Fear of women
Interesting thing that someone said to me recently:
“That Sarah Palin! I can’t STAND her. She’s so phony and dumb.”
It was an interesting remark because the person who said it voted for Ronald Reagan. Twice. This person also voted for Bush/Quayle. Twice. And yet Sarah Palin is too phony and dumb for comfort?
Obviously the double standard is alive and well. But it’s not just that: our nation is also in the grip of some kind of atavistic looming fear of women as evil monsters. Sarah Palin is no weirder than most Republican politicians; she’s not even on the far end of crazy when you take into account people like Mike Huckabee and those nuts in Georgia who keep petitioning to have Jesus Christ made the official king of the country or something. Yet based on the media coverage of the woman, you’d think she was the greatest threat to western civilization since the Battle of Tours.
Eugene Robinson calls Palin a would-be Eva Peron whom “no force on Earth can stop,” which is reminiscent of his description of Hillary Clinton as a relentless homicidal cyborg from the future. Little castration anxiety there, Eugene? Maybe he can get together with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Andrew Sullivan, and the staff of Newsweek for a group encounter.
What makes me tired is how unreflective and blinkered people are about all this, even people who really should know better. We’re supposed to be putting our heads together to discuss a new feminist/progressive political thingy, but how will that work when people can’t seem to see the big picture?
Case in point:
On Memeorandum tonight, the first big cluster of stories was all about Sarah Palin: Andrew Sullivan was having a psychic fugue episode at the top of the page, and all the associated pieces were about how Sarah Palin is EVIL and DANGEROUS and DISHONEST and MUST BE STOPPED.
The next cluster of stories was about the Stupak amendment, which, I hope you know, could only have happened in a society with a deep abiding suspicion that women are EVIL and DANGEROUS and DISHONEST and MUST BE STOPPED.
Dig it: the Stupak amendment and the Palin witch-burning are the same fucking thing.
84 Responses to “Fear of women”
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
You are correct.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:22 pm EST -
No Blood for Hubris says:
You are correct overall, and there is more to be said, but what you present is what is the case.
Gender bias is The Norm.
-
Anna Belle says:
It is weird as hell to watch. I can’t believe the volume coming from the dominant communication channels. Andrew Sullivan has been dizzying to watch. I thought I actually felt spittle coming from screen while his blog the last few days, and then that tight lipped “we’re” going away to investigate this evil, venomous woman thingy. Wow.
-
Sameol says:
Wait, I thought the Stupak amedment resulted from Sarah Palin using her evil mind meld telepathy to recruit Congressional Democrats into her zombie army and force them to do things they’d otherwise never consider.
Are you sure about this?
-
It’s fun to read old blog posts « Donna Darko says:
[...] Leftist: Fear of Women What makes me tired is how unreflective and blinkered people are about all this, even people who [...]
-
hm says:
It is as if the Newsweek boobs were saying “strip her naked and flog her..” They got off to a good start by showing her in short shorts. Well if MO can show off her beautiful thighs in short shorts (and a wardrobe malfunction showing her nipples through her T-shirt, think Grand Canyon pictures), Palin can certainly pose for Runner’s World in running shorts. With all the millions she will make now, I hope she hires a coach and gets a brain and not wing some of the harder questions.
Add to Stupak the new mammogram guidelines.
-
Unree says:
Just got off the phone with a female friend (liberal, pro-choice, feminist etc.) who launched into a diatribe. “What’s so terrible about Palin?” I asked. “I mean, she’s not as bad as Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Kaine …” My friend said, “She’s making a fortune! Selling craziness!”
Maybe people can help me out here because I didn’t handle the challenge well. I said that $2.5 million or whatever for a book advance wasn’t that much in the scheme of things, but offhand I didn’t have a devastating dudely sum of ill-gotten gains to mention.
-
myiq2xu says:
I think it’s a dead giveaway when someone says “I don’t hate women. I just hate THAT woman.”
-
Daphne says:
Thanks, Violet, for your posts in defense of Sarah Palin. Seriously, thanks. You are giving me hope for the world.
-
Northwest rain says:
So many of the so called liberals just do not get it. On the Daily Howler we have Somerby defending Stupid Stupak. With all the issues our country is facing — Memeorandum focuses on Palin. Well great, nice of them to increase her book sales! Palin is doing a great service by making the misogynists expose themselves. Mention her name or show her photo and the hidden misogynist surfaces in the ugly scowl that appears on their face. Jenkly and Hidely (my made up words).
Perhaps this is all related — forget about how the administration’s daily bad moves are messing up the economy. Forget how the Health care insurance companies are in bed with Congress — etc. etc. BUT look over there that wild woman from Alaska — and the rest of the myths from the US media.
-
Briar says:
Wednesday’s Daily Howler does a nice take-down of the rubbishing of Sarah Palin. It also contains the gem: “liberals love to hate”. Sadly true. Conservatives do as well, of course, but liberals like to present themselves as better than that. And they most definitely are not.
-
Nessum says:
But what might explain the hate from women, disenfranchised democrats, former Pumas, who are very much concerned about the Stupak amendment, but still spend so much time and so many pixels publishing post, after post, after post hating on and denigrating Sarah Palin?
-
janicen says:
What makes me tired is how unreflective and blinkered people are about all this, even people who really should know better.
Exactly! I seem to remember that Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay, both right wing extremists, left politics and wrote books and it was a news story for about ten minutes. Why all the hysteria now?
-
kenoshamarge says:
Since when did it become a crime to write a book? Don’t like her? Don’t read the damn book.
The hate coming from the left for Sarah Palin makes you wonder how much worse it could have/would have been if McCain/Palin had won.
When did you ever see such hatred for a “losing” VP candidate?
-
Alison says:
I’ve been starting to question the intelligence of these people. Everyone in the creative / educated class perceives themselves as being the higher IQ part of society but I’m starting to doubt this. Isn’t there some link to intelligence and asking questions? These people are just eating up what everyone else is telling them to. Not creative thinkers at all. Ironic that they keep calling Palin “dumb”.
-
gxm17 says:
My Nigel, who has completely tuned out since last year’s election, finally saw the Newsweek cover and was sputtering mad. He claims he doesn’t care what her politics are, if Sarah runs he’s going to vote for her just to say FU to the man. (I’ve heard that before.)
I remember a situation from many years ago and it’s always stayed with me. I used to shop a at pricey little boutique with personalized service. Your salesperson was your personal shopper. My shopper happened to be the only black woman that worked there and one night she and the other saleswomen got into a heated discussion about Amos and Andy with the black woman trying, quite diplomatically, to explain to the others why it was so offensive. The other women refused to listen and kept insisting that black face was harmless entertainment. Finally after a back and forth that seemed to go on forever, I spoke up and said, She’s black, she’s telling you it offends her. That means it is offensive. It doesn’t matter if a white person can’t see the harm. It matters that a black person does. Of course, that shut them all up quick but only because a customer had become annoyed.
So in a very roundabout way, my point is this. These idiots on the left (as well as the right and middle) who keep spewing misogynist shit, they don’t get it AND they don’t want to get it. Women have always lived in a occupied country but right now we are in the midst of an all out war. And the other side is not going to let up. Palin-hate, Newsweek, Stupak, the new mammogram guidelines, are all weapons in the war. And they want us dead or broken. To the enemy, women-hate is harmless entertainment. And they don’t want to it give up. Heck they rode to the WH on misogyny’s back. We will have to stand up and make them understand that women, our mothers, our wives, our sisters and our daughers, are human and we deserve to be treated as such, and we will accept no compromise.
-
Briar says:
To some extent I think both the general misogyny of the times and the specific hatred of women like Sarah Palin are deliberately nurtured. They are effective diversionary actions. They distract from Obama and his failure to live up to his own hype. Subtly, they also transfer the blame to women, especially those who draw attention to the flaws and therefore can be presented as disloyal.
-
yttik says:
Fear of women is fear of women. You are correct Violet, Stupak or Palin hatred, it’s all the same thing.
I found it revealing when I suggested to some people on a blog that what was needed now was for a charismatic and powerful liberal woman to be propelled to the forefront to balance out Palin’s conservatism. If it’s Palin’s conservative message that bothers people, send out a powerful liberal woman to preach the other side of the coin. The response was immediately negative and revealing in it’s misogyny, I’m just a vaginal voter, we’re not going to support a liberal woman just because she’s a woman, we’re not going to justify Palin’s existence by responding, etc. Then we went on to descend into farther silliness, such as saying there’s no reason to promote liberal women, Obama has feminism under control.
The truth of the matter is that the Left just had a powerful and charismatic woman willing to speak for them, but instead of embracing her, they shot her down. It isn’t about issues or politics for either side of the aisle, it’s quite simply a fear of women having any actual power. You can serve on the sidelines and in the background, but remember you are only to be support staff. Step up and try take the reins and we will do everything we can to destroy you.
-
riverdaughter says:
Yeah, and what about Betty Draper, the character from Mad Men? There are some viewers of the program that absolutely HATE her. They think she’s cold, boring, a bad mother. She *is* reserved. Part of that is her family background, part of what makes Betty, Betty is her relationship with her husband. She is the feminine mystique woman in 1963 who was told she would have it all if she married well and had kids. What she really has is tedious, mind numbing boredom and friends who she can’t stand. No wonder she snaps at her kids.
But it’s more than that. Many viewers of the show don’t like Peggy much either. Peggy was a secretary who became a copy writer. She’s ambitious and brave and she’s not afraid to ask for what she thinks she can handle or deserves. But the last time her boss lit into her because *he* was having a bad day, the viewers were all over Peggy’s case. They thought she deserved it because her career has progressed too quickly over three years. (It hasn’t. She still only makes a smidge more than her secretary) Don Draper tells her in that episode that there’s nothing she’s done that he can’t live without and then spends the last episode of the season literally begging her to work for him because she IS that good. But up to that point, many viewers thought that Don’s original assessment of Peggy was correct- she wasn’t all that. She clearly is.
You can learn a lot about the culture’s current view of women by reading Mad Men blogs. It’s easy to see how older viewers still see the world in terms of 1963. We haven’t progressed all that much. As Bill Clinton said, “criticism works” and there is no group that gets more of it than women. We see it in the working world all of the time. It is very easy to bring down an up-and-coming woman with biting criticism. We see it in the parenting world as well. If you are not still tied to your child by an umbilical cord from birth through college, you aren’t a good mother. Parents have been arrested for leaving their 12 year olds off at the mall unattended or leaving a sleeping baby in a car for 2 minutes to fetch the dry cleaning. The amount of criticism of mothers for overlooking the tiniest of safety hazards is never ending and overwhelming to the point that if you are a parent and you want the world to think well of you, you must tend, tend, tend until you can’t get anything else done. Go read freerangekids.com for some hair raising examples.
Women endure criticism. It’s always some women. It is Hillary, or Martha Stewart or Sarah Palin or Betty Draper. Each one gets up on that pillory block and takes a frickin’ pounding and we let the media get away with it. Or there are cases like Digby who calls herself chickenshit because she gave into the Obot operators in her comment section. She didn’t want to be excluded from the fold and the advertising money. It’s painful to be called names. Actually, women who blog shouldn’t care what is said about them or the threats to them. The comments are only black dots on a monitor. They can not hurt you. But I digress.
Yeah, the Sarah bashing has to stop. I’m sick of being treated like a second class citizen by other second class citizens. I don’t care what her politics are, Mike Huckabee is just as bad and he doesn’t have to put up with this crap. -
Alison says:
Riverdaughter,
Yes, yes, yes. And Mike Huckabee is MORE socially conservative than Palin. He believes there should be an amendment against abortion (the anti-FOCA), he actually IS a proponent of abstinence education! He believes Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Plus he has higher approval ratings than Palin but everyone in the media seems to find him so damned charming. Imagine the Mike Huckabee affect if he had a uterus. They would DESTROY him.
-
gxm17 says:
yttik @ 18: “Then we went on to descend into farther silliness, such as saying there’s no reason to promote liberal women, Obama has feminism under control.”
Unfortunately, they’re right. Obama does have feminism in control, right under his thumb.
-
madamab says:
It’s not just fear of women and hatred thereof, it’s an outright war, as I wrote yesterday on TW.
People do not think it’s okay for Sarah Palin to be an ordinary, rightwing Republican, because she’s a woman. As we all know, women are supposed to be twice as good and twice as accomplished as men in order for them to be even half as accepted.
Just like Dubya, she is an average person with an extra dose of charisma and political acumen, who has been propelled by her own ambition and chutzpah into national prominence. But unlike Dubya, she could never be President.
Different gender, different rules. An unexceptional man can be President, but not an unexceptional woman.
As Bella Abzug famously said,
Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel.
-
scott says:
I laughed out loud at madamab’s comment and the Abzug quote because it’s exactly right. The Village treats a guy like Chuck Grassley with respect even though he’s a complete moron (remember Mr. Death Panels), but somehow whether or not Palin is a rocket scientist is a matter of grave national concern. If you took her gender and looks out of the equation, she’s a bog-standard, typically incoherent conservative pol. But somehow a guy like Andrew Sullivan gets reduced to a sputtering pool of rage talking about her or Hillary Clinton, but not anyone else. It’s all about gender and having a cheap excuse to indulge in misogynist games.
-
Kali says:
Different gender, different rules. An unexceptional man can be President, but not an unexceptional woman.
Even an exceptional woman (like Hillary Clinton) cannot be president. No woman can be president. Period.
-
Ciccina says:
[O]ur nation is also in the grip of some kind of atavistic looming fear of women as evil monsters.
Yes, and I believe a big part of that looming fear is, in the aggregate, women overtaking men in employment statistics. Not earnings, of course, but number of job-holders. And women already make most household spending decisions. I think we’re going over the tipping point in terms of the transfer of micro-economic power from mostly-men to mostly-women, and this incessant gender hysteria is the resistance / backlash.
I guess we all know (but I won’t let that stop me) that commercial interests like the media use gender hysteria and misogyny to manipulate men. The trend that’s gone hand-in-hand with the pornification of all things female (“you will be unwanted unless you transform your body into a consumer product”) is the brutalization of all things male (“you’re a little bitch / pussy if you care about anything other than consumption for personal gratification”). Its the extension of commercialization to all aspects of being human, including former no-fly zones like interpersonal relationships and politics (Brand Obama).
As the media ratchet up the stigma attached to all things female or feminine, they herd men into anxiety-driven consumption of all things “inherently” male. If the ideal woman is now a man-focused 17-going-on-12 mute Playboy centerfold, the ideal male is either an amoral homosocial overeating couch-bound porn-sick sports and video game fanatic, or a “warrior” (read: canon fodder). Increasingly, girls are being told to require expensive gifts and financial subsidies from men, and boys are being trained to believe that a pornified (commercialized) woman is their natural born entitlement.
I’m no longer surprised by the women who hate Palin. Women can be enthusiastic proponents of gender hate – the women behind “The Awful Truth,” for example, and “The Man Show.” Equal opportunity offenders, I guess. Once you perfect the “but I’m not like that woman” and “but that’s just how men are” two-step, the world’s your oyster.
-
monchichipox says:
I would like to ask those on the left or liberal(I hate placing labels makes things so restrictive but for my question I don’t have a choice) who post here: If the 2012 race came down to Obama vs. Palin how many of you would put aside your disagreements with her policies and vote for her just because she is a woman? Just to send a message?
-
teresainpa says:
Monchi
I would vote for her because I vote for women now, that’s it. Any congress/senate/oval office mix that means more women is good for me. I am sick of hearing that we don’t have enough experienced women in the shute. Bullshit. We had Hillary.
Now the point is to say…hell yeah, mediocre women, even of the republican brand is better that continuing the farce of thinking the old boys club is superior. -
teresainpa says:
ps…. and if democrats don’t like her policy positions then they can get off their fancy asses and fight.
-
angie says:
Monchi — put me down for Palin too as I also, like teresainpa, only vote for women now (and for the same reason). And any so-called liberals who want to tell me how wrong I am can save their breath because while I don’t agree with most of Palin’s politics, I’m willing to bet the farm that she doesn’t consider a pelvic exam an optional and/or “unnecessary” procedure.
-
Simon Kenton says:
I have the impression it goes beyond mere castration fears. Some of these people – mostly guys, but there’s some over-the-top female Palinoia types – seem to suffer from postnatal reversing-umbilical fears. It’s not just that the hated goddess figure could snip them, she could reverse the umbilical flow, retract the nutrients, resorb the person and leave a tamale-husk hater behind. And not just in utero, either; now. Like, right while they were talking on TV they could start to wrinkle, shrivel up, and be quiet.
Just a theory, but I think it’s got at least as much to recommend it as vagina dentata dementiae.
-
octogalore says:
I am seeing something odd here.
“But unlike Dubya, she could never be President. Different gender, different rules. An unexceptional man can be President, but not an unexceptional woman.”
Let’s take politics out of it and focus on on the word “unexceptional.”
Bush’s dad was the President. He legacy’d into Yale and got a cushy job in the family oil biz, getting to co-own the Rangers along the way, before becoming governor and then President.
Obama went to an expensive private prep school before Columbia and Harvard (where there is no record of him having to take out loans, nor any record of how he did there). His dad had gone to Harvard as well. He got to be Senator by disqualifying the frontrunner (former mentor, black, female on a technicality.
Palin had to work all through school (I believe she was first in her family to go to college, a profile making it difficult to vault into the Ivies) to make ends meet, had five kids and leveraged a school board spot into the governorship. She took on old boy Republicans in Alaska — apart from specific policies, it can’t be denied that she took risks and got results. And even most Democrats felt she at least tied Biden in their one debate, with much less time on the political scene.
Like her, dislike her, disagree with her, how many of us would be able to balance all that she’s balanced, start off where she started and get to where she is? I don’t understand why Palin’s bio is deemed “unexceptional” and similar to W’s. I’m assuming nobody here is sexist; is it academic elitism? Having a bunch of unused Ivy-type degrees and knowing a number of unexceptional people who also do, I can testify that this isn’t the mark of exceptionalism.
-
gxm17 says:
Right now, I’m pretty pissed off so I’d vote for Palin in a heartbeat. I have yet to tire of saying that my McPalin vote was one of the most satisfying votes I’ve ever cast. If the Republicans run Jeb or another man against Obama then I’ll probably vote Green.
My Nigel claims he’d vote for Palin. But he chickened out in 2008 and voted for McKinney, which was fine with me. I admire Cynthia McKinney and regularly sent her campaign contributions. (I may vote for Palin but I have yet to give her a dime.)
-
helenk says:
I would vote for Sarah Palin in a heartbeat over backtrack. My reasons are not just because she is a women although that is a major point.
If the choice was between Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin my first choice would be Hillary Clinton.
Whether or not you agree with all her positions you can not doubt her love for the country. She has worked while raising children and has more excutive experience and really did the job and was not in it for the bennies only. I do not think she would be traveling over 70% of her time in office. I think she would be paying attention and doing the job she was paid to do.WOMEN WITH INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE,MEN WHO SUPPORT THEM AND COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY ALWAYS
PUMAS,BUBBAS,EQUALISTS AND THOSE PEOPLE RULE
-
Northwest rain says:
Palin over 0bama — that is a no-brainer!
I might not agree with her politics or many of her views but she is a real feminist and she would stand up for the women of the world — like Clinton is doing as SS.
Palin has a track record of standing up to corrupt male politicians and to the big oil companies. Palin also understands how politics work — and how government works (or doesn’t).
0bama’s track record is to be on the side of whatever and whomever can be of benefit to him personally — it is ALL about him. Obama’s concept of work is to make a speech. I have no doubt that history will view him as one of the worst presidents EVER.
The war on women will continue until women take political power for themselves — trusting the men to do “the right thing” for da wemmens is not working. The world will be a better place when the male/female power is in balance.
-
octogalore says:
I have 2 comments in mod– can you help to get one out?
-
lambert strether says:
Huckabee’s son, when he was a Boy Scout, killed a dog (see also). If one of Palin’s kids had done that, we’d be hearing about it wall-to-wall, 24/7, right? But no….
-
lambert strether says:
#26 I’d rather send a message by voting for the NWP.
-
Clay says:
For those of you who plan to support Sarah Palin if she decides to run for public office, I offer fair warning. She is what she says she is. She will not embrace a government takeover of health insuranse. She will not mandate universal troop withdrawals. She will not be an advocate for gun controll.
She will support womens reproductive rights, but will not support government payment for elective abortion. If you vote for her, at least you know she has been consistant. Obama has promised everything under the sun, but delivered nothing. -
lambert strether says:
#18 yttik — Got a link on this? I’d like to do a little picador work.
… I found it revealing when I suggested to some people on a blog that what was needed now was for a charismatic and powerful liberal woman … The response was immediately negative and revealing in it’s misogyny
TIA…
-
BDBlue says:
Arthur Silber on western culture’s belief that women are evil and how that underlies the Palin Derangement Syndrome, with a special focus on Andrew Sullivan’s unhinged columns – here.
-
Have Skunk says:
The boomer feminists no longer have a dog in the abortion fight.
-
femina says:
What exactly does the (American) patriarchy fear from a woman politician like Hillary?
I think it was that she’s so brilliant that she would show the men up. She would be able to “preside” with ease and with the aplomb that many of them don’t have. She would make what they do seem so easy that a woman can do it with one hand tied behind her back. She would diminish their power, and them. She would be able to pull the string and men would be seen as…ordinary. (I laugh; when you’ve reached my age, you already know the above.)
-
femina says:
BDBlue — Women’s evilness comes from a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Some years ago, I read the Southern Baptist Assembly’s creed or set of beliefs and it stated that women brought evil into the world (Genesis). I don’t know if that belief is still stated there as such, but the world appears to believe it.
-
angie says:
femina — I beg to differ, the patriarchy wasn’t started by the Southern Baptist Assembly. Women have been considered evil (at least in the Western World) since before the birth of Christ. See the Roman (male) “historians” false portrayal of Cleopatra for only one example.
-
jjmtacoma says:
I don’t think men are afraid of being ‘shown up’ by women, I think they are afraid of what women in charge would do.
Men (in general) know what they would do if they were talked down to, passed over, held back, made fun of, screwed over and expected to smile about it – AND then got to be in charge of the people responsible.
-
femina says:
Certainly the patriarchy is older than even the Romans and Cleopatra. I’d rather think of the patriarchy in terms of the founding fathers in Genesis and how the creation of woman was told in that myth, if you will. Her evilness and subordination had to proceed the story by ? years.
I’ll re-write my comment: I was shocked to read the SBA’s belief that woman brought evil into the world even though I had been living in a world that believed woman’s evilness and subordination but had not stated it.
-
Arthur Silber says:
Thanks to BDBlue for the mention. With regard to the roots of the belief that women are evil, there are many sources, of course. But if one wanted to name one prime culprit, that would be a man (natch) — and one particular man, Augustine. I discuss that here: Kill that Woman! In particular, I discuss Augustine’s recasting of the Genesis story; it’s that new version that has so deeply influenced our cultural attitudes ever since.
And as I point out, Kill that Woman! (which is the last line of Wilde’s play, Salome) is both the ultimate motive and goal.
-
angie says:
Femina — again, I beg to differ — the belief of women’s “evilness” & subordination has been stated & written down practically since men first put sticks to cave wall. Now, it is certainly quite possible that you have been “lucky” enough (or sheltered enough) to have not actually seen that belief in print until you read the SBA’s creed, but that doesn’t make the SBA the first group to put that belief in writing.
-
Carmonn says:
Yes, and Frist vivisected rescued cats, Romney drove with a crated dog on his car roof, Bush blew up frogs–but who’s synonymous with animal cruelty? Why, Cruella DeVille, of course.
We’d hear about it 24/7 if any child of hers tried to get out of a DUI by using her name, too.
-
Violet says:
Sadly, the notion that women are evil or dangerous is to some extent present in all male-dominated societies. The more patriarchal the society, the stronger the belief. It’s fully present in ancient Sumer. It’s also present in non-western civilizations, such as China’s, and in less developed cultures as well, all over the world.
In extreme patriarchies, like Mesopotamia and modern fundamentalist cults, women are so threatening that they must be controlled and subjugated at all times. At the opposite end of the spectrum you have patriarchal societies like ancient Egypt, where women enjoyed legal equality and social freedom, and male dominance in public life was a matter of traditional spheres (women ran the homes, men ran the outside world). In a relatively benign patriarchy such as that, the sense of women’s danger only emerged in times when women stepped outside their “natural” role and became pharoah, for instance. But it was there, lurking, nevertheless.
From a psychological standpoint, the sense that women are evil and dangerous is a natural adjunct of male dominance. It’s probably even necessary. After all, men have to explain — to themselves and to women — why they have to be in charge and why women must be subordinate.
-
monchichipox says:
Until her book tour I was firmly convinced that Sarah was not running for anything. Now I’m not so sure. Judging from her book tour and latest remarks on sexism I think she is going to avoid one of the biggest mistakes my Hillary made. Hillary didn’t want to run as an historic woman candidate. She wanted to run as a qualified candidate. If Sarah runs she will use her status as a woman to her advantage. I hope.
I’m heartened by what I see at her tour stops. Especially the stories of women who are approached by reporters. Apparently they aren’t answering any question and are surrounding the reporters in groups of four and five and asking names, what they think of Sarah, and telling them to watch what they write because “we remember faces”. The only way I would feel more gratified at that was if they were holstered and packing. (I know I”m a gun nut)
And I didn’t think I could find anything more satisfying than seeing Andrea Mitchell reporting from a fishing boat. Well that was until I saw her reporting from a Barnes & Noble.
What also amuses me about those who suffer from Plain Derangement Syndrome is how Sarah is both sides of the evil spectrum to them. In one breath she is the bimboest bimbo that ever walked the face of the Earth. The next breath she’s more Machiavellian than Machiavelli was at his Machiavelliest.
You’ll have to excuse my rantings. I’m just excited that the most popular politician is a woman…..Hillary. And the most reported on politician is a woman….Sarah. They’re really starting to make Obama seem, well, boring.
-
femina says:
No, Angie, as I was growing up, I had the wonderful good fortune to be surrounded by women who belied the labeling of “evil.” `
-
Violet says:
A few responses and comments here to various things (and I apologize for being incapacitated all day; I’m still recovering from my incredibly exhausting away mission):
yttik @18: Was this a feminist blog where women were saying “Obama has feminism under control”? Even now? Even after the past year?
madamb @22: Love the Bella Abzug quote! I usually use a quote from Gloria Steinem to convey that message: “I want to see the day when a mediocre woman can go as far as a mediocre man.” (Steinem, 1977.) But I like the schlemiel element.
ciccina @25: Very interesting suggestion about the micro-economic tipping point. I’ll have to think about that.
Simon Kenton @30: Can we call that the Tamale Husk Theory?
octogalore @31: I agree, Palin is an extraordinary politician. I think what confuses people is that she’s not an extraordinary thinker, not brilliant or insightful or anything like that. Her ideas are shopworn Reaganomics and mom and apple pie patriotism. I think the Republicans get that stuff from Costco by the pallet.
But she is an extraordinary politician.
Arthur Silber: welcome! Excellent post over there. We seem to be on the same wavelength.
-
Violet says:
monchichipox, where are you seeing these stories about women and reporters at Palin tour stops? If you have a link, I’d be very interested.
I share your enthusiasm over Palin’s prominence, even though I don’t share her politics. I’ve always felt that way about her. The GOP isn’t going anywhere, and that brand of conservatism is going to exist for the foreseeable future. So hey, at least now it’s going to be a woman heading up the show.
But I feel that way about everything. I want women to be equally represented in the world, to be equal participants. That’s just such a basic goal. The first woman astronaut, the first woman Supreme Court justice, etc., etc., etc. In the long run it doesn’t matter what party these women belong to or what they personally believe. History records them as pioneers, and their advent marks a milestone in women’s equality.
If Palin runs for president — which I fully expect her to do — it’s going to be painful for me as a liberal, leftwing feminist. It’s Margaret Thatcher syndrome: the first woman president/prime minister/whatever coming from the “wrong” party, the party that isn’t friendly to women’s rights. That was one of the great things about Hillary. She was our best chance to have the first woman president be a liberal feminist Democrat. Oh well.
-
roofingbird says:
< [Have Skunk says:
The boomer feminists no longer have a dog in the abortion fight.]
Geez. I started to make a smart comment. but I’m just going to ask you to rethink that statement.I want to reiterate what was alluded to above as the classism of this spewed hatred. I can personally vouch for the unending inanity of some who just don’t get it. As an example, In the 70’s the CETA Act put people to work on the basis of skill sets. Skill sets were determined by the DOT. This meant that while education was helpful, not all jobs required a BA. Today we have reverted and in our job descriptions we usually ask for the education as though everyone who has one is at least minimally qualified to do the advertised job. This kind of educational shorthand reinforces the classist idea that some folk are better than others. So in evaluating Palin’s life, as a woman who clearly has some unusual skill sets, but never attended Harvard, this classism cannot be underestimated.
-
femina says:
That’s interesting, Violet. As we know the list describing women goes beyond evil and dangerous to include weak, emotional, scatter-brain/ding-bat/irrational, stupid, mentally ill and I’ll stop, but all projections from men’s need of superiority, and often inaccurate. At a Hillary-supporting blog during the primary, we were called these, and worse, names by BO supporters.
-
angie says:
femina:
No, Angie, as I was growing up, I had the wonderful good fortune to be surrounded by women who belied the labeling of “evil.”
Uh, again, you’ve lost me. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I merely pointed out the fact that the meme that “women are evil” pre-dated Christianity. No one was saying the meme is true. Frankly your continuance to circle the conversation back to your personal experiences reinforces my belief that Gen Y is under the mistaken impression that “history” gets written the moment they personally become aware of it.
-
propertius says:
“offhand I didn’t have a devastating dudely sum of ill-gotten gains to mention.”
Newt Gingrich’s $4.5 million advance for a truly wretched novel from News Corporation, while special tax breaks for Rupert Murdoch were before the House and Gingrich was Speaker. Is that dudely and ill-gotten enough?
-
Carmonn says:
monchichipox, I’m a little doubtful about whether trying to run as a historic woman candidate would have worked that well for HRC. She did very well with women anyway, but any kind of explicit appeal would have sent the media into an absolute murderous apoplectic fit, even beyond the outpouring of hatred that we witnessed. And there almost certainly would have been far more female Democratic pundits who would have been disdainful and appalled at the idea of voting for a woman, partly because the gross media bias mitigated against a fair shake for Clinton supporters, partly because “look at me, I’m not even considering voting for the woman, no one can accuse me of voting on gender” became the test of seriousness for women of a certain class who want to be taken seriously in the Boys’ Club.
And that’s even apart from the fact that female solidarity was redefined as racism. I recall a woman once getting very upset because Clinton was displaying terrible racism by constantly calling attention to the historic nature of Obama’s candidacy. Apparently her motivation in doing so was dog whistling to racists. (Presumably Obama’s general failure to do anything but ignore or denegrate the historic nature of Clinton’s candidacy was an admirable gender blind show of respect).
It may work for Palin, and I’d be delighted if it does, but the two cases are a little different, in my opinion.
-
Carmonn says:
Not to say that Palin doesn’t have to deal with the media, or the female Democratic punditry, or accusations of racism, obviously. I just mean that Clinton had to tiptoe around this nonsense more because she’s not going to go to war against her own party. Palin and her supporters wouldn’t be hemmed in and could fight back really hard.
-
Aspen says:
To #26:
The answer is no. I won’t vote for anyone right wing of either sex. That includes both SP and BO.Has anyone heard if Hilary Clinton has made a statement about the Stupak Amend./HR3962?
-
Unree says:
thanks, propertius. All I could think of yesterday was Alex Rodriguez’s salary, but that was a tangent (also, I have little to no quarrel with big bucks for pro athletes).
-
Violet says:
I just read Andrew Sullivan’s return post. He’s back from his fugue state, talking about Palin’s water breaking and throwing up his hands at ever getting to the truth of her incredible fifth pregnancy and the various delusional lies she tells.
Question: does Sully not have any friends? Isn’t there someone he trusts who can tell him that he’s absolutely batshit and making a complete fool of himself?
-
Topper Harley says:
@23: It’s possible Andrew Sullivan has a crush on Obama and he see’s Palin as an interloper — it’s not misogyny, just run of the mill jealousy.
I’d add that it’s not just misogyny that can produce Stupak and the new mammogram guidelines. With the current American political climate, the politically connected get what they want. Congress is already working at making the payment adjustments to doctors disappear. The drug companies bought their way to some nice concessions. Rich old white women on SS/Medicare will never see that $500B in cuts. Poor people, women who might need birth control, African-Americans? The Democrats know they won’t vote for a Republican, so under the bus they go.
You know what though? Even if Hillary was the president and she was running healthcare reform you’d see the same thing. I don’t oppose single payer because I want poor wretches to die so I can use them as mulch on my diamond farm. I oppose single payer because government distortion will lead to stuff like Stupak or seeing good lobbying efforts distract us from good science.
On the mammogram front, I predict that it’ll all blow over. Some lobbyist who’s 41 year old wife was saved by an early mammogram will dangle some cash and et voila…
-
Arthur Silber says:
Violet: thanks for the welcome! About your latest comment: I wonder not only about the apparent absence of any friends who might provide a gentle guiding hand in this moment of…whatever (I was going to say “spiritual crisis,” but that suggests far too much dignity for this business)…but does he not have an editor or someone at The Atlantic who gives a damn about any of this? I suggested that point, and none too subtly, in the conclusion of my post.
And that’s not to say I have any sort of high regard for The Atlantic (I assuredly do not), but good God, do they want to be laughed out of business? At a certain point — and I think we’re well past that — I would have thought a primitive sense of self-preservation would kick in, if not for Sullivan individually then for the magazine.
I mean, golly gee willikers…(I’m endeavoring to avoid the kind of language most suitable for this occasion, and I doubt I can keep this up much longer…)
-
Violet says:
Even if Hillary was the president and she was running healthcare reform you’d see the same thing.
Not Stupak. No way. Hillary’s commitment to women’s reproductive freedom is longstanding and unwavering.
I also think that in general, Hillary would have shown far more leadership and backbone in terms of working for healthcare reform. Yes, there would be a lot of the same trade-offs with industry lobbyists, a lot of the same sorts of half-measures. But Hillary is an experienced legislator and a policy wonk with a superlative grasp of details. Obama is not. He’s not a legislator; he’s just a campaigner. He floats above, like Reagan, giving speeches. He just wants to put a gold star beside his name and give a soaring speech. Nothing else matters.
-
octogalore says:
Violet, re #53 — I hear you, and I do think it’s partly that. But, very few lead politicians are the intricate thinker types, or at least their soundbytes usually don’t reveal it if they are. The Clintons are exceptions, but can you think of many others? Obama is more academic than Palin, but has he ever said anything really complex or interesting, beyond just being polished and eloquent (which boils down to being very well educated and a good speaker, not a brilliant thinker)?
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. How many Obama-fan women have you heard say “Michelle Obama’s brilliant.” Now, how many “brilliant” things has anyone ever heard MO say? I read her thesis; it’s decent, but really, for a Princeton thesis, *not* brilliant by any stretch. People say Michelle’s brilliant b/c she’s liberal, she went to an Ivy school, she was (briefly) a lawyer. But there’s no real evidence on the table, at least not that I’ve seen. Same, really, with her husband. Same with a number of old white male politicians who went to Ivies.
So yeah, I think it’s more than just lack of articulated deep and complex thoughts by Palin — I think there’s some other stuff in the mix when people talk about “unexceptional.”
-
Sameol says:
I don’t believe the Secretary of State is permitted to weigh in on domestic politics.
Whether that’s law or just custom, I don’t know.
-
Northwest rain says:
Kill that Woman is riveting reading and it fits in well with Violet’s Fear of Women
-
Violet says:
Though I would also refer you to my comment #50. This stuff didn’t start with Augustine (though he certainly played a crucial role in the development of Christian soteriology).
-
myiq2xu says:
Adam started it when he blamed Eve for giving him the apple.
-
Aspen says:
Thanks, Sameol. I just had this fantasy she could let something “accidentally” “slip” out.
-
gxm17 says:
The idea that women are evil in cultures steeped in the Judeo-Christian myths goes even farther: Women are responsible for evil. It’s the foundation for the “she asked for it” mentality. Men can always excuse their actions because it’s not their fault. It’s women’s fault. We are not merely evil, we are the root of all evil (long before money came along). And if it weren’t for us women, they’d all be living in paradise.
-
monchichipox says:
Violet the quote of remembering faces was taken from a story on Politico. I’d like to tell you which one but I can’t. See yesterday the whole left side and top banner story were all Sarah Palin leads. I normally avoid Politico an Huffingpuff at all costs but I couldn’t resist my curiosity over how they were going to cover Evita oh sorry I mean Sarah.
I wasn’t disappointed. Somehow the throngs of women just waiting for a mere glimpse of Sarah was only a symptom of their dementia.
If you haven’t seen any of it on the news I encourage you to go to youtube and watch the videos.
-
DancingOpossum says:
Again, I have defended and will defend Sarah Palin from the hideous sexism she’s been subjected to virtually nonstop (nearly as bad as what Hillary went through), even though I disagree with many of her positions.
That doesn’t mean I consider her stupid or a whackjob–far from it. Or at least, she’s no stupider or whackjobbier than any other politician, yes Republican OR Democrat, which I realize isn’t setting the bar very high.
As with any of them, I judge by their stances on the issues that matter to me personally. Everyone does this. Like, personally, I could never, not on my life, ever vote for her after her recent comments cheering on Israeli colonization of Palestine. That’s a do-not-cross line for me, it’s a policy question–and it’s obviously also what set Sullivan off as he’s a recent convert to the realization that violating international law is a bad thing, and what made him call her a “know-nothing and a whack job.”
Really, Andrew? Because about 90% of our current politicians, including some you have admired, have said the exact same thing but you criticized them on policy grounds, not by calling them know-nothings and whack jobs. Did you ever use those words for Jumpin’ Joe Lieberman, who has frequently said the same thing? Or for that matter, for Obama himself, who isn’t doing anything to stop the practice you’re suddenly so upset about? No. Oh and by the way Andrew, no, you’re not forgiven for similarly vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton.
This is what makes me crazy in the whole Palin discussion. There are absolutely legitimate reasons to not support her, not vote for her, and yet I find myself having to constantly defend a woman I would never vote for, because of the insanity of b.s. thrown at her.
It reminds me of my Republican friend who hates Hillary with a seething cauldron of hatred, but was deeply alarmed by the sexist treatment of her, and found herself having to “defend” the Evil HillBitch from Republican-led sexism. It’s a bitch, sometimes, being a woman :)
-
monchichipox says:
Yeah but sometimes being a bitch is all a woman has to hold on to.
-
Branjor says:
If Judeo Christian myth has women specifically “responsible for evil” it’s only OK as long as nobody acts on this myth. If these myths are actually affecting women’s lives, then I’m beginning to not give a hoot about “freedom of religion” and, if necessary, would like to see the end of these religions.
-
DancingOpossum says:
monchichipox — LOL…Truer words were never spoken my dear. I want that engraved on my tombstone!
The almost-always-terrific Arthur Silber lambastes Sullivan today, and reprises one of his own great essays to note that:
You need to understand one very simple foundational point: Women are evil. More than that, women are the ultimate source of all evil in the world.
Almost no one will admit the belief in this form, but this is what most people in the West believe, to one degree or another. Western culture is saturated with this perspective; it directs and finds expression in our films and television, in books, in our relationships, in business — and in our politics. Whatever one may think of their political convictions (and I myself would never vote for either of them), Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin both represent historic candidacies. It is the belief that women are evil that underlies the blindingly intense hatred directed at them.
And this:
Palin speaks comparatively plainly, using straightforward, everyday expressions. But her views are clear, and there is nothing notably “stupid” about what she says or how she says it — unless, that is, you have become so accustomed to Washington-speak that you have rendered yourself incapable of recognizing more normal human expression. Yet it is altogether remarkable how much time and concentration so many people devote to demonstrating how much smarter they are than Sarah Palin. Obviously, Palin is not any kind of “intellectual” (also an unqualifiedly admirable attribute in my view), and she is not an Einstein. So let me rephrase the point more colloquially: if you have to devote so much time and energy to proving you’re smarter than Sarah Palin, how pathetic are you? Here’s your answer: very pathetic. Most of those who repeatedly engage in this kind of Palin-bashing are nothing more than bullies. They’re the kind of people who, given half a chance, might torture small animals or pull the wings off flies.
He also quotes at length from the incomparable Chris Floyd, who shows quite plainly that Palin is no more or less qualified to “be president” than anyone who’s held that title.
Arthur’s essays tend to be long and multi-layered and involve keeping track of his far-ranging ideas, but they are always worth the time and effort.
-
Ree-C says:
One of the hardest (and bitter) lessons I learned when I entered the “workforce” is that other woman are not necessarily your friend. If another female coworker feels threatened, they will do everything necessary to fry you. I thought that women helped other woman. Wrong.
I view a lot of the Palin and Hillary bashing as part of that problem.
I am so sick of it, I can’t even comprehend it any more. I am normally a very happy soul, right now, not so much.
I am so excited to see that there are Liberal woman that support Palin. I have found that to be one of the most exciting things I have experienced in the past few months.
It has opened my eyes and heart.
The thing that has struck me hard as a Libertarian/Conservative is that we have so much in common with women on the opposite side of the political spectrum. The Grand Canyon sized divider is of course our views on abortion.
But, is there any way that we can talk to each about the things that we agree on? Can we work with each other on what we agree on? Start with the dialog on the ideas we have in common then tackle the stuff later we don’t agree on.
Maybe, just maybe, we might be able to start to change things.
We need each other. Right now the boys club is doing everything they can to keep us away from each other so they can stay in power. We need to confound their effort.
Thank you Violet for giving Palin a chance even though you don’t agree with her politically. Thank you.
-
lorac says:
Using Adam and Eve as benchmark for when misogyny started only dates it to whenever the Old Testament was written. Misogyny started well before that.
******************
I think we need to get the ERA passed. Does anyone have a link to its text? This bill has been languishing my entire adult life. It was re-presented to Congress early this summer – heard any press about that? (crickets)
I’d like to reaquaint myself with what it spells out, and what TRAGIC things will happen to (man)kind if it passes (ie, what’s the problem here, DUDES?). If we really want to move ahead with working for women, I truly believe the ERA ratification needs to be a building block.
-
Branjor says:
I don’t have a link to the text of the ERA, but it says simply “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
-
Branjor says:
Correction:
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” -
sharon says:
Wow, I take a couple of months off from feminism to go fight pot shops in Santa Barbara, and look what happens! GREAT post Violet, glad to see you are still acting as uber thought leader on this, and doing a great job. I would vote for Palin, both as woman, and because I have about 50% support for her policies. As someone else said better, Obama has promised everything and delivered nothing. I’d rather have someone like her, who can take down big boyz in her own party, than a puppet like him. I think I know why feminists hate her, though. She is actually living the feminist ideal, believe it or not. She has the hot husband who takes care of the kids, she has the kids, she has the booming career, she hunts, she takes on big boyz, and she doesn’t apologize for any of it. In short, she just lives it, and by her rules. I LOVE THIS. She might not even know what the patriarchy is, but that doesn’t stop her from tackling it head-on. It also doesn’t stop them from attacking her, and I am sure she is more than a little surprised by it. She is in-your-face about her beliefs, and more power to her. I long for the day when Green party women, Democratic women, and conservative women are arguing with each other on stage as presidential candidates. I’d like to see them differ over policy, instead of being torn apart for being women unafraid to be themselves.
-
The female Andrew Jackson | Reclusive Leftist says:
[...] who is a talking donkey.) They can also see that despite this basic kinship of clowns, Palin is nonetheless singled out as if she’s some kind of unique inbred sub-normal mucus-dripping monster from outer [...]
