Exciting new growth sector in feminism: bashing women

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 · 81 Comments »

Oh, this is wonderful. Just wonderful.

A start-up publishing house called O/R is planning a kind of semi-spoof of Sarah Palin’s upcoming memoir. The title of Palin’s book is Going Rogue: An American Life. The spoofy thing — actually a collection of essays about Palin — will be called Going Rouge: An American Nightmare. Rouge — get it? Makeup. Lady stuff! Stuff that bitches wear! Heh. Take that, rougey bitch with lady parts!

The book will drop on November 17, the same day as Palin’s, and the cover is designed to be almost identical:

palinbooks

Here’s the list of contributors to Going Rouge, as per the publisher:

With contributions by: Max Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Eve Ensler, Michelle Goldberg, Jane Hamsher, Christopher Hayes, Jim Hightower, Linda Hirshman, Naomi Klein, Dahlia Lithwick, Amanda Marcotte, Shannyn Moore, John Nichols, Katha Pollitt, Hanna Rosin, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tomasky, Rebecca Traister, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Jessica Valenti, Patricia Williams, JoAnn Wypijewski and Gary Younge.

Are there any surprises in that list? No, there are not, Bob. Just about every feminist there is one of The Embarrassing Ones — the women who became so infatuated with Obama and so punch-drunk on their own latent misogyny (towards Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, or both) that 2008 will live in infamy as the Year of Feminist Shame.

Which is not to say that there isn’t a place for criticism of Sarah Palin’s politics; there is. She’s a conservative Republican, and conservative Republican ideas are batshit and wrong and bad. Tear them apart, by all means. It’s also entirely appropriate to assess Palin as a political figure, assuming that this can be done in a non-sexist way, with a feminist awareness of the double standard and the ways in which patriarchy informs and deforms everything it touches.

But is that really what this book is going to be? Given the title and the list of contributors? Given that several of The Embarrassing Ones have a history of libeling Palin and attacking her in distressingly sexist terms? Given that these are the same folks whose woman-bashing last year was so nasty we’re still trying to get the puke stains out of the carpet?

Somehow I’m not hopeful.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

81 Responses to “Exciting new growth sector in feminism: bashing women”

  1. RKMK says:

    Actually, Rebecca Traister’s a disappointment – she wrote this after all. And Katha Pollitt wrote this. But I guess they became full-fledged ‘Bots after Hillary left the race.

  2. yttik says:

    I think I’ve changed my mind about politics entirely. I no longer want nice liberal women to run for office, I now want the most strident, spine filled, fear invoking, right wing women to rise across this land and really kick some ass.

    Fuckitol, I want revenge, I want the stuff of liberal boyz nightmares. They really need their asses kicked. My only complaint about Palin? She may be too filled with common sense and basic courtesy to really fulfill my fantasy.

    What good is having the prolife, antigay Tim Kaine in charge of the DNC? What good is it having the spineless wonder boy in the presidency? At least if conservative women rise up I can enjoy the smackdown these idiots have earned.

  3. Violet says:

    Naw. You don’t want that. The collateral damage is too high. We don’t need any kind of rightwingers in government. We need Hothead Paisan!

    President Hothead Paisan. I could get behind that.

  4. vastleft says:

    Just imagine what those “progressives” would think about an anti-Obama book title that was a “clever” pun on the President’s race? No doubt, they’d decide it was good, clean fun.

    My $.02 here:
    http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2009/10/painted-lady.html

  5. Irlandese says:

    I’m with you yttik, except for the wing part. I’m done with wingnuts–right AND left. I just want some ass-kicking WOMEN to bring some gotdamned get it done-ness to the table. At this point, I couldn’t care less if she’s got a girlfriend or if she’s dancing naked with chickens in her church. I’m done being part of the circular firing squad. I’ve dodged too many bullets this last 2 years.

  6. myiq2xu says:

    A recent poll showed that Sarah was several polling points behind other GOP contenders in a head-to-head match-up with Obi-One. The leading contender is Mike Huckubee. All the other contenders lack one thing that Sarah has. (a vagina)

    So why is she the major target?

    (a vagina)

  7. KBK says:

    Palin’s for small government, local government, free markets, and individual liberty. She also happens to be a Christian, but I don’t think that figures much in her politics.

    She is not a Conservative Republican e.g. a big government beltway Republican.

    So she’s not necessarily batshit, that remains to be seen :-)

  8. Violet says:

    So she’s not necessarily batshit, that remains to be seen :-)

    But in my opinion, the Republican agenda — even the basic beltway GOP agenda — is batshit. “Small government, local government, free markets, and individual liberty” are euphemisms for irresponsible and grossly unfair policies that have no place in the modern world. In my opinion. So when I say Republican ideas are batshit, that’s what I mean.

    Beyond that, though, we do know that Palin is extra-batshit on a couple of things: abortion and, it turns out, healthcare.

  9. octogalore says:

    Agree. That list of contributors is a surprising cross-section of self-described feminists. These folks are not contributing to takedowns of other famous Republicans who are male. The reason for that? Has to be one of two possibilities:

    1) they are dupes being used as female weapons against women;

    2) they are complicit in the desire to tear down women (in a situation in which they wouldn’t tear down a similarly situated man).

    Either way, it doesn’t augur well for the F word.

    As to the policy disagreements: clearly, this isn’t what this is about, as you say. Personally, I agree with SP on some fiscal issues and disagree on most if not all social issues. I’d have no problem contributing to a book to critique various politicians on the issues, but as a woman, would not contribute to a take-down of a female politician that so obviously seeks women to set upon one another. I am surprised — well, OK, not so much — that others see this differently.

  10. Violet says:

    Actually, I take that back about their being no surprises. Naomi Klein. I missed her the first time. That’s kind of a surprise.

  11. Violet says:

    Coincidentally, Jill has a post up today about the internalized misogyny that even feminists struggle with: http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/10/22/no-post-today-just-this-long-essay/

    She’s reacting to the Meghan McCain thing, which elicited some of that same “My sexist and misogynistic bashing of this woman is a totally feminist act” mindfuckery.

  12. emmag says:

    brilliant, violet, thank you for speaking up on this. just the thought of these pretend feminists vomiting more hate into the atmosphere makes me sick. hello, doesn’t anyone CARE about the issues that real working women (and men) face everyday. I have no illusions about sarah palin’s politics, but the fact is, like it or not, she cared enough to take on her own political party in outrageously corrupt alaska and kick their butts to the curb. The majority of these so-called feminists would pee in their pants before they would take a stand like that or do anything positive for humanity. The political and media litmus test for me from now on is human decency. If a writer or politician cannot show common human decency toward female leaders, they are showing their ass to women, children and families everywhere. And that ass is the ugliest thing on earth.

  13. Violet says:

    And Katha Pollitt wrote this. But I guess they became full-fledged ‘Bots after Hillary left the race.

    Actually, Pollitt was a full-fledged Obot before Hillary left the race. In fact, the only reason she wrote that nice column you linked to is because Hillary had lost. There was no chance she would be the nominee, so Pollitt could afford to be gracious and mouth some feminist-sounding stuff.

    But when Hillary was in the race, Pollitt was in full anti-Clinton Obot mode. She claimed Obama was more of a feminist and better on women’s issues than Clinton (!); she bought into that whole thing about Hillary being personally responsible for the Iraq War while Obama was a Prince of Peace; she even went along with the Ferraro crucifixion. (And by the way, all Ferraro said was that the country seemed much more excited about possibly electing the first black president than the first woman president, and Obama was lucky to be in the right place at the right time to ride that wave. And that’s it. She never said black people were lucky to be black or that they had it better off than whites. Her words were twisted by the Obots — just as so many things Hillary said were twisted.)

  14. Nessum says:

    emmag said:

    The political and media litmus test for me from now on is human decency.

    I like that. I really, really like that!

    Following that vein (whispering now) I still wish you would remove Madam Secretary from the blogroll, Violet. Please?

  15. yttik says:

    I don’t think it’s fair to call Palin bat shit on health care, abortion or Republicanism. She hasn’t done anything about abortion, some of the health care crap from congress that I’m reading really does seem bat shit, and she’s just gone and endorsed a non Republican Hoffman against a Republican candidate.

    There’s still a lot of assumptions about who and what Palin is. One thing she certainly isn’t is part of the Republican party establishment.

  16. SarahG says:

    Sarah Palin is a Republican, but she isn’t a beady-eyed loon. This book could not be about her policies, because her policies are moderate and reasonable, at least by Republican standards. If they had wanted to write a book about evil Republicans, there were any number of male candidates to choose from, whose policies/writings/actions would have provided ample material. (Democrats too, but I digress.) I don’t see how this book could possibly be anything but what Violet says it is.

    And it’s a small thing, I know, but I can’t help being SO pissed off about the fact that she’s in a fleece (a fleece, for God’s sake!) with very little makeup on her own cover, and yet they’re making fun of her for being, what? too concerned about clothes? for using her sex appeal? In any case, for being something that THEY decided to present her as.

    I’m incoherent, I’m sorry. I’m going to drink my coffee now.

  17. Alison says:

    Violet,

    How is Palin extra bat shit on abortion? Just want to get my facts straight. From what I’ve seen she says she is pro-life, has done very little to curb choice (I mean not more than the average Democrat) in terms of policy. And then there is the pro-choice appointment on the Alaska Supreme Court…

    But this just might be smart politics on her part so that Moderate Dems can say – oh, it’s just personal for her! She hasn’t legislated anything! But legislating comes later. I don’t know…

    Irlandese,

    I’m done with Dems and Republicans, too. Theoretically. Neither of them can count on having my vote and I will certainly vote Republican if that means making a statement as to how unhappy I am with the Dems. Funny enough, that’s in part how we got Obama – many Republicans were pissed that McCain was too liberal and so voted Democrat.

    But voting 3rd party? Is it realistic to think we can develop a 3rd party and actually win? I’d love to think we have other options.

  18. vastleft says:

    yttik,

    “Death panels” was batshit, doncha think?

    I find little to admire in her politics…nor in the often misogynistic and trumped up attacks on her by “progressives.” Busting her on the death-panels thing was one of the few times the latter called her out on an issue of substance. But now they’re returning to form, shaming her for her troubling rouge.

  19. Ken in Dallas says:

    Violet, I’m, a very conservative 50 year old white male living in Dallas, Texas and while you may not think your blog would attract such a person as me, I must admit to you how much I enjoy reading your blog and as important, the comments by your readers.

    You may be reclusive but you are fair, actually very fair in your take on the issues of the day. I love your clever, but judicisous use of colorful language to create just the right amount of emphasis. When it’s blended with insightful comments I take note even more of your position.

    Your readers and their comments are thought out, fair and cogent. This post I have been waiting to read from you ever since I saw the “Going Rouge” book publicized. “Rouge” I thought to myself, I’ll bet Violet will have something to say about this. And you did!

    I admit that I love Sarah Palin for the principles she espouses which are also mine. It’s cool that we don’t agree on these and we do not have to agree. What is even more cool is that your blog doesn’t ever attack those who don’t agree. I like that in you and your readers.

    I will continue to look in on you from time to time but know you have a big fan in Dallas. Keep up the good work.

  20. yttik says:

    “Death panels” was batshit, doncha think?”

    No, because poor people who are forced to depend on government run insurance programs like medicaid, are all too familiar with confronting a death panel that denies them AIDS medication or cancer treatments. Ironically, while the right wing was working so hard to keep Schiavo on life support and diagnosing her from the floors of congress, others were being disconnected from life support against their will and the wishes of their family because they were being deemed too much of a burden on the taxpayer.

  21. Simon Kenton says:

    emmage wrote:

    …but the fact is, like it or not, she cared enough to take on her own political party in outrageously corrupt alaska and kick their butts to the curb.

    Thank you for that. She did, and she has (as someone else pointed out) since endorsed a Tea Party type. You would go a long time looking to find a high-level Dem of whom this could be said. “Drain the swamp” Pelosi and Rangel? How about that Obama, and the courageous way he led the charge against Rezko and Blagojevitch? Or did he wait until the courts had converted them to fire hydrants and then boldly water them? You would go a long time, maybe a longer time, to find a high-level Republican who has gone after corruption in his own party. I like the “human decency” remark, too. I guess I don’t trust these people any more as human beings, and (concurrent political stands or not) I do think Palin’s a human being.

  22. vastleft says:

    yttik,

    I guess you prefer that for-profit insurers decide who’s in their vested interest to let die. If we maintain that delightful status quo based on Palin’s misrepresentation of a
    proposed benefit, why not? Not to worry, Obama and the Dems are going to feed ever more Americans to our Big Insurance overlords.

  23. yttik says:

    “I guess you prefer that for-profit insurers decide who’s in their vested interest to let die.”

    Of course I do because when selecting a shit sandwich my only choices should be beige or brown.

    Is is not possible that perhaps I would like to see something offered that is even better then the two shit sandwiches being presented?

  24. vastleft says:

    It’s possible, sure. That’s how I feel, too. That’s why I’m advocating HR676.

    But defending Palin’s twisted misrepresentation about “Death Panels” doesn’t seem like a great path toward a better politics, nor toward better health care.

  25. vastleft says:

    To clarify: how I feel is not liking any of the shit-sandwiches offered by Palin or Obama. Not preferring the corporate death panels over Medicare for All. Not by a longshot.

  26. yttik says:

    The reason Palin’s death panel quip carried so much power is because it rang true with people. It triggered memories of the government mandating sterilizations, denying people AIDS medications, of Walter Reed medical center, of state run nursing home institutions. Does the government ever intend to screw over poor people? Probably not, but all you have to do is go look at some government provided health care services and realize that human rights and compassion got lost somewhere along the way.

    The rational response to this is not to attack Palin for stating the obvious, but to demand the government write in a system of checks and balances so no one is ever denied care based on their perceived worth to society.

  27. vastleft says:

    Ah, laundering Palin’s death-panel lie into a savvy quip and marketing Reaganist government-can’t-do-anything-right memes. Did I stumble into freerepublic or something?

  28. yttik says:

    In upside down world, I am accused of being a fan of Ronald Reagan’s while the man about to take Republican Romney’s health care plan national said, “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.”

    Hey, at least you think you’re only in freerepublic. I think I’m living in the matrix and the entire left wing of the country fell down the rabbit hole.

  29. Alison says:

    Vastleft,

    Can’t one have a reasonable discussion about the pitfalls of government care as well as our crap insurance model? And by looking at various systems, their benefits and their weaknesses, go from there in developing a better health care system?

    I’m finding most people to be utter ideologues in regard to health care and are incapable of discussion with those who are not on the same bandwagon. Honestly, I’d rather read some dry term paper written by a twenty year old nonpartisan martian than most of what I am reading in the blogosphere or seeing on the news.

  30. jj says:

    In case anyone’s wondering what Palin is up to. She’s busy fighting against a liberal GOP candidate and stumping for a Conservative Party member.

    Why? That GOP guy was way too much of a feminist.

    I’m all for denouncing misogynistic attacks on Palin, but let’s not mistake her for a libertarian feminist.

  31. SarahG says:

    Vastleft, you’re misinformed. “Death panels” was a quip. On Facebook. To listen to people talk, you’d think Palin made a major policy speech in which she accused Obama of something specific, but this is not the case. She posted on Facebook. And it was definitely savvy, because with one well-chosen dysphemism she accomplished what an army of bloviating male politicians had failed to do, which was stop Congress from passing Obamacare before the August recess without due debate. Now you may not agree with that goal, but don’t say she’s not savvy.

  32. Violet says:

    Alison says:

    Violet,

    How is Palin extra bat shit on abortion? Just want to get my facts straight. From what I’ve seen she says she is pro-life, has done very little to curb choice (I mean not more than the average Democrat) in terms of policy. And then there is the pro-choice appointment on the Alaska Supreme Court…

    My fault for using an imprecise term like batshit. It’s true, she doesn’t seem to have done much politically to advance an anti-choice agenda, which is good. And I’ve usually tried to point that out. But I think her personal opinions on the matter are batshit. I think she’s got a kind of fetus fixation which is common among pro-lifers.

  33. Violet says:

    In case anyone’s wondering what Palin is up to. She’s busy fighting against a liberal GOP candidate and stumping for a Conservative Party member.

    Why? That GOP guy was way too much of a feminist.

    Actually, “that GOP guy” is a woman. And I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that the issue with Scozzafava is that she’s a feminist. Conservatives are pissed because Scozzafava voted for supported the stimulus and is expected to vote for healthcare reform. Kos says she’s more liberal than the Democrat she’s running against. There’s been a big move to oppose her in the GOP grassroots and on wingnut sites like National Review, Michelle Malkin, etc. I think what Palin is really doing here is making a play for the conservative grassroots.

    Though I agree with the larger point you’re probably trying to make, which is that Palin is definitely not positioning herself as a moderate.

  34. yttik says:

    “Why? That GOP guy was way too much of a feminist.”

    Well, “that guy” is actually a she and endorsed by that good old radical feminist Newt Gingrich. Ironically also endorsed by Dkos. If she’s such a great feminist that Palin must smote her, where did she get these endorsements?

    Palin has endorsed the third party candidate. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

  35. Violet says:

    “Death panels” was batshit, doncha think?”

    No, because poor people who are forced to depend on government run insurance programs like medicaid, are all too familiar with confronting a death panel that denies them AIDS medication or cancer treatments.

    “Death panels” was batshit. It is the single most batshit thing Palin has ever done. Either that or it was deliberately dishonest.

    Saying that the healthcare reform plan would require old people and handicapped children to stand before Obama’s death panel is a complete fabrication. It’s outrageous.

    And as for the remark being targeted at poor people being forced to deal with Medicaid death panels, bullshit. Bullshit. The poor people in this country who are stuck with shrinking Medicaid funding would LOVE to have universal healthcare.

    The death panels in this country, the ones denying coverage every day, are the ones run by private insurance companies. They’re the ones in the business of finding ways to refuse coverage. That’s where the death panels are. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

  36. Violet says:

    Probably not, but all you have to do is go look at some government provided health care services and realize that human rights and compassion got lost somewhere along the way.

    I have looked at government provided health care services. And compared to private insurance, they’re fucking great. They’re fantastic.

    Meanwhile, private insurers are denying coverage to cancer victims because once five years ago they had a skin rash. Human rights and compassion.

    Listen, don’t start with this shit. I’M A SICK PERSON WHO CANNOT GET COVERAGE FOR THE SURGERY I NEED FROM MY OH-SO COMPASSIONATE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER. Don’t fuck around with this bullshit wingnut propaganda.

  37. Gayle says:

    So Valenti is fine with mocking women for wearing blush?

    HA! HA!, she wears makeup. . . huh? In what world is that even funny?

  38. vastleft says:

    Here’s Palin’s “quip“:

    The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

    Is this a Golden Age of Comedy or what?

  39. Monchichipox says:

    The most telling thing to me about the difference in the way Sarah is treated by the media and opposition because she is a woman is shown in the treatment of her successor.

    Governor Parnell is carrying on everything Sarah put in place, broadcasts that fact, and is proud of it. Where is Ashley Judd? Where is Katie Couric? Where are the frivolous lawsuits? Where are the “Sean is a Cunt” t-shirts? And of course I have no idea if his daughter is “knocked up.”

    As for the death panel comments she made. It was an example of the best and worst of political hyperbole. I personally enjoyed it because it was still evident, in his State of the Union Speech, how much she gets under President Obama’s skin.

  40. yttik says:

    “I’M A SICK PERSON WHO CANNOT GET COVERAGE FOR THE SURGERY I NEED FROM MY OH-SO COMPASSIONATE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER. Don’t fuck around with this bullshit wingnut propaganda.”

    Well damnit it Violet, I’m a poor person with no insurance at all who works with people on the receiving end of some pretty damn crappy care from the government. You want to label me a right winger, you go right ahead.

  41. SarahG says:

    @38 …she put it in QUOTES. On Facebook! Politicians do this all the time. I’m reminded of St. Teddy referring to Reagan’s missile defense system as “Star Wars,” effectively killing it. Now if Sarah Palin had said that, everyone would be saying, “She’s so stoopit she thinks we’re going to shoot missiles with spaceships!”

  42. SarahG says:

    And Violet is totally correct about why Republicans, including Palin, are pissed off at Scozzafava. This has everything to do with the Stimulus package and healthcare, two things that Republicans are genuinely agitated about. The fact that Palin agrees does not make her anti-feminist, for God’s sake, merely a mainstream Republican. Has she ever pretended to be anything else?

  43. thomas21045 says:

    its actually not a spoof at all – its an anthology of essays examining Palin’s record and politics. The book offers a counterpoint to Palin’s, which will be controversial. Nothing wrong with that.

  44. anniethena says:

    I hope everyone read the entire Facebook quote vastleft posted – that was no quip.
    Palin wasn’t talking about the status quo – she was calling one of the proposals in health care reform “death panels”. It spread a lot of disinformation and fear – and she seemed dead serious. Everyone should have a discussion with health care providers about end-of-life decisions. IIRC, the idea was that Medicare recipients could have that discussion IF they wanted it and that the government would pay for that discussion. That’s it -end of story. No government beaurocrat was going to rubber-stamp Palin’s family members’ foreheads with “Useless” and euthanize them at the first medical crisis.
    I’m all for defending Sarah Palin from sexist attacks but please don’t defend her distortions of the truth.
    (I used to be a health care worker (P.T.)- and I’m in Canada so no health insurance companies are involved here- and it is very difficult for families and doctors to make end-of-life decisions for a patient who is unable to for various reasons (e.g. comatose or severely demented) in the absence of a living will.
    I’ll give you two examples from two extremes.
    One patient was elderly (+90 y.o.), multiple medical problems (including dementia, severe osteoporosis,essentially bed-ridden) admitted to hospital after a heart attack. Her family insisted that the medical team “do everything” in the event of another heart attack, even though the doctors tried to explain that attempting CPR would most likely fail as her rib cage would shatter with the compressions. The family refused to sign a DNR order – and the doctors did try to save her when she had a second heart attack a few days later but you know, it was just her time to die.
    Another patient was in ICU – mid-40s, very obese ( over 400 lbs), again, several medical problems but she was savable. She was sedated and intubated and couldn’t speak for herself. Now her family wanted them to pull the plug! In that case the doctors went ahead and treated her aggressively and she did make it out of ICU and eventually home in a few weeks. I hope she got around to making a living will…)

  45. anniethena says:

    My comment is in moderation but I just noticed a sp. mistake – bureaucrat, not beaurocrat – I see things misspelt so often that I sometimes have to resort to the dictionary to refresh my memory!

  46. Violet says:

    thomas21045 says:

    its actually not a spoof at all – its an anthology of essays examining Palin’s record and politics. The book offers a counterpoint to Palin’s, which will be controversial. Nothing wrong with that.

    Do you have an advance copy of the book? Have you read the essays?

    As I said in the post, a non-sexist analysis of Palin is perfectly appropriate. But based on the title and the list of contributors for this thing, I’m not terribly hopeful.

  47. emmag says:

    Palin’s “death panel” comment was definitely over the edge; an unintended consequence of her comment, however, was the identification of the actions of the current health care companies as TRUE death panels. It took the discussion in a direction that the administration and healthcare powers-that-be did not want to see it go.

  48. Keri says:

    yttik, that’s the legacy of the Bush administration- they cut funding for all social programs, just like Reagan and Bush 1. Obama doesn’t care enough to restore the funding.

    Hillary wasn’t going to just restore the funding she was going to increase it.

    I’m definitely for government run healthcare, these private insurers are scum who should be forced to provide the care they say they will and made to not rip off anyone who has to pay two to three times times what people in most industrial countries do for better care! In Japan (which has half the population of the US in a country the size of the state of California not only is the no waiting list for surgeries you don’t even have to make appointments to see your doctor, you just walk right in and don’t have to wait as long as you do in the US for an appointment. And Japanese people pay 1/3 the cost people in the US do. If the Japanese can do it, and do it well for a much lower cost then we sure as heck can do it.

  49. Alison says:

    Yttik,

    I hear you – I’ve worked in the field of education and welfare and I’ve seen first hand the derelict incompetence of the government. New York City, for example, should be ashamed of how they treat their children, many of them poor minorities. I find the quiet acceptance of school systems such as these to be one of the greatest forms of racism in this country.

    That being said, we need the government for things like education, etc.

    So what do you see health care reform looking like? Do you have any ideas?

  50. SarahG says:

    It’s interesting, isn’t it, how strongly people feel about Palin? Why is she so divisive? She seems to be a lightning rod for sex and class issues. I know Hillary came in for a lot of this, but not as much as Palin. Is it because she went to Wellesley, and never posed in a bathing suit to pay for college?

  51. Sasha, CA says:

    Which is not to say that there isn’t a place for criticism of Sarah Palin’s politics; there is. She’s a conservative Republican, and conservative Republican ideas are batshit and wrong and bad. Tear them apart, by all means. It’s also entirely appropriate to assess Palin as a political figure, assuming that this can be done in a non-sexist way, with a feminist awareness of the double standard and the ways in which patriarchy informs and deforms everything it touches.

    Great post (and comments), Violet! Yours used to be my favorite blog, but for a while now, I’ve been feeling like I accidentally stumbled into Freeperville when reading your comment section. Not all the time, mind you, but Palin posts, in particular, seem to bring out the right-wing apologists. I mean, regular commenters on a liberal blog seriously defending the “death panels” idiocy?!? WTF? I’m glad to see that you don’t share these sentiments. Don’t think I’ll ever quite get how any self-described feminist can get excited about supporting someone for political office who opposes reproductive choice and equal pay legislation and would like to amend the constitution to prevent two women (or two men) from getting married. But of course I don’t need to support Palin politically to defend her against sexist or misogynist attacks and to be outraged by the title of the new anti-Palin book. Even if some of the essays in the book manage to criticize Palin without resorting to sexism, they’re tainted by that title. I do wonder though if all of the contributors knew what the title was going to be when they agreed to participate in the project.

  52. octogalore says:

    “I’m all for denouncing misogynistic attacks on Palin, but let’s not mistake her for a libertarian feminist.”

    As others stated above, this mischaracterizes Palin’s endorsement of Hoffman in NY. As a left-libertarian feminist, I’d say that it’s a close call between Hoffman and Scozzafava. Hoffman’s closer to the libertarian position on fiscal issues, Scozzafava on social issues. As Palin is a conservative libertarian, she wouldn’t be troubled by the latter. So her Hoffman endorsement is entirely consistent with her positions as she has articulated them.

    RE Sasha’s statement: “Don’t think I’ll ever quite get how any self-described feminist can get excited about supporting someone for political office who opposes reproductive choice” — I understand this sentiment. As Violet suggests above, though, I don’t think Palin’s anti-choice position stems from anti-feminism as much as from her religious beliefs — which I disagree with.

    But regardless, an anti-choice position is something most feminists don’t get excited about, for sure. But voting is often a cost-benefit analysis, not an act of passion.

  53. Violet says:

    Not all the time, mind you, but Palin posts, in particular, seem to bring out the right-wing apologists. I mean, regular commenters on a liberal blog seriously defending the “death panels” idiocy?!? WTF? I’m glad to see that you don’t share these sentiments.

    God, am I depressed.

    Up until 2008, it was pretty well agreed on feminist blogs that sexist attacks against women were never good. No matter what. Ann Coulter, for example: hard to think of a woman who is more hateful to other women. Yet on feminist blogs, it was SOP to resist sexist attacks on her, and to push back against the Liberal Doods who thought it was fun to ridicule her body or talk about hate-raping her or anything. Which is exactly what feminists are supposed to do. Sexism is never okay; misogyny is never okay. Even people like Amanda Marcotte, whose feminism has alway been extremely iffy and half-assed, took the position that sexist attacks on Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin were completely unacceptable.

    All that changed in 2008. The first cracks appeared with the anti-Hillary stuff, when pro-Obama feminist bloggers started finding it difficult to resist buying into the misogyny of the anti-Clinton Blogger Boyz. Hillary was the evil mommy, the manipulative bitch, etc., etc. But that was nothing — NOTHING — compared to what happened when Sarah Palin came on the scene. Suddenly the same women who would never dream of criticizing Ann Coulter’s adam’s apple were dressing up in Palin costumes, attacking Palin as a bimbo, cheering on rape jokes, you name it. It was fucking horrific.

    As for me, all I’ve done with Palin is what feminists are supposed to do: push back against sexism, call out the misogyny, cut through the double standard, try to give her a fair shake. That’s nothing special. That’s just doing feminism.

    But the new, post-2008 rule seems to be that sexism is only wrong when it’s directed at women you agree with. When it’s directed at women you don’t agree with, then it’s fine. Screw those bitches! As a matter of fact, I think Amanda wrote a post to that effect earlier this year, explaining that misogyny against Republican women is perfectly acceptable because they’re the enemy or something.

    That, to me, is fucking insane. It’s like saying that it’s okay to lynch black conservatives, or bash gay Republicans. What the FUCK?

    The depressing thing is that this attitude is so common that people can see me defending Palin from sexism and think it must mean I agree with her politically. No, I don’t. Never have. Check the name of the blog. Check everything I’ve ever written. Jesus, I’m to the left of the fucking Greens. I’m so far left my father calls me a radical Marxist lunatic.

    But of course I don’t need to support Palin politically to defend her against sexist or misogynist attacks and to be outraged by the title of the new anti-Palin book.

    Good for you. You and a few other feminists who comment here and at a couple of other blogs are pretty much the only ones. Privately, I know a lot of feminists who are both extremely liberal and extremely sickened by the attacks on Palin. They remember the pre-2008 rules and wonder what the hell changed. But they also know that if they say anything aloud on their blogs or in their usual circle of friends, they’ll be torn apart.

  54. jeannie says:

    VastLeft, Palin’s ‘death panels’ came after Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s talk on what might be called ‘death panels’ – health care money going to those who contribute to the country. In his opinion, older people no longer do, and neither do those who have handicaps and mental challenges. Dear Rahm’s brother, of course.
    Did Sarah get the idea from this? I don’t know – but it was out there at about that time. And as she mentioned not only old people but her son with Downs, I think it likely that is where her ‘death panels’ came from. The brother of Obama’s Chief of Staff.
    I don’t agree with Sarah’s personal beliefs, but there isn’t much in the Alaskan part of her political life that a liberal can disagree with. She cancelled anti-gay legislation. She got rid of Republican corruption. She fought the oil companies for the people of Alaska. She chose a liberal pro-choice woman for the Supreme Court. Nothing about anti-abortion. And I cheer her for kicking the SOB b-i-l to the street. What more could a Democratic Governor have done?
    The woman has guts. And from watching her cook dinner for 20 people while talking to Greta on national TV – it is wonderful to see a polician be able to multi-task and never miss a beat. That is something men can’t seem to do!
    She may have great difficulties on the national scene – and I really don’t care – except if she is ruined by sexist slanderous crap. That puts my back up – just as it did when Hillary was screwed.

  55. myiq2xu says:

    If you want to hate Sarah Palin then do it for the right reasons.

    She’s a conservative Republican and pretty much follows the standard GOP doctrine. Hate her for that.

    She is not a brainless bimbo. She did not want rape victims to pay for rape kits or try to ban books. She did not say she could see Russia from her front porch.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, so no matter what her ideology is she does not deserve to be subjected to sexist/misogynist attacks. Defending her from those attacks is not mean you agree with her.

    Principles are meaningless if you only adhere to them when it’s convenient.

  56. Topper Harley says:

    @48 What is the “silver bullet” that allows us to cut costs by 50% and improve outcomes by ~ 15% merely by changing who pays the bill?

    I’ve said this over and over: Comparing US healthcare to other countries is comparing apples to bicycles. They don’t have the same educational requirements. They don’t have the same tort systems. They don’t have the same paternalistic medical cartels. They don’t have 50 strong, independent political units deeply regulating healthcare. They don’t have the same attitudes regarding when care is required*. They don’t have the same attitudes regarding heroic measures. They don’t have the same attitudes regarding end-of-life care. You have to change a LOT of those things to bring US health care expenditures in line with outcomes.

    Here’s one example I was pondering earlier this evening. The rate of birth by C-section in the US is ~33%. WHO says it shouldn’t be any more than 15%. A C-section costs approx. 2x regular delivery. If the feds are paying, C-sections aren’t going to magically cost 50% less, nor will outcomes improve. What will happen is that US taxpayers will continue to piss money down the drain for no good reason.

    *This isn’t just stuff like people getting an MRI when they’ve got a headache, this would also include cosmetic surgery. US spending on cosmetic surgery, LASIK, etc. absolutely dwarfs what other countries spend.

  57. madamab says:

    Do the contributors of this book even have a clue how stupid, petty and hateful they look?

    Seriously – this is a woman who is done with politics. She’s writing a book about her life. So what? How does this affect them in any way, shape or form?

    Here’s an idea, misogynists of fauxgressiveland: Ignore her. Just ignore her, the way I ignore Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, and other people whom I dislike and with whom I disagree. Hell, I even ignored the President for 8 years. If I can do that, surely they can ignore her?

    No, they must punish her for the sin of being a conservative woman who DARED to try to enter the Village. And you know, it’s THEIR TOWN, as they said about Bill and Hillary, the hicks from Arkansas.

    (Standard disclaimer: I don’t agree with Palin’s politics, and I think she is, indeed, batshit on abortion. For example, in the Alaska Governor’s debate, she said she would “choose life” even in the case of rape and incest. And by “choose life,” she means she would choose the life of the baby over the life of the mother, of course. So, in her opinion, raped and abused women should bear the children of their rapists and abusers. That is batshit.

    Still, misogyny and sexism against her are not okay. Ever.)

  58. Branjor says:

    ***They remember the pre-2008 rules and wonder what the hell changed.***

    A woman almost made it to the U.S. presidency, and would have if not for the misogyny. That’s what changed, I think.

  59. Genderparity says:

    Naomi Klein should have her Feminist “card” taken from her. Klein and every other card-carrying feminist who actually put their names on this puerile tripe of a book.

    On the “death Panels” – she wasn’t batshit. I thought it was framing at its best. What happened after her blog post talked of death panels? It was stricken from the bill because it could be misconstrued. “Death panels” was political genius.

    Many lefties said that it was “crazy” to do so. But, when you are dealing with cuts in health care and Ezekial Emmanuel’s idea on how to change health care is something the administration is looking at seriously (He is Rahm’s brother) I would say Palin did a great thing.

    Emmanue,l who advises the administration, evaluated three systems and came up with a third one in his published article: “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions” :
    The Complete Lives system.

    THis system Looks at how much a person has lived, how much they have to give to society, when determining health care.

    This is the ‘death panel” she referred to. And she put it in quotes. She was not looking at it literally like Mengele. Although I found it funny the President and the administration looked at her statement literally. Can’t they think in abstract terms?

    So, if you are the mother of a baby with Down Syndrome, you would probably look very carefully at how the health care is to be distributed. After all, it wasn’t until the 1970s that people with Down Syndrome actually were thought to deserve health care.

    Here is the Emmanuel article on health care:http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf

    If you haven’t read Susstein (whose wife is Samantha POwer!) it is well worth a read:

  60. bygones says:

    Could it be that any criticism of Palin surrounding her fundamentalist views are wrapped within the framework of perceived sexism? I have been on feminists blogs where Michele Obama is openly ridiculed while any hint of criticism of Palin for her positions is considered heresy.

    There is a huge difference in calling her out on her positions as opposed to personal potshots. However, some blogs infer misogyny where none exists but are quite comfortable in comparing MO to an animal while cattily critiquing her wardrobe, her looks, the size of her thighs. It seems to me that a double standard is in effect where these feminist blogs are concerned.

    The inconsistency is consistent.

  61. Genderparity says:

    Sorry at the end of my post I meant Emmanuel instead of Cass Sunstein. And Sunstein is Samantha Power’s husband.

  62. Violet says:

    @48 What is the “silver bullet” that allows us to cut costs by 50% and improve outcomes by ~ 15% merely by changing who pays the bill?

    Switching to universal healthcare would save huge costs right off the top, simply by eliminating the private health insurance racket. Their fees and costs add a huge markup to our overall health bill. They add no value; they’re just the mafia overlord taking a cut, making us pay for the privilege of having them as gatekeepers between us and our doctors.

    But of course we won’t switch to universal healthcare. Real reform isn’t going to happen. That’s because the president is a corporatist hack who’s in the insurance industry’s pocket. God knows what Obamacare will actually accomplish.

  63. Sameol says:

    “sexism is only wrong when it’s directed at women you don’t agree with”

    It’s more like sexism is never wrong, and there’s no such thing as women who are on our side. Either they know their places, or they get taken out. Amanda may have written that it’s okay to attack Republican women, but when a Democratic woman threatened to win, it was fine to attack her too. There will always be an excuse for singling women out and giving their far worse male counterparts a pass. Before Sarah Palin was the worst Republican to ever live, Hillary Clinton was the worst Democrat to ever live. Especially now that it’s proven so effective, it’s here to stay, and we’re already seeing a shift at the local level.

  64. Violet says:

    On the “death Panels” – she wasn’t batshit. I thought it was framing at its best. What happened after her blog post talked of death panels? It was stricken from the bill because it could be misconstrued. “Death panels” was political genius.

    Many lefties said that it was “crazy” to do so. But, when you are dealing with cuts in health care and Ezekial Emmanuel’s idea on how to change health care is something the administration is looking at seriously (He is Rahm’s brother) I would say Palin did a great thing.

    Okay, I’m going to say this once. Please pay attention.

    There are no death panels. There were never any death panels. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel never advocated death panels.

    The whole thing is a conservative urban myth. It’s no more real than the myth that the government gave black people AIDs, or that the moon landing was faked. It’s just a myth — but it’s one that serves Republican interests, so every now then freaks like Pat Buchanan pick it up, add a few more details, and send it sailing around again.

    The quotes from Emanuel are taken out of context, from academic papers he wrote years ago discussing philosophical approaches in medical ethics. They have nothing to do with government policies about reducing health care costs. The whole notion that he or anyone else is advising the government to set up death panels is not true.

    You can read this at FactCheck about Emaneul’s work:
    http://factcheck.org/2009/08/deadly-doctor/

    You can read this at FactCheck about Palin’s “death panel” claim:
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/

    What Sarah Palin did was scare you and other people into believing a false rumour, causing you to waste time and energy worrying about something with all the validity of Big Foot. The kindest interpretation I can put on it is that she is gullible herself, and believes what people like Pat Buchanan and Michele Bachmann and Betsy McCoughey say without looking into the facts herself.

    End of story. Really, I’m not interested in having this blog be an outpost on the death panel rumour mill. Thank you.

  65. Genderparity says:

    Madamab thinks Palin is out of politics. I think Palin is in politics with everything she has. The most interesting thing about Palin is her 100% belief in herself. This is feminism.

    The big reveal in this pathetic book is liberal sexism.Going Rouge. Wow, they can’t see. They are staring in the pond at themselves. People like Klein and Taibbi (sp?) are so consumed with their images they can’t see the hypocrisy they are broadcasting about themselves.
    I watch with fascination.

    I hope more conservative women (who have an impressive presence this year, I must say) smack them down hard.

    When you think about it the President has broken just about every promise he made to his fan base. And THIS is what the left comes up with?

  66. Genderparity says:

    Violet,

    “What Sarah Palin did was scare you and other people into believing a false rumour, causing you to waste time and energy worrying about something with all the validity of Big Foot.”

    Wow, I am smarter than that, Violet. I will not take it personally though.

    And she did put it in quotes Violet. Look at the history of disabled people in America and health care and you will see where she is coming from.

    Read the paper I posted from the web. He is a co-author, Violet.

  67. Sameol says:

    Bygones, it is very unlikely that you have found sexism against Michelle Obama on feminist blogs, for the simple reason that the kinds of feminist blogs which tolerate sexist attacks on other women are Obama supporting and Michelle Obama is the one woman on Earth who is probably off limits (unless she forgets her place and tries to run for something). If you’re referring to Palin or Clinton supporting blogs, while there are feminists who post at those types of blogs, most of them are not explicitly feminist in orientation (some have even explicitly said they’re not feminist blogs) and there are also many nonfeminists posting at those blogs as well. (And yes, it is extremely inconsistent for anyone to get upset about sexism against someone they like and then perpetrate it themselves against someone they don’t).

  68. Violet says:

    Genderparity:

    I’m sure you are smart. But in this case, you’ve been hoodwinked.

    The paper you linked to is a medical ethics paper examining allocation approaches for scarce resources, such as vaccines and organ transplants. I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of triage in medical settings. I’m sure you’re aware that vaccine distribution is usually organized so that the most vulnerable populations are protected first. Decisions like this aren’t pulled out of thin air. They’re based on principles that are developed and explicated in the field of medical ethics.

    What the “death panel” scaremongers have done is taken one of these medical ethics papers and pretended that it’s a policy proposal for health care reform. That’s simply not true.

    Now, since I’m afraid it wasn’t clear: I do not wish to see any more comments in this thread about death panels. Thank you.

  69. slythwolf says:

    No, because poor people who are forced to depend on government run insurance programs like medicaid, are all too familiar with confronting a death panel that denies them AIDS medication or cancer treatments.

    This is an interesting tapdance around the truth considering what Palin was actually calling “death panels” was the health plan paying for counseling for older people about what kinds of plans they wanted to make for things like living wills.

    Since I am a poor person on Medicaid, I hope you’ll believe me when I say I would like to have, you know, actual health insurance like everybody else. (As I’m sure would the people too rich for Medicaid but too poor to buy their own health insurance.) And the Republicans don’t give a shit about my problems, either, they don’t give a shit if I can see a doctor, they’ve been saying for years that I and people like me are parasites on society, a drain on resources, that I don’t deserve to go to the doctor because I haven’t worked hard enough to be allowed to be healthy. They don’t want to pay taxes, they don’t want to fund Medicaid and Medicare, so do not try to claim they give a shit about the people on it. I only have coverage for birth control but they don’t even want me to have that, and they don’t want to cover an abortion if I get pregnant; no, they want me to have babies I can’t afford so the state can give me the bare, scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel minimum help to keep them alive and the Republicans can complain some more about how not only can I earn a decent living I also can’t keep my legs together.

    And the people who do have private health insurance? Guess what–they’re facing “death panels” too. Four-month-old babies are being denied coverage for being bigger than average. Being the victim of rape or domestic violence is an uninsurable pre-existing condition. This is not happening because the government can’t run a health care system. It’s happening because this is what happens when profits are more important than people.

  70. Briar says:

    “When you think about it the President has broken just about every promise he made to his fan base. And THIS is what the left comes up with?” Well, of course. This is the equivalent of the Two Miute Hate. It’s aim is to consolidate the Obots’ party unity and distract from the Party’s failings. The fact that they are still stirring over their stew of venom after more than a year tells us exactly how bankrupt their ideas for the future are. All the more disappointing considering the calibre of some of those involved.

  71. Rich says:

    On Taibbi, it seems most have missed his episode when he dreamed of rubbing his balls all over a conservative female pundit in some sort of revenge fantasy (revenge for what? being more famous than him?); some info on that, here:

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/raping-faces-progress

  72. SYD says:

    Thank you for posting the list of sexist leftist jackasses that were involved in this little smear project.

    For shame, Max Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Eve Ensler, Michelle Goldberg, Jane Hamsher, Christopher Hayes, Jim Hightower, Linda Hirshman, Naomi Klein, Dahlia Lithwick, Amanda Marcotte, Shannyn Moore, John Nichols, Katha Pollitt, Hanna Rosin, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tomasky, Rebecca Traister, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Jessica Valenti, Patricia Williams, JoAnn Wypijewski and Gary Younge.

    I’ll be spreading that little list around for a while…. so every woman knows who her backstabbers on the Left are.

    SYD

  73. SarahG says:

    “A pol that knows what her constituants will eat up, is a successful pol. That’s just life…”

    Thank you!!! Again, I think of Teddy Kennedy and “Star Wars”: missile defense was a legitimate topic of discussion at the time, but it was also hugely expensive and technologically obscure. So the name stuck, and the debate was hijacked. Was he piloried and called a liar? (Well, outside of defense circles, I mean?) No, he was called a successful politician. Palin is no different. It’s called spin, and it’s how the game is played.

  74. yttik says:

    Someone said it’s okay to hate her because of her Republican beliefs, it’s just not okay to hate her because of sexism. I call BS on that, hating anybody simply because they don’t share you beliefs is never okay. Hatred has no place in America.

    I also call BS on the idea that you can somehow hate this women, indeed despise her with a passion, but somehow convince yourself it has nothing to do with her femaleness it’s just because of her belief system. Bullshit. Misogyny is so ingrained and woven thru our society, even people’s perception of her politics will be filtered thru that woman hate.

    And I call bullshit again because George Bush invaded a couple of small countries, had politics far more insane then Palin’s, and still never inspired the same kind of insane hatred that she does. Indeed, people have far more anger towards Pelosi, Perjean, Palin, Bachmann, Snowe, then they do towards any right wing male currently on the scene.

  75. Against Rape says:

    SYD, i also thank violet for the list of “sexist leftist jackasses involved in this smear project.” i’m going to copy it to a sticky on my desktop to remind me not to read naomi klein, et.al., in the future. klein and a couple of others used to be worth reading but if they can’t see what’s wrong with contributing to an entire book attacking a woman, any woman, they are ignorant kool-aid drinkers.

    by the way, anyone who hasn’t read ‘sexism 3.0′ at the new agenda should do so and add pepsi and apple to your shit list. they’ve put together an iphone app to teach men how to score with various ‘types’ of women. charming.

    sexism is worse today than it was in the 1950s and 1960s because women aren’t just considered inferior to men, they’re actually hated for having lady parts. never in my life did i feel hated for being a woman until 2008.

  76. Swannie says:

    I want to write a book . I will call it GOING ROUGH an American SEXIST NIGHTMARE … it will be a take off on GOING ROUGE … and I would love to have contributors ;)

  77. gxm17 says:

    Thanks for the link, Rich @ 71. Very insightful!

    “Liberal culture is more concerned with punishing the uncool than it is with punishing the ethically bankrupt.”

    And this:

    Even if one is unconvinced that there is such a thing as patriarchy, all of this is evidence that the very same white youth culture that’s celebrated for “making” President Obama is in love with bullying.

    Damn but that sure sums up the sorry state of today’s so-called “left” wing.

  78. gxm17 says:

    Well, I’d be happy with either Palin or Clinton as president. But then, I’m a gynocrat. Both Clinton and Palin have something most male politicians don’t have: a heart. America needs a leader who is smart, strong, pragmatic and caring. And IMO these two women would best fit that bill. I wish I shared Naa’s enthusiasm but I don’t think the powers that be will let either of them near that seat in the oval office.

  79. Carmonn says:

    SYD, I agree, I don’t see the point of blaming Palin for being a politician. “Death panels” resonated for one of two reasons, 1) While the Republicans were blathering about rationing and playing on fear and anxiety about National Health Care, the Democrats, being painfully stupid, politically inept and utterly oblivious to obvious consequences in public perception, decided this would be a great time not to simply explain things and calm the public’s fears, but instead to weigh the bill down with unnecessary, vague, and faintly frightening provisions that served to reenforce those fears or 2) Democrats deliberately weighed the bill down with unnecessary, vague, and faintly frightening provisions knowing full well those provisions would receive massive media coverage and serve as bait for Republican attacks, therefore enabling Democrats to later blame the final, awful version of the bill on Republican attacks and obstruction. It’s really hard for me to believe that some of the dirtiest political operatives this side of Karl Rove are mystified by the idea that if you hand your opponents ammunition, they, being politicians, probably will use it.

    Personally, I am 100% in favor of National Health Care, but at the same time, most of my grandparents have died from preventable or treatable conditions that resulted from inadequate care and an attitude on the part of too many medical professionals of hey, you’re old, I can’t be bothered, you’ll probably die soon anyway. Unless I just happen to be the unluckiest person in America, I doubt I’m the only person who’s come up against these attitudes and a substandard level of care, so I’d strongly encourage the Democrats try to refrain from unnecessarily reenforcing our fears and horrible experiences with the existing system.

  80. HeroesGetMade says:

    I’m rather amazed to see Naomi Klein’s name on that list as well. Wasn’t her mother a radfem back in the day who made a documentary on the porn industry? I know we all live in reaction to our parents in some fashion, but she’s too smart for this. I don’t think Klein really made a name for herself as a feminist, but rather as a critic of patriarchy-fueled economic systems, although I don’t think she ever calls them out as such. After all, to do so would be to cancel your membership in the Serious People Society. However, in the not so distant past she inappropriately pointed out that the banksters are very much a boys club; maybe she’s looking to cover her ass. Deplorable, if so. IIRC, she never drank the Obama koolaid, but neither did she support HRC, which is fine since she’s Canadian anyway. I can she how she’d oppose Palin on economic principles, but she could do that without making a contribution to the hate receptacle this book looks to be, judging by its cover.

    As far as Palin goes, she could be a co-opting Trojan horse candidate for women just as Obama was a co-opting Trojan horse candidate for progressives/liberals. It remains to be seen whether she’ll earn the votes of women, although it’s entirely understandable how some are ready to vote for her right now.

    And VL, for someone who hangs around a joint that described some of Obama’s reforms using words like ice floes and useless eaters, the outrage over death panels seems a little overdone. I can’t say as how I disagreed with those precursor descriptors, and it came as no surprise that Palin’s sound bite would resonate with many who’d been thrown under the bus.

  81. Violet says:

    Interesting. I said I didn’t want to see any more comments on death panels, and yet here they are. Thanks, folks. Really appreciate that.

    I started simply deleting comments, but to hell with it. I’m closing the thread.