Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be
It’s time for another edition of “comments that should have been posts.” I’m elevating this one to post status because a) it’s true, and b) it’s the kind of thing that gets our stomach acids going for days here in the Smoking Lounge.
At any rate, over in the Hillary poll thread, Alice P. said of Sarah Palin:
I cringe at the idea of someone who is a fundie being the first woman president.
A factoid that’s bandied about is that the first woman leader in most countries is usually a conservative. Somehow that eases the path, since it means that she’s not threatening the patriarchal status quo completely.
Hillary was our nation’s best chance to avoid that fate. She was and is a feminist Democrat. She’s to the left of Obama.
Which of course is why it was such bullshit for the faux-feminists to pretend that they couldn’t support Hillary because she was so “right-wing” or “not feminist enough.” As opposed to Barack Lieberman Obama.
Ironically, Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be.
45 Responses to “Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be”
-
myiq2xu says:
Sarah’s biggest obstacle to becoming POTUS #45 is the GOP establishment. If she convinces them she is not a threat to bring real reform to Washington, get used to hearing “President Palin.”
February 11th, 2010 at 9:23 am EST -
Violet Socks says:
She reminds me very much of Reagan. Heavy on charisma, light on serious politics.
I never thought Reagan made a damn bit of sense, but that obviously didn’t stop him from becoming President.
-
Violet Socks says:
A difference, though, is that I don’t think she’s a phony. Reagan, to me, was unbearably phony. Just a bad actor. Never could understand why people thought he was so genial, etc. What a ham.
Palin, though, has always struck me as being wysiwyg. She seems genuinely down to earth.
-
lambert strether says:
Just because Palin is, personally, light on serious politics doesn’t mean that her election couldn’t have serious political effects. I mean, look at Obama [rimshot, laughter]. It’s just that electing the other candidate will also have serious political effects, and more or less the same ones.
Since I’m resigned to the coming transition from one legacy party to the other anyhow — from the Republican perspective, 2008 was designed to set up 2012, which is why they never did go all in with the usual Rovian-ism — whatever “real reform” [shudder] Palin might bring with her doesn’t matter too much to me, since the differences between the two parties are now so marginal.
* * *
I do note one difference between Palin and the rest of the Republicans: Animal killing and torture is rife in top Republican families (including Huckabee’s) and Palin, so far as I know, doesn’t participate in that.
NOTE So far as I can tell — and the blogs are so polluted on Palin that this is not very far — Palin’s not a fundie. We had some posters who looked into this in the primaries, since that certainly seemed like a more appropriate thing to do than calling her trailer trash, and came up short.
-
lahana says:
Here is my position: If Hillary runs in 2012, I will vote for her in a heartbeat. If Hillary does not run, we are looking at Obama and some other Republican. Of all the Republicans suggested, the one I would be most willing to vote for is Palin. With most of the others, I am stuck in the position of voting third party (throwing away my vote) and sitting out the election — because I will not vote for another term for Obama.
-
Lori says:
I’m not voting for anyone but Hillary from here on out - that is, unless she comes out early in the primary and actually endorses another candidate and works for them from the get go. If that happens, I’ll vote for that person, but that’s it.
Good Democrats refusing to vote is not wasting one’s vote. It sends a very clear message that the candidates aren’t measuring up.
-
monchichipox says:
wysiwyg I had to ask around the office for the meaning of that one. As for comparing Hillary and Sarah it’s fair game. But to conservative women Sarah isn’t our Hillary, Hillary is our Hillary. I’ll tell you one thing though, conservative women learned a great lesson in witnessing what was done to Hillary. They won’t, or will try their hardest, not to let it happen to Sarah.
Trust me on that one.
-
willyjsimmons says:
This does bring up a serious question…
are there ANY acceptable candidates on EITHER side for 2012 or 2016.
WHO? WHO!?!?!?!!?
I can’t think of one person outside of Kucinich. (and the DNC would bury him if he ran in 2012 or 2016 for that matter)
I’ve heard some shouts for Howard Dean, but to me that’s a no-go. BTD and others have even mentioned Wes Clark. (again, no-go in my mind, although…hmmmm)
Might have to start a “Draft Betty White” campaign, cuz I got nuthin.
-
anna says:
I’d love to see Hillary run again, though I doubt she will. But she’s got my vote if she does.
-
Kookaburra says:
The only way to waste one’s vote is to vote for someone you don’t want. We have to get out of this “third party means throwing away your vote” mindset if there’s ever going to be real change in American politics.
-
Sasha, CA says:
I do note one difference between Palin and the rest of the Republicans: Animal killing and torture is rife in top Republican families (including Huckabee’s) and Palin, so far as I know, doesn’t participate in that.
WTF?!? No, she only hunts for sport, ordered wolves shot from airplanes, and had wolf pups gassed in their dens, but otherwise I’m sure she’s totally down with animal rights and habitat protection. It never ceases to amaze me how some people will contort themselves into pretzels to argue that Palin somehow isn’t as bad as other Republicans. Yes, she is.
As for Palin not being a phony, gotta disagree with you there, Violet. Did you catch the brouhaha over Rahm Emanuel’s “retarded” comment? A good friend of mine (very progressive disability rights advocate) was actually applauding Palin for blasting Emanuel and taking a stand against the use of the word, arguing that this is an issue near and dear to her heart because of Trig. Then Limbaugh says the same thing, and suddenly — surprise, surprise — Palin is totally fine with calling people “retards.” So much for her being even remotely sincere.
-
Lori says:
Sasha,
I think Lambert is differentiating between hunters and people who torture and kill their neighbor’s house pet. In Bush’s case, he used to stick firecrackers up frog butts, throw them in the air and watch them explode.
You may not approve of Palin hunting wolves. It certainly isn’t my cup of tea. But it’s a fundamentally different psyche than, say, Huckabee’s son who got in trouble for hanging the neighbor’s dog. There are environmental reasons for what she’s doing. You and I may not agree with those reasons, but they do exist.
-
willyjsimmons says:
Sarah Palin had wolf pups gassed in their dens or…
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game PROPOSED gassing wolf pups in their dens?
As an aside: a google search on this topic brings up some very shady and STALKER like discussions of the issue. (creepy websites with “scary” looking Sarah Palin photos, just like they do to Hillary Clinton, pick a photo of her looking somewhat stern HA HA HA HA!!!! *gasp*)
I HARDLY doubt it was Sarah Palin that cooked up the plan to gas “poor little wolf pups” because she hates wildlife and the entire concept of conservation.
And I can find no proof that any such gassing ever occurred, or even made it out of the PROPOSAL phase.
Jeez Louise.
If conservatives are bat shit…WTF is OUR problem?
-
willyjsimmons says:
My phrasing is a little bad there…
*I HIGHLY doubt.
I need to go to lunch.
LOL
-
Patti says:
Sasha,
The hunting of wolves in Alaska is to thin the population to save the caribou & moose. It is certainly controversial, but has been a long-standing wildlife management program that’s been in place for decades so why do you make Sarah Palin personally & solely responsible? Have you targeted every Governor in office prior to Palin? What about the new Governor? -
Violet Socks says:
I need to go to lunch.
Dude, you must be on the west coast. It’s way past lunchtime here in Snow Land.
-
Sasha, CA says:
It is certainly controversial, but has been a long-standing wildlife management program
Yes, and Palin vehemently supported and defended this barbaric “program.” Alaska’s new Republican governor will most likely continue the slaughter. My argument isn’t that Palin is worse than other Republicans. My argument is that she fits right in.
-
Patti says:
So you’ve made it clear that you think hunting is “barbaric”. Well, that would be your opinion. (I have never hunted, btw). Like I said, this practice in Alaska is a wildlife management program, not some barbaric slaughter and not for sport. You have not described the situation accurately. It is not a partisan issue, even though you and others have tried to make it that way by singling out Palin. I’ll bet most people never knew of the practice until Palin came on to the national scene.
-
Michele Braa-Heidner says:
OK, if we are going to discuss hunting and how barbaric it is, I must ask you this: is hunting for meat and for the fur less or more barbaric then what goes on in our agribusinesses? If you answered hunting is less barbaric, you would be correct!!
It amuses me when some people who are avidly against hunting (not sport hunting, but for the meat and fur), go to the supermarket each weak and buy nicely packaged sterile packages of meat that is far removed from the torture and slaughter of the actual animal it used to be. I believe that if Sarah Palin is brave enough to kill the animal that she eats sometimes, then she is braver than I and most people I know. Most people would stop eating meat if they had to kill it themselves; hence, we have agribusinesses that treat sentient beings like car parts. Supply and demand at it’s best!!
Now about the wolves in Alaska, although I disagree with the selective hunting of wolves to keep the population of the other animals up, I also understand how and why she came to this decision. That said, if it were up to me, I would have spent the money to find a better solution for the wolves, which would not have had included killing them.
-
Saurs says:
Palin is an ordinary woman and up until rather recently lived an ordinary life, by which I mean her upbringing, her education, her hobbies, her family, don’t seem alien to most folks. Everybody, so the truism goes (as it did about W. Bush, too), knows somebody like Sarah Palin. A best friend, an aunt, a mother, a neighbor. That she’s audacious enough to concede to her ordinariness and isn’t prone to making pretentious claims about herself, overstating her own accomplishments, charm, or intellectual prowess, sticks in a lot of people’s craw, it seems. Don’t get them wrong! They’re all for sisters doing it for themselves! But there’s something about Palin that irks them. Something a little too familiar for their liking. Call it “low rent” or class-less or just plain ol’ “nasty.”
The vocabulary used by the anti-Palin self-proclaimed feminists and actual anti-feminists isn’t so different, really. It’s not that they hate women, they just hate any woman who actually looks and acts(and quacks) like a woman.
Ironically, Palin really is the right-wing woman that the faux-feminists claimed Hillary to be.
That’s the point, really. It’s not that Palin detractors hate women, oh no! It’s just that there’s no woman on the face of the planet, alive right now, doing her own thing, speaking in her own voice, looking whichever way she chooses, occupying valuable space on whatever end of the political spectrum catches her fancy, that’s good enough to live up to the “exceptional woman” guidelines. It’s not that they’re against women, these guardians of female-elected-representativehood, it’s just that no woman is ever actually good enough to pass muster, whether it’s the leftie feminist credibility test or some other distraction.
Reminds me a great deal of a moderated comment Twisty was more than happy to share over at IBTP. It seems a guy was all for classy dames in theory, but in real life, all he met were “hoes.” Twisty said the comment:
reveals a facet of American manhood we see all too little of: the tortured inner conflict suffered by a sensitive intellectual chap who despises all the women he has actually met.
A lot of Palin haters (like many Hillary haters) don’t dislike women in theory (particularly when they invoke the memory of some long-dead white woman who they would ostensibly support in order to make a facile comparison with someone who is living and breathing right now), they just specifically hate all women who have ever tried something in their own lifetime for very complicated reasons, like being not feminist enough, sounding too militant or strident, not being the right kind of feminist, being screechy, uppity, nasty, ugly, “too hot,” or any other gendered pejorative you can think of. The credibility of dude politicians, meanwhile, whether they’re currently marketing themselves as folksy populists or as brainiac over-achievers, is never really questioned. They may be disparaged for hyperbole while acting the part, but they’re never accused of (the entirely bizarre crime of) being too much like a man. Whereas that’s Palin’s problem altogether, it would be seem: she’s just too much like a normal woman (read: person) for some people to handle.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Aside:
On the subject of meat, I just finished a great book called The Family That Couldn’t Sleep by D.T. Max, 2006, that traces the development of prion diseases. Reads like a thriller, winding together threads on selective animal breeding, egotistical researchers, and industry cover-ups, all marinated in the greed and arrogance of men who created some very nasty problems for human health and food supply. I’m half Italian, so found that history interesting. A good companion to other warnings about frankenfoods, like the documentary Food, Inc. Don’t be surprised if your perspective on eating meat, packaged or wild, is different after reading this book.*****A
-
s.khan says:
During the campaign, I felt compelled to do some research into Alaska’s wolf management program due to a friend forwarding Eve Ensler’s needless smear of Palin.
This page largely formed the basis of my response, though it doesn’t seem to work anymore. http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov.....gement.pdf
This is a current page containing some similar information: http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us.....feb_09.pdf
Recap: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is in charge of the wolf control programs. They differentiate that from hunting (though the wolves obviously wouldn’t make the distinction). The purpose is maintaining the ungulate populations at a level where they can be harvested for human consumption while maintaining a healthy herd, though there is some sport hunting that goes on and is a part of the local economies as well. Wasting meat is illegal and subject to fine and imprisonment (this on a different page on the same state site). The Alaska constitution requires maintenance of prey animal herds for food, since other meats, beef, pork, etc. may not even be available in many parts of the state and a large segment of the public relies on game for meat. There are other avenues that have been tried like wolf sterilization but that is much more costly or logistically unfeasible on a large scale.
Some “yahooism” (as my friend put it) in the predator control program may be inevitable in practice, but the program is designed to be closely regulated to provide for a balanced population of wolves to prey animals, and aerial shooting is allowed only in the separate predator control program rather than under a regular hunting license. Technically, it isn’t sport and therefore isn’t “sporting”. The whole issue has been kicked around and gone back and forth since before statehood.
I don’t see this measured policy, unappealing as it is to those of us who can easily pop over to a well-stocked supermarket, as especially barbaric. -
Sasha, CA says:
So you’ve made it clear that you think hunting is “barbaric”.
Actually I did no such thing. What I referred to as barbaric is Alaska’s policy of shooting wolves from aircrafts (often after first chasing them to exhaustion) and gassing their dens. There is a reason why the federal government banned aerial hunting nearly 40 years ago (unfortunately Alaska continues to exploit a loophole in the law). Hunting is big business in Alaska. The vast majority of Alaskan game is killed by urban and non-resident trophy hunters, not local subsistence hunters. And Alaska’s Board of Game is made up exclusively of members of the hunting lobby appointed directly by the governor. They start out with artificially inflated population targets for moose and caribou. When one then adds overhunting (by humans), poaching, destruction of wildlife habitat, and climate changes to the mix, it’s easy to see how wolves become convenient scapegoats for the actions of humans (60-70% of the moose eaten by wolves are actually scavenged, not hunted). None of this stopped Palin from being an ardent supporter and defender of Alaska’s “wildlife management program.” In fact, when the number of wolves slaughtered from aircrafts was a little too low for her taste one year, she offered a $150 cash bounty for wolf paws. So let’s not pretend that she somehow isn’t as reprehensible as other Republicans when it comes to the killing and torture of animals.
-
Aspen says:
Thanks to all the Real Americans who have been kind and patient enough to explain the concept of wildlife conservation to us Fake Americans.
Sadly, I still have a hard time appreciating how images of a grinning woman proudly holding bloody dead animals = teh ultimate in sexxay. I think that if you Real Americans where really the “no-nonsense” good ole boys and gals you like to think of yourselves as, you wouldn’t be pushing the sexxay angle so hard. This is the right wing version of the liberal sex pozzie, porn-lovin, stripper-loving man’s woman. what we have before us our women internalizing and projecting male values. nothing new. -
madamab says:
Yes, Violet, she is indeed.
As I said on my own blog today, however, there is nothing strange, bizarre or abhorrent about her. The way the liberal dood blogs act, it’s as if they’ve never seen a Reaganesque Republican before. Her ladyparts turn their brains all squiggly.
-
Patti says:
Sasha,
I recognize your talking points from Defenders of Wildlife. I did my own research last year as they seemed to be using Sarah Palin as a scapegoat for their cause. I encourage you to examine the facts from various sources besides those anti-Palin. First off, the areas in Alaska where wolves can legally be killed is 1% of all game mgt areas and these areas are remote and that is why aircraft is used. We’re not in Kansas anymore. Secondly, the $150 “cash bounty” as you put it was to reimburse pilots (& not the general public, but hunters for hire) as they are requested to reduce the predation (do you think flying an aircraft around vast Alaska is cheap?) and bringing a paw back is to prove it was done and for biological information. The number of wolves actually killed is a very small percentage of the total wolf population. I get that you don’t like Sarah Palin, but barbaric she is not and this controversy over controlling the wolf population has been going on for over half a century and will continue. -
myiq2xu says:
So much for her being even remotely sincere
Sarah Palin is a mainstream conservative Republican politician.
It’s kind of silly to single her out and criticize her for acting and/or talking like a mainstream conservative Republican politician or for engaging in pro-GOP partisanship.
-
Violet Socks says:
Thanks to all the Real Americans who have been kind and patient enough to explain the concept of wildlife conservation to us Fake Americans.
Sadly, I still have a hard time appreciating how images of a grinning woman proudly holding bloody dead animals = teh ultimate in sexxay.Who are you talking to? No one in this thread is saying stuff like that.
-
Violet Socks says:
As for Palin not being a phony, gotta disagree with you there, Violet.
I’m talking about her manner, her personal demeanor. Not her sincerity vis-a-vis various talking points.
Palin’s demeanor seems to me completely natural and unstudied. I realize some people disagree — these are the people who usually accuse her of being fake-folksy, etc. — but I sometimes wonder if that’s because they’re urban types or something and they don’t know anyone like that. I know lots of people who speak and act like Sarah Palin.
Reagan, on the other hand, was a phony. He was a bad actor playing the part of a genial politician. Everything about him — the cadence of his speech, his mannerisms — was just achingly false. Like bad community theatre.
-
votermom says:
I watched that interview last year in Palin’s home (by Greta) and she talked about how they (community) would share the meat from a moose or caribou. if you grew up where that kind of community sharing is the norm, imo you have a much deeper understanding of what a safety net is than many Whole Food Nation types do.
Googling .. transcript here near bottom.
VAN SUSTEREN: How many caribou do you think you shot?
PALIN: Just a few. It depends on who has the permits and who maybe hasn’t shot one in a while. Everyone shares in the game, all the family and friends.
VAN SUSTEREN: Where do you do this?
PALIN: It depends upon what district, what area is open, and how convenient it is.For caribou it is about an hour drive where we go to hunt. Moose, depending on the season, again, and permitting, you see moose around here in this area, and they can be harvested.
The processing of it, though, it’s kind of a cultural thing where everyone gets together and does the processing of it. Usually the patriarch of the family, my dad, he’ll do the butchering, and then we all held bone the meat and process it ourselves, making hamburger and sausages, and all that.
Nowadays because there are a couple of meat processing plants, we will drop it off there and they process it. Then everyone stays up all night long wrapping it and delivering it to different freezers. And then you consume it through the winter.
VAN SUSTEREN: Could a moose feed your family for the winter?
PALIN: Yes, depending on how it is processed, sure. Moose and a caribou and then the fish that we catch through the summer. Yes, you could definitely go all winter long without ever purchasing meet.
-
Jadzia says:
Whole Foods Nation indeed. I grew up in a part of the country that was very poor and where hunting was the norm. Our family was one of the few in town that didn’t hunt, but our neighbors always shared with us anyway, so that Palin/van Susteren interview really brings back some memories.
We actually got the first day of the season off from school! Which kind of horrified my born-in-California mom.
-
lambert strether says:
Violet writes:
Palin’s demeanor seems to me completely natural and unstudied.
Reminds me of the old SNL skit: “Genius!” “No, acting!”
I think that the possibility of any national-level politician being — of course, they would “seem” — “completely natural and unstudied” is almost vanishingly small. The pressures are simply too great. This isn’t even a judgment (”phony”); it’s just the nature of the case.
And I also think the sort of narrative that “natural and unstudied” supports should be carefully considered; particularly when it comes from the right.
-
Toonces says:
I’m with lambert. I do find Palin’s folksiness over the top, to the point of phoniness, but I think that’s true of most/all politicians, including the Clintons sometimes out on the campaign trail.
I’ve shot guns, I grew up right next to some of the greatest wilderness in the US, I’ve known a lot of “folksy” or genuine people who live in the same house their parents built and grew up in, I’ve been to rodeos, etc. I still find what Palin does to be in the category of DOING charm, rather than BEING charming. It’s not meant to be an insult to her. In fact, I give her credit for being savvy. She did afterall study journalism. If she didn’t pick up something there about how to be personable, then I might think she was dumb.
-
Sasha, CA says:
I encourage you to examine the facts from various sources besides those anti-Palin.
I did, and the government’s numbers just aren’t credible. Alaskan authorities claim that over 80% of the moose and caribou that die each year are killed by wolves and other (non-human) predators, while hunters and trappers are supposedly responsible for less than 10% of kills. Simple math tells us that that’s not possible. There aren’t enough wolves (or moose and caribou) for that to add up. These figures are so wildly inaccurate, they call into question all other government data on this issue as well.
While I wish everyone was a vegetarian, I realize that a completely vegetarian diet may be difficult to implement in remote parts of Alaska. My issue is not with the local subsistence hunters, but with the sport and trophy hunters who kill the majority of Alaskan game. According to local subsistence hunters, these folks have a far greater impact on the availability of game animals than wolves and bears (on top of that, they’re in the habit of leaving campsites with mountains of trash behind, further endearing thems to the locals). Perhaps the government should start gunning down sport and trophy hunters from aircrafts. It would certainly make more sense than to go after wolves who are merely trying to survive.
I’m opposed to all “predator control” programs that involve the slaughter of animals (I believe they are worse than unnecessary with the damage they do to a region’s ecological balance all in the interest of artificially boosting game populations for hunters), but aerial hunting is particularly barbaric because it frequently involves the prolonged torture of the hunted animals (if you’re an animal lover, I urge you not to view some of the videos). When Palin was governor, she not only championed these programs, she routinely refused to meet with or even talk to wildlife scientists who were trying to inject some science into the government’s understanding of predator/ungulate relationships. Clearly her mind was already made up. Sadly, Palin is far from unique. Her indifference toward the suffering of animals is emblematic of conservatives in both parties (I’m reminded of Harold Ford recently bragging that he likes to shoot animals who can’t shoot back; what a man!).
-
lambert strether says:
Sasha C, see here on animal suffering. You may correct me with examples I don’t know of, but Republicans actively seeking to kill and torture animals seems to me one of the very few moral distinctions between the legacy parties.
-
monchichipox says:
Oh. Vegetarians. If loving bacon is wrong I don’t want to be right.
-
lambert strether says:
monchichipox: Well, at least make sure it’s not factory farmed. The people fighting having Big Food put a hog farm lagoon in their back yards will thank you, at least.
-
lambert strether says:
And just to combine the food thread with the the topic of the post, I loved this quote from Palin:
Usually the patriarch of the family, my dad, he’ll do the butchering…
True in so many ways!
-
marylee says:
Sasha 34 I’m sorry but I don’t think you are correct. My brother flew to Alaska several years ago with some friends to go hunting. They were flown in to a camp and left. They all shot their ONE moose. Because of weather they weren’t picked up on time and even though a herd came nearby they couldn’t shoot any more. They were allowed ONE each and that was it! Also EVERYTHING was hauled off - nothing left behind. My brother hunts every year and while I don’t hunt - I sure like his deer jerky.
-
ErikZ says:
“Simple math tells us that that’s not possible.”
What simple math? You didn’t tell us any numbers or where you got them.
The whole *point* of Science is showing other people your raw data and how you came to your conclusions.
Anything else is just a popularity contest.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
I think it’s not real vs fake Americans but rather rural vs urban Americans when it comes to comfort level wrt Palin. I agree with Violet that if you haven’t met a woman like Palin, there’s bound to be not only misunderstanding, but a certain level of instinctive dislike, depending on your background. I also agree that wysiwyg is a perfect description of Palin and that much of it comes from her background - she can’t be bothered to put on an act and learn a different way of being just to become likeable or pleasing and I find that damned refreshing.
When I first became acquainted with anthropological theories about how environment shapes the character of people I found it intriguing, but wasn’t entirely convinced by the data at hand. I think the classic example is the ancient river civilizations - Egypt with the gentle, controllable Nile and Mesopotamia with the violent, uncontrollable Tigris and Euphrates. The Egyptians made great advances as a civilization because they were able to harness their river instead of constantly fighting to survive its disasters like the Mesopotamians. OTOH, if it doesn’t kill you, it makes you tough - there’s hardly anybody stupid enough to mess with descendants of the Mesopotamians, with the notable exceptions of presidents bearing the Bush surname, while the descendants of the Egyptians, gypsies, have been endlessly messed with.
Then there’s Margaret Mead with her theory about people growing up in cities never finding out who they are because they’re so busy going along to get along just to survive. People who grow up in the country tend to have more personal freedom, as well as less distractions, to go about finding out who they are, and what they’ll stand for, and what they won’t. It’s just a theory, but the more I see of Palin, and how she is received in fly-over country vs urban areas, the more credence I give it. Then there’s the whole frontier fringe of rural, where people tend naturally towards bootstrappism - if you and your ancestors were not self-reliant and self-sufficient, you tended to not survive, let alone reproduce. OTOH, as mentioned previously, there’s a sense of community with far-flung neighbors and a sense of hospitality that would make most of us seem downright rude and inhospitable. What with shelter and food being sparse and conditions often life-threatening, not taking in a relative stranger for long periods of time is about the same thing as murdering them. Alaska and the Canadian frontier are a whole nother America, and the Canadians have actual healthcare for all; these things may be related.
As a feminist, it does not escape me how much pressure the patriarchy exerts on women to be pleasing, and how going along to some degree is just a way of life with most women. Similarities between Sarah and Hillary are pretty obvious, but it’s the differences that are really interesting. Hillary is a party loyalist, above all, having invested most of her political life in the dems. When the party establishment wouldn’t countenance an overqualified woman running for president, she stepped aside for a guy with a thin resume and no leadership ability. Sarah has had to fight her party’s establishment to get anywhere and has won so far. I think she was also sending a signal to the GOP establishment when she keynoted the Tea Party convention - she’s got somewhere else to go if they get in her way. I can see her running as an independent; Hillary, never. I think the only hope of ever getting Hillary to run again is a big Draft Hillary movement by the 18 million or so with good judgement, joined by those who’ve awoken from their koolaid stupor. The trouble is, I don’t think there’s many of us who want anything to do with the dems anymore, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
-
monchichipox says:
Just another food comment. One thing I have to disagree with though is Sarah’s love for moose. Yuck. I’ve tried it a few times and it’s like chewing meet flavored gum. Caribou on the other hand is absolutely delicious. While venison may be the baby Jesus of meat caribou is at least the Virgin Mary.
Having grown up on a farm and hunting I can’t eat grocery store or agribusiness meat. Has zero flavor, smell, or taste. I’d just as soon go kill a couple rabbits myself and eat those. Or go to my brother’s farm, grab a chicken, swirl it around by it’s neck(I learned that trick from my grandmother. Cleaner and easier than the beheading)and prepare it. I tell you though you haven’t eaten great meat until you’ve been in a smoke house and just grabbed a hunk of ham from a hanging carcass.
-
SYD says:
I know you are not a particularly superstitious person Violet. But I’m gonna spout anyways. Cuz I am, and I don’t think it hurts to have more than a few perspectives in big matters.
First, I’ll say that I am wholly in agreement with your assessment. Palin is the “not feminist enough” female pol that the Faux Femmes accused Hillary of being. But…. there’s more…
And here’s the deal:
The Goddess I know most often offers the easy remedy first. In this case, she offered an Athenian Hillary. “Sprung from her husband’s brow” (in the sense that she played by the rulez of da patriarchy.)
Alas, the Faux Femmes rejected that particular representation. For whatever *excuses* they can muster. (I say *excuses* cuz there are no legitimate “reasons.”)
The Goddess I know, however, does not take “No” for an answer. Next time She won’t be so fun. Or so palatable. But there She is. And She will use whomever she can to set things straight.
Let me just say…. I *hope* Palin is as bad as it gets. Cuz, if we, as a collective, reject Her again…. the cosmic shit will likely hit the fan.
Third time is a charm, as they say. I’m not sure who the “Kali Ma” of female Pols/ Presidents is. But we ain’t seen her yet, that I know. If we ever do … we will look back on Palin/ Artemis (we eat therefore we hunt) as a walk in the cosmic park.
That’s my take. Oh, and I will vote for Hillary. Or Palin. Or Ma Kali… if the opportunity arises. Cuz that’s how I roll.
-
SYD says:
While I am here, I’ll just add… I have a dickens of a time getting in to read your blog. But I always keep trying…. and eventually I get in to play catch-up.
Good entry, Dr. Socks!
-
lambert strether says:
Speaking of female candidates, Corrente is doing a live blog with Pat LaMarche, Green candidate for VP in 2004.
