Win!

And here I thought she drove me crazy because she's against equal pay/rights and repo rights. Me and my silly feminist issues.

Yup, she is filled with win and awesome.

Did you ever think you'd see a successful woman seriously discussing feminist issues in the normal course of business in the MSM?

yah know, rachel beats sarah in the hotness department any day of the week.

Omg! It all makes sense to me now! I hate Sarah Palin because she works! Thank you old white men!

I think you should think that you can't love Rachel Maddow more as frequently as humanly possible.

Here's a quote for you, it comes from a girl who I was about to date - that is until she wrote a long email espousing the virtue of McCain.

'At least my guy and party are willing to let a great looking lady stand up there in a skirt and not look like a dike and only wear pants suits because it's a "man's world".'

In the midwest, all women who wear pants suits are dikes and all men who put skirt wearing - attractive women on a podium are good men. Encouraging isn't it.

(Needless to say, I tore her email apart. It's rare that I see a girl sticking her foot so far in her mouth that she is rendered completely undatable - usually that's my job.)

I hate it when women are happy, when they are unhappy, then I become happy, then I get angry because I am happy. grrrrrh

Well, this criticism is kind of unfair. You see, Bennett and Davis developed that radio show on the basis of interviews with Palin's former and current co-workers. Male or female, feminist or traditionalist, one and all they deplored her habit of smiling and winking and dancing little happy-steps and singing happy little songs all day long. Typical of their complaints is the following, from co-worker J.S.M. (names have been obfuscated to protect against official retribution):

"There's only so much happiness one can bear to witness. All day long that &^%$# is grinning and laughing and singing 'Whistle While You Work.' The only time she ever stops singing is to answer the telephone. Sometimes I think I'm going to lose my mind. Do you have any idea what it's like to hear some &^%^$#@ warbling 'Whistle While You Work,' out of key, six or seven hours a day, five days a week? And you can't just tell her to shut the Hell up, 'cause she's the boss. I swear, I'm gonna have to quit this job before I break down and strangle her."

Is anybody else having difficulty getting the video to play properly? There's no sound, and the video only plays for a few second before stopping. In order to get it to start again, I have to move the slider. If it's of any interest I'm using Firefox v2.0.0.17.

Is anybody else having difficulty getting the video to play properly? There's no sound, and the video only plays for a few second before stopping. In order to get it to start again, I have to move the slider. If it's of any interest I'm using Firefox v2.0.0.17.

Sorry for the double post.

The Boggart: I get that symptom with all Flash videos whenever the sound card is being exclusively controlled by another program. Try playing an .mp3 in Winamp or iTunes or something to see if that's your problem; if it is, then the .mp3 won't play either until you quit out of whatever program that's monopolizing the sound card.

wow! they're so right! they completely understand what feminism is! liberal feminists are just angry bitches who hate happy women! now I'm definitely voting for McCain and that WONDERFUL hot woman! thank you old white men!

grumpgirl.blogspot.com

i really wish somebody would post a transcript here. I have no idea what she's saying...

Here's a transcript:

Rachel Maddow: But first, one more thing about Sarah Palin and her effect on the American electorate. Conservatice pundit and professional moraliser Bill Bennett and McCain campaign manager Rick Davis opined on the radio today about the greatness of Sarah Palin. Bennett and Davis said they think Sarah Palin drives liberal feminists, quote, "crazy". Take a listen.

Rick Davis: These, um, various, uh, liberal feminists who [can't make this bit out] about what is and what isn't appropriate in America for women. A working mother, someone who's raising five kids, one with special needs, and being able to serve as governor of a large state with lots of challenges, and it drives them nuts that she's a conservative Republican.
Bill Bennett: Let me give you three things that drive them crazy. That she's very attractive, that she's very competent and that she's very happy.

Rachel Maddow: Everybody knows how feminists hate happy women. And it drives them really crazy when women work! I look forward to another installment of "what liberal feminists think" on the next edition of Bill and Rick on the radio.

I think this is a good time to plug this week's poll at my blog:

Would you go gay for Rachel Maddow?

I used to love Keith Olbermann. I still do, but now he's more the warm-up act for Rachel Maddow!

@ James: Wow, I'm impressed!

As a liberal feminist myself, I'm personally against happiness.

It's hysterical how these right wing pundits can't keep their feminist stereotypes straight. First we're frigid, then we're sluts. First we want to force all women to work because we're hellbent on destroying American families, then we hate Sarah Palin because she has a successful career and want her to stay at home with her kids. Hmm. Which is it?

Oh and WE have a "lock on what is and isn't appropriate for women in America"?!? Because I could have sworn it was the other way around.

Wow, it really blows my mind when whatever group or ideology I have connections to supposedly has a huge iron grasp on society.

If I had society in my hands, oh, things would be very, very different, yes....

oh gosh, with the "special needs" thing again. Like Palin gave a shit about special needs kids before she had one.

She loved special needs kids so much that she cut Special Ed funding.

Wow, didn't you all just LOVE Rachel Dour when she pulled Hillary down, so we could --yet again- have a man on the top of the Democratic Ticket!

Drinkn' Rachel coolaid it the sweetest way to NEVER getting a female POTUS.

Please don't be fooled, Rachel is a means to male domination of the presidency for long long time to come!

nice. thanks for the transcript.

Sadie101, yes, you might see it that way if you read what Avedon Carol said about her during the primary without actually listening to her radio show. I'm a primary source guy m'self, but hey, different strokes.

Oh, and "Rachel Dour?" Really? You do know "dour" doesn't mean "didn't full-throatedly support my preferred candidate," right? 'Cause she's easily the least dour liberal on the air. Y'know, compared to the other two.

I watched Maddow on cnn almost daily during the primary season. (don't know about Avedon Carol, sorry, so perhaps you might assume that a poster has a basis in fact for one's posts?)

i watched Ms. Maddow do to Hillary what so many other "feminists" did. They proffered the negatives on Hillary and proffered the postitives on Obama. Maddow was no less in the tank for Obama than Olbermann and Matthews. She made her case for Obama by making her case agaisnt Hillary.

Dour, was her mission not her game face. She was the smiling face of the nasty co-worker who says Just the Right things to the boss bring down her nemisis. That is the Dour Maddow that took aim at Clinton. Salon did it the same way, Loved Obama, and...hedged about promoting Hillay.

I must say i'm becoming a big fan of the Femisex web site that puts the gloves on for feminism.

When was she on CNN?

Yes, AnUnfunnyFeminist, I would totally go gay for Rachel Maddow. My (male) partner already tells our friends that I'm gay for her, so I might as well...

Jeez, sadie101~ are you suggesting that those who supported Obama over Clinton aren't Real Feminists? I sincerely hope I misunderstood.
Rachel Maddow is absolutely fantastic and yes, I would go gay for her in a second.
@ James~ your comment pretty much made my day.

don't know about Avedon Carol, sorry, so perhaps you might assume that a poster has a basis in fact for one's posts?

Fair enough--I never saw Maddow on CNN. I just know her editorial stance was basically "I don't care who the nominee is, as long as he or she doesn't come limping out of a protracted primary battle into certain defeat in the general."

Avedon Carol blogs at The Sideshow (sideshow.me.uk). She's actually pretty awesome, contrary to how I brought her name into it. One of those narcissism-of-small-differences type things.

Jeez, sadie101~ are you suggesting that those who supported Obama over Clinton aren't Real Feminists?

reply: My answer to your question: yes. I'm sorry, but ur support of Obama over the more qualified women says more to me than any words u might doth protest otherwise.

I hope you will read the below article; it swayed me to Palin ticket.

Punching the Ticket for Sarah—Why this Hillary supporter and abortions rights supporter will vote for Palin this fall. An exercise in logic and long-term strategy!

http://www.femisex.com/content/punching-ticket-sarah%E2%80%94why-hillary-supporter-and-abortions-rights-supporter-will-vote-palin-f

Wow, sadie, wow.

So you'd rather vote for an unqaulified female candidate because she's female than Obama? Hillary would be so...pissed off.

I was/still am a die hard Clinton supporter. But I don't think the people on this site that supported Obama over her are not real feminists. What a horribly ridiculous thing to say. And now you're choosing to vote for the most anti-feminist platform out there! Absurd! While I was not happy that Clinton lost the primary I am fully behind Obama now because I'm not willing to sacrifice the next 4 (maybe 8) years just to get Hillary into that office. America needs change now and how selfish of you to think otherwise.

Like I said before, Hillary Clinton would be pissed.

Ah, I see. Well, feminism is a strong movement because it is, at its heart, diverse. Obviously there have been (and still are) serious issues regarding race, socioeconomic class, ethnicity, gender identity, and sexual orientation but I really think that compassion and the need for equality can overcome these factors.
I do my best to prevent political alliances from being added to the list of divisive forces within the movement (and outside of it as well).

Saying that somebody isn't a "real feminist" is offensive and, to be frank, a bit belligerent. If I favor a candidate who happens to be a man over one that happens to be a woman (which you assumed, by the way), does it mean that I don't think men and women are inherently equal?
Hells no.

lov the comments so far:
Palin is "unqaulified female" but i should vote for the unqualified male for top of the Ticket vs. the "unqualified female" for veep?? who u kiddn'?

Hillary would be mad? poooleeeze:-)
2012 baby!

why these femisist hate words??
"horribly ---belligerent--offensive "
now, now...play nice kids, even if u like those gi joes better than barbie:-)

resorting to name calling? why? when my thoughts on this are very logical.
it is sexist to support the unqualified male over the qualified female? that hows i sees it, that's howze i called it.
i hope u will read the Punching it for Palin item..says it better than i ever could.

sadie, I supported Clinton too and was very disappointed when she lost. However, there are a plethora of reasons why Palin is wrong, wrong wrong. I followed the link you posted and read the blog. I don't see how this is an exercise in logic (and I teach 3 Logic courses). It's sombody's opinion, which is deeply influenced by what she feels. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But telling women who don't happen to agree with this opinion that they're bad feminists and illogical is inappropriate.

If you want me to pick apart the blog post you linked piece by piece and tell you how it's neither logical nor fact-based, I will. But that seems beside the point here. Name-calling is neither effective nor appropriate in a constructive discussion, so lay off already.

@ W.Kiernan

Thank you very much for the advice - I've just go everything up and working now. :-)

On the bright side, at least I finally met that Hillary supporter who's voting for Palin. I've been hearing about her for months.

Hi, Sadie101. As a feminist who's been on Senator Obama's side since early 2007, I feel I ought to explain to you why I chose him over Senator Clinton. You see, it really has to do 100% with the war in Iraq. My cousin, a Lance Corporal of the Marines, was injured in the line of duty in Iraq in 2006 - he took shrapnel to the back of his head. He was transported from Iraq to Germany, then to Washington DC, undergoing surgery after surgery. He survived, but he now has Anterograde Amnesia; he does not remember seeing his friends die, but he also will never be a functioning adult.

I picked Senator Obama because he was always against this war. Politically the two main Democratic contenders were essentially the same, so this is the grounds on which I chose. I picked my candidate based upon their actions regarding a war which has killed and maimed multitudes as opposed to choosing with my uterus.

Obama never had to vote for authorization of the war, and if you look at his record of flips this way and flops that way, and odles and oodles of present votes and his stand agaisnt radioactive water before he took the company's cash and folded like a cheap suit, well then, well i can pretty much assure you that an opportunistic speech does not make a Senate vote.

I have a sister who was raped in the line of duty and i strongly feel when a woman is more likely to be raped by her commrades than killed by the enemy, well i'm All about the Larger issues: chaging the concept of women as a whole.

Obama is a guy who has proven over and over and over again that he's as fungible as the weather. his vote agaisnt the war NEVER existed and he's fooled you all with a pretty speech.
Obmama says a lot of things and but when the Chips are done he folds! FiSA anyone?? what a dandy speech there. campaign finance?? what a dandy speech there. his war speech was not a vote, it was a way to stand apart and make a name for himself, just like his books. u can bet your last bottom dollar if he'd had to vote on the war way back then, we'd have voted the same as Hillary and Biden.

Name-calling is neither effective nor appropriate in a constructive discussion, so lay off already from Rachel wy-

Dearest Rachel-- please show me where i've called anyone a name? au contair {sic}my dear. i stated my opinion and for that I was called the adj I listed above. I've not said anyone view's are ""horribly ---belligerent--offensive " ..that was what was aimed at me for saying what i believe.
what has occurred is that my opinion has struck a nerve.
women need to
stop attacking women who don't agree with them! feminists are turning out to be feminist friendly only when it is NOT THAT WOMAN, or THAT ONE, or THAT ONE! i say it again-- i believe that true feminists supported HRC over Obama. I stand by that and if that brings out the nasty name calling, well you wont' find those names coming from me!

"Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, 'Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.'" - Gloria Steinem
http://news.spreadit.org/gloria-steinempalin-is-the-wrong-woman/

"To those of you who supported me, I would be forever grateful for you to work as hard for Barack Obama as you worked for me." - Hillary Clinton
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/26/clinton_urges_her_loyalists_to_back_obama/?page=1

Ah Sadie, though he was not in the US Senate when the war in Iraq was rubber-stamped, he had voted for a resolution against it in the Illinois State Senate and had been vocal against it since its inception. Even if he had not voted on the resolution, I would still prefer a candidate whom did not vote to put my loved ones into harm's way than those whom have.

Your point about sexual assault and views on women in the military is quite valid, but doesn't staging a war increase recruitment requirements for the military, thus putting more women into harm's way? Yes, yes, one thousand times yes we MUST change society's perception of women (and I know for a fact that it is probably its most deplorable in the armed forces), but there are ways to do it other than electing a president who so happens to be a woman.

You do realize that McCain would have chosen a person of color to be his running mate should Senator Clinton have won the primaries, right? Certainly someone who does not believe in equal opportunity nor equal pay for equal work. Should, in this alternate universe, people of color all vote for the McCain-POC ticket and disparage those whom would stand behind Senator Clinton and her running mate as masochists and racists?

Sadie, really? You think Hillary Clinton would be pleased? I'm sorry but I have to laugh.

You think she would be pleased with the appointment of at least 2 conservative supreme court justices that overturn Roe v. Wade?

You think she would be pleased with her dream of universal healthcare being crushed into dust?

You think she would be pleased to have the rich and big oil companies get more and more tax breaks while the middle class keep suffering?

You think she would be pleased to spend 100 more years in Iraq if that's what it takes to win this war?

If you really think the answer to any of these questions is yes then I don't see why you ever supported Hillary in the first place because you obviously know jack about what she stands for.

Like I said before, this country can't wait another 4 or 8 years for changes. We need change now. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for more of the same crap we've been dealing with for the past 8 years, the stuff Hillary Clinton has been fighting to fix! I'm sorry, I'm not just going to vote for a candidate (who's completely anti-woman) because she has ovaries.

i will answer only to quote the FemiSex piece i sent you earlier in this thread:

"So I understand that I must think like men have been trained to do all along…think strategically. Women are trained to think emotionally and this has kept women out of the WH for 219 years! But if I understand that nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, will do more for my niece in terms of her life’s ambitions and equality than to have her and the boys she is growing up with SEE, yes actually experience the Change of having a woman in WH veep power, this will do 10 squared more for her egalitarian future than any amount of continued bickering over Roe. v. Wade in the next 4 years. The congress will be solidly Democratic, and no, I repeat NO nutty anti-Roe justices will pass Go."

along the same thread line,
here is another quote from a Femisex article about a Un Report on women in global politics:
"Global power grab by women in politics; American women told to wait."

*Much of the increase was driven by women realizing that they needed to attain power rather than just lobby for change, said women who spoke at a ceremony for the study’s release.

*“We need to convince women that the only way to really make a change is to stop complaining and just be the owner of power,” said Senator Cecilia López Montaño, the speaker of the opposition Liberal Party in Colombia. “It is a huge fight because men have been controlling power for centuries.”
More:

*In addition, the study suggested that women held far fewer party leadership posts than their membership in the rank and file would suggest.

*“You have to be three times more intelligent, you have to be four times more transparent, you have to have everything more than men,” said Senator López, of Colombia. “We still have a male chauvinist society.”
*It will continue this way, she said, until the “democratic deficit” is closed, meaning equal representation for men and women.

I'm feminist and a woman with a PH.D and many solid accomplishments but yet no denying I am a 2nd class citizen in my country. i have long worried about the ease that women soak up the sexism of their culture.
I have found a warrior feeliing at Femisex and other places ( i also like Riverdaugher/ Confluence site as well). These sites give me succor far more than 30 more years of oh geez, let's yell and yell, and Yap and yell. been there done that!

And do i think Hillay would happily have 4 years of centrist McCain to become the 1st female in White HOuse, you betcha kids. You betcha, I do!

Sadie, I'm sorry but when you're posting on a feminist blog, suggesting that your opponents are not real feminist is name calling. And ad hominems do nothing but convince the rest of us that your position is so weak that you have to resort to name calling, and that you're lacking in maturity. Some of us are here for constructive dialogue. This does not mean that everyone has to agree. In fact, dialogue tends to be more constructive when there's healthy disagreement. But throwing immature hissy fits and engaging in name-calling is not constructive.

So, did you just not feel like answering any of my questions...???

llevinso, as a fervent supporter of Palin, sadie knows that she doesn't have to answer anyone's questions, and can just stick to her talking points. Apparently that's how it's done now.

Sadie, quit shilling for that stupid ass blog here. If you love it so damn much, you should spend your time there rather than here, berating us fake feminists. I don't know what your problem is, but supporting an anti-feminist ticket just because it includes a woman is anything but feminist. Putting an anti-feminist woman, who cares only about herself, in the WH will only make things worse for women in America. The Republicans have taken people like you for fools and here you are, proving them right.

well talk about mature. I've been called all sort of names for saying what i believe. And i stand by that belief. Ladies think and don't react with such venom when a woman says what she thinks. REds go Fox for reinforcement and same with Obamabots to MSNBC. do you just want a group hug or????perhaps??? a challenge to ur beliefs.

think don't react. try it! when you want to change the minds of those who oppose choice do u think name calling is the way to go? or saying that b/c they don't believe what u do They are the name caller. that's just silly and NON-prouctive.

e.g., from feminist poster above: If you love it so damn much, you should spend your time there rather than here, berating us fake feminists.

my reply: that is aabout as mature as America love it or leave it!
Sorry but I feel true feminists would support Clinton over Obama. that's where i stand and that is my opinion.

sorry, if that doesn't sit well.
think about why i say it and not lashing out at me for saying it. there is a lot of merit to that statement and many many many feminists feel that way.
but when you shut down thought process with silly name calling that is so high-schoolish. oh MYGOD she didn't just say that? Please.

re the answer my questions snide, sure if i had the time to go back and forth i could but what i am saying is above all that!

I am saying that is is possible for feminists to have sexist bias towards and preference for male authority. that is the topic. hefty and uncomfortable and sure to produce knee-jeck reax.
and trust me....
i know more about R.v.Wade than just about anyone, and have done lots of work on this issue. the Femisex piece was wonderful in pointing out what i felt about R.v.Wad and McCain so that is why i pointed you all to that.
I like the site a lot and find it a needed voice as well.

i am that woman who gets off the Plane in those 87% of counties that have no abortion providers. I KNOW that the idea about R.vWade is more that a per deim fight. I know more than just about anyone might nknow about roe. vWade. i am the women who salvages your lives when things go wrong, and i can promise you nice name calling ladies this is about more than you self-esteem.
you are nice gals and have very nice thoughts and want to be in a cosy feminist club, so long as none of ur assumptions about urself are challenged. and ladies that puts you in the same basket as REDs damnationly opposed to abortion.
let ur brains roam ...dare to see the side of u that might not want to be seen. that is true feminist thought. and yes, each and every woman on this planet has sexism inside of herself, so no use denying that unless you believe you can live in a culture that has NO effect upon you!
i challenge you to find those grains or massive loaves of bread of sexism in ur own selves and take a long hard look. I have and each time i find new ones it is a wondeful revelation that i was able to admit my sexist shortcomings!

Hahaha! Too true Rachel, too true!

Oh sadie, come now. This is all getting a bit hard to believe. First, of all, I'm sorry, but you don't write, spell, or organize your thoughts like someone who has a PhD. But that's not the point here. You are the one who started suggesting that the commenters here are not real feminists, so I think you should have been prepared for some hostility.

But beyond that, I read the blog you've linked to, and it's neither logically compelling nor fact-based. It's simply not the case that having a woman, any woman, in the White House is a good thing for women. Being a woman is not the same thing as being an advocate for women, as has been noted on Feministing before. Sarah Palin is not an advocate for women. She just isn't. She is openly dedicated to upholding the misogynist agenda of the far Right. To suggest that if we were real feminists we would vote for her is like suggesting that African Americans should vote for some Uncle Tom candidate just because they share the same skin color. Feminists everywhere ought to carefully consider the candidates based on where they stand on the issues and make their choice accordingly. I supported Hillary too, and was bitterly disappointed at her loss. But the fact remains that we have to choose from the candidates that remain, and the McCain/Palin ticket is not pro-woman.

I have a 15 y/o niece, a 4 y/o stepdaughter, and an 11 m/o daughter, so I feel just as heavily invested in this election for their well-being as the author of your beloved blog feels on behalf of her niece. This is even more of a reason not to vote for Sarah Palin and John McCain. Beyond the abortion issue, they oppose equal pay, and a whole host of social programs whose aim is to help women achieve equality. So you may cling to your belief that my support for Obama originates in some sexist preference for male authority. But by delegitimizing my rational, well-founded position like that, you yourself engage in sexist thinking.

back on topic -- that's much better. still hitting below the belt a bit, but much better.

if you'd like to have a discussion about downstream regulation to prove my edu bona fides, well.. nope. iv'e no time for that. not sure why i ducked my head in here and the gang- up was silly and high-school in nature.
a poster asked me a direct question and i answered it honestly and was told get the hell out. waz up w tthat?

i will boil this down for you. you are issues based;
iwas once and i see ur point.
but, i have become issue based. my issue is this: women need to see women in power. real power. there will alwasy be issues but those will fade as women are accepted in power. once women are in control the need to control them will fade.

not sure that any legislatin will do as much for =pay as a firm cultural acceptance that women are as smart as men. there is no such acceptance today. i believe a woman in White House will do much to help things move along. and we can still fight for the issues. i knwo how hard it's been w bushy but.. there will be red and blue times. but now we need to have women times, red or blue.
I will duck out and leave you folks,but i do hope you will look at websites that do more than give you the affirmation you need. Riverdaughter and Femisex are provocative and must reads for the next wave of feminists. A group hug is nice but not enough.

research is all about accepting challenges to your biases and beliefs and ur work. open ur minds and see what fall in. i am not clinging to any beliefs but experimenting with new ones and i hope you all do the same!

So, basically, Sadie101's logic is that it doesn't matter whether a female vice-president (or president, if her running mate kicks the bucket):

- Actively works to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, even in cases of rape and incest
- Supports banning books
- Supports the teaching of creationism
- Supports abstinence-only education, which is guaranteed to cause more pregnancies in teenage girls
- Cuts funding to organizations which support teenage mothers
- Opposes equal pay
- Opposes equal marriage
- Signs laws forcing rape victims to pay for their own evidence kits
- Opposes universal health care

Because hey, she'll be a poster girl for the fact that a woman can get into power!

...If she's willing to throw other women under the bus.

As a side note, I'm also not looking forward to the prospect of Sarah Palin being used as a silencing tool against feminists: "What do you mean, women are still being oppressed? You can't be oppressed, 'cause there's a woman in power!"

I'm not sure what I think of Sadie101, but I will chew on it and check out her recommended sites.

But Shiffercat, you have work to do on your facts if you want any credibility.
I am tired of both sides' distortions during this campaign. Shiffercat might as well be an Obama troll posting these untrue or highly slanted "facts". Just as bad as McCain with his sex ed distortion and Obama with his stem cell falsehoods.

Independents (me) see thru such silly shills both by the candidates and by uninformed or agenda-laden list posters.

As Ms. Kirsten Powers, a democrat, former resident of Alaska and Obama supporter said tonight on TV, Palin was "almost post-partisan" during her tenure as Governor. I may support Obama but hearing feminist sites slander the female candidate is enough to turn my tide.

I like Ms. Powers and give her much credence for her ability to not wail into hysterics whenever Palin's name comes up.

Jill B., if you're going to call me a liar, could you back it up with something substantial? Thanks.

I don't know, jill b. I read voraciously - everything that comes into my hands, and I've read A LOT about Sarah Palin and her political track record. I've read articles by people who support her and people who don't. From what I've read, ShifterCat is pretty much right. No matter how you look at it, Palin has a pretty solid anti-woman position. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, we're all interested.

--Signs laws forcing rape victims to pay for their own evidence kits

Just hyperbole -- show me that law with Palin's name attached. please show me, ShifferCat or if not then why not change your handle to supercatty? This dissing on women is enough to make this woman puke. keep it real please.

i don't have time for a line by line, but that one ought to clear up the crap the ShiferCat is doling.

why can't we speak the truth about the candidates? are we all not smart enough to do more than repeat what a very sexist press spoon feds us? why are women on this list williing to spread lies about Palin? why unless they are Obama trolls...and if you think Obama trolls don't post as feminsists to spread disinformation then u live in lala land. no trols, McCain or otherwise.
truth over trolls!

Yes, jill b, it is true that Sarah Palin did not ever actually sign a law forcing women to pay for their own rape kits. However, there is clear evidence that the policy was enacted while she was in office, and that she either knew about it, or should have known about it if she was doing her job correctly. Maybe just allowing these kinds of things to happen in order to maintain your rep as a fiscal conservative is slightly better than actually signing a law to that effect. But not much.

hi Rachel-
by that standard Barack Obama is as guilty as Palin on this. his state, while he was a state senator billed ins. companies for rape kits as well.
look,
i'm far more concerned with decreasing the incidence of rape than demonizing a woman veep candidate or, for that matter a male pres candidate.
but the media bias is ugly and i care about that b/c demonizing women in the press will surely lead to more rapes, not less. (Also, more female on female misogyny as well, perhaps.)

btw Sadie101, thanks for the website FemiSex. It's a bit wordy but I really like that women journos are fighting agaisnt media sexism. lol at the Greenspan Summers Born item! What a buttplug Larry Summers is!
Riverdaugher is pretty anti-Obama but that said it is worth a read for some balance to places like Salon or Slate. i too am disturbed by the ugly turn of the Left this go round.

Due to Feministing's comment policy, one can't post a mess of links. So how about this, Jill B:

Do a search on Feministing of posts with "Palin" in the title. Each of the posts on each of the topics I mentioned above will have links to a news article with further details.

Unless you can post a point-by-point rebuttal of EACH of those news articles (there are at least ten of them, so have fun), we're going to have to conclude that you're the one who's talking out her ass, not me.

Don't feel like it? "Don't have time"? Then I suggest you STFU and go someplace where they don't expect you to do your homework.

Have a good time reading! Maybe it'll improve your writing. Perhaps one day you'll even be able to spell people's usernames correctly. Bye now!

She is amazingly beautiful/charming/intelligent.