and freedom are bedrock elements of liberation for all women. -
donna darko says:
Women don’t have to like her but feminists should be able to see that despite differences in race, class, ability, party and abortion politics, our commonality as women and not participate in or condone attacks based on our commonality as women. Men are equally divided by race, class, ability, party and abortion politics but they easily bond against the threat of women’s power. Most women in the world are pro-life and half of US women are pro-life and feminists fight for all women as a class.
-
Gender2010 says:
“The abortion debate in the USA is a yoke that is used to keep women out of political power.”
This has legs.
-
lisadawn82 says:
Gender2010,
I truely believe that.
-
WMCB says:
SweetSue says:
Please don’t think that I am saying that women’s rights start and end with access to abortion.
But reproductive health and freedom are bedrock elements of liberation for all women.No, they are AN element, among many. They are not a consideration for women who are lesbian. They are not a consideration for the large numbers of women past child-bearing age. They are not a consideration for women who are sterile, voluntarily or otherwise. That’s a pretty big chunk of women, there.
To say that an issue that pretty much only affects straight women of childbearing age is “bedrock”, but that issues that affect ALL women, such as equal pay, the glass ceiling, misogyny in the media, violence, etc are somehow secondary or negotiable is illogical.
-
Sis says:
But women who are no longer of childbearing age do not want their daughters and female kin to suffer through what we did.
I want to make sure their is openly accessible, free or cheap birth control, and instruction on how to use it, plus the same open access to the morning after pill. Better and more comprehensive sex education, including the benefits of ABSTINENCE to women. And I’m going to fund those or volunteer my time to make sure they happen.
The last time I looked, most of the women’s services surrounding reproductive rights, rape relief etc had many lesbians in their staffs. They are women?
-
Mari says:
If women had any real power in society there would be very few anti-choice women (or anti-choice men, for that matter). After all, to want abortion to be illegal is to believe that the life of a fetus is worth more than the life and quality of life of a woman. The reason the anti-choice position is so popular is that the life and quality of life of a woman is worth so little that pretty much anything is worth more.
So the long-term solution would be, get women into power until it’s 51-49, work on changing society so women become as respected as men and the choice issue will mostly solve itself. Of course that’s easier said than done since to do that you need numbers and most women would rather fight other women for table scraps.
-
WMCB says:
Sis, I’m not arguing that reproductive rights are not important. I’m staunchly pro-choice, and will continue to fight for that.
My point was that to make that the litmus test of feminism, to say that that one issue is somehow central above all other issues, is false. Other things are at least as central as that.
-
Sis says:
I don’t believe it isn’t integral, because it ties into the basic philosophy of feminism; that we have autonomy over our bodies. Full reproductive rights and access, recognition that prostitution and pornography are crimes against women.
But I also don’t believe I have to demand other women who call themselves feminist have to agree with my thinking on abortion in order for us to work together on other feminist issues–which I happen to see as important, but secondary to the bodily autonomy issue.
-
sharon says:
yttik wrote:
Sit down and shut up about the US being one of the few countries in the world with no paid maternity leave, you have Choice don’t you? Sit down and shut up about caucus fraud, about wanting to elect a woman president, you want to keep your Choice, don’t you? Violence is the leading cause of death to pregnant women? Well who’s fault is that, don’t you have Choice?I saw women mobilize against Palin in particular because they feared losing Choice. Spot on point.
and votermom wrote:
“The abortion debate in the USA is a yoke that is used to keep women out of political power.”This is the heart of it, for me, as to why I find orgs like NOW irrelevant. By keeping our attention narrowly focused on reproductive rights, we’re not able to focus or mobilize on the bigger playing field of misogyny and discrimination we continue to face. The 2008 election is complete proof, in my mind, that the playing field is NOT level for women. That should have been a ‘wake up, sister’ call for every woman, liberal or conservative. Women have always had to hitch our votes to the Dems because, hey, they always promise to protect Choice. But they’ve offered us little else, and have turned out to be just as misogynistic as Republican / conservatives. I am not saying walk away from the reproductive rights issue. But I’d like to see it as less of the stonewall we find our backs continually against. Using military tactics for a moment, it’s the continual pinned-down position we get entrenched back to. We are always forced to defend it, and we are comfortable doing so. But we can’t advance, and we can’t pick up allies because reproductive rights is the pivot point as to who’s in the club of feminist women and who’s not. It locks out a whole lot of women that could be advancing the troops on the battlefield here.
-
Alison says:
I’m as pro-choice as they get. I’d even go so far as to say I’m pro-abortion. I’m happy for abortions! Think of how many more fucked up kids and fucked up mothers there would be without abortions!
That being said, I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive to be feminist and pro-life. As someone who has somewhat recently given birth, I can understand the feelings behind someone who believes life begins before birth. Of course forcing a woman to give birth is a cruel and unusual punishment that is dangerous to women but I can understand how a woman may be compelled to defend what they view as “life”.
And I don’t understand why so many find it incredulous that we could all work together for those issues where we share like minds - and there are so many issues! And why is it so difficult to understand that we can fight the abortion battle on a different playing field?
I’m no Jesus freak but let me refer to a great quote by Jesus himself. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Don’t tell me we are all perfect feminists here. And that we’ve never gone to movies (over and over again) that sexualize the brutality of women. That’s some pretty serious shit and I can say that this pro-choicer has watched season after season of CSI Miami. Thank god I’ve thrown out my television. But I’m still a feminist.
And if a pro-lifer who is against violence toward women, pornography, pay disparity, etc. etc. wants to call themselves a feminist, I am fine with that.
-
Jamie W. says:
Bravo, Alison! Your post is a perfect example of why abortion rights needs to be set aside — there are a million billion different takes on abortion, not just “all” or “none at all.” I, for one, am sick of women’s issues being reduced to absolutes like that; it trivializes them.
I used to be totally pro-choice. Then I got pregnant, and realized I could not do it. No way, no how, no matter what. To me, that fetus was another person. Now I look at him and know I made the right choice, because he’s a fantastic person.
But my cousin had a late-term abortion - 7 months. She’d been on the receiving end of an abusive relationship so bad that her (now-ex) husband was starving her to death, slowly. The baby had multiple birth defects not compatible with life, and the doctors weren’t sure that her mental or physical health, at that point, could withstand any more stress from the pregnancy. She buried the baby - for it WAS a baby to her - in a small casket at the foot of her grandfather’s grave, and to this day, twenty years later, puts flowers on that site.
There is no simple answer. That’s why it needs to remain a personal choice — perhaps with restrictions to prevent the abuse of it (like this one stripper I knew who had five in eight years — cork it, already, or get a Norplant!) — but safe and legal, and treated like the traumatic situation it can be for many women.
(A side note: my cousin’s brother ran over her husband on purpose during the divorce, which the creep contested. Didn’t hurt him too much, but did make his point. There are sometimes positive aspects to being a redneck.)
-
Reader says:
Puma for Life - I suspect you are misunderstanding what Ginsburg is saying. She uses “we” to mean she thought that was a commonly held view, when she said: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” And then she says she was wrong about what the commonly held view was. She is not saying SHE wanted abortion to reduce growth in “populations that we (”we” being what she thought was a commonly held view, not HER view) don’t want to have too many of”
In other words, she though the prevailing views of those in power were in favor of slowing population growth, and also racist eugenicists. She’s not endorsing the later. But then she says she was wrong, that wasn’t the prevailing view, the prevailing view was that the govt shouldn’t pay for abortions. But that is not her view, as you can see from the previous paragraph, where she says:
Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
I understand her point to be that she thought the govt was going to fund abortions in part for bad reasons, and that was a huge problem, but she was wrong about where the problem was. The problem turned out to be that the govt didn’t want to fund them at all, the opposite of the problem she expected to have to fight, forced abortions.
-
Sis says:
Congratulations. You exercised your choice, and decided to keep your pregnancy going. Next time, you might make a different choice. Both are your right.
You’re welcome.
-
Reader says:
Word should have been “eugenics” not “eugenicists”, sorry bout that. But the point is Ginsburg never advocated forced or pressured abortions, she is just saying she thought that was going to be the biggest problem for poor women. But the biggest problem turned out to be no funding at all.
Which is not to say forced/pressured abortions don’t happen, and I know Ginsburg would not say that. She’s just trying to give an rough overview of what she expected to happen, and then what actually happened.
-
Reader says:
Sorry for the multiple posts, but when she was a lawyer I think she actually worked with the ACLU to prevent forced abortions and sterilizations. Her view of reproductive freedom does not support forcing anyone to do anything, and never has.
-
nevermore_a_Dem says:
votermom says:
Palin became my hero,as Hillary is, just by my watching her valiant and unbending fortitude against terrible sexism.
I’m an immigrant from a country which is 90% Catholic; as you can imagine, abortion is illegal there. I know what it’s like to be a pro-choice minority. Nonetheless, my country of origin has had TWO women presidents, many anti-abortion feminists, and a history of strong women leaders. The abortion debate in the USA is a yoke that is used to keep women out of political power.
Sounds exactly like the country I’m from, votermom! Wonder if it’s the same place - PI?
Yep, Hillary (whom I was neutral about before) really bloomed as an admirable candidate last year, and Palin caught my attention and gained my respect after HRC faded from the (ugly) scene.
Anyway, agree that the craziness over the abortion issue here is senseless. It’s another wedge issue among many that simply divides the voters and pits them against each other - to the benefit of both ends of the political spectrum. Meantime, reasonable people in the middle are caught without proper recourse or refuge in an endless debate between these two extreme factions who want the ‘debate’ to continue.
-
SweetSue says:
My point was that to make that the litmus test of feminism, to say that that one issue is somehow central above all other issues, is false. Other things are at least as central as that
Well you were answering me, WMCB, and that’s not what I said at all. I said that reproductive health and choice are elements. Not the Element
I’m no longer of childbearing age, but as Sis said,I care about all the women and girls younger than me and will always work to see that they have all the options that I did. -
SweetSue says:
Sis says:
I don’t believe it isn’t integral, because it ties into the basic philosophy of feminism; that we have autonomy over our bodies. Full reproductive rights and access, recognition that prostitution and pornography are crimes against women.
But I also don’t believe I have to demand other women who call themselves feminist have to agree with my thinking on abortion in order for us to work together on other feminist issues–which I happen to see as important, but secondary to the bodily autonomy issueAbsolutely, perfectly said
-
votermom says:
Nevermore, yup!
-
choosefree says:
I have found a new home! Thanks, Violet, for making a place for us (women) to have a civilized voice!
I am 55 years old, and thought that I had changed my mind, more than once, on the abortion issue. What I have realized, over time, is that my mind has not really changed. I have always felt the same way, but had put labels of “pro-choice” or “pro-life” on the issue.
I have always considered myself to be a feminist, and my view is that it should be the definition of freedom for women. Freedom to believe or choose what you want without being denigrated for it.
Isn’t “pro-choice” actually for ALL women?
If I choose to NOT have an abortion, or I choose to HAVE an abortion, that is my right as a woman AND a human being. Maybe it should just be labeled as “reproductive freedom” for all women.Sarah Palin should be allowed to have her beliefs, as long as she does not force them on other women…and, I don’t think for one minute that she wants to FORCE her beliefs on anyone.
Women have been fighting this issue amongst themselves for many, many years, and that does nothing, but divide us in a patriarchal society that behind closed doors is laughing & giggling. After all, we will NEVER be equals in any sense as long as we are constantly sniping at each other, and deciding our future based on one issue. And, believe me, they will use it to keep us down as long as they can, because they KNOW it is a defining issue for many of us.
We should be standing side-by-side, and fighting for the freedoms of ALL women to make their own choices based on their equality as human beings.
-
gxm17 says:
SarahG @ 78. Are you recalling that Jack Kent Cooke divorced his young wife, Suzanne, because she wouldn’t have an abortion? At the time it was reported that the prenuptial agreement included language that she would have an abortion if she became pregnant.
Choice covers a woman’s right to have an abortion as well as her right to carry the pregnancy.
-
gxm17 says:
Ooops! SarahG’s comment seems to have moved to 82.
-
deputyheadmistress says:
Salmon says:
“Palin is a threat to both Dems and some Repub leaders with agendas of their own. Anyone else think this is so?”
Yes. And so was/is Hilary. Before this election I knew exactly what I thought of Hilary- I didn’t like her. I don’t think I was fair to her, and I have a great deal of respect for her now, and think she would have been much, much, much better for the country than Obama (Or McCain, who I couldn’t vote for, either).
I think the politicians in Washington are pretty much all about one thing- their own power and personal comfort, their own little feifdoms and life-time support from the taxpayers.
A politician who has reduced her own salary while in office and given up some of the perks of office? They can’t have that. Why the media plays along is something I am still trying to figure out.
-
Hedgepig says:
octogalore, you make the most convincing arguments I’ve read on these threads. I agree that with such slim pickings, having a woman with many feminist attributes in a position of political power is an exciting prospect. My feeling is that the right to abortion in all western countries is very precarious. Patriarchal culture demands that men have power over life and death, so for women to be the deciders is anathema.
I really hope the optimism expressed here about Palin’s position on abortion (that she personally doesn’t agree with it but would not use her powers to advance the pro-life cause) is well founded. I think having a pro-life female president would feed that patriarchal lust for removing power over life and death from women, whether or not she uses her position to advance her personal beliefs. -
SarahG says:
Jack Kent Cooke was a pig. Though he did, as I recall, come to love the little girl.
-
Sis says:
What?! I can’t believe what you’ve just said.
So if there’s a woman president it will be the cause of men behaving badly?
Where have I heard this before, around, oh, 1952
Don’t wear tight clothing. You’re just asking to be raped.
Don’t walk alone/there/after dark, what did you expect?
This has got to be the most ludicrous extension of “living while female” I’ve ever read. And I read it here! By some poster claiming to be a feminist!
“I think having a pro-life female president would feed that patriarchal lust for removing power over life and death from women, whether or not she uses her position to advance her personal beliefs.”
-
choosefree says:
I thought I had read somwhere that Palin had considered, if even for a moment, about having an abortion when she found out she was pregnant with her last child, Trig. I did a google search and found this article. Below is an excerpt.
“There, just for a fleeting moment, I thought, I knew, nobody knows me here. Nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy. It could be easy to think maybe of trying to change the circumstances. . . . No one would ever know.”
Palin was 44 years old with four children already. Less than a year into her tenure as governor, she had trouble imagining “putting down the BlackBerry and picking up the breast pump,” AOL.com reported.
It was her faith, she said, that made her realize that ending her pregnancy “wasn’t any answer.” But she said the experience helped her relate to the many women and girls who face unwanted pregnancies.
“I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process,” she told the crowd…
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new.....epMs&C
-
pm317 says:
# Violet says:
I think I have a secret crush on Todd.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pm EST
————————–You too!? I gave a speech called “role reversal” at my icebreaker for the Toastmasters some 15 years ago. Todd is the epitome of role reversal. I watched his interviews during the campaign and there was such grace in his measured words. The irony is Palins are living the feminists’ dream (to the extent I can see).
-
Sis says:
I think if he had had to stay at home and be responsible for the children, home, family (as we think of the traditional woman’s role) he would have paddled out of the bay long ago.
He’s running a commercial fishery, flying an aircraft and keeping current with that as the licensing requires; he’s an athlete (snow mobiling at that level is an athletic endeavour) and he works in the oil fields and manages a crew.
So it’s not really role reversal. It’s more like they both just do everything.
-
pm317 says:
It is a role reversal to the extent he is playing second fiddle to her political ambition. If she had become VP, it would have been harder for him to go on with his life as is.
-
nevermore_a_Dem says:
choosefree says:
I thought I had read somwhere that Palin had considered, if even for a moment, about having an abortion when she found out she was pregnant with her last child, Trig. I did a google search and found this article. Below is an excerpt.“There, just for a fleeting moment, I thought, I knew, nobody knows me here. Nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy. It could be easy to think maybe of trying to change the circumstances. . . . No one would ever know.”
Palin was 44 years old with four children already. Less than a year into her tenure as governor, she had trouble imagining “putting down the BlackBerry and picking up the breast pump,” AOL.com reported.
It was her faith, she said, that made her realize that ending her pregnancy “wasn’t any answer.” But she said the experience helped her relate to the many women and girls who face unwanted pregnancies.
“I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process,” she told the crowd…
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..epMs&C
JULY 9TH, 2009 AT 7:39 PM EST
Yes, choosefree, I do recall reading that article last year - and now I don’t remember my exact thoughts then all that clearly, but reading about how she struggled with that decision cemented my idea of her as a genuinely complex, thinking and feeling person not given to facile platitudes - certainly not that totally invented, hideously stupid caricature the ‘libs’ and ‘Dems’ painted of her. Someone like that, who knew how difficult it is to be in such a situation, has got to have compassion for others going through similar struggles.
Thanks for reminding us of it! Great addition to the conversation!
-
donna darko says:
Octogalore’s Cindy McCain post one year ago (June 25, 2008) is exactly like this debate. It’s funny how our comments are exactly the same about the sexist treatment of pro-life, Republican McCain vs the sexist Third Wave commenters. Check it out!
http://octogalore.blogspot.com.....ccain.html
Many PUMAs are wary of pro-lifers but I think there have been anti-feminist trolls on threads because the threat of feminism doubling it’s numbers is huge. I have seen more conservative feminists than trolls over the last year who are interested in ending sexism.
NOW, NARAL and Emily’s List are the biggest feminist groups on the US while IWF and CWA and FFL are marginal which isn’t to say Obama’s pandering to evangelicals and pro-lifers isn’t worrisome. So far, Palin, Clinton and PUMAs have had each others’ backs and Palin has been feminist but with the resignation and her duties as Republican fundraiser I will take it as it comes.
-
monchichipox says:
an abbreviated clip of Palin’s speech.
-
deputyheadmistress says:
I think having a pro-life female president would feed that patriarchal lust for removing power over life and death from women…
And I am pro-life because I don’t believe one human being should be able to have that power of life or death over another human being.
-
Sis says:
The mother has power of life or death over the fetus. Always. There’s no other way, except maybe in a petre dish.
Once it’s a human being (born) it has the same protection as any other human being, except of course, from people who believe in capital punishment, or sending their children off to war where they are expected to exercise that power against some other mohter’s child.
-
Hedgepig says:
Sis, how you can possibly manage to interpret my comment that patriarchal forces will co-opt and exploit anti-feminist positions held by a female president as the equivalent of saying women are responsible for men behaving badly is beyond me. I’m obviously on a totally different wavelength from everyone here so I’ll stop attempting to communicate.
-
liberty says:
“The mother has power of life or death over the fetus. Always.”
So did the owner have the power of life or death over the slave. It didn’t make it right for the owner to murder their slaves. Neither does the power to kill an unborn child make it right for a mother to do so.
The denial of the humanity of one group of human beings in order to advance the political ambitions of another group is something we can see again and again through time. In the 1850s it was denying humanity of black people in order to cement the position of the slave holders (and their northern supporters). Today we see denial of the humanity of the unborn in order to cement the position of feminists.
My feminist history class project made me pro-life. I became pro-life when researching abolition for a paper comparing the abolition movement to the suffrage movement. I was struck by the realization that the arguments I was using in support of choice were almost exactly the same arguments made by supporters of the status quo of maintaining slavery.
I still am a feminist, but not very welcome by some of my friends because I refuse to just ‘go along’ on the topic of abortion.
-
Sis says:
My point was, the fetus has no life without the mother. It’s a parasite.
The slave is a human being. The slave is a separate entity. The fetus is neither of those.
-
Violet says:
With all due respect, liberty, the abortion-as-slavery argument is absurd. A blastocyst is not a human being.
My feminist history class project made me pro-life. I became pro-life when researching abolition for a paper comparing the abolition movement to the suffrage movement. I was struck by the realization that the arguments I was using in support of choice were almost exactly the same arguments made by supporters of the status quo of maintaining slavery.
Really? That’s quite a coincidence, because the abolition comparison is a recent (last few years) propaganda development by the anti-abortion movement. That’s why Bush was dog-whistling in the debate about Dred Scott. It’s a batshit crazy analogy. I’m surprised you would come up with that independently all by yourself.
-
Branjor says:
The view of fetuses as “a group of human beings” is mind boggling. Different groups of human beings are separate entities, one “group” does not inhabit the other’s body, draw it’s nourishmnet from the other’s food, eliminate it’s wastes through the other’s kidneys, cause the other’s body health risks and threaten the other’s body with death just to take it’s first breath. Pregnancy is analogous to organ donation, not to living in harmony with other groups of people, and as such it should be optionaal whether or not to continue with it, not mandatory. But it is, of course, a perfectly valid choice for a woman to continue with a pregnancy and to give birth to whatever children she chooses, including Sarah Palin’s Trig, and I totally respect any woman’s choice to do so.
-
Monchichipox says:
The view of fetuses as “a group of human beings” is mind boggling.
So we shouldn’t be especially concerned about the decimation of the female gender in Third World countries whose parents regularly abort the female fetus?
-
Violet says:
So we shouldn’t be especially concerned about the decimation of the female gender in Third World countries whose parents regularly abort the female fetus?
Sure, but not because those female embryos are human beings who are being oppressed. Sex-selective abortion is of concern because it’s indicative of deeply rooted misogyny and patriarchy, pressure on women to produce sons, limited support for girls, the lurking possibility that pregnant women are being pressured into aborting, the social chaos down the road as a sex-skewed population matures, and so forth.
But embryos are not an enslaved population. Jeez.
-
Branjor says:
Violet is right.
Monchichipox: Epic Fail.
-
RKMK says:
And I am pro-life because I don’t believe one human being should be able to have that power of life or death over another human being.
You mean, the “power” to deny life to someone else by reserving the right to decide whether or not someone feeds off your organs? Well, in that case I certainly hope you’re in favour of instituting mandatory organ donation, for both living and post-mortem persons. Y’know, just to keep yourself ideologically consistent.
(Yeah, that’s right. Dead people have more rights in regards to control over what happens to their bodies than many living human beings, i.e. women, do.)
-
Phlinn says:
So, if I were to volunteer to donate an organ, and right after my kidney was removed and before it was put into the recipient, would I have a right to change my mind and demand my kidney back? The right to compel someone else to make a sacrifice on your behalf is not the same as the right to compel someone to follow through on a sacrifice they already chose to begin in the first place. Mandatory organ/blood donations is closer to mandatory fertilization than it is to banning abortion.
For another distinction, actively killing someone now with a scalpel is different from allowing them to die because you didn’t want to make the effort to save them. Not helping someone is not the same thing as actively harming someone.
That being said, about the only legal restriction I would support is early delivery in place of abortion, at the point that early delivery wasn’t more dangerous than an abortion would be, and there was a reasonable chance for the premature baby to survive without heroic life support.
-
Monchichipox says:
Epic Fail. Ugh. One of the worst things to come out of this election was the coinage of that ridiculous phrase. Do you sign an ‘F’ on your forehead while saying it?
Anyway my point was geared to my basic belief that abortion cheapens all live. What I would support as a legal last ditch surgical procedure has become a form of birth control. There is absolutely no denying that when you look at the numbers. Safe, legal, and rare is the epic fail.
Now because of abortion in so many areas of the world women have gone from undervalued, to worthless, to a non entity because of abortion. You can call the attempts to criminalize abortion patriarchal but be honest about the flip side, the biggest supporters of abortion are also patriarchal. There are more 20 year old males who support abortion than 20 year old females.
-
Violet says:
Now because of abortion in so many areas of the world women have gone from undervalued, to worthless, to a non entity because of abortion. You can call the attempts to criminalize abortion patriarchal but be honest about the flip side, the biggest supporters of abortion are also patriarchal. There are more 20 year old males who support abortion than 20 year old females.
Is today Opposite Day on your planet?
Abortion has made women undervalued and worthless? Are you out of your mind? Women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies for probably as long as modern humans have existed. All known societies employ abortion, and societies where women’s status is highest are the ones where abortion is most efficiently practiced. Go read up on matrilineal and matrifocal societies around the world and their pharmacopia for inducing abortion.
You’re just making shit up.
-
Monchichipox says:
Not having abortion. The ability to abort a fetus because it is female.
-
Branjor says:
Sure, if you can withdraw consent for the use of your kidney while you’re still unconscious from general anesthesia. IMO, you still have rights until the kidney is actually in the recipient’s body. However I don’t know what the actual legalities of the situation would be. Your signed consent to the donation would probably be a problem.
-
SarahG says:
“My point was, the fetus has no life without the mother. It’s a parasite.”
Sis, as someone who gave birth to a very premature baby, I’m going to have to disagree with you here.
-
RKMK says:
So, if I were to volunteer to donate an organ, and right after my kidney was removed and before it was put into the recipient, would I have a right to change my mind and demand my kidney back? The right to compel someone else to make a sacrifice on your behalf is not the same as the right to compel someone to follow through on a sacrifice they already chose to begin in the first place. Mandatory organ/blood donations is closer to mandatory fertilization than it is to banning abortion.
Yeah, that’s not quite the correct allegory. You’re not quite getting what I’m talking about.
Let’s say you are driving a car. A common activity that adults participate in which carries associated risks to both themselves and others, but you wear your seatbelt and you took drivers lessons, and you’re a good driver, all that, so you drive to work every day and go pick up groceries and continue to freely live your life as you please.
Now, one day when driving home from work, you get into an accident. A nasty one. Could be that you skipped on black ice, or maybe even that you weren’t paying close enough attention: either way, doesn’t matter. You hit another car, and both you and the other driver are rushed to the hospital.
You turn out to be generally alright. The other driver needs a kidney to survive. Through the magic of allegorical circumstance, both you and this driver are a perfect match for you to be a living donor.
If you go through with the procedure, you will suffer constant bodily discomfort and pains for the better part of a year; your body will also be susceptible to a wide variety of medical conditions that range from mere inconvenience to severe and life-threatening. [Also, to make the allegory even more accurate, let's say you also may be fired from your job, or face professional and social judgement from those around you; your family may reject you, and you are more likely to be a victim of violence.] On top of all those assorted risks, when all is said and done, you yourself are 11 times more likely to die if you donate this organ than if you do not.
You may choose to donate the organ anyway; you may think it’s the right thing to do. But would you honestly feel comfortable with the state taking that decision away from you? To criminalize your refusal to become a living donor, no matter what your personal circumstances are, no matter what risks you will then have to take on in your life? Would you legislate a choice that ultimately leads to someone being 11 times more likely to die?
I don’t know: maybe you would.
Finally, I would like to say that there are hundreds of thousands of people on organ-donor waiting lists. They will die if organs do not come to them on time. But we don’t force people to become organ donors, not in life, and not in death. Many people of faith, for example, believe that doing so would be an act of desecration on the body; so even though someone may die, we respect the person’s decision to control what happens to their body, even when they are dead. If we can afford this respect to the dead, I think we ought to afford it to living, breathing women with lives, friends, and family.
-
seattlegal says:
Carolyn @ post #55
http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....ment-28565“Anyway, the similarity in the hate reactions, the clear suspension of rational thought, the inability to shake the untruths with facts, it just seems very, very bizarre. I think this points to something beyond misogyny. I fear we are being manipulated on a larger scale and misogyny is simply one arrow in their quiver.”
—-
Even the people I know with Down’s syndrome have enough intelligence and integrity to understand how wrong the misogynous hate directed towards the Palins is. This really makes the suspension of rational thought on the part of those engaging in the misogynist hate even more alarming! (Or deliciously ironic for those who consider themselves to be above that sort of thing.) *rolls eyes* -
Lorenzo says:
On the performance of the media (particularly the double standards regarding Biden) this is an informative and thoughtful piece by a practising journalist.
-
Lorenzo says:
And now, comics have gone there. Misogyny really is much more entrenched than racism. Not surprising, since racism is a much more recent phenomena. (Tribalism in the broad sense may be primal, but how we construct our “tribes” varies greatly across time and space.)
