Palin stalkers bring the crazy

Saturday, August 1st, 2009 · 55 Comments »

Last night I added Memeorandum to my sidebar feed, since I like to check the site and it’ll be convenient to have it percolating right here on the blog. This afternoon I moseyed out here to the public area of the lounge and saw that, according to Memeorandum, SARAH AND TODD PALIN ARE SPLITSVILLE!

I clicked right over and got the news in exciting giant font:

memeorandum

Wow!

Except that it doesn’t seem to be true. (Edited to add: That link originally went to a CBS report, but it looks like CBS has now taken down the page — in embarrassment for even covering the story? So here’s a link to The Swamp instead.) It took me about 10 seconds of digging to discover that this whole divorce thing is a rumor started by one of the Palin stalker blogs. A handful of other Palin stalker blogs echoed the story, and the next thing you know it’s on CBS and at the top of Memeorandum.

Couple of things:

  1. Is there any limit to what the Palin stalker blogs can pass off as news? I’m guessing “Todd Palin in Satanic baby-sacrificing cult” wouldn’t fly, but I’m not sure where the line is.
  2. Can we just think about the fact that there is such a thing as Palin stalker blogs?

We all know that we live in a woman-hating society, and Sarah Palin is our culture’s current Designated Hate Receptacle. A few weeks ago I wrote a post about why some feminists are irrational on the subject of Palin, but of course it’s not just feminists. It’s everybody. Sarah Palin is everybody’s Designated Hate Receptacle. (It’s only puzzling to me when it comes from feminists because feminists ought to be more self-aware than that. Alas.)


UPDATE: This blog has the anatomy of the smear: Palin Camp Shoots Down Ridiculous Divorce Rumors Spread by CNN Stringer Dennis Zaki. It’s obviously a pro-Palin blog (Conservatives4Palin — kind of a tip-off there), but the linkages are solid and they’ve documented how the story was spread.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

55 Responses to “Palin stalkers bring the crazy”

  1. Heart says:

    Ohmygod, don’t get me even started on the way people hate on Sarah Palin. I’ve had a (new) post brewing since forever about that. Thank GOD all feminists do not hate on her. Just most. Actually, Dr. Socks, I came here to tell you I bow before your amazing blog design talents. And I envy that amazing blogroll sidebar thing you have.

  2. Violet says:

    Thanks, Heart. I don’t know if you’re using WordPress, but if you are, the plugin is Feed Reading Blogroll, and here’s its page:

    http://www.weinschenker.name/plugin-feed-reading-blogroll/

    I really like it.

  3. lambert strether says:

    Violet asks:

    Is there any limit to what the Palin stalker blogs can pass off as news?

    Simple answers to simple questions:

    No.

  4. lalala says:

    Why the continued obsession with Palin even after she resigns from office? Oh, wait. It’s because the Left now needs all the distractions they can find in order to forget the disappointment in chief they elected. And we all know Palin is the easiest target on the Right the media whores love to report on.

  5. Elise says:

    Violet, your “it doesn’t seem to be true” hyperlink isn’t finding a page. Which I’m sorry about because I’d love to know which of the Palin stalker blogs started this. I think I tracked down a relatively recent lie – Palin didn’t finish her last term as Wasilla mayor – and I’d be interested to know who started this new one.

  6. Violet says:

    Well, screw CBS for changing the page link. It worked when I put up the post. Let me look around and find another one.

  7. yttik says:

    “Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I’m not blind!”
    — SARAH PALIN

    http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08/quote-from-sarah-palin.html

    ROFL! Gave me a laugh. Palin speaks her mind again. Yes, I’ve seen Todd. I’m not blind myself. :)

  8. Alison says:

    I think this pretty much defines what most of America is doing – stalking Sarah Palin.

  9. Lorenzo says:

    We all know that we live in a woman-hating society
    If the US is a woman-hating society, what is Saudi Arabia?

    That misogyny is deeply embedded in the culture is clear. That it is more deeply embedded and harder to shift than racism is also fairly clear and supported by considerable social science research.

    But as “woman-hating” societies go, the US is way down the not-hating end of the scale. Gov. Palin did, after all, get elected Governor and nominated to be VP.

    The stalking of Sarah Palin, both in its intensity and in its content, is clearly a very unlovely demonstration of how misogyny can rise to the surface with startling speed and intensity. It is also a sign of the rather febrile intensity of political tribalism. Over-heated rhetoric does not help. However tempting it might be: I know I have gone there on occasion when I shouldn’t have.

  10. Violet says:

    But as “woman-hating” societies go, the US is way down the not-hating end of the scale…Over-heated rhetoric does not help.

    Okay, here’s a project I’d like you to undertake: please visit every blog that refers to the U.S. as a racist society and inform the denizens that since there are other societies that are more racist, it is just unhelpful “overheated rhetoric” to use the word racist when describing this country.

    When you get back, let us know how it went.

  11. sister of ye says:

    Well, I for one am all in favor of “overheated rhetoric.” Because “Please, sir, I asked nice; now can I have my civil rights?” just ain’t cutting it. The answer always is “Sure, when [requirement that is either impossible or will just be ignored].” That is, when the answer isn’t just plain “No!”

    The more this goes on, the more I’m liking Sarah Palin. If only we could tug her politics to the liberal side. Hell, maybe after enough of this shit, she’ll be ready to be positively radical. Just jump over the “progressive” step, Sarah. They’ve proved themselves pretty worthless.

  12. RKMK says:

    yttik says:

    “Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I’m not blind!”
    — SARAH PALIN

    Oh, gaddammit. That woman is making me like her again.

    Lorenzo – I think you’re very clearly lost, pumpkin.

  13. RKMK says:

    Lorenzo: Are you new? You seem new. It’s the system, Stupid.

    Sexism is a deeply learned behavior with a thousand manifestations. You can’t quarantine the big pieces of it — rape, legal discrimination — as if they exist in a vacuum apart from the rest of society’s values. From frat boy joke to date rape, from gangsta rap to domestic violence, from pink housework toys at Wal-Mart to the boss who won’t promote a woman into top management, from “Math is hard” Barbie to the physics lab where men harass their female colleagues relentlessly, from Girls Gone Wild videos to the jury that acquits a rapist because the victim was wearing a short skirt — it’s a system. A giant, all-encompassing, self-reinforcing system.

  14. sonia says:

    the new Vanity Fair traaaashes her in an article called “It came from Wasilla.” huge surprize.

  15. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:

    It is unhelpful to use “racist” or “sexist” without quantification. “Racist” and “sexist” are matters of degree (and multi-dimensional at that). If you imagine you’d be better off in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel. As Ken Hamblin says: “Pick a better country”.

    “Equal rights” is a classical liberal (i.e., libertarian) project. The practical problem is, which “rights” and what is “equal”? I hold these truths to be self-evident, that no two men (or women) are created equal, that a race which starts with all contestants at an equal distance from the finish line will end with unequal elapsed times over the course, and that recourse to the law (that is, to State violence) to generate equal outcomes will intensify the contest for control of the apparatus of the State.

    Both major parties operate slime machines. Far more journalists work for the Democratic slime machine than for the Republican slime machine. Sarah Palin is the presumptive Republican front-runner in 2012. The Democratic slime machine, funded by recipients of the government’s tax-generated revenue stream (e.g., the NEA, AFSCME, SEIU), is simply doing its job. The intensity of the attack is directly related to the stakes at issue. If you don’t like this style of politics, vote for smaller government.

  16. Observer says:

    I’m amazed hatred of other women towards Sarah Palin. Palin is a modern day American woman which every feminist in their right mind should applaud and support. I don’t know when America will elect a female for President. IMO America is still living inside the cave when it comes to treating women as equal. The biggest hindrance for women in this country to rise and become President are the women themselves, it’s a crab mentality; they’re pulling their own sister down. Benazir Bhutto became PM of Pakistan, Indira Gandhi became PM of India, Golda Meir became PM of Israel, Corazon Aquino (passed away a few days ago) and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became Presidents of Philippines. These countries and others I’ve failed to mention treat their women as equal to their men without marching in the street or burning their bras.

    What’s wrong with America why they cannot elect a woman for President? Plain and simple, this country has deep divide thru political affiliation which makes me laugh. Women in this country are the biggest hindrance for ANY woman to move forward. Take for example Hillary Clinton; the biggest group of women who oppose her are the feminist movement of the 60′s. I remember Gloria Steneim calling Hillary stupid.Young women last year especially college students and members of NOW calling Hillary all kinds of DEROGATORY names. Those women have forgotten something, they too will get old, they too will have wrinkles, they too will have cellulites all the way to their arms.

    I grew up in a country, women have a higher status in society than men. We don’t have to march in the street or call ourselves feminist, it is what it is. Majority of business owners where I came from are women. Men always rally with women, their masculinity was not threatened, in fact men in my culture always say; ” only a weak man feel threatened by a strong woman, when she’s assertive, strong in her beliefs and convictions, she makes me strong.”

  17. thistle says:

    Malcolm Kirkpatrick says: It is unhelpful to use “racist” or “sexist” without quantification.

    No it’s not.

  18. RKMK says:

    It is unhelpful to use “racist” or “sexist” without quantification. “Racist” and “sexist” are matters of degree (and multi-dimensional at that). If you imagine you’d be better off in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel. As Ken Hamblin says: “Pick a better country”.

    Oh, shut the fuck up.

    I know it must be hard to fathom that a girl doesn’t care what a smart man thinks about the thing that she cares most about in the world, or that there’s a movement that exists that doesn’t much take into consideration what men have to say on the topic. I know I’m supposed to 1) nod thoughtfully as I process your wisdom, asking clarifying questions about your points just in case I don’t immediately understand something you say, and then 2) offer up some powerful and intelligent argument on why feminism is important, and then 3) try to prove my point with examples from women in politics and a few stories about my grandmother, but of course, in the end, 4) concede that yes, you have some very good points that I will certainly think about, and thank you for educating me about feminism and correcting me on those things I didn’t fully understand about women and the world.

    – Dizzy, The Context

  19. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:

    (RKMK): “Oh, shut the fuck up.”

    Ring Lardner fan, huh?

    Sorry, but if your feminism has political implications, you cannot reasonably expect of others that they put it, or those political implications, anyway, off limits to challenge.

    The project to remake society, which the association of rape with pink toys for girls implies, indicates a totalitarian viewpoint. The incrementalist, individualist approach would look at discrete issues, like rape or under- or over-representation of genders or races in prison or in professions or differential, age-adjusted mortality rates, and ask how much of a problem each issue is and what are the costs and benefits of various solutions.

    For example, across US States, there is a fairly large difference in the rate of juvenile arrest for rape between States which compel attendance at age 7 or 8 and those which compel attendance at age 5 or 6. Later is better (lower). Rate of rape is not so strongly related to school district size. Other categories of violent crime (assault, robbery, homicide) work the other way: they are weakly correlated with age of compulsory attendance and more strongly correlated with district size.

    Boring, right? It’s so much more dramatic to fantsizxe about turning society upside down, and to anathematize people who oppose that project.

    In __The Road to Wigan Pier__, George Orwell wrote that socialism may be nothing more than a hypertrophied sense of order. Elsewhere (e.g., “Raffles and Mrs. Blandish”, “Inside the Whale”) he suggests that a preference for authoritarian politics indicates vicarious sadism. Ludwig Von Mises suggests as much in __Socialism__, where he speculates that the socialist impulse is a revenge fantasy. That goes some way toward explaining the vehemence of the opposition to Sarah Palin.

  20. RKMK says:

    The project to remake society, which the association of rape with pink toys for girls implies, indicates a totalitarian viewpoint.

    No, it doesn’t. It indicates a humanist standpoint, and furthermore, I’m not going to discuss anything with a dude who both endorses population control via infanticide and/or women being forced to have abortions if they’ve had “too many” children already, because that indicates a totalitarian viewpoint.

  21. LabRat says:

    Malcolm, I probably came here from the same place as you, and we probably agree on FAR more politically than I do with either our hostess or RKMK.

    So it is as one sympathetic that I say you’re making an ass of yourself. Lecturing women on what their priorities should be and how they have it SO much better than Saudis (“at least WE aren’t legally beating you, be grateful!”) and therefore they should stop being concerned with the sexism endemic in America and start being concerned with your concerns (and you make a ton of assumptions in one small comment thread about what both Violet and the other commenters think based on a thumbnail sketch and a series of political stereotypes) is incredibly condescending. Maybe you don’t care, but if you’re making any point here, it’s that they’re entirely justified in their own stereotypes.

  22. madamab says:

    Personally, I think Palin’s response was sexist. Doesn’t she know her husband is more than a pretty face?

    Kidding! Kidding!

    ;-)

  23. Hedgepig says:

    Q. If the US is a woman-hating society, what is Saudi Arabia?

    A. A woman-hating society.

    Amazing how hard it is for many to get the idea that you can have different manifestations of the same underlying problem.
    Also, Lorenzo, having tried for years to express my feminist concerns using very calm, non-inflammatory language and getting ignored, sneered at, told things are much worse in Saudi Arabia etc I am now happy to occasionally let off some steam with some strong terms like Violet’s “woman-hating”. And I still get ignored, sneered at, told things are much worse in Saudi Arabia, oh, and also that if I didn’t use over-heated rhetoric people would take my argument more seriously. Except of course that they don’t.
    And now, according to Malcolm Kirkpatrick, I shouldn’t even use the word “sexist” without having a shitload of sociological statistics at the ready. Ooops, there’s little ol’ me being all totalitarian again and using naughty words.

  24. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:

    RKMK, you misuse “totalitarian”. Recourse to State coercion in –one– instance (the Chinese approach to population control) hardly implies a preference for violent means across the board (The Libertarians at Samizdata made the same error). Generally, I prefer uncoerced markets in goods and services. On the other hand, the view which puts pink toys and rape in the same category, and insists that free choices (pink toys) and violent impositions (rape) are symptoms of one underlying, systemic illness, is totalitarian, seems to me.

  25. Violet says:

    Malcolm, who in the hell are you? How did you get in here? I don’t recall ever approving a comment from you. Are you some kind of batshit libertarian misogynist freakazoid? Jesus.

  26. RKMK says:

    Violet, he’s a libertarian who showed up in the tea party/abortion thread (who tried to equate taxes as comparable to involuntary organ donation, and other batshit stuff.)

  27. Violet says:

    Oh, that was when I was working on the site. I never did read that whole thread — you all were talking away and I was coding. Huh.

  28. RKMK says:

    Oh, take the time now to go back and ctrl-f. It’s a downright hootenanny.

  29. yttik says:

    Speaking of Palin, for women it’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. This phony story is attempting to smear Palin’s character and yet an attempt to smear Hillary’s character was also made by implying there was something wrong with her for not getting a divorce. Divorce=bad, staying married=bad. For females anyway. Michelle herself said if Hillary can’t run her own home, she can’t run the white house. Some day those words may come back to bite Michelle in the butt, but that’s a whole other post. My point being, both Hillary and Palin continue to be married rather successfully and yet the double standard treats them as if they were worst than David Diaper Vitter or Mark Sanford.

  30. madama says:

    Yttik – you are right. There is no flattering patriarchal paradigm for a woman with a cheating husband. Is she a virgin? No, she’s married. A whore? No, she’s married. A mother? Maybe, but that doesn’t apply. A crone? Usually not old enough.

    A woman defined by her character and not by the man in her life: what a quandary for those will small minds and even smaller penii. (Whoops! Did I say that in my out-loud voice?)

  31. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:

    (Violet): “Malcolm, who in the hell are you? How did you get in here? I don’t recall ever approving a comment from you…”

    Sorry to offend. I entered an open door. Do comments require approval? The Common Room mentioned the Palin discussion, so I read the post and all the comments. Mostly civil and thoughtful, the host and readers. I was impressed. Violet was acute in her exchange with London gal.

    (Violet): “Are you some kind of batshit libertarian misogynist freakazoid? Jesus.”

    No, no, no, no, and no. No crazier than most. Classical liberal, approximately. Misogynist? Depends on which ex-girlfriend you ask, I suppose. Ten fingers and toes. Not a church-goer. I figure it’s courtesy to present a stripped-down argument for ease of comprehension. Sometimes the lack of cushioning upsets people.

    (RKMK): “Violet, he’s a libertarian…”

    Well. it’s better than your last mischaracterization, “fascist”, RKMK, but still mistaken. I part company with libertarians on environmental issues, like immigration and population control. Also, I agree, as someone once said, there are too many r’s in “revolution”.

  32. Swannie says:

    You know..Sarah Palin doesn’t ” talk down ” to people, and I doubt if she has a condescending bone in her body . We all know who has the condescending bone .. oh wait I meant tone ..ok no I did not .
    And isn’t it a shame that within the patriachal paradigm, men are very often restricted to responding from only above the neck and below the waist.

  33. Swannie says:

    And malcolm …ever hear of overcompensating for misogynist fantasies, or any kind of socially unacceptable fantasy …really … with over intellectuallization?

  34. Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:

    Violet,

    I left comments #16, 48, 63, 145, 158, 165, 168, and 169 in the “If this was really a coctail party” thread. I have tried to make my arguments clear and w/o personal attack. You may assess who has been hostile, here.

    Ta ta.

  35. Doc Merlin says:

    I’m not really a feminist, but I rather like Sarah Palin. She’s entertaining, attractive, and has a strong libertarian streak.

    More importantly, she’s capable, assertive, and for the most part seems to agree with me politically, the three things I desire from politicians.

  36. Toonces says:

    AAAAAHHHHHH!!!! TOO MANY LOLBERTARIANS ON THE ISLAND!!!

  37. Cindy says:

    Violet,
    I really like what you’ve done to the place, and as always, appreciate your remarks.
    You are, by far, the most intellectual, without being condescending, feminst blogger. And the kindest.
    Thank you for being here.

  38. Briar says:

    “If you don’t like this style of politics, vote for smaller government.” There are many other alternatives to this response (which codes as right wing libertarian for me, as it obviously has for others on this thread). Among them are reform of the electoral process (plenty of ideas for that out there too) and breaking the grip of the two major parties. In the last election I would, if I could, have voted for a black woman candidate whose policies came a great deal closer to those I could approve than any other. Yet, given that choice, most Americans opted either not to vote, or to vote Republican or Democrat. If nothing else, this illustrates (for me) the reluctance of so-called leftists in the US to leave the conforming comfort zone of the centre. An awful lot of work needs to be done, obviously, but opting for the tired old cliche of “small government” with all its repellent echoes of a deeply conservative past would be a retrograde step back into the zone.

  39. SYD says:

    “My point being, both Hillary and Palin continue to be married rather successfully and yet the double standard treats them as if they were worst than David Diaper Vitter or Mark Sanford.”

    This is a point of utmost salience, yttk. As we are seeing the Hillary/ Sarah parallels multiply … in terms of how they are treated by the MSM, and their own parties.

    There is something the men actively hate about a woman who is happily married AND successful. Many women hate it too. I can’t quite put my finger on it, to be honest. But, if you are happily married AND successful, you know what I mean.

    Am I gonna have to go back and get a doctorate just so I can study this phenomena? (Please say no.)

    SYD

  40. SYD says:

    Aaack…. my post vanished.

    Anyways… the gist of it was, in response to yttk … If a woman is happily married and successful that is enough to make da menz hate her. Not sure why. But Hillary and Sarah are both examples of the phenomena.

    SYD

  41. RJGatorEsq. says:

    There is no limit to the hate.

    I am a commercial law attorney. I.e., I do deals.

    I was out to lunch with a client and somebody (the “Prospect”) who wanted to do a deal with my client. The Prospect was a middle-aged, white Texan.

    We were not talking politics; we were making small talk. Suddenly, the Prospect blurts out, “Thank G-d we didn’t get stuck with Sarah Palin. She would have been THE WORST.”

    Geez, where’d that come from? How long had that been bubbling up? Is that what passes for polite conversation in a business lunch? Is that acceptable with people whose political views you don’t know?

    I responded by showing him a picture of my two girls (ages 11 and 6). Wearing their Sarah Palin tee shirts.

  42. Puma for Life says:

    I would just like to point out, in terms of sexism, that the proposed health care bill is targeting women as undesirables because it wants to start counseling seniors on end of life choices starting at age 65 and every five years after that while not funding treatments for them. As we know, women live longer than men anyway, so this bill is out to kill off women. Have you ever heard of a society that wants to shorten the life expectancy of its citizens? Well, you have now, and it’s women’s life expectancy that is being targeted.

  43. sister of ye says:

    In my experience, those crying for “small government” are trying to convince others not to go home with what they’ve paid for while bringing in the wheelbarrow to clean out the store for themselves.

    Personally, I’d be happy to have a “small government” that didn’t eavesdrop on my phone calls or read my email. Or build a multi-billion dollar war machine that has no conceivable relationship to necessary defense. Or police what gender of person I may want to sleep with and marry.

    Paying to fix roads, build bridges and see that people who need education, health care and decent living and working conditions get it doesn’t bother me in the least.

    I’ve also noticed that bullies cry and claim to be oppressed when you simply make them stop picking on others.

  44. votermom says:

    My 7yo asked me today if you have to have a reason to vote for someone. I said, well, if you’re voting for American Idol, no, but of you’re voting for a government leader, yes.
    Then it struck me that since Obama IS the American Idol President, that explains the Palin-hate. She’s the one who can get those same Idol votes — she’s got the underdog narrative and she’s got the actual talent. She’s Kelly Clarkson to B0′s Justin Guarini.

  45. monchichipox says:

    These crazy asses aren’t going to be happy until there is a public mutilation of Sarah’s clitoris.

  46. Adrienne in CA says:

    My point being, both Hillary and Palin continue to be married rather successfully and yet the double standard treats them as if they were worst than David Diaper Vitter or Mark Sanford.

    Not only are they both happily married in the polite sense, they’ve both referred openly to their romantic love of and physical desire for their husbands. Didn’t they get the Bible memo that desiring your husband was supposed to be a punishment for sin? Wanton hussies!

    *****A

  47. Monchichipox says:

    Justice Clarence Thomas had his high-tech lynching Sarah Palin’s high-tech rape continues.

  48. Kiuku says:

    You can sum up Malcolm’s post in one sentence. He’s basically dredging up the same “point” that they used about the hate unleashed on Hillary Clinton. It’s not that she’s a woman, it’s just that she’s this particular woman. Really.

  49. HeroesGetMade says:

    I’ve decided to go Costello on PDS/CDS/Designated Hate Receptacle of the Week/Month/Year – I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused. The FATWA (Feminists Against That Woman Always) especially amuse me. Who said there’s an undercurrent of jealousy/hate for women who are professionally successfully whilst coupled with a desirable man who’s not threatened by the successful woman? I agree with whoever said that; the FATWA hate renegade women with extra special gusto!

    Don’t know whether everybody’s already seen this Fish piece on the hysterical speculation that ensued when Palin opted out of the no-win trap, but it’s a doozy (please ignore the Sanford distraction, most of the commenters did):

    http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/in-defense-of-palin-and-sanford/

    No way I made it through all the comments, but there’s clear patterns rationalizing the PDS. The numero uno excuse for attacking her is her ‘attack’ on the Lightbringer, claiming he ‘palled around with terrorists’. Well, he did have a penchant for hanging out with bad boyz so as to gain some sorta librul dude street cred, especially if the bad boyz were women-haters of some sort. Meanwhile, who did he never want to be seen with – teh dreadful gayz! My head hurts, but I’m always appreciative of people like Fish and Violet who can cut right through all the bogus rationalizations for completely indefensible arguments. I’ll have to remember the rulz, though – if a public woman notices an inconvenient truth about Dude Nation’s current hero, retribution will ensue upon the public woman’s children, and of course, she asked for it and did it to herself! I believe I’ve had my USRDA of amusement for today, and maybe even for the week.

  50. dieselsandwich says:

    Malcolm,

    I have to say, drawing comparisons to countries like Saudi Arabia has to be the most blatantly silly red herring fallacy I’ve seen in a while.

    It isn’t relevant to this discussion that Saudi Arabia has it worse. It also isn’t relevant to this conversation that kids in Africa are dying of AIDS. The fact is, there is a systemic sexism in America. We are talking about America. Try to stay focused.

    The linkage between pink Barbies and rape is not direct. That would be a silly claim. And a strawman on the part of anyone trying to claim that anyone else here is saying that. However there is actually a linkage. An indirect linkage built through elements of an overarching social system in which prominent ideology representing femininity and female as a concept as weakness (and requiring them to be firmly and concretely defined in opposition to masculinity and male as a concept), women as objects (sexual or otherwise) and men as not only deserving of power but of women having power as being ludicrous.

    This system, this cultural phenomenon known as the patriarchy, exists. It influences the pink barbies and it influences the culture of rape. That is the connection. Changing this patriarchy will likely change how both of those things happen or if they happen at all.

    This is not totalitarianism. This is simple expression of knowledge about culture and society. Some of the proposed solutions may be totalitarian but many others are not and I would ask you kindly not to pretend that anyone here is advocating totalitarian solutions without actually hearing them say so.

    Because that too is a strawman fallacy.

    Other than that, your points about the mud machines of the bloated, two-party, large government system were great. I would agree that they certainly play a serious and irritating role in this fiasco.

  51. Richard Aubrey says:

    Maybe I’m being crazy, but as a guy, I think I can speak, if not for guys, for myself.
    I don’t hate happily married people for being happily married.
    There are some happily married people whom I dislike heartily for other reasons, though.
    And I reiterate what I said on the earlier posts on PDS: It’s Palin-hate for political reasons. That women hate her is because they don’t like her politics and think smearing her will keep her from having influence.
    That men hate her is…see previous sentence.
    See Bush=Hitler, Bush=theocracy. Ford is a dunce. Quayle is a dunce.
    You can’t smear men with issues specific to women and vice versa. It would be ludicrous, for example, to ask where Palin’s military records are and how come she ducked whatever war we were having when she was young.
    IMO, considering this a matter of misogyny is missing the bulk of the issue.
    However, as the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, it’s convenient if everything looks like a nail.

  52. donna darko says:

    Romney leads the 2012 GOP poll. There’s Huckabee and Gingrich too. It’s misogyny because they elicit NO RESPONSE from leftists compared to Palin.

  53. Richard Aubrey says:

    donna.
    Disagree. The guys are all professional pols. Romney is so malleable he signed off on the failing MA health plan. So he’s good, right? I mean, it’s going bankrupt, so it must be sincere or something.
    Huckabee is a who? Jazz guitar Baptist preacher.
    Gingrich can only be an eminence grise.
    Lefties know none of them are going anywhere. None. Nowhere. Nohow.
    So, nothing to fear.
    Palin, on the other hand, has potential. No sense wasting good vitriol on has-beens when there is a genuine enemy out there, one who can actually hammer the lefties.
    You may remember the old Gingrich. “Send us money or Newt Gingrich boooga boooga, send us money, or Newt Gingrich.” He’s a nobody in terms of actual political office. You could put the Division Six AYSO version of dems against him and he’d lose.
    Nope. This is a compliment, in a backhanded way, due to the lefties’ view of Palin as the only formidable conservative in sight.
    The fact is, when politics is/are involved, the energy necessary for habitual misogyny is missing.
    Nobody would go after a woman qua woman when they had a real threat to meet who wasn’t that woman.
    Besides, the attacks on Palin and her family are actually good for her political future. Many people have compassion and a generalized opposition to unfair treatment. The lefties aren’t going to vote for her. The repubs may decide she’s better than a certified loser–she didn’t lose, McCain did–like Romney or Huckabee. And the independents may decide that anybody who’s like them, or like they’d like to be and gets hammered for it is a sympathetic character.
    Still…hammer, nail. Whatever floats your boat.

  54. Violet says:

    Mr. Aubrey, first of all, you’re mistaken in your implication that there is no difference between the venom for Palin and the venom for other potentially-threatening rightwingers (in the past, if you like, since there aren’t many heavy-hitters today). Donna is absolutely right — as is every woman who’s commented on this site — that Palin has been subjected to particularly misogynistic vitriol.

    Also, even if some of this misogyny is strategic, that still doesn’t mean it’s not real. If people called Barack Obama a n—g last year because he was a threat, while they never called Colin Powell that, does this mean they’re not racist? Of course not.

  55. Richard Aubrey says:

    Violet.
    I can agree the misogyny may be strategic. I missed the point about Powell and Obama. Nobody I ever talked to or heard about or read on blogs or elsewhere ever referred to Powell in any but respectful terms. Ditto Rice, except on the left.
    Until he, like Rice, turned mushy, and then they get slammed for being mushy.
    On the other hand, I heard people talking about people calling Obama the n-word, but never saw it first-hand.
    Still, I think we can agree that Rice and Powell had careers and backgrounds far more deserving of respect than does Obama.
    However, the misogyny deployed against Palin is strategic, imo. The vitriol directed against Bush was not misandrist–being called a chimp, an idiot, a Hitler, a closet theocrat, a cokehead, a moron, a murderer, are all gender-neutral.
    And the vitriol directed against Palin is only slightly to do with gender. The foofaraw about the cop being fired, the book-burning, the rape kit, the daughter pregnant without being married, the per diem, the education, the accent, the mal-edited interviews, the moron/idiot/hick, are all gender-neutral.
    You’ll recall who tried to make an issue out of Cheney’s daughter, the one who is lesbian. Any tool that comes to hand.
    The remarks which are not gender neutral are pretty thin on the ground.
    And none of them would be directed toward her if she had never gotten picked by McCain.
    And the conservative blogs think she’s terrific and want her to run for POTUS sooner rather than later, although there is a school of thought that she should do as Reagan did and become a speaker and writer and even host a talk-show in order to improve her name recognition (???) and then run.
    Palin is a target not because she’s a woman but because she outdraws Biden at public events by a hundred to one. And nobody on the republican side is bothering to try to draw a crowd. Waste of hall rental money.
    The reason I disagree about the motivation of the vitriol is that I want Palin to do well and that requires understanding the oppo, and imo concentrating on misogyny obscures the picture.