Mother Jones, bastion of true feminism
Courtesy of The Confluence, I see that Mother Jones’s latest magazine cover features Sarah Palin as a scantily-clad highly sexualized monster. Well, of course. All women with political aspirations have to be turned into sexualized monsters, right? That’s how patriarchy works. As Anglachel observes:
Calling women whores for political fun and profit is not just for Jerry Brown’s campaign. It is the way that political challenges from strong minded women are met. Whitman, Hill and Palin are all turned into objects of desire, and then their actions are judged by their ostensible fuckability quotient – too old and dried up so she’s whoring, too independent and aloof, so she’s a liar, too slutty and hot, so we can’t take her seriously. It’s how you try to delegitimize a woman seeking, or even merely disrupting, power, by foregrounding her sexuality. It also cuts to the infantile root of the fear of strong women, that they may turn into all-powerful monsters who keep you from having sex and might even kill you.
What’s hilarious (to me, at least) is that I’m absolutely positive that the feminists over at Mother Jones who dreamed this up are furious about Sarah Palin daring to call herself a feminist. Because she isn’t doing feminism correctly, like they are.
37 Responses to “Mother Jones, bastion of true feminism”
-
tpfka nycblue says:
Yes, you are right on the money. She doesn’t do feminism correctly like they do!!!
It disgusts and disheartens me that Mother Jones – Mother Jones! – would stoop this low.
October 26th, 2010 at 9:16 pm EST -
Sameol says:
I suppose I prefer this to Jerry Brown as Van Helsing trying to drive a stake through a fanged, blood dripping Meg Whitman. Which was probably the runner up.
-
Sharon says:
There is a consistent strategy used against female candidates, and it’s nauseating. They’re classified as follows:
1. The Bitch – a woman too rich, too powerful, too capable, or too serious to be taken…seriously. She’s dangerous! She’s a witch! Kill her! See Clinton and now Whitman campaign for recent examples.2. The Cunt – she’s too hot to be taken seriously. She’s fuckable, but not worthy. Women hate her, because she’s hot. She probably doesn’t do feminism their way, because the Charlie’s Angels type of feminist woman (looks hot and kicks butt too, is just so passe). Men love her because she’s hot, but don’t take her seriously. See Sarah Palin for recent examples. In fact, it’s highly amusing that the left denounces hot women on the right as rotten candidates and refuses to admit they’re human, never mind take them seriously. Even when they should.
3. The Invisible – well, she’s a woman. So why bother listening? Just ignore her. See Cynthia McKinney’s campaign. Being black was great for Obama, while McKinney couldn’t get a second of airtime. Hmmm. That uber cool factor of being a black presidential candidate didn’t extend at all when the candidate was a woman.
The ONLY way to stop this crap is for women to run the world. Must get on it ASAP.
-
Sameol says:
To be fair, women don’t hate attractive Republican women because they’re hot. Liberal women don’t care for them because they’re conservative, which is understandable. It’s just not understandable when they flirt with the “Caribou Barbie” side of things and go along with demeaning them as bimbos, or when they hold them to a much higher standard than men of any party.
-
quixote says:
Mother Jones? Christ on a bike in a pancake hat. Makes me glad I stopped subscribing years ago.
-
anna says:
Oh for the love of cheese!
This is sexist bullshit which only encourages women to support her. Why can’t they just attack her positions, as they would do for any man?
“Liberals shouldn’t vote for Sarah Palin because she supports U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, supports a Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage, supports parental consent requirements for female minors seeking an abortion, and thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion should be a state issue (which would mean women in many states could not get a legal abortion.)”
Is that so hard?
-
gxm17 says:
anna, unfortunately that tactic doesn’t work because the Democratic Party is supporting those very same things. (In their bizarro world, passive-aggressive, doublespeak way.) Yep, woman-hate and accusations of racism are about all the Dems seem to have going right now, seeing as how they’ve moved so far right of center that they are sitting in the Republicans’ laps.
-
votermom says:
There’s even an animated version here!
http://motherjones.com/media/2.....-animationSarah will eat your brainz!
-
monchichipox says:
If I my though, just a side note? All and all I wish my tits could still hold up a halter top.
-
monchichipox says:
And don’t forget this one that MJ linked to calling it “terrific”
-
kiuku says:
I love the rash of videos in which male candidates portray themselves as fictional characters symbolically murdering the female candidates as villains.
-
K.A. says:
Ugh, all and all, I don’t think that monchichipox comment belongs in this space.
-
AngryPunkPixie says:
*slams head on desk*
-
monchichipox says:
Sorry K.A. it was meant to be stupid and sarcastic. Much like the work of art. At least I didn’t say Craig Kilborn wished that. . . . His name makes people really mad here. I’m working on some more appropriate laugh material….it starts like this
A female CEO walks into a bar…
Again sorry. Believe it or not I crack people up in person. In writing not so much.
-
Me says:
Whats up with Mother Jones?
The other “headline”: Did Reality TV Kill This Second-Grader?
Are they just stealing copy from the NY Post and merging it with pics from Victorias Secret?
Absolute crap.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Irony & sarcasm are hard to suss out on the intertoobz.
-
julia says:
I’ve been waiting for someone to comment on Jerry Brown. It seems like anything sexist wafts by people’s noses these days, like the garbage truck passing by. It’s one more tactic to shut us up and make us walk the streets loking down at the sidewalk.
I can hardly believe that there is so much support in California; for Jerry Brown anyway, even most liberals don’t like him a whole lot. This reminds me of women who supported Joe Biden after the ‘surprise’ he pulled on Anita Hill.
Yesterday, Mitch Jezerich (Letters to Washington) asked Ralph Nader, ‘Well, if you don’t run for president in 2012, who will?’ and Nader says ‘Oh, Jim Hightower could do it, Colonel West, even you!’. Of course they never mention the women: Cynthia McKinney, Medea Benjamin, Cindy Sheehan.
We don’t count.
-
Lori says:
Brown’s not good on women’s issues – what with that Jesuit background, I guess. But he is good on economic issues. I have no concerns about him siding needlessly with corporate America to enhance his own personal wealth at the expense of the California middle class. So, he gets my vote. As a feminist, I’m not happy about the lack of choices that we had in the primary. As a citizen whose industry has been decimated these past ten years, I’m voting my pocketbook this time out. Meg Whitman is a nightmare. She doesn’t know the issues and she’s talking tax cuts that will obliterate California’s ability to function. I’m not voting third party and letting that happen.
As for the presidential race, McKinney never impressed me. I’m not surprised her campaign didn’t take off. But four years earlier, Carole Mosley Braun held her own very well and didn’t get even a minute’s worth of serious consideration.
-
monchichipox says:
I’m with you on Carole Mosley Braun. I’m one of the few conservative women on here but Carol was telling it like it was. I listened to her in the debates and I just kept thinking “sister go” I wish it had been so. Even the audiences at the debates that she was in were surprised how much they like her. At least judging from their response. I knew it was it hopeless though.
-
Carmonn says:
I’ve heard “I’m against the casual acceptance of sexism–but this is different” or “I’m against the use of campaign misogyny–but that doesn’t apply in this situation” about Jerry Brown one time too many.
Sure, it’s different, this time it’s someone you like. I don’t hold out any hope at all that sexism will ever be a disqualification from voting for someone the way racism is, but if we could just be honest about it. If instead of putting Superman on the cover of Ms., we could acknowledge all of his flaws yet still acknowledge that in other areas there are no doubt valid reasons to vote for him. If everyone on all sides of the political spectrum could just admit, yes, I’m voting for the sexist jerk, because he’s my sexist jerk, but that doesn’t make it okay to be a sexist jerk and doesn’t mean I won’t call him out on it, maybe we’d make some progress. It’s a start, anyway.
-
Ellie says:
No, voting for sexist jerks no matter how much you agree with them or how much you disagree with their opponents, especially if those opponents are women, will only encourage more sexist jerks to run. Calling someone out on sexism and voting for him anyway sends the message that you’ll overlook it next time, too.
-
anna says:
No black person would vote for a racist no matter what their politics were. Women should do the same. If you haven’t got a Green Party option and don’t want to vote Repub, and the Dem is sexist, do a write in or stay home. Don’t ignore sexism and vote for them anyway. That shows them it doesn’t matter.
-
Cynthia Ruccia says:
you tell ‘em Violet!!!! If ANYONE tells me that women have made progress I’m going to set them straight.
And if it’s a man I’m going to ask him what size condom he wears……
-
julia says:
I thought Brown could have said ‘I made a typical sexist mistake and I deeply apologize to my opponent. It’s never OK to use that kind of language’. He could have used his mistake as a teaching moment.
On the obscurity of sexism but not racism, weren’t we talking about this right here on this blog in 2007? Nothing has changed. Not even on Pacifica Radio, where so many shows are about racism, but so few about sexism. And the main one on racism (Davy D’s Hard Knock Radio) is often sexist itself, especially in it’s omission of women guests.
-
Carmonn says:
I don’t disagree, Ellie, but unfortunately, that’s inevitable anyway. Not only is there no way to prevent anti-sexism voters from choosing sexist jerks, these “Macaca” moments actually help when they’re about sexism. As it’s inevitable, I just think that principled criticism, rather than ignoring and justification and outright glorification, might at least advance the dialogue a little.
-
K.A. says:
Sorry, Monchichipox! Irony should always be obvious in a feminist space, but I had just come off of a shakesville thread in which I got banned for responding to a comment defending the awesomeness of a bald vagina as sexy and not having anything whatsoever to do with, oh, I don’t know, porn, or patriarchy, or sexualizing little girls.
It happens even in feminist spaces. And in feminist publications.
-
Gayle says:
K.A.,
Why were you banned for that? Did you insult the person (they don’t like that there) or are they specifically banning comments that have a whiff of radical feminism now?
I find that site increasingly confusing.
-
chaos says:
*waves hand* @k.a. that is just stupid for one to get banned for that over at shakes. was it just that comment or u can’t comment at all anymore?
as for the mother jones cover. i tend to think if you run for office u better be prepared for sexist comments. i don’t think it is right. as for sarah p. i can’t say i’m gonna defend her, she’s trying to use the whole MILF thing to get people on her side. the side of which i do not agree at all. -
K.A. says:
Well, it was a long comment thread, and I was responding to an earlier comment upthread as I was making my way down (I don’t typically read like 100 comments before responding to a repulsive one that merits a response). But somewhere AFTER the dumb comment, McEwan posted that she was banning anyone who talked about waxed vaginas. But I hadn’t gotten that far in the thread to see that! So I’m banned I guess. Heh.
But the reason I thought it was fine to talk about it is because another commenter and McEwan herself were discussing the waxed vag topic within the thread, before she put up the ban warning (?!?!) So yeah, color me confused.
Shakesville lost me a long time ago, but I had still appreciated it in many ways, hence my occasional participation there even after the ridiculous Clinton debacle, among other issues.
Anyway, that’s why I guess I took Monchichipox’s comment at face value. It happens over there, it happens in Mother Jones, so….
-
Sameol says:
I feel like the minute this tape was released, Jerry Brown became Governor of California. If not then, then the moment in the debate when he ridiculed the notion that calling a woman a whore is in any way comparable to using a racial slur.
He could have used it as a teaching moment, but it’s not in his nature and not the politically expedient thing to do.
He wants to win. He’ll do what works.
-
Violet Socks says:
I just read a comment thread at TPM or whatever the hell it’s called — that horrible sexist faux-liberal thing that Josh Marshall started. Anyway, the post was ridiculing Sarah Palin for quoting Clarence Darrow (because the author of the post thinks Palin is an anti-evolutionist, which she’s not, etc.) — anyway, the comment thread was just toxic. Comment after comment calling her a twat, a bimbo, a cunt, a whore, etc., etc. No actual content in any of the comments; just the joy of pure misogyny.
Can you imagine if leftists were unable to criticize, say, Michael Steele or Alan Keyes without reflexively and compulsively using the n-word and talking about lynching? If threads at TPM were filled with comment after comment talking about “n—–s” and Sambos and god knows what else?
Fucking disgusting.
-
monchichipox says:
Well K.A. in your defense. I recently had a friend who was fighting cancer. When the hair “down there”(we called it her pussy but we have mouths like that and I don’t want offend anyone here) fell out we were in hysterics about how it was like saying hi to a friend she hadn’t seen in years. She found it quite pretty. Sadly it was one of the last belly laughs we shared together. She was the only friend who had a mouth worse than mine. That kind of friend is hard to find. We used to just blame our filthy mouths on both of us having lots of older brothers.
-
the15th says:
I was starting to wonder whether all the stuff about how O’Donnell, Angle and Palin are all crazy is actually rooted in sexism, when it was reported that Rand Paul was projected to win, and I realized: I completely forgot about Rand Paul and how crazy he is. I haven’t heard anything about him since he won the primary!
-
K.A. says:
…I guess my irony meter is broken.
-
roofingbird says:
MIne too K. A. I thought the MJ cover was an good ironic reference to the 50 foot woman.
I remember that movie. It represented pretty well what happened to women and how they were treated and viewed, in the fifties. I wonder however, if there is a whole generation that doesn’t know the movie as reference, since the last rendition was in 1993.
-
K.A. says:
…I guess I can’t adequately address what it is that broke in this thread.
-
Grace says:
In relation to the comments in this thread about Jerry Brown, first of all, Brown wasn’t the one who referred to Whitman as “whore;” it was his campaign manager during a phone conversation that was supposed to be private. Second of all, the use of the word “whore” in politics and otherwise, it also applies to men, and it simply means “selling out.” Brown should have said just that, or something like: “I regret the use of that word by my campaign manager to describe the shameful behavior of my opponent, as she sold out to the unions in order to gain their endorsement.”
