Comment of the day
Not mine; Carmonn’s. Sisterkenney treated us all to a really spectacular display of her latent hatred for other women, and Carmonn responded with this:
Her grasp of domestic or foreign policy? Her understanding of economics? Her deep identification with women of color? Her empathy with people who are suffering under the yoke of the new Depression II? Naah. She’s a female. All she needs.
Have you ever heard of Barack Obama or George W. Bush? It appears that you haven’t, so let me fill you in. They’re frighteningly unintelligent, craven, useless, unempathetic men. Who happen to be Presidents of the United States. It’s been established that the President doesn’t need to have any grasp of policy, deep identification with anyone, or empathy in any form. All he needs is to be male, which makes your statement that being female is “all she needs” slightly puzzling. All she needs to be savaged and held to gross double standards, perhaps? If Palin were male, all of this would be moot. She’s probably the second most charismatic politician to come along in the past 50 years, and we’d also have to pretend that Samuel Palin was “brilliant,” the way we have to pretend with Obama. We’re not allowed to call stupid men stupid, we’re allowed to call them the political leaders of the United States.
I care because writing answers TO QUESTIONS YOU KNOW AHEAD OF TIME on your hand smacks of the low-rent, high-school level of discourse and education that she has.
I never knew frat boys had such gravitas, but I suppose her low-rent, high school level of discourse will be profoundly abashed by our “wee-wee’d up,” “dirt off the shoulder,” “retards,” political culture. I’ve got 99 Problems and I’m still trying to figure out if she might be one, but dear god I hope she doesn’t drag our discourse down too far.
and is hot to some,-watch out, that might bite ya
Interesting observation, that. Of course, those beefcake shots of shirtless Barack running didn’t seem to have a downside.
It’s a measure of what a total mindfuck patriarchy is that someone who actually reads feminist blogs (and I’m referring now to the hapless sisterkenney) can be so confused. She mistakes sexist double standards for fairness, and thinks that Sarah Palin is a grasping uppity bitch for complaining.
I think a lot of unfeminist women (and that sadly includes some women who think they’re feminists) are operating on a scarcity model. It’s the Russian peasant mentality: goddamn if anybody is gonna get more than me. (Or, as a Lithuanian writer once said: “Every Lithuanian secretly hopes his neighbor’s horse dies.”) It just enrages them for some woman they don’t like to buck the patriarchy.
74 Responses to “Comment of the day”
-
Swannie says:
If BO had written on his hand, it would have called folksy , down to earth, and practical , and women would have swooned … again ..
Instead he said corpse-man three times at a prayer breakfast with his chin high in the air …and no one blinked .
http://www.cassyfiano.com/2010.....-corpseman
Too bad he didn’t write the correct pronunciation on his hand .February 11th, 2010 at 7:48 am EST -
Alison says:
When I read Sisterkenney’s comment yesterday I was surprised to see someone with PDS hanging out here, so many months after the election.
I hear ya on the “BO is stupid” commentary but many, many Americans and media outlets thought of George Bush as a total idiot. So there was no holding back with Bush like their is with Obama.
-
myiq2xu says:
Sarah Palin is one of several Republicans that are positioning themselves to run for the GOP nomination in 2012.
Why is Sarah the only one we ever hear about?
As far as her politics she’s mainstream Republican. She has about as much experience as Barak Obama did in 2008. If she is so obviously unqualified, why is anyone paying any attention to her?
They fear her.
-
RKMK says:
Cheers to both you and Carmonn.
-
Kiuku says:
it’s just the hypocrisy is evident when women look down on low rent. Because I know a woman without male support is poor, confined to low rent, atleast at some point in her life. A woman who doesn’t know poverty, or doesn’t know low rent, is a woman with men around her footing the bill.
Sarah Palin is a self made woman, maybe that is what bothers women like sisterkenny.
-
Sameol says:
Two words: Scott Brown. Not only would it be impossible for any woman who’d posed in Cosmo to become a Senator, he really, really doesn’t seem very bright. But the words coming out of DC are “gravitas” and “Senatorial.”
On deck–”Presidential”!
-
Lori says:
Sameol,
Who is that Republican senator from Oklahoma? Can you imagine a woman running for the Senate saying that homosexuality is so rampant in Southern Oklahoma that some grade school teachers won’t let two boys go to the bathroom together because of the gay sex going on and getting elected?
There are two standards, that’s for sure.
-
ralphb says:
Hearty congratulations to Carmonn for a wonderful and richly deserved takedown. It was fantastic.
-
Grace says:
By the way, Scott Brown said that he is going to write his “Memoirs.” Doesn’t it sound familiar? Is this a copycat of Obama’s writing books about himself and his so…interesting life? Like Sameol said, positioning for a run in 2012 perhaps?
On another subject, at first I didn’t understand the concept of being “low rent” in characterizing Palin. She has been and is a self-made woman, and she isn’t the only one. When people (women and men) are young and perhaps going to college and have to work because family can’t foot the bill, what is the “dishonor” or shame about that? It deserves admiration and respect, not scorn. What is it that people project on and envy of women who are self-made and didn’t rely on men via marriage or a rich guy to make it? This is actually the only things I admire about Palin: her independence, grit, and tenacity, even if I don’t share her ideology.
-
Northwest rain says:
Check out this link — found at the end of Violet’s blog roll at the right.
http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/
Great resource.
I’m adding this to my blog roll. For places I visit daily.
-
Saurs says:
A useful test for gauging the extent to which someone is acting like a misogynistic cretin while discussing a politician is whether they respectfully engage the politician’s views and pretend to accord those views with which they vehemently disagree a modicum of respect by acknowledging that those views are earnestly held and honestly come by, or whether they merely shout repeatedly about how “nasty” or “hot” that politician is to the exclusion of all other discussion.
-
octogalore says:
Kinda wondering, right about now, how I can find sisterkenney’s righteous takedown of Obama’s lack of “deep identification with women of color” as evidenced by his taking down the campaign of his earlier mentor, Alice Palmer (a black woman) by getting her signatures disqualified on a technicality?
Somehow it isn’t coming up on Google… anyone?
-
octogalore says:
Just kidding. Obama’s awesome as a supporter of women of color so I am sure Alice Palmer came around and realized he’d tanked her candidacy for all kinds of good reasons replete with “deep identification.”
I surfed around to find the many articles about Palmer’s support for his Presidential campaign but was absolutely shocked and horrified to find this:
-
lambert strether says:
If only the enemy of my enemy were always my friend….
-
Sasha, CA says:
It just enrages them for some woman they don’t like to buck the patriarchy.
Sarah Palin is bucking the patriarchy? I guess that explains why such renowned feminists as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are her biggest fans.
Seriously though, I truly don’t see how Palin is bucking the patriarchy. Quite the opposite. And while I agree with Carmonn’s characterization of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, I fail to see how Palin would be an improvement. “Not worse than Bush” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.
I don’t want Palin anywhere near the White House for the same reason I don’t want any conservatives (Republican or Democrat, male or female) in the White House: their politics are a disaster for this country and the rest of the world. And while I’m all for pointing out the sexism and double standards Palin is bombarded with (e.g., the total non-issue of Palin writing on her hand earlier this week), I’m dismayed by the level of support for her politics I sense on some of the pro-Hillary blogs and the eagerness with which some commenters rush to defend her asinine statements (”death panels” anyone?) and policy positions. And I keep seeing people trying to convince themselves and others that she’s not really that conservative, not really opposed to the separation of church and state, not really anti-choice, not really anti-gay, not as bad as other Republicans. Unfortunately she is all of the preceding.
-
Violet Socks says:
Sarah Palin is bucking the patriarchy?
Yes, she is. Any woman trying to be a leader or get elected or get taken on her own terms is bucking the patriarchy. Even if she’s a conservative in other ways.
You can argue that she’s not bucking the patriarchy entirely, and of course she’s not — but then, no one is. And once you start insisting that women meet your personal vision of feminism or be damned, then you’re on the path to becoming a faux-feminist freakazoid.
(By the way, do you wear high heels? Carry a purse? Engage in any normative femininity? How’d you like to be reviled as someone who isn’t bucking the patriarchy because you don’t fit someone else’s vision of what feminism requires?)
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Then Phyllis Schlafly is bucking the patriarchy, too. And Michelle Bachman. And for that matter, Michelle Malkin.
We all have to buck patriarchy to some extent, while not bucking it too hard lest we be punished.
Bucking patriarchy isn’t enough for me, though. By that measure, I should run for office. I want leaders that don’t exist. I want leaders who speak up for and fight against the horrific conditions under which women live. I want women to be legal individuals with bodily autonomy.
What I want, still, is President Hillary Clinton. And I know I’m not going to get that, and it’s a shame we blew that opportunity. Big time.
And I really can’t find all that much good to say about Palin’s politics or leadership qualities. Kinda like our current president.
-
Violet Socks says:
Then Phyllis Schlafly is bucking the patriarchy, too.
Oh come on. Schlafly is out there preaching that women need to stay home and obey. Yeah, there’s a paradox in that she’s out there preaching at all (as people have pointed out), but her message is unequivocably anti-feminist.
You don’t have to like Sarah Palin or agree with her politics to acknowledge that by trying to become the first woman president (or previously the first woman vice-president), she’s bucking the patriarchy.
What I want, still, is President Hillary Clinton.
Ah, well, you see, Hillary wasn’t bucking the patriarchy. Just ask all those third-wavers who claimed that she was too much of a tool, too conservative, etc., etc. Remember? See how that works?
-
quixote says:
I’ve shut down from the news and only know about the Palin-notes story from headlines I can’t avoid. So fill me in, somebody. How does having notes to refer to differ from a teleprompter? Or those index cards Reagan used to have in his pocket back in the day?
-
DancingOpossum says:
The crib notes thing annoyed me in the way it was blown out of all proportion. On another blog I pointed out that back in my days as an ackshul real-life performer, we ALL used crib notes–yep, just like that, right on our hands. Sometimes a helpful director or fellow performer would do them for us, to make sure we didn’t forget key words or concepts. This was not regarded as a big deal or as “cheating,” merely as a way to maintain some grasp of memory in a high-stress, brain-frying situation–much the way some of my colleagues actually learned sign language so they could sign a stage-frozen perfomer’s next line to him/her.
IT’s really childish and stupid to make a big fuss out of this. Let’s take away Obama’s teleprompter and see how he does. Even the Big Dawg carried notes–not that ever used them, lord love’im.
-
myiq2xu says:
How does having notes to refer to differ from a teleprompter?
A teleprompter screen displays the full text of a speech a few lines at time. The speaker merely reads the words aloud as they scroll past and need not have written the speech or even have the expertise to do so.
Notes only contain reminders of key points - the speaker must either have memorized the bulk of the speech or be able to extemporize on each topic and subtopic.
-
votermom says:
Quixote, the spin I heard on some anti-Palin rightwinger talk radio (apparently that does exist) is that the notes on her hand were for the Q&A. That the question was really simple* and if she needed notes for it it proves she is teh stoopidz.
(*something like what would your 3 priorities be if you were Preznit)
-
RKMK says:
Ah, well, you see, Hillary wasn’t bucking the patriarchy. Just ask all those third-wavers who claimed that she was too much of a tool, too conservative, etc., etc. Remember? See how that works?
Remember how HRC wasn’t a real feminist because she stayed with Bill after he cheated on her? Just sayin’. (Meanwhile, conservatives criticized her as staying with Bill because that was evidence of her cold ambitiousness.)
-
Recovering Dem says:
Just out of curiosity, isn’t the “death panel” metaphor as effective as “back alley abortion” in drawing attention to government making private healthcare decisions?
Obviously, we on the Republican side have a skepticism about government’s intentions, but I think there is common ground: you all don’t want government forcing birth; we don’t want government forcing death.
Nobody called Ted Kennedy a moron for saying that Republicans want “back alley abortions.” It was hailed as a keen tactic for opposing and neutralizing a political enemy.
But when Sarah uses “death panels” as a metaphor for the bureaucracy already being set up to deny things like breast cancer early exams, and evaluating “comparative effectiveness” of treating our elderly — it’s because she’s a dunce.
OK.
-
quixote says:
myiq2xu:
A teleprompter screen displays the full text of a speech a few lines at time. The speaker … reads the words aloud….
Notes only contain reminders of key points - the speaker must … be able to extemporize
Oh. Right. I knew there was some kind of difference.
(Bwahahaha!)
-
Grace says:
All those ultra-conservative right-wing women preaching out there (e.g., Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Lynn Chenney & daughter, etc.), will never admit that they couldn’t and wouldn’t be out there promoting patriarchy in public forums hadn’t it been for the feminist movement back in the 60’s. Why? Because without it, those same women would now be AT HOME baking cookies and knitting sweaters for their kids or grandkids, and devoting their lives only to serve their husbands’ “needs.”
In other words, they decided to bite the hands that “freed” them. It’s also called a case of false consciousness, like poor people who voted for Reagan or Bushie junior against their own self-interest, or worse, blacks who supported Clearance Thomas just because he is black, even if he is an uncle “Thomas.”
-
octogalore says:
Grace, to be fair, agree or disagree with her, Palin did give Clinton and Ferraro more kudos than they ever got from Pelosi or Obama.
One can definitely argue against Palin’s positions, but I don’t see it as biting any hand for her to articulate them. For that to be the case, she would have to believe her positions are in women’s worst interests. I don’t think she believes that.
It’s fair to say “I think she’s wrong and here’s why,” but to suggest she is a traitor, for thanking Clinton/Ferraro and others for charting a course she followed and then advocating different positions, presupposes more about her motives than we can know.
When Ann Coulter said she wished woman didn’t have the vote, even if it was tongue in cheek b/c women help get Democrats elected, I believe she was biting the hand that fed her. There is no way to interpret not voting as being good for women. I happen to believe anti-choice isn’t good for women either, but I think religious people can have that position, misguided and wrong as it is, without sexism being their motive.
-
gxm17 says:
octogalore, I think you’ve hit upon something. I was reading your comment (@ 27) and realized that one of the things I like about Palin is that she doesn’t seem to view liberal women as the enemy. I think she realizes that, however we may disagree on the issues, we’re all in this together. Of course, I could be wrong. She may have only acknowledged Hillary and Ferraro because she was trying to tap into disaffected Dems like myself, but I don’t think so. I think she gets it.
-
marylee says:
I think Sarah is a feminist - look at her marriage
she and Todd seem to have a pretty good partnership. Also she made her Choice and seems in her governing to go by the law. Not that I don’t believe she would change Roe if she could but until the law is changed - she would abide by it. It drives me crazy when they call her stupid. She got herself elected to the governorship going against her own party. And from what I have read she knew what the problems were in Alaska and what she wanted to do about them from Day One. I just wish I could vote for her - but she is the 1st Republican I’ve even considered voting for to be president!! -
MojaveWolf says:
And once you start insisting that women meet your personal vision of feminism or be damned, then you’re on the path to becoming a faux-feminist freakazoid.
One can, I hope, loathe Palin and the vast majority of what she says and stands for and generally think supporting her political aspirations as advancing the cause of feminism makes about as much sense as supporting Alan Keyes because he’s somehow advancing the cause of civil rights, without being branded a faux feminist freakazoid?
Otherwise, I must wear the fff badge along with the “racist” moniker I got from the obots.
At least the Obot types were fooled by a person who was actively trying to mislead them — Palin, like Keyes, is pretty upfront about and downright proud to be a reactionary conservative.
When she was newer to the scene, and second on the ticket to McCain, I could understand interpreting some of her behavior to be the best she could do to achieve success given the political environment she was in. But she’s not second on the ticket anymore, and it’s no longer possible for me to say, as I did after the Biden debate, “she did the best she could with the awful positions she was given to defend.” She has now claimed all these awful positions as her own and become the tea party candidate of choice.
Yeah, she’s charismatic and has decent political instincts, and has been subject to unfair criticism (most recently, the words on her hand, which is the sort of thing speakers–including very smart speakers– do all the time to make sure they don’t forget a topic). But this doesn’t make her politics an iota better than Tom Tancredo’s. That she has repeatedly demonstrated superior leadership qualities to Tancredo and most of the rest of the flat earth brigade just makes her more dangerous. She, like Obama, could be another Bush/Cheney combo rolled into one. And I would not in the slightest be happy to see a woman pull that off, any more than I’m happy to see Obama continue their disasters because of his race. And she has done absolutely *nothing* since reaching the public eye to make me think she is worthy of political support in any way.
Defend her against sexist attacks? Of course. Same as with Malkin and Coulter. And she’s probably marginally better than they are, same as Bush was marginally better than Tancredo would have been. And maybe she doesn’t even really believe all the drivel of her right wing supporters, just as Bush apparently said in private he didn’t have a problem with gays being given fully equal rights. But I don’t see how knowing better and still encouraging downright evil positions across the board to further your personal success makes her any better than the nutjobs who really believe immigrants and queers are dragging us all to hell and only big business and James Dobson can save us.
If this makes me a faux feminist freakazoid, so be it.
-
Sasha, CA says:
Any woman trying to be a leader or get elected or get taken on her own terms is bucking the patriarchy.
Like Tinfoil Hattie, I immediately thought of Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Bachman, et al. I also thought of some of the super successful women in the entertainment industry my SO used to work with who are responsible for producing some of the most misogynist dreck on TV and in movies. They “made it,” but it would never occur to me to contend that they’re bucking the patriarchy. On the contrary. They strengthen the patriarchy more than a man in the same position would by giving misogynists the opportunity to argue that women have no problem with this type of sexist entertainment and that women promote the same stereotype-laden T&A programming that men enjoy when they’re in a leadership position. Clearly it’s all in good fun. No damage done. Only those humorless feminazis would object. Proponents of the status quo love nothing more than to get a member of a group they’re oppressing to do their dirty work for them. Ever notice how many female and African American columnists are conservative and actively anti-feminist/civil rights? Coincidence? I think not. The argument that blacks are lazy welfare cheats or that feminism is to blame for a host of social ills becomes much more palatable when it’s delivered by an African American or a woman instead of a white male.
The traditional face of the anti-choice movement was that of an angry white male, and it turned off a huge number of Americans. So the movement has been rebranding itself. Their new image is softer, gentler, kinder, more caring, and they’ve been working hard to get more female and minority faces to represent their cause. This rebranding campaign has been a huge success (when NOW objected to the Tebow ad, they were attacked by many Americans for “trying to take Pam Tebow’s choice away”; clearly some people are very confused), and Sarah Palin is a poster girl of the new anti-choice movement. I have little doubt that Palin would do her best to further erode women’s reproductive freedom if elected to national office, and few things are a greater priority for patriarchy proponents than regaining control over women’s wombs (hence the enormous amount of cash that’s pumped into the anti-choice movement every day). And for good reason. Women’s reproductive freedom is central to the advances we have made. If I can be raped and then forced by my government to carry my rapist’s offspring to term, I have effectively been reduced to chattel. Everything else pales by comparison.
Some have argued that Palin’s anti-choice stance is not motivated by sexism or a desire to control women, but by her sincere religious beliefs (although the bible doesn’t mention abortion). Maybe so. I don’t really give a damn what motivates her. People sincerely believe that their religion compels them to think and do all kinds of hateful things (deny civil rights to gays, murder infidels, etc.), but that’s no excuse. And while Palin wouldn’t even make an exception in cases of rape and incest, she has no problem with the government blowing away countless fetuses during our wars of aggression. Funny how that works. Killing the “unborn” is always wrong when it’s a woman exercising her right to self-determination, but a-ok when the government slaughters innocent pregnant women during acts of war. So much for those sincerely held religious beliefs.
By the way, do you wear high heels? Carry a purse? Engage in any normative femininity?
Are you really equating wearing heels or make-up with advocating government control of women’s wombs and nominating a MRA as Attorney General? As far as I’m concerned those things aren’t even in the same galaxy.
-
Sasha, CA says:
isn’t the “death panel” metaphor as effective as “back alley abortion” in drawing attention to government making private healthcare decisions?
Except that government “death panels” are a fiction (insurance company “death panels” are another matter), while the government condemning women to die in backalley abortions was all too real when abortion was illegal.
-
Kookaburra says:
High heels, make up, and anti-choice politics are on the same spectrum - reinforcing women’s role as the sex class.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Sasha, excellent post. You’ve articulated my vague thoughts for me.
And is it really “bucking” patriarchy to achieve a high level of visibility and power and then use that to strengthen women’s position as second-class citizens? In my opinion, no.
-
octogalore says:
“is it really “bucking” patriarchy to achieve a high level of visibility and power and then use that to strengthen women’s position as second-class citizens?”
I think if one takes positions that one believes are “strengthen women’s position as second-class citizens,” then yes. So by that definition, Schlafly and someone like Caitlin Flanagan aren’t bucking patriarchy. Likewise with women who promote misogynist TV from executive chairs, per Sasha’s example.
But for the reasons I argue above, I don’t put Palin in this category, even though I disagree with her choice and marriage positions.
The women and blacks who fought hard for equality didn’t do so in a contingent manner. There was no requirement that all women or blacks following in their footsteps and demanding positions of importance needed to be liberal to really count as system-buckers. Of course, they could not be knowing saboteurs. But these people fought for the rights of others with sincerely held beliefs to express them and to aspire to positions earlier denied them on the strength of those beliefs.
Just like with a white male politician with whom we disagree, we should not add to our disagreement with Palin with accusations that as a woman, she is more of a traitor than a similarly situated man. She is, in fact, bucking the system (which has showered her with misogyny documented on this blog). If we’re feminists, I think we argue with a self-identified feminist on the merits, not assume we know enough about the origins of her beliefs to attempt to pull her feminist card.
-
octogalore says:
sorry, meant “then no” in first sentence.
-
Violet Socks says:
This all reminds me of the chatter on third-wave feminist blogs when Hillary was running. So what if she was running for President? Big whoop. She was just a patriarchal tool, just reinforcing the patriarchy. She might as well be ironing her husband’s shirts. Nothing special about being a president with a vagina. She’s an insult to women. Got where she is because of her husband. And she stayed with him when he cheated. What kind of message is that? She cries, she uses ‘feminine wiles,’ complains about sexism. She voted for war. And why should abortion be rare? She’s embarrassing. She’s not even a feminist — not like Barack. Barack is a real feminist.
-
Violet Socks says:
One can, I hope, loathe Palin and the vast majority of what she says and stands for and generally think supporting her political aspirations as advancing the cause of feminism makes about as much sense as supporting Alan Keyes because he’s somehow advancing the cause of civil rights, without being branded a faux feminist freakazoid?
I bolded the word you inserted there that changed the meaning completely of what I was saying.
Her political aspirations do advance the cause of feminism. This isn’t about supporting her. It’s about acknowledging what she’s trying to do. Trying to become the first woman president is a feminist act.
(And if Alan Keyes, by some miracle, had become the first black president, that would still have represented a watershed in the history of African-Americans.)
-
Violet Socks says:
Sarah Palin is a poster girl of the new anti-choice movement.
Right. Once again, it all comes back to abortion.
If you believe that if a woman is anti-choice, then she is also and automatically anti-feminist in everything, then yeah, sure.
But I don’t think that’s true of Palin. Except for abortion, she seems to be genuinely pro-feminist in her beliefs, as I’ve documented on this blog. Her belief in gender equality seems to be a driving force in her life.
-
madamab says:
Violet, what belief in gender equality do you see Palin advancing?
Recently, she and other right-wingers in the Republican Party actively campaigned against a moderate woman Republican in NY-23 (that woman had the support of the RNC, by the way) and helped force her out of the race in favor of a man, Douglas Hoffman. She did this because Dede Scozzafava, the woman in question, was pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage.
Clearly, Palin’s religious views trump any belief she may have in gender equality, or she would have supported the woman candidate.
I am just mystified by your continued insistence on Palin’s possessing qualities she simply does not possess. I do not see how you can ignore the evidence that is staring you in the face.
Being ambitious for yourself and happening to be a woman is not advancing the cause of women. It’s advancing your own cause AT THE EXPENSE of other women, especially when you see that she wants to deny other women the control over their own bodies that she reserves for herself (she almost had an abortion when she found out that her son was going to have Downs Syndrome, but wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned).
And yes, I do believe being pro-choice is the absolute MINIMUM for being a feminist. Of course there are anti-feminists who are pro-choice, but there are no feminists who are anti-choice.
If you want to tell the State it can interfere in my private decisions about my body, that’s anti-feminist in the most fundamental way. That means you think women should not be able to control their own bodies. Why? What gives the State the right to regulate my pregnancy or lack thereof? What is feminist about that?!
I guess I’m a FFF for looking at what Palin does and drawing the obvious conclusions.
And I wondered why liberal women couldn’t work together. Maybe it’s because we call each other names like that.
Jesu Christe.
-
MojaveWolf says:
I bolded the word you inserted there that changed the meaning completely of what I was saying.
I’m not quite sure how to phrase this, but I get conflicting vibes from different posts here about Palin. Sometimes, you seem to view most of her views as nuts in the same way you view other conservative Republicans. Other times, you seem to view her as much better than them and genuinely worthy of support, on occasion with a distinct “rah Palin go team!” vibe. I’m not meaning to deliberately misconstrue you; but the latter tone seems to be predomimant in your last couple of posts/threads, as in w/comment #37 when you seem to be suggesting that dislike of Palin, even that expressed here, is as poorly grounded as a lot the 3rd waver’s dislike of Hillary.
I think there’s a clear and obvious difference — I (and I gather the other Palin non-fans here) can’t stand *any* of the politicians who occupy similar ground and if anything actually do regard Palin in a better light than them (I mean, yes, obviously, for her to do the same thing as Bush the younger would be vastly more impressive from the realm of personal accomplishment; achieving that level of personal power from a middle class starting point is a vastly different thing than achieving it from a millionaire/legacy/”my dad was president first” starting point, and presumably no reasonably intelligent person would argue otherwise). But the third wave feminists who *hated* (and I used to be friends with a lot of these people who I ain’t friends with anymore, so I think I was in the middle of that enough to say “hated” was a fair description) Hillary were pretty forgiving and even supportive of male politicians with no better records (Edwards) and less progressive policies and rhetoric (Obama). I really don’t think those of use here remotely deserve to be lumped in with those people.
re: Her political aspirations do advance the cause of feminism.
Yes and no. I see your point, but also find Sasha_CA and Tinfoil Hattie’s comments persuasive in this regard.
To give a further example, I’ve heard tons of awful Meg Whitman radio ads lately talking about the US becoming a welfare state and how we need to reduce lifetime benefits to two years, to encourage more personal responsibility and get people back to work. Yes, it would be a good thing to have a woman governor of California, but no, not this one. And I have voted for a woman governor in the past, and might this time, depending on who else runs (I would, for all that she is generally hated by most blogs I read and sometimes by me when I’m really ticked off at her, vote for Feinstein should she decide to run, and maybe even volunteer for her campaign, given who her competition is) (no, I’m not voting for Jerry Brown, either, for entirely feminist reasons–his non-action on the De Anza case).
But Whitman scrapping and cutting back programs for the poor and generally spewing crap that makes it sounds like they are that way by their own choice is, given the number of women who need these benefits, and are generally more limited by their options and more likely constrained by circumstances such as children than men are likely to be, is implicitly anti-feminist, imo, as well as anti-human.
Sometimes “not this one” seems the best attitude to take, just as sometimes it’s a genuine attitude, not an excuse to savage the woman or minority who is running because of their race and gender.
-
Violet Socks says:
She did this because Dede Scozzafava, the woman in question, was pro-choice and pro-same-sex marriage.
Actually, I think Palin opposed Scozzafava because of the healthcare bill and the rest of Obama’s economic agenda, which Scozzafava had pledged to support. People in the GOP had long been calling her a RINO. That seemed to be the impetus for the revolt. I’m sure the choice thing helped, though.
Clearly, Palin’s religious views trump any belief she may have in gender equality, or she would have supported the woman candidate.
Do you realize the irony here? You’re saying you can’t support Palin — a woman candidate — because of your differing political views. But does that mean you don’t really believe in gender equality?
Violet, what belief in gender equality do you see Palin advancing?
And yes, I do believe being pro-choice is the absolute MINIMUM for being a feminist. Of course there are anti-feminists who are pro-choice, but there are no feminists who are anti-choice.
I disagree. We’ve been having this argument here on the blog since 2008, and it’s just an impasse. I respect your position. I personally, though, have known too many Catholic feminists and pre-Roe v. Wade feminists to think that there is no such thing as a feminist who opposes abortion. Several do. I think they’re completely wrong, and I think that their stance on abortion is in itself anti-feminist, but I acknowledge that these women are feminists in other respects.
-
Violet Socks says:
I’m not meaning to deliberately misconstrue you; but the latter tone seems to be predomimant in your last couple of posts/threads, as in w/comment #37 when you seem to be suggesting that dislike of Palin, even that expressed here, is as poorly grounded as a lot the 3rd waver’s dislike of Hillary.
I feel like I’m talking to myself.
The problem with the third-wavers was that they confused their dislike of Hillary and their opposition to her political positions with the issue of whether she was a feminist (or was trying to do a feminist thing). For heaven’s sake, is it so hard to separate the two?
Feminism is not a club. It’s not just for people you like or people who agree with you. Feminism is about women taking their place in the world on an equal footing.
-
Violet Socks says:
re: Her political aspirations do advance the cause of feminism.
Yes and no. I see your point, but also find Sasha_CA and Tinfoil Hattie’s comments persuasive in this regard.
And then you go on to talk about political positions, not political aspirations.
It’s entirely possible for a woman’s political aspirations to represent a blow for feminism (trying to be the first woman president) while her political positions spell bad news in other respects (which is true of most of what Palin espouses, in my opinion).
-
Sasha, CA says:
Except for abortion, she seems to be genuinely pro-feminist in her beliefs
Oh yeah, like when she spoke out against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and nominated a virulently misogynist MRA as her attorney general (a guy so extreme, he was blocked by members of her own party). As for abortion, one can be anti-abortion and still be a feminist; one cannot be anti-choice and a feminist. Anti-choice condemns (poor) women to die and does next to nothing to reduce the number of abortions performed. It’s not a position any feminist would advocate.
-
MojaveWolf says:
The problem with the third-wavers was that they confused their dislike of Hillary and their opposition to her political positions with the issue of whether she was a feminist (or was trying to do a feminist thing).
Ah, we had completely different issues w/the third wavers (well, some of them). My issue w/them was that I thought they were being monstrously hateful, fanatical hypocrites holding the woman candidate to a much tougher standard than the male candidates, and somehow letting a combination of this and CDS morph into a completely rabid twisting of her persona in their heads. So, it came off kind of insulting when you compared us to them.
It’s entirely possible for a woman’s political aspirations to represent a blow for feminism (trying to be the first woman president) while her political positions spell bad news in other respects (which is true of most of what Palin espouses, in my opinion).
Okay, I’m totally in agreement here, even if we part company elsewhere. I was in fact conflating the two (i.e. their political aspirations included what they wanted to do in office in my use/reading of the word, and while I’m on the subject wanted to also say “yes!” to Madameab’s comment, which came before my last one but not before the last time I’d refreshed the page).
-
octogalore says:
Sasha, Ledbetter had to do with statute of limitations. Palin came out for equal pay for women. Her objection to Ledbetter dealt with the conservative position that restarting the statute of limitations with each paycheck could result in increased filings of unmeritorious lawsuits. Many opined that this could lead to preventative reductions in hiring of women, hiring generally, or subtracting estimated increased labor costs from paychecks. I happen to be pro-Ledbetter and believe the benefits to women outweigh the overall costs, but again, it’s a situation in which not everyone who votes against pro-labor Acts does so because s/he isn’t a feminist.
Palin did appoint Ross, but also appointed pro-choice Morgan Christen, former board member of Planned Parenthood, to the Alaska State Supreme Court, a move that got her roasted by numerous social conservative publications. Obama has a similar wide swing of quality in his appointments. The Obama-Biden female campaign staffers were also paid much lower than their male counterparts, whereas McCain-Palin’s female staffers were paid slightly higher than their male counterparts. And Palin’s never called women “sweetie.” We could continue to cherrypick, but ultimately, what do we gain in knocking women’s contributions to moving us forward in the roles we can play? We still have the meaningful tools of disputing the merits and voting agains those with whose policies we disagree.
-
Sasha, CA says:
I personally, though, have known too many Catholic feminists and pre-Roe v. Wade feminists to think that there is no such thing as a feminist who opposes abortion.
The anti-choice Catholics I’ve known who consider themselves feminists are also completely anti-war. A few allow for the possibility of war in the event of a direct attack, but most are pacifists. Contrast that with Sarah Palin who sounds positively gleeful when she talks about the US attacking yet another country. Surely she realizes that war results in civilian casualties? And that some of those civilians will be pregnant women? It always amazes me how people like Palin can justify the taking of innocent human life (including the life of the “unborn”) in every senseless war, but not when an incest survivor needs to terminate her pregnancy. Clearly Palin does not really value innocent human life as much as she claims to, so why the extreme anti-choice position?
-
Violet Socks says:
Clearly Palin does not really value innocent human life as much as she claims to, so why the extreme anti-choice position?
Because she’s muddled in the head? That would be my answer.
Look, I can’t defend the illogical constellation of opinions that characterizes the conservative Christian position. But people can be sincere without making sense.
There are really women who believe that a) women’s rights are a great thing and women should have equality in everything, and b) embryos are persons who should be protected from murder, which is how they see abortion, and c) war may be horrible but acts of war are not acts of murder.
-
hilary says:
i posted three comments on this and none of them got appoved. i don’t get it.
-
hilary says:
approved
-
Sasha, CA says:
Octo, I know why Palin opposed Ledbetter (”it was gonna turn into a boon for trial lawyers who, I believe, could have taken advantage of women” — those gullible little women, always taken advantage of by the big, evil trial lawyers). She also claimed that the laws already on the books are sufficient to protect women against pay discrimination so there’s no need for the Ledbetter Act — a blatant lie, given the Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. I’m sure Palin is all for equal pay in theory; she just opposes all efforts to ensure that employers don’t discriminate because such measures tend to be unpopular with the business community.
As for her appointments of Ross (or W.A.R. as he prefers to be known) and Morgan Christen, I think you know as well as I do why she picked Christen: Alaska’s constitution mandates that an independent panel, the Alaska Judicial Council, evaluate judicial appointments and submit a list of potential nominees to the governor when a position on the court needs to be filled. The governor isn’t allowed to select a candidate whose name is not on that list, and in this case the AJC presented Palin with just two nominees — and they were both pro-choice. Now, it’s true that the conservative Alaska Family Council thought attorney Eric Smith was the lesser of the “two evils” and asked Palin to pick him over Judge Morgan Christen, the woman who had served on the board of Planned Parenthood, but that wasn’t going to happen because Smith is an environmental lawyer who has been fighting to get Beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet listed as an endangered species and that’s something Palin is vehemently opposed to (no surprise there). Her office released a statement explaining it this way: “Governor Palin’s choices were either a liberal or an independent. She went with the independent.” Ross, on the other hand, is the kind of guy Palin chose when she was free to pick anyone she wanted.
I’m not sure why you bring up Obama because I certainly wasn’t defending him, nor did I vote for him.
-
Representation says:
It’s about representation. Palin is for women what Condoleezza Rice is for black women. Not only did she buck the patriarchy, she bucked the white patriarchy. She may have espoused the worst foreign policies but she broke one of the highest glass ceilings. If I had to choose among the awful Republican Presidents, I would choose Palin. She would not allow sexism in our culture just like she fought back against every sexist incident since she came on the scene. That makes a huge difference. She is pro-life but so are the Democrats. In fact, the Democratic Party almost rolled back reproductive rights with a Democratic House, Senate and Presidency.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Octo, I know why Palin opposed Ledbetter (”it was gonna turn into a boon for trial lawyers who, I believe, could have taken advantage of women” — those gullible little women, always taken advantage of by the big, evil trial lawyers).
Too much is made about what politicians say are the reasons they vote for or against something. The real reasons almost always have nothing to do with the rhetoric. Trial lawyers are an important source of funding for the Democratic Party. The GOP strategy is to do whatever they can to limit the money trial lawyers make in order to defund Democratic candidates. That’s why they’re for tort reform and malpractice reform and a whole lot of other bullshit reforms pretending to protect consumers that are really only about drying up the money to Democrats.
What I see here are two different discussions, one about a principle and another about a person.
Principle: Palin running for office and winning is good for women because the more women serving, the better women’s views and interests, wherever they fall on the poltical spectrum, will be represented.
Person: Palin running for office and winning is bad for liberals because Palin is a conservative Republican.
Both are true. It’s a paradox.
*****A
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Maybe I’ll say it this way:
Principle: Palin running for office and winning is good for all women because the more women serving, the better women’s views and interests, wherever they fall on the poltical spectrum, will be represented.
Person: Palin running for office and winning is bad for some women because Palin is a conservative Republican.
That sounds more paradoxical.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
Yes, but it’s a pretty common paradox, I think. Things frequently have mixed results. Especially when we’re talking about something like ending racism or sexism or other isms, where both representation and policy matter.
Barack Obama, for example, is not doing much for Black America in terms of his policies. But that doesn’t mean that his election — the election of the first black president — didn’t represent a triumph of a sort. It was good thing in the sense of breaking barriers, etc.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
It really is all about representation, and a question of what is most important. What is most important to me is getting women the representation we should’ve had all along, once we got the vote. Until women are represented, by women, I don’t see anything that matters to any of us changing. Some women are, regrettably, pro-life, including my mother. She got to vote for a woman for vice-president who represented her views in 2008, and I got to vote for an entirely dickless ticket that represented my views. Difference is, her ticket stood some chance to actually win.
Next time around, though, I have a new plan since what I’ve always done, voting dem, hasn’t worked out as far as getting women represented. If it’s Obama and Palin in 2012, and there’s no woman running third party who has any shot, then Palin it is! At this point, the most important thing is getting the people in the sway of the male supremacy myth over their fear that the world will come to a screeching, flaming end if a woman is in charge of anything important, or them, for that matter.
It was a couple of liberal lefty guys that I actually have a sizeable amount of respect for that brought me to this position, one Joe Bageant and Arthur Silber, to be exact. Joe understands class in this country about as well as anyone in captivity, and Arthur gets that we’re all taught to hate women and everything female shortly after we’re born. But would either of them ever vote for Hillary or Sarah? No, sir! Not either one, not both, no way, no how. Joe figures they’re just as bad as the men, although he doesn’t have any real proof of it as far as I can tell. Arthur, I don’t know what his reasoning is, but I figure it’s probably on his site somewhere and I just don’t have the patience to suss it out.
I understand how important choice is to many feminists, but I think it’s become a very abused term, and anyone who votes on abortion, one way or the other, is being played. The GOP is never going to pull out all the stops to overturn Roe. Why should they when it’s such a GOTV vehicle, and besides, the dems are doing better restricting access to abortion than they ever could! Somehow by the time Bill Clinton left office, 87% of the counties in the country had no abortion services whatsoever. Where there was access, it was typically a clinic with its attendant lifer gauntlet instead of the privacy and security of a hospital, thanks to the lovely Webster decision.
Choice in this country is mostly used to describe the non-choice of a certain class of woman. One with no means to take care of a child, to avail herself of the nearest clinic with its attendant lifer gauntlet, so that she can avoid outright destitution and all that comes with it. We’ll have real choice when we change this system that calls such a thing choice. Real choice isn’t going to come about until women actually have the agency to choose whether to have sex in the first place. It’s boggling the studies that have been done that show how rare it is that women have sex because they actually want the sex; it’s usually to get something else that comes with the sex, or to avoid something else that the sex will stave off. We’re a long way off from real choice at this point, and we won’t get there by voting for more men.
-
Sameol says:
But there’s even more to it than just policy vs. representation. If McCain had run a racist campaign, you better believe that even a significant percentage of conservative African Americans who are strongly opposed to Obama’s politics (well, okay, who are strongly opposed to Obama’s supposed politics because god knows he’s not a liberal) would have voted for him. (Well, okay, lots and lots of conservative African Americans DID vote him regardless, because they understand the value of representation and the effect it has on the next generation, but that’s another story).
Because sending the message that racism is okay or unimportant would be a complete disaster. Once it was established that that was socially acceptable and a winning strategy, then it would snowball. It wouldn’t stop until it proved ineffective–actually it probably wouldn’t stop until about 20 years after it proved ineffective, politicians being slow learners, and that’s a long time to deal with a ripple effect in social attitudes.
I don’t trust anyone on policy and anything could happen there at any time. But the worst possible world is where we have horrible policy, no representation, and a political culture where it’s open season on women.
And some days, that looks like where we’re headed.
-
Violet Socks says:
hilary, I have nothing from you in the queue.
-
Grace says:
Octogalore, about your post (# 27)in response to mine (# 26) I agree with you, but I never mentioned Sarah Palin among the list of ultra-conservative right-wing women. Why? because as I said in other posts, I don’t agree with her ideology but I admire and respect her grit, independence, and tenacity. And the fact that she is self-made and seems to have lived her life according to her beliefs, and that she doesn’t give a hoot about what people think about her, including her hunting, fishing, being a “hockey mom,” and wearing lipstick and high hills. Again, I don’t share any of this with her (w/the exception of the occasional high hills and lipstick) but I admire her exercising the right to do what she does.
-
kmak says:
Arthur argued (**as I understand**) that in order to ascend to the presidency Obama fully embraced and adopted every significant tenant of the White Male Ruling Class. Otherwise, naturally, he would have never stood a chance of making it through the primaries, much less to the oval office. The WMRC are the gatekeepers of wealth and power in America. Hopefully, we can all agree on at least that much.
The American black community has been an unwaivering adversarial force against the White Male Ruling Class (and thank f*ck for that). But when all those WMRC ‘values’ were re-branded with the face of a (half, non-slave-descended) black man, the black community at large was thrown for a severe loop. We all remember being called racists for opposing Obama’s clearly WMRC positions — here in Nashville prominent black members of the community were quick and fierce in defending nearly any critiques of Obama as such over airwaves and in print. Yes, much of it was rascism-driven, but much was not and there was often a failure to bother with the distinction.
This represented a vast shift by the greater black community as being very cynical/skeptical towards the ruling class to very suddenly being the biggest proponents of its brand new biggest proponent. And I must point out that some of the clearest, brightest and most coherent opposition to Obama came from the black community; see Black Agenda Report as just one example. But with a stroke of re-branding the WMRC was able to sway a massive chunk of its decades-long opposition into taking its side, largely without realizing as much. And _that_ is the profound danger that Obama represents.
* * * * *
It is true that comparing Obama/blacks with Hillary/women is Apples and Oranges. But there are certainly parallels and at times they seem glaring. The insanely rich white dudes know exactly what they are doing. Obama was a home-run for them in placating the black community. Why would they not attempt the same with women using a Palin or a Clinton? We should maintain perspective in remembering that the president is just a face; the real power is always behind the curtains, safely obscured from sight. And there sure as f*ck aren’t any non-whites or non-males behind those curtains.
I like much about Palin — she is obviously passionate, determined and is without question a fighter and a go-getter — much more than many of the living corpses that make up the elite political circles. But I also fear that she is just as eager to play the WMRC game as Obama was. Power is an intoxicating drug and Palin, like any addict worth their salt, will do _anything_ to get more of it, including selling women’s rights down the river.
The American ruling class is a mass-murdering, psychotic monster, regardless of the race or gender of the face that heads its political arm. Obama represented _zero_ threat to any significant part of the Ruling class, just as Clinton didn’t, just as Palin doesn’t. If they did they would be as shunned and derided as a Kucinich or a Ron Paul: the WMRC would see to it (they _own_ the media, too, we should remember). If you’re not dancing to their tune, you’re not even in the running.
-
kmak says:
Hi Dr Socks! I posted before here and saw my comment appear as ‘in queue/awaiting approval’ or some such. I have posted a comment twice here, but do not see it. Sorry if it is a double post.
Excellent topic and comments!
-
kmak says:
Crap, and of course, there it is. Copy #2 will probably show in a moment. Apologies.
-
Violet Socks says:
I think that for the most part, the black community is better at recognizing that racial equality is a thing unto itself — better, I mean, than women are at understanding feminism. At least women today, in our post-Second Wave era.
There’s this attitude nowadays — and it really became painfully apparently in 2008 — that feminism is a subset of liberal Democratic politics. And if you’re not a liberal Democrat, or you don’t ascribe to that whole agenda, then you can’t possibly be a feminist. Which is just ridiculous.
Feminism means equality for women. It’s vastly bigger and simpler than some bullet point on the DNC platform. You can be a feminist and be an Inuit seal hunter, for chrissake. You can be a feminist and be a Peruvian miner or a Nicaraguan nun or a Chinese office worker. Or an American member of the GOP.
The civil rights movement in this country maintained a focus on racial equality that allowed — and still allows — everyone to ascribe to it, regardless of their other political beliefs. Most black folks may roll their eyes at Michael Steele, but they’re not going to say, “well, he doesn’t really believe in racial equality. He doesn’t really believe in civil rights. In fact, he’d re-institute slavery if he could!” You can argue that Michael Steele is not doing anything for black folks and the GOP is a joke, etc., or even that he’s a craven opportunist — but you’ll still acknowledge that in his own way, he obviously believes in civil rights.
For some reason, women can’t seem to do that. It’s all or nothing. Don’t like Sarah Palin? Hate her Republican politics? Fine. But for heaven’s sake, you can still acknowledge that in her own way, she obviously believes in equal rights and considers herself a feminist. Even if you think the disastrous effects of her politics would outweigh any glass ceiling-breaking she might contribute.
But no — instead we get people claiming, like Jessica Valenti, that Palin is against everything feminism stands for. Everything!
Or even worse, people saying that she can’t be a feminist because she doesn’t like polar bears or something. For heaven’s sake. They’re separate things.
It’s ironic to me that I, of all people, should have to keep pointing this out. Ironic because I personally am extremely liberal. Far left radical feminist. But feminism is not just a subset of my political agenda. It’s one of the fundamental questions of human existence.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Yes, but it’s a pretty common paradox, I think. Things frequently have mixed results. Especially when we’re talking about something like ending racism or sexism or other isms, where both representation and policy matter.
Common, but not acknowledged often enough, it seems to me. Just getting to the point where we can weigh pros and cons in terms as un-loaded as representation versus policy would be an improvement, IMO. With Palin (and Hillary), arguments seem inexorably doomed to recitations of personal attributes or flaws.
Or even worse, people saying that she can’t be a feminist because she doesn’t like polar bears or something. For heaven’s sake. They’re separate things.
Something about the perception that one is a traitor to the group really burns people up. (Whether or not the purported traitor has ever claimed fealty to said group.) Even more complicated since everyone belongs to multiple groups. I guess the one constant is that if you’re both a traitor and a woman, you’re toast. Because, I suppose, only a relative few of us see “woman” as our primary identity. What to do?
Violet, you’ve pointed out before that woman-as-tribe isn’t the norm, and I agree it hasn’t been. But why has gay-as-tribe worked so much better? What can we learn about acting cohesively? I have a hunch that better identity marketing is the key.
*****A
-
Violet Socks says:
But why has gay-as-tribe worked so much better?
It’s interesting to think about. A couple of ideas: first, the gay movement in this country has been dominated by white men. And one reason it has not propagated all that well to the black community is because it has to cross a tribal boundary there, and that’s difficult. There’s been some interesting stuff in Atlanta, with the white-dominated gay rights groups trying to figure out what gay black people need and why they’re not getting involved politically, and what they hear back is “we want to focus on ending racism.” There’s a different agenda there.
Within the white male gay community, I guess the question would be why liberal and conservative men are able to form a tribe. (Actually, there is some difficulty there, since being a conservative queer is the kiss of death in some places, but whatever.) And I would say that they already are a group — the white male power structure. But as for being a tribe — I’m not sure I would say they are.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Maybe we need our own Pride Day parades.
Next month will be Women’s History Month. Let me know if you notice any difference.
*****A
-
gxm17 says:
kmak asked: Why would they not attempt the same with women using a Palin or a Clinton?
Even though it’s only a symbolic “abdication” of power, it’s still a lot safer to let (approx.) 7% of the population think they’ve been invited into the club house; but 51% is just not a shrewd business move. Women will continue to be excluded from the highest offices because we are the ones with the numbers that could bring about real change. So they divide us, and conquer; and they will continue to do so until the day we finally figure out it is in our best interest to stick together.
-
kmak says:
The tribal angle is interesting, indeed. I think for the white male power structure, equality for women represents a much more fundamental shift away from their comfort zone than equality for homosexuals or even non-whites. True equality for women would be an earth-shattering game changer. That’s why it is and will be resisted with full force.
And equality for women is a much more nuanced and difficult subject to approach than the other ‘isms. It is a unique challenge that is going to take a long time to articulate and resolve. The mainstream dialogue has shifted to a place where outward expression of prejudice towards a person’s race or sexual orientation is increasingly unacceptable. Blunt, in-your-face sexism is still quite OK and normal, though. How can feminism work to make similar progress in terms of what is socially acceptable? How can slander and hatred towards women come to be seen as being just as horrid and reprehensible?
I absolutely agree with you, Violet, that feminism stands on its own and can take on many forms within many belief systems. I read with great interest the hashing-out of the Justice Party platform regarding women’s rights. Especially the approach that attempts to identify ‘core’ feminist beliefs that transcend other belief systems or tribal affiliations and that may appeal to a broad segment of women, even — gasp! — conservative ones.
-
kmak says:
gxm17, excellent point. Although, like I said earlier, I don’t feel that females in high political offices would ultimately be very damaging to the Rich White Guys (at least, not at first). That’s simply because politicians don’t run our country… corporations do. And American corporations have far less female representation (in the form of board members) than American political bodies by a long shot.
This is why I think the approach Norway has taken is so fascinating. In 2003 a law was passed mandating 40% of all company board members be female. At the time only about 5-7% were. The law has been enormously successful and other countries are now looking to emulate it. My opinion is that leveling the gender gap in corporate America is _mission critical_ if putting women in high political offices is to be much more than symbolic.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
The only thing I’d question is the consistent inclusion of the word “white” in front of what I see as the male power structure.
When China decides to exert its power, will women suddenly be better off? As a young woman, I was under the mistaken impression that only white boys were the racists. Consequently, and this was a large part of the attraction, my first husband was of Mexican descent. I came to find out that racism transcends race (that is, the superficial differences commonly referred to as “race”).
Patriarchy also transcends race. I realize many women suffer other grievances in addition to those imposed on them because of their sex. But conflating them confuses the separate issues and their separate remedies.
*****A
-
cellocat says:
Despite the religious right’s assertion that gay marriage will somehow be destructive to the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, I think that straight men are less threatened by the idea of gay equality, because it won’t directly affect them where they live, so to speak. If the women in their lives, however, start demanding and getting equal status in the wider world, it will certainly change their perceptions of their status in their relationships, and therefore affect straight men directly.
Many of those awful jokes about Hillary were deeply personal (”she’s like your nagging ex-wife”) etc. I think a lot of those guys really did think that if Hillary were to become president all those awful women like their ex-wives would feel emboldened, and become even worse.
Violet, thanks for your distinction between political aspiration and political policy.
I would like to be able to vote for someone whose policy choices and actions were sufficiently numerous and consistent that I could be pretty confident that I knew how she or he would govern once in office. I think one of many appealing things about Hillary is that one doesn’t have to guess about her priorities, and how she’d govern. She’s been clear in word and deed for decades. With Palin, however, there’s a lot of guessing that goes on about how conservative she’d be if she were to attain high(er) office. And so Hillary’s political aspirations seem at least to be more clearly in alignment with her policy priorities, which are in alignment with her values. Ie, she aspires to political office because she wants to be able to achieve major policy goals in service of the citizenry of the USA and the people of the world.
For the umpteenth time, *sigh*. I so wish we had President Hillary Clinton in office right now.
-
LV says:
This same paradox - representation v policy - was faced British feminists in the 1980s. In a sense it was even starker: Margaret Thatcher really did represent the extreme right of her party, and her election and government really did represent one of the biggest swings to the right in the country’s electoral history. (It’s hard, surely, to say the same of Palin when she comes from a field that includes people like Huckabee and Romney?)
And yet, I grew up in the 80s. Thatcher’s policies were universally reviled in liberal circles, and rightly so, but for all that, I was young enough when she came to power that for my generation it seemed an unremarkable thing that both the prime minister and the head of state (the queen) were women. Little boys never taunted little girls with ‘girls can’t be in charge’. I remember a teacher mentioning Geraldine Ferraro running in the 1984 US election, and getting the incredulous response from the class ‘but have they never had a woman president before?’.
If Thatcher did nothing else for women, she did that, and it had to be worth something.
-
hilary says:
i don’t think sister kenney should be branded as hating all women because of her comment. you said yourself that there are feminists with varying beliefs that may conflict with those of other feminists, i.e. asserting that a feminist can be anti-choice, and yet sisterkenney is singled out for a different opinion, even if it is somewhat misinformed.
anyway, palin being “not any dumber” than the male meatheads currently in washington does not give me any incentive to support her. i think that the first female president will have to be twice as competent as any male president, sadly, and i can’t entrust sarah palin with that kind of confidence. if she proves enormously incompetent, which i suspect she would since she seems to a high school level of political knowledge, she would set a precedent for all future women candidates, and potentially ruin it for the rest of them, which is terrifying to me. this is not to say that even if we had a competent female president she wouldn’t be derided and held to double standards for being female, but still. i think we can do better than palin, immensely. her inverview with katie couric is paralleled only by bushisms. because i fear for future women candidates, i’d almost rather have another incompetent male president than an incompetent female president that will set a shitty precedent.
