I don't care about Sarah Palin, but given what I do I am forced to read and think about her much more often than I would like to. Similar to Amanda, I don't think of Palin is a martyr or someone who was so heinously treated by the media that we should pity her in any way. I have yet to see any evidence of her being humbled about being wrong and an asshole, and while attacks against her have also been sexist, that is not the bulk of criticism around her. Palin hates women (at least that is what is apparent through the little legislation she has worked on) and has used her teenage daughter to score political points, only one of her many asshole moves. And frankly, using your teenage (mom) daughter for political gain, while stuffing words in her mouth about abstinence, well that doesn't score very high on the feminist scale.
I was especially struck by this rather optimistic (or misguided, I am not sure) piece by Michel Martin at NPR about how complicated Palin is.
Can I just tell you? I do not know a single working mother who does not dream at some point, even if just for a minute, about packing up that desk and heading for the homestead, even if that fantasy is about as realistic as the one about supplementing unemployment with Powerball winnings. And I bet that's why so many mothers, who work outside the home or not, were rooting for Sarah Palin, at least at first.Whether you shared her politics or not, Palin was somebody you wanted to see in the game, trying as she was to balance a very demanding job with the equally demanding job of raising five children and maintaining a decent relationship with her husband. She seemed to have so many attractive qualities. She seemed practical, honest, unfazed and down-to-earth, exactly the qualities people hope newcomers in general and hopefully women will bring to public life. And she is making no judgment at all about the whole campaign shopping spree thing, stylish, which I for one appreciate.
I never felt any of this. I never wanted to see Palin succeed and I certainly didn't think of her as a good mother, especially after she unapologetically used Bristol's story for her own political gain and I have no doubt she will continue to do so. Maybe I can't relate since I don't sit at home wishing to be a stay-at-home cat mom, but I think this romantic idea that Palin is somehow quitting the Governorship for familial reasons is giving her way more credit than she has proven to deserve. I for one am not looking forward to her future political moves because I know they are only going to aggravate me further. Not to be too pessimistic or anything, haha.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Blah blah blah Sarah Palin blah blah blah. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14803
Let me see if I understand... Personal attacks against other Feministing commenters = not allowed. Entire posts consisting of personal attacks against prominent female politicians who you acknowledge have faced sexism = allowed.
I didn't vote for Palin, and I disagree with her politics, but I don't see how calling her an asshole and saying that she hates women furthers the cause of feminism in any way, shape, or form.
Bashing women is bad. Period.
But Samhita's not bashing Sarah Palin because she's a woman, she's criticizing her for her political and public actions. Should we refrain from criticizing any public woman - especially one like Palin who is so vocally anti-feminist in terms of her attitudes towards reproductive rights - BECAUSE she's a woman? It furthers the cause of feminism to point out when public figures are working against our goals, particularly when they do so under the guise of feminism (and don't pretend Palin didn't try to use her "I'm a working mom just like you" shtick to win votes), regardless of whether that figure is a male or a female. Since pundits and Republicans made such an issue out of Palin's gender during the campaign, we (as feminists) ought to be pointing out that being a woman is irrelevant to being an effective leader and politician.
It seems to me that Flower's critique is about the new comments policy & the possibility (indeed likelihood based on this post) that it will be used unevenly: To bash & curse those who aren't popular or PC but to prevent that same treatment against those who are popular or PC. I certainly dislike everything about Palin, but I don't see how calling her an "asshole" counts as, "necessary cursing", as opposed to the now banned, "unnecessary" variety. Where's the evenhandedness?
But there is a significant difference between someone who is here making a good faith attempt at participating in constructive dialogue and a person who is trumpeted as a feminist and at one point takes on the feminist label, but in every action behaves in a misogynist way, right? The comment policy applies to peole who have come here (ostensibly) to further the discourse on feminist issues. And what is owed to a person in that context is entirely different from what is owed to a person who is a politician and a celebrity and a misogynist. Her words and actions impact people's lives, so she is open to critique. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a policy maker and a public figure.
"But there is a significant difference between someone who is here making a good faith attempt at participating in constructive dialogue..."
How can calling someone an 'a**hole', 'b****', 'd**k', a**whipe, or 'd*****b*g' ever be construed as making a good faith attempt at constructive dialogue?
Maybe this works in episodes of South Park, but I don't know how the Eric Cartman philosophy works in real life.
But she is an asshole, douchbag, ect? Why cant we call a crap politician what she is? I think its sexist to hold her to different standards we and coddle her just because she's a female politician. I think feministing readers would say the same thing about any male politician that ha sthe views Palin has.
So if I respond to your comment saying only "I think you're an asshole and you use your kids," will that be construed as an adequate response to your thoughts? Will that be discourse? Should someone come along and defend me because, after all, you shouldn't expect to be engaged decently simply BECAUSE you're a woman.
There is nothing in this post about Palin's policies. It doesn't say, "Palin supports X and I oppose it because of Y." It doesn't say, "Don't vote for Palin because she is against this policy that I like and for this policy that I don't like." It says, "Palin is an asshole who uses her kids, and I don't like her." That is a personal attack. And yes, as feminists, we should NOT be doing that to other women. It's cattiness, pure and simple.
Would you be taking the same issue with the word 'asshole' if Samhita had been using it in reference to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilley? Somehow, I doubt it.
And Sarah Palin *is* a bad mom. Some people are just bad parents, it's ok to say that. If we didn't, think about all the kids who would still be living in abusive homes. Not that she quite deserves CPS knocking at her door, but using your pregnant, teenage daughter to further your political career is bad parenting. Period.
Except that Samhita didn't call Palin an asshole. Samhita referred to some of Palin's actions as "asshole moves." BIG difference between criticizing a person and criticizing her actions.
"I have yet to see any evidence of her being humbled about being wrong and an asshole,"
Samhita
Wrong about what?
Anything, I imagine. The point of the quote is to demonstrate that Samhita did indeed call Palin an asshole, contrary to the impression someone had that she did not. Now I share the sentiment, although asshole seems like a masculine insult to me. But the belief that Samhita had only accused Palin of doing assholey things is clearly mistaken.
"I have yet to see any evidence of her being humbled about being wrong and an asshole,"
Samhita
Tina Fey, et al: There's no going back. You've changed things, forever.
Sarah Palin: Then why do you want to kill me (politically speaking)?
Tina Fey, et al: I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? You complete me.
I really don't get the criticism of Tina Fey. She's a comic whose job it is to lampoon public figures. It's part of Palin's job not to give Fey any material.
Palin is hardly the first politician to be parodied on SNL. Gerald Ford, both Bushes, Bob Dole, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Ross Perot... none of them complained that SNL picked on them.
Do you think I'm criticizing Tina Fey? I'd cheat on Natalie Portman with Tina Fey. Sarah Palin's reason for existing is to give TF material.
Not you specifically. But I've seen this in other places, that somehow Fey was part of a pattern of overwhelming media attack on Palin. When in reality Palin didn't get it any worse from SNL than any other public figure.
Oh. Well St. Sarah d'Arc could hardly be a martyr to the liberal media if she'd simply gotten the same treatment as everyone else and crumbled under it.
Tina Fey, et al: There's no going back. You've changed things, forever.
Sarah Palin: Then why, politically speaking, do you want to kill me?
Tina Fey, et al: LOL! I don't want to kill you! What would I do without you? You complete me.
I've never thought she was a good mother, not after hearing that she flew home to Alaska after her water broke in Texas. It would have been a foolish thing to do for any pregnancy, yet Sara Palin knew she was having a Downs child, which can mean birth defects and other physical problems that need to be addressed at birth (heart problems are common.) I don't think it's possible to rule out heart or other problems in utero, so there was always a possibility. Things can go wrong in any labor and delivery, and a plane is not the place to deal with those problems. I still have no idea what she could have been thinking.
And that's just my opinion of Palin as a mother and private citizen--don't get me started on how crappy a politician she is!
Has this site really turned into a place where we criticize female politician's parenting styles? Really? Where the heck did the FEMINIST in Feministing go?
I'll cosign this.
This article trades heavily on ideas of "the bad mommy". Palin's politics are reprehensible, but her choices as a mother are her own. Motherhood in the public eye (or out) is difficult to judge from an outside perspective. We don't need to police her choices as a parent further.
There's room for some intersection, yes, and I think that her public comments on her children are up for criticism. But I think that blanket "bad mommy" judgements as in this piece are unwarranted.
My mom thinks Palin is a bad mother because she didn't abort Trig, meaning that her other kids don't get as much attention. I completely disagree. I think it is solely up to Palin as to whether or not to have a disabled child.
I guess it's partially this experience that makes me want to stay as far as possible from the Palin-as-a-mother debate. It is WAY too slippery a slope, and it never leads anywhere good.
"I think it is solely up to Palin as to whether or not to have a disabled child." What a shame she wouldn't afford you the same choice.
This article trades heavily on ideas of "the bad mommy".
Um, Palin belongs to a party that markets itself as an expert in moral and family issues and attempts to legislate its ideas to legally force others to follow them. The party itself has made clear that it believes family issues are public issues - there's no other reason we would need to work so hard and spend so much money to legally ban gay parents adopting children, ban comprehensive sex ed and abortion (family planning), ban gay marriage. I'm sorry. Palin telling me how to run my family while simultaneously claiming hers is not open to scrutiny is not OK.
So. Again. I'll be much more concerned about her when her party stops trying to legislate the very meaning of "family."
I'm not saying she doesn't deserve it.
For the most part, though, criticizing a female politician by calling her a bad mommy goes against my feminist principles. It's a lot like bodysnarking. It implies that she is ZOMG a Failure As a Woman!
I don't see that as what was going on in the OP. There was an objection to Michael Martin's characterization of Palin as the sympathetic, "Aw Shucks," good-wife-and-mother type. So essentially, it was a critique of the image of Palin that Martin described and that Palin herself took pains to create.
I agree with susanstohelit & co. , though. It is a slippery slope and it seemed like comments were sort of devolving toward mommy-shaming.
To be fair, a few of us on Feministing also questioned Michael Jackson's parenting style. Again - it's not wrong to tell a woman she's a shitty mother if she's a shitty mother.
Just because Sarah Palin is a woman and a mother does not mean she deserves a pass or gets to do or say whatever she wants without being criticized.
If anything, the special treatment of Sarah Palin that many PUMAs are asking for, is, in itself, sexist.
Oh, please. You are seriously comparing Jackson's and Palin's parenting? Aside from odd names (although it's hard to top "Blanket"), I think that's completely disingenuous.
I don't get it.
Who are you defending, Jackson or Palin, 'cause I think they're both pretty shitty parents, and at the same time, both have very ...unique names for their kids.
Either way, I was comparing the two methods of parenting - I was merely saying that we are consistent in questioning the parenting styles of both Jackson and Palin - and that, further, talking about certain public figures being bad parents isn't inherently sexist.
Jackson had numerous allegations of child molestation.
What a ridiculous comparison.
Right on, Flowers:)
So, I can't think someone is a bad parent because she's a woman? What does that have to do with feminism? Am I supposed to say "rah rah go women!" to all mothers, no matter what they're doing to their kids? I think Sarah Palin put her child at totally unnecessary risk by flying back to Alaska after her water broke, when she could have had him in Dallas, a place with many hospitals and fine doctors, and I believe that putting your child at totally unnecessary risk is bad parenting.
And I feel free to criticize her parenting because it's such a big part of her image as a politician. I didn't start it, she did, by pushing herself as this wonderful working mother and politician. If she kept her parenting out of the political sphere, as many female politicians do, I wouldn't have said anything.
Eh, contrary to television dramas and sitcoms, your water breaking does not instantly send you screaming into active labor and wash out a baby within an hour. If it was me, and I had access to my own jet, I wouldn't rule out flying cross country to my own health care providers who are intimately familiar with my medical history and current pregnancy rather than delivering at yon random hospital.
But what am I saying, everyone knows that women aren't qualified to make decisions about their own reproductive health.
I know that--I was pregnant myself when this happened. I support every woman's right to have her child in the manner of her choosing, whether it's in a hospital, at home, with a midwife, whatever. I'm not saying that Palin should have been arrested for what she did. However, I can still disapprove of her choices, even while I support her right to make them. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. And I disapprove of her choice in this matter as I think she risked the health of a possibly medically fragile baby. Most labors are routine, it is true. However, some aren't, and there's no way to tell which you will have before.
And as I said above--I don't, as rule, think about the family or private life of politicians. But Sarah Palin has portrayed herself as a wonderful, caring mother in addition to being polic. In this instance--and in others--she has shown herself to be more interested in her image than in her child.
I think Palin is a twit, and I can see the argument for judging her mothering since she's made it part of her political persona.
But here, you're not only judging that she made a poor parenting decision, you're claiming that the *reasons* she did so make her a bad mother, and you have to way to tell what those reasons are. You don't think she should have flown back, fine, but it's possible she did because she believed it would be best for the baby.
I maintain that not rushing to the hospital because your membranes are no longer intact is not the kind of crazy reckless decision that folks are making it out to be. Heck, it's pretty common advice to tell women whose waters have broken to wait until the onset of contractions (or 12 hours) before they come in to the hospital. Water breaking does not equal active labor.
Part of my feminism includes supporting other women. So, while I am in a very different life position than Sarah Palin and couldn't be further away from her on the ideological scale, I did want to see her succeed when she first entered the political spotlight. I want to see women in positions of power and making strong, rational arguments, even if I disagree with the content and wouldn't vote for the particular woman.
I would pay to see that particular woman "making strong, rational arguments".
Yeah, I should have clarified that these were my initial impressions about Sarah Palin, and she pretty much immediately lost my rooting-for-her-as-a-woman-in-politics-even-if-I-don't-agree-with-her.
Seriously, people who say namby-pamby stuff like this should be forced to return to their adolescence and live through my high school years under the mean-eyed stares of big-haired, pro-patriarchy female teachers who are of the same mold as Sarah Palin and will smack you down every chance they get while kissing male students' ass. And then maybe we can talk about what snakes women can be, just like men.
gee, Amanda, I think you did a perfectly adequate job of demonstrating your point right there.
"a stay-at-home cat mom"
That's really how you see women who do without, stretch mediocre paychecks, go through secondhand stores, budget, rebudget, clip coupons and do whatever it takes to be there with their kids wake up from a naptime nightmare, practice their ABCs, or get called their first racial slur? You see mothers who don't bring home a paycheck as "cats"? What do you mean exactly, we lay on our backs letting people stroke and take care of us while we lazily keep an eye on our huge brood?
It's been said several times that modern feminism in general and feministing in particular have little regard for women who are 'just' mothers. I guess you also view us as something a little less than human.
I understand that people who feel marginalized can sometimes feel comfort in putting down another group, but are at-home mothers really fair game for name calling and dehumanization?
I understood it that Samhita has cats and no children. So if she were to be a stay at home mom, it would be with her cats.
Fair enough, but what does that have to do with Palin?
read above
If I were a cat
I'd want Samhita for my
stay at home cat mom!
=^..^=
Interior_League,
I just wanted you to know
your posts make my day.
She isn't my favorite person in the world and I sure disagree with her on a lot of issues, but:
I don't think one should go so far as to say she is a bad mother. Okay, maybe exploiting your kids for political gain isn't the best thing, but last time I checked there were two parents, Sarah not being the only one. She can't take all the blame for being a bad mother, but perhaps some of the blame for being a bad parent. Todd also fits into that category. If we are going to judge her as a parent, we need to also judge Todd as a parent. If we start judging her based on an "inability" to parent, aren't we just reinforcing the idea that women should focus on either career or family because they can't seem to focus and do well in both arenas? Parents are going to mess up. Even the most seemingly "perfect" parents aren't perfect.
Holy grasp for outrage, Batman.
Stay at home cat mom = does not have kids, has cats. Stays at home taking care of cats.
But hey, don't wipe that foam from your mouth on my account.
Excuse me, but I don't believe I said anything in reference to the stay-at-home peeps.
She meant to reply to nestra not to you.
Indeed -- aleks is right, I clicked the wrong comment to reply to.
I'm confused. Sarah Palin has five kids and how many cats? But thank you for bringing up Batman.
Samhita has how many cats and how many children?
Don't know, don't care, how does it matter in a critique of Sarah Palin? Is she saying she doesn't want to stay home and take care of her cats in emulation of Sarah Palin, when that's not what Sarah Palin does?
Because read the post? She's saying she doesn't have sparkly magical dreams of the forced stay-at-home-and-have-babies hypocrisy variety that Palin's policies push forward.
But Palin neither stays at home (because OMG read a newspaper, she was like totally a mayor, governor and VP candidate, mmmk? Honestly, I don't think you're in much of a position to be smug and patronizing, Mighty Ponygirl) nor is known to have cats. Why do you think Palin is advocating for Samhita to stay home with her cats?
you missing it. as you said above, mighty ponygirl meant to respond to nestra - as did I - GO READ NESTRA's post! then you'll get it
Hey, for those who are arguing about what Samhita said, I have an idea: rather than speculating, let's ask her!
And ...I totally don't get the Batman comment. :( Maybe because it's 1 a.m., and I am stuck at work staring at the computer screen, but ...where's Batman?
"Mighty Ponygirl replied to LP :
Holy grasp for outrage, Batman."
In the campy old TV show Robin would say "Holy [something stupid] Batman!" MPG was riffing off of that, I'm not sure exactly why.
So he's a bad parent too, fine. Except we're not talking about him.
Wow. Am I the only one put off by this post? Calling Palin an asshole, saying she hates women, and that she's a bad mother - has our capacity for discourse devolved to that level? And saying that you never wanted to see her succeed - that strikes me as pretty damn similar to something Rush Limbaugh once said about Barack Obama that was blasted by everyone on the left.
I'm really, really disappointed in this.
I probably should have added in my comment something about calling her an "asshole". I don't know. People who think feminism is a joke want this type of thing going on within feminism; catfights and whatnot. It's okay to cry foul...but "asshole" and the like? Wow. That is quite disappointing. I agree callmesister.
I couldnt agree more. Its a sad day if this is the state of feminist discourse. I really expected more intelligent, thought provoking posts from feministing.
Let's see:
Asshole: Yes. She relished her role as the attack dog in the election, demeaned community organizers, and declared that Obama "palled around with terrorists" while she herself seemed fine cozying up to Alaskan secessionists. She supported legislation that allowed people to hunt wolves from helicopters.
Hates Women: Yes. Her anti-choice views aside, Making rape victims in Alaska pay for their own rape kits is a pretty clear indication of your views of women. For more, see Asshole.
Bad Mother: Well, yes. Using your children as political props beyond the simple family photo-op is bad form. Crashing your daughter's interview to stuff her baby in her hands and declare that she didn't know what she was saying earlier and "this is what she meant to say" is bad parenting. Getting on a plane when your water broke with a high-risk pregnancy to ME says "I want this baby to die on its way out so that I don't have to take care of it." But hey, that's my interpretation. I'm sure there's some other interpretation that justifies bragging about flying with leaking amniotic fluid for over 8 hours when you know the baby could die. And whether or not you feel that it's fair or just to speculate on her parenting skills on a feminist blog, there's enough wreckage floating around in her gene pool to make the case that her children did not have proper parental attention (from either parent) growing up.
And you know what, if we were talking about J.K. Rowling, or Tina Fey, or Paris Hilton, then whatever: being a woman hating asshole bad parent isn't particularly important.
The policies that Sarah Palin has supported and pushed for have a tangible, detrimental effect on women in this country and potentially around the world. So yeah, I never want to see her succeed. This isn't anything like saying "you want Obama to fail" because if Obama fails, it means the country fails right along with him. I ABSOLUTELY want Sarah Palin to fail before her assholish, woman-hating policies have an even higher platform to launch from. And as far as her being a bad mother: well, it would be unfair and bad form if she weren't simultaneously destroying the lives of her children while declaring through her policies and her political action that women have to be mothers against their will.
"Making rape victims in Alaska pay for their own rape kits"
Do you have some documentation for this? I worked for the Obama-Biden campaign, and I loathe Palin personally, but I've never seen this allegation supported.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010930.html
Yes, I've heard the claim made before, just never with evidence.
"Op-Edna explains:
A rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings to assist in the conviction of those who commit sex crimes. The kit is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed. It is usually humiliating and uncomfortable for the victim-imagine enduring that and then paying $1200 just so that the criminal who assaulted you might be caught." is not proof that Palin did it.
A few thoughts. First, I don't think it's our place to speculate about how good of a mother Sarah Palin is - I think only serves to fuel fires of unfair expectations on working mothers. I completely disagree with this sentiment:
"there's enough wreckage floating around in her gene pool to make the case that her children did not have proper parental attention" and I don't think it's necessary to bring the actions of her children into this discussion.
Regarding whether or not she "hates women", I think it's a pretty outrageous claim to make. She is obviously not an advocate for women's rights, and some of the policies that she has implemented or failed to overturn (i.e. victims paying for rape kits) are atrocious. But that doesn't mean she hates women. Making that accusation is simplifying something that is not simple, and is dumbing down the truth behind her - she is not an advocate for us, she is not someone we maybe would vote for, but instead of wanting her to fail how about a little political strategizing to change policy in Alaska rather than just calling it quits and waiting for her to stumble (and enjoying it when she does)
Again, if she were random person X, looking at her own parental success (or lack thereof) is entirely out of the question. But when her stated platform would effectively FORCE women to live the life that she chose for herself and become parents against their will, then her success as a parent could stand up to a little scrutiny. Just like anyone advocating that we all adopt a particular lifestyle should have their own success in that particular venture reviewed.
Do I think we need to go and dig up a bunch of shit on her family to smear her and shout from the mountaintops that she's a horrible mother? No.
Do I think that when she trots her family out onstage and crows about what a great job she's done as a wife and a mother in order to score political points on the national stage, we can look at the stated facts and judge for ourselves? FUCK YES.
Note the difference here: Sarah Palin's policies and goals would enact legislation compromising my bodily integrity, my ability to choose the life I wish to lead, not to mention the health of women who might not physically be able to bear the ramifications of her policies. Me speculating on a blog that the publicly available stuff about her family life indicates that she's not a very good parent does not have any legal ramifications. No one is going to forcibly tie her tubes because someone named "Mighty Ponygirl" said she's got an absolute trainwreck of a family on a blog somewhere.
"Getting on a plane when your water broke with a high-risk pregnancy to ME says "I want this baby to die on its way out so that I don't have to take care of it." --Mighty Ponygirl
Wow.
What a reckless, hate-filled and harshly judging comment. I don't support Sarah Palin, her politics, or the image she tried to market. But attacking someone's private life, particularly something as complicated as parenting, when 1. as mentioned, it takes two (Todd), and 2. I personally (and many here, seemingly) am not a parent, is an unfair ambush of personal choice. For those who see Palin as a fair target because her party portrays itself as the unquestionable purveyor of family values and forces them into public policy, shame on you. Practice your own politics, not theirs. Palin didn’t create the image all by herself, and while her subsequent choices are questionable, I find it bizarre that so much resentment has boiled out of these blog comments, even from impassioned, intelligent, socially-conscious observers. As a new visitor to feministing.com in recent weeks, I was delighted by the elevated rhetoric so I find this contemptuous post disheartening. It’s fair to say most of us disagree with her policies and the use of her family to leverage her platforms, but to say you believe she wants her children to die—well, that’s just about as bad as saying Obama was palling around with terrorists, don’t ya think?
Read for context. To ME. That means "This is my interpretation." I even followed it up to say there may be other interpretations.
Oh, for sure. It was my interpretation of the entire text that it was more of an emotionally charged critique (with opinion statements) than an intellectual one.
“there's enough wreckage floating around in her gene pool”--- Since when was anyone’s family perfect, anyway?
“And you know what, if we were talking about J.K. Rowling, or Tina Fey, or Paris Hilton, then whatever: being a woman hating asshole bad parent isn't particularly important.”--- Would you be dogging Tina as ferociously as you are Sarah, or is it just because she’s a politician? Cause to me, in my interpretation, not just of your texts but of many, it seems that criticisms are fueled just as much by personal dislike as policy disagreements. We like Tina Fey, so ya know, if she’s never home cause she’s filming her next movie, writing for 30 Rock and doing an SNL skit, we understand…
“if she weren't simultaneously destroying the lives of her children”--- what is the basis of this? Because Bristol had a baby as an unwed teen, her life is ruined? Harder, I can see that, ruined, I’m not sure. And who’s to say Bristol didn’t want the baby and that she doesn’t follow her mom’s pro-life convictions?
I agree that the policy for rape victims to pay for their own forensics kits is reprehensible. I am 100% a pro-choicer. But because Palin differs from me does not mean that she is a woman-HATER. Do you really think she HATES her daughter? My mom is all kinds of conservative and therefore on the other end of my political ideals, but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t HATE me. I just think of her as old-school, in the dark.
I admire your passion, and more importantly your persuasive writing, but please refer to my primary point of practicing your own politics—why get on that nasty, catty, slanderous level of S. Palin anyway? We all know she’s under-qualified. What else needs to be said?
I don't like calling her an asshole - but SHE DOES hate women. I don't see anything wrong with pointing that out.
That is just stating a fact. It is not an opinion nor is it a slander per se, anymore then saying someone who is anti-abortion is well, anti-abortion. It's not a slander it's a fact.
"Her politics don't support women" is stating a fact. Presuming to know who she hates is not. That's assuming and projecting.
Hey, I'm going to judge her by her actions, and her actions tell me that she hates women. Before I get the "you shouldn't be judging people!" crap, I'm definitely going to judge people who have influence and power over peoples' lives. And yeah, governors have influence and power.
Fair, you can judge. Of course you can judge. You can read her actions; you just can't read her mind. It's very unlikely that she feels hatred toward women; now, what SUPPORT for women looks like, she and most feminists probably don't agree on at all. I know I don't agree with her. I'll call her on that, but reverting to "she hates" is a very simplistic view of things and it's based entirely on opinion. It's fine to have that opinion but it's impossible to label it as fact.
I tempted to agree with you - that each person's politics and values often reflect something else other than hate. For all I know, Sarah Palin could very well care about women very deeply, and wants to "protect" them from the "evils" of abortions.
Either way, what can be said is that she does not trust nor does she think very highly of women and their ability to make their own decisions. That tendency of treating women like children and distrusting them is called misogyny.
Misogyny, if not hatred of women, then at the very least is the distrust of women (sort of like saying women use abortions as forms of birth control) - which Palin clearly displays.
I think it's funny that you asked if you were the only one put off by the post. It seems that the majority of the previous commenters were as well.
I don't think saying that one doesn't want Sarah Palin to succeed is the same as what Rush Limbaugh said about Obama. Obama won the election--if he fails, the country suffers. Palin lost the election--her failure wasn't a concrete loss to anyone. As feminists, we should root for women...but I don't know if it's our responsibility to root for those who are otherwise going to hurt our cause.
Ah...Mighty Ponygirl kinda said everything I said; that comment hadn't been posted when I opened up this post. Oops, sorry. ^_^
How the hell is saying you never wanted to see a politician who supports laws you adamantly don't support succeed sexist or an attack on her personally?
I don't think saying "I don't think she comes across as a great mother" in response to "oo, she works so hard as a mother!" is the same as saying she's a bad mother in every aspect.
Honestly. I fail to see how it's feminist to refuse to criticise someone because she's a woman. The issues about her family only come into discourse when you're told that you MUST empathise with her for being a mother.
I don't see how "I never longed to be a stay at home cat mum" is equivilent to saying that stay at home parents don't do anything either. I don't want kids, I would be a terrible stay at home parent even if we had kids, so yeah it's annoying being talked to like it's an enevitable part of your life you MUST relate to.
I'm totally with you Samhita. I wish Sarah Palin would just go away. I never wanted her or McCain to succeed, and as time went on it became blatantly obvious that she was a crappy politician and a crappy leader. For me, feminism has nothing to do with advancing women regardless of their politics - instead, it's about advancing leaders who will fight for feminist goals like reproductive rights, equal pay, GLBT rights, etc. The fact that women were supposed to herald her as some great indication of how far we've come...well, it didn't sit right with me. She's like the Speidi of politics - she does whatever she can to stay in the national spotlight.
I want her to go away also, but I don't see you this post that has well over a 150 comments is helping her go away...just my two cents...
I meant "how this post"..no coffee yet
I don't feel that Samhita treated this anti-women woman and differently than any of the multitude of anti-women men that make their way as topics on this site. A lot of posts on this site are designed to call out people on their sexist and damaging legislation, speeches, politics, whatever. How is it all of a sudden not OK to do the same to Palin?
I agree that perhaps "asshole" was a strong term to use, but I can sympathize. I find it incredibly hard not to get passionate especially when discussing such a spectacular dissapointment like Sarah Palin.
That's a good point Kittycat. Political adversaries are routinely treated as vicious monsters on Feministing, Palin isn't getting such special treatment.
Which raises the question: Is this type of post ever useful? This kind of attitude turns me off, even if I relate to it, because it's kind of a dead end in terms of discussion. There are a lot more nuanced conversations we could be having about Sarah Palin, but "asshole" and "woman hater" don't do it.
That was my problem with it, too. I didn't learn anything from this post except that Samhita thinks Sarah Palin is an asshole who hates women. No news, no new take on Palin, nada. Normally, posts from the Feministing editors offer actual pieces of news as well as insightful commentary on current events - it's what sets them apart from the hordes of other bloggers and is the reason I love this blog. I'm certainly no fan of Palin's, but there was nothing new or constructive here at all.
Samhita never said Palin was a "bad mother" - just that she didn't buy the whole "look at me, I'm an amazing mom so you should vote for me" thing.
Also, saying you don't want someone to succeed is not saying you want them to fail.
I'm with you, Samhita.
I should clarify that - it came out too quick.
Samhita never said Palin was a "bad mother". One of Palin's major 'selling points' was that she was a mother. That was supposed to make us vote for her. Samhita didn't buy it.
About saying she didn't want Palin to succeed - this doesn't mean she wanted Palin to personally fail and have a horrible life. It means that if you disagree with someone's political agenda, then of course you want that agenda to fall through and fail.
I just want to say that I don't think Sarah Palin hates women. I think she just doesn't care about other people, period.
You nailed it.
To those who think that it's sexist to "bash" a woman - the only thing that's sexist is expecting that women deserve a pass in politics, and protection as a mother, simply because she's a woman. Vaginal politics does not apply within feminism.
Understand this, PUMAS and all: Sarah Palin gets shit from progressives not because she's a woman, and most certainly not because we're sexist, but because she is a threat to women everywhere.
This woman neither has a clue about the goings-on of the world, the sexism women face, nor the reality of the world in 2009. She is undereducated, she's laughable, and she's against everything we stand for. Give her a sex change, and it wouldn't be any different. Her vagina has absolutely nothing to do with why we hate her.
That's why I don't understand so-called feminists who supported Palin during the elections. You see, feminism calls us to end sexism and enhance women's lives, not blindly support women politicians regardless of their politics.
As the personal is political (and please do not tell me to go learn about what the phrase means again), then her politics affects the lives of women around the world - and I don't know about you, but the lives of less fortunate women are more important than Sarah Palin being able to break the proverbial glass-ceiling.
THANK YOU!!!
Although some comments in this post were a little much (asshole for example), I HATE the fact that some posters here seem to think that you can never criticize any woman, ever, for any reason. That is not feminism.
Feminism does not mean supporting all women no matter what they believe or what they do. That wouldn't exactly do us any good would it?
I agree personal attacks and sexism are bad. But I think it is feminism's JOB to analyze and point out the issues with women and policies which are well, anti-women.
I don't see how supporting a woman who clearly hates women is a feminist thing to do. Feminism is about equality. Which means both sexes need to measure up to the same standard, not just men.
I know it is a fine line to walk sometimes, but please do not think that women are above any/all criticism. They are not.
I have no qualms over criticizing palin. I think she should be criticized. I dont think anyone is saying that she shouldnt be criticized solely because shes a woman. The point is that theres an intelligent, productive way to criticize her and that doesnt include throwing around the word "asshole" or merely saying that she "hates women." Let contribute something of value to feminist discourse. Otherwise, we become irrelevant or worse are just perceived as unintelligent which definitely does not further the feminist cause.
And im definitely not hating on Samhita. I usually really like the stuff that she writes and find it to be very thought-provoking as it delves beyond the surface. Thats why this post surprised me so much. I think constructive criticism should be welcomed on this site if were all in this together.
What's with the "we" stuff?
I try not to hate people.
Speak for yourself, dude.
And why don't you say
"vagina" a few more times?
That sure was called for.
Marc generally speaks for himself and for Feminism, hence first person plural.
Marc generally speaks for himself and for Feminism, hence first person plural.
I don't speak for the whole movement as a whole - but rather, when advocating a certain point, those who share the same points. Sorry if it appears as though I was speaking for the whole movement.
So you don't speak for
the whole as a whole but you'd
still call her "asshole"?
Look out, Ms. Palin!
All feminism hates you.
This per spokesman Marc.
Okay, for your sake, I'll call it the "down there" from now on. Any other childish terms for the "down there" you want me to use?
Did you have to go
"down there" at all? Why make it
anatomical?
Oh, and I'd prefer
to use "lady cave" if we're
using childish terms.
The girl says "cootch" which makes me blush and giggle.
your haiku make my day. LMMFAOOOOOOO.
Besides my simple disagreemement with you (I think Samhita's post indefensible and discursively useless), two things:
1) PUMAs? Really? I'm surprised you seem to place such stock in a phenomenon that was long ago disproved with election results. The scope of the PUMA thing was a media canard, anti-feminist in origin. Moving on...
2) Can you please not turn discussions of womanhood into discussions of vaginas? There are plenty of women out there who don't have vaginas, and you're sure ignoring their existence. As Interior_League said, this doesn't have to get anatomical.
i actually kind of agree with the npr article....when palin first became nationally prominent and i didn't know much about her politics, i wanted her to be somewhat successful, even though i wouldn't have voted for the mccain/palin ticket. i *want* women in positions of power, and there's a real dearth of younger women and women who are actively raising children (most have adult children or no children at all) in positions of political prominence. i love me my hillary clinton and i worship janet napolitano, but i would also appreciate having some more young women with families to provide some different perspectives. (i also hoped that a woman who many men find "hot" would prove to be an intellectual equal.)
then it became abundantly clear that palin's politics are reprehensible and her intellect seriously in question. (i won't comment on her mothering skills. having a daughter who gets pregnant out of wedlock is NOT a sign of bad parenting. and all of them seem to be well-cared for.) having said that, calling her an asshole seems really journalistically lazy to me. there are scads of legitimate things to call her, and of all of them, you go with....asshole?
The kind of men who want an intellectual equal, or who aren't very easily equaled intellectually, are not the ones who find Palin hot.
Tina Fey is hot.
I wholeheartedly agree with all of this and am really worried that nobody brought up a lot of these points earlier.
In addition, aside from the fact that in general I want a GOP that's canny enough to keep the Dems on their toes, I sure as hell don't want every woman interested in seeking high public office to have to wear a "D" by her name in order to get there. (I also, of course, hope the president gets his act together so he couldn't later lose his re-election to Palin - which would take some serious crashing and burning on his part.)
There are so many things wrong with this post, so I'll only focus on one.
Sarah Palin's being pro-life does NOT mean she hates women. We have to stop assuming that the transitive property works in this scenario.
I beg you to try to see things from the other point of view. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder. If they are consistent with that belief, then they would oppose it in the majority of cases. If you believe it's murder, then it stops being an issue about women's rights and starts being an issue about human rights. You wouldn't support a women OR a man murdering another human just because they didn't want that person around.
Yes, I'm playing the devil's advocate. But sometimes until you do, you'll never see where the other side is coming from. You'll just start insulting people and calling them "assholes."
Please rethink some of your wording in the future.
Thank you. Its refreshing to see analysis that comes form a place of empathy and maturity. Even though im "pro-choice", I do not think demonizing pro-lifers to the point of absurdity is the best way to further our agenda. We can still be true to reality and true to our pro-choice views.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that it's about fetuses. Which doesn't explain why the pro-lifers are all about abstinence-only. By god, what do these two things have in common? Oh yeah, the anti-sex nonsense.
Give it up. Palin's a member of the forced birth brigade. Her defenders should all have a baby against their will to demonstrate their fealty.
Believe me, there are pro-life people who believe in birth control. I've met a few but I'm sure there are a lot more. Somehow the anti-sex pro-life people seem to get more power but that doesn't mean those in power are representative of all or most pro-life people.
Does anyone think that accusing Palin of hating women is a bit over the top? Is the sum total of the evidence supporting that decision the fact that she made women pay for rape kits & that she's pro-life? The state of California has hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits but that doesn't mean Attorney General Jerry Brown hates women does it? I mean someone could cite Bill Clinton's treatment of Monica Lewinsky & Hillary as evidence of him hating women and that wouldn't wash with me. Or are we saying the pro-life position is intrinisically hateful of women?
Can we disagree with someone without saying we hate them? Or that they hate us? I strongly dislike Palin but feel like we've kinda jumped the shark w/ some of the comments here. We seem a little "fringe-ish".
Oh heavens!! Radical feminism! Fetch me my fainting couch!
If Palin was a Democrat - you would love her.
If Palin was a MALE Democrat - you would vote for her.
In her politics ( pre-McCain) she passed most of her bills by creating a powerbase in the DEMOCRATIC side of the Alaska legislature.
In her personal life Palin has managed 85% of everthing 'classic' feminism asked for - and frankly could have been educated on most of the rest.
I don't support all her positions. (I don't, for that matter, support all of Pres. Obama's positions.) But I did bother to find out that those positions were, rather than jumping on the all-hate all-the-time vulgar-insult bandwagon.
Her positions on actual issues are seldom outside the range of elected members of the Democratic party. She is farther right than I would like, but she was never the anti-christ. Except, of course, to those who can't accept the success of women other than themselves and their clones.
These people may feel good about their absolutism, but they are the death of political accomplishment. They do nothing for the actual progress of actual women.
So keep hating. The patriarchy thanks you for it, I'm sure.
But she isn't Democrat, pro-choice, or pro-anything that feminism stands for, is she?
The point is moot! That's like telling us that if Obama were an anti-choice Republican, that we wouldn't have voted for him. Of course we wouldn't have!
You get it that just as early as today, there was a Feministing post on anti-choice Democrats on Feministing, and most of those were white, male Democrats, right? You know what that means? That means we're not basing this on her gender, but her politics.
We're not asking for political absolutism. We're just not quite willing to compromise reproductive rights as a means of political give-and-take.
It will be a fine day for feminism when my clones attain power.
Comments like this give the enemies of feminism all the ammunition they need to accuse feminists of not wanting women to be equal, but to have special rights. Why do female assholes get special dispensation not to be called assholes, huh? Do we still get to call male assholes assholes? All you're doing is giving the right a reason to make sure that the public face of misogyny is all female, so we have to roll over and let them take our rights away, because god forbid we "bash" someone female merely because she hates other women. But with a smile!
Wow I've never seen
this many "assholes" in one
feministing thread.
I don't care about Hilary Clinton , but given what I do I am forced to read and think about her much more often than I would like to. Similar to Amanda, I don't think of Hilary Clinton is a martyr or someone who was so heinously treated by the media that we should pity her in any way. I have yet to see any evidence of her being humbled about being wrong and an asshole, and while attacks against her have also been sexist, that is not the bulk of criticism around her. Hilary Clinton hates women (at least that is what is apparent through the little legislation she has worked on) and has used her marriage to score political points, only one of her many asshole moves. And frankly, using your marriage for political gain, well that doesn't score very high on the feminist scale.
I was especially struck by this rather optimistic (or misguided, I am not sure) piece by Michel Martin at NPR about how complicated Hilary Clinton is.
Can I just tell you? I do not know a single working mother who does not dream at some point, even if just for a minute, about packing up that desk and heading for the homestead, even if that fantasy is about as realistic as the one about supplementing unemployment with Powerball winnings. And I bet that's why so many mothers, who work outside the home or not, were rooting for Hilary Clinton , at least at first.
Whether you shared her politics or not, Clinton was somebody you wanted to see in the game, trying as she was to balance a very demanding job with the equally demanding job of raising a child and maintaining a decent relationship with her husband. She seemed to have so many attractive qualities. She seemed practical, honest, unfazed and down-to-earth, exactly the qualities people hope newcomers in general and hopefully women will bring to public life. And she is making no judgment at all about the whole campaign shopping spree thing, stylish, which I for one appreciate.
I never felt any of this. I never wanted to see Hilary Clinton succeed and I certainly didn't think of her as a good mother, especially after she unapologetically used her marriage for her own political gain and I have no doubt she will continue to do so.
~~~~~~~~~
On another note, I don't think it's very helpful to say that "Palin hates women" because she and her followers certainly don't see it that way.
Samhita, stop getting all Bill O'Reily, and give me some awesome feminist critique!
Hillary tried to rob thousands of little girls of their dreams of being the first female president. I don't know if she hates women, but she clearly has it in for little girls.
I don't really know what you're talking about.
That's okay, we're all on the same team now.
I get what you're trying to do, but honestly it ain't working. Mostly because this:
"Hilary Clinton hates women (at least that is what is apparent through the little legislation she has worked on)..."
doesn't make any sense, and that is the one reason that Sarah Palin IS an asshole - because of her legislation against female rights.
And using your child's personnal pregnancy story and twisting your child's words to fit your message just to prove where you "stand on the issue" is not the same thing as using personnal connections in politics to get ahead. That's kind of what politicians do.
Just trying to do a little exercise to see what would happen if I turned the tables around.
Obviously, Clinton and Palin are drastically different, but I think when you say stuff like that, you're no different than the other guy on the political spectrum.
I find the argument "that's what politicans do" weak. Palin is using her connection to her daughter to influence others, what else is new? I highly doubt someone could get elected these days without being married and having kids. Clinton guarded Chelesa, McCain lets Meghan do what she wants, and Obama let EXTRA interview his kids once, like, big deal. Can you tell me Palin's opinion on Iran?
Anyway, can't we talk about Palin as a national politician? All we care about here is her opinion on Roe v Wade and abstainance-only. Of course, that's important, but geez, nobody talks about Palin's other political beliefs, or as I like to say, non-opinions.
Palin's social views aren't any different from the majority of Republicans--omg! let's head for the hills!
The reason why Palin fails is because it seems that those are the only causes she espouses at a national level.
Dude/tte, this doesn't even work. Hillary has worked harder in her career than like 95% of Dems to improve health care and reproductive access for women and to give women MORE (not fewer) choices in their lives. It's nonsense to even compare her to Palin.
And you seem to forget it's not exactly Hillary's fault that divorced women are looked upon as diseased carrion in politics.
In other words, Clinton won "political points" for staying married?
I'm just saying it's unavoidable for a politicans to use their personal life in some way.
Moreover, I could care less whether she "uses" Trig or Bristol, I care *what* she says more.
Oh, and regarding using her children for political gain? Can we say the "personal is political"?
Yes, I think we can.
I have mixed feelings about this post myself. While I think that there we much better ways to express distaste than calling someone an "asshole", I dont think that should be the focus of the post, because it is about expressing opinions.
Certainly saying that you do not want someone to succeed really isnt a problem, its stating an opinion. I mean, I wouldnt want Sally Kern to succeed more so than she already has for instance, to impact my right to love any more than she already has becasue her choices affect me personally in a negative way. Sarah Palins parenting skills need to be left off the table however.
Her actions should be taken on a case by case basis, seeing as I do not live in her household I cannot say what her parenting is like aside from what I know from the media. I do not personally like Palin at all, but I think this discussion should be a critique of Palins politics and their effect on women, not simply an attack on the poster.
I just started on this site and I think it has so much to offer, I have never seen discussions as mature and respectful as most on Feministing.
*hides behind stone wall* Please no one yell at me im new and scared! ^_^
Welcome to Feministing, yo! Soonest, you'll find it more addictive than crack - or Red Bull, which ever is your drug of choice. ;)
COFFEE! ^_^ Starbucks is my drug of choice. And thank you :) *shakes hand*
You should read reclusiveleftist.com the comments there put these to shame.
Honestly, I am finding the posts and comments here increasingly petty and counter-productive to discourse.
that's a good site.
I'll check out that site too :)
Sometimes I wish to "pack up the desk and heading for the homestead." But it's not to take care of my children (which are actually non-existant). It's because I'm lazy.
That's okay, so are Palin and Samhita.
Wow, that was mean.
Yeah, and useless. Boo to people who comment just to attack the editors. Dialogue, folks.
What did you expect Palin to do with her kids? Lock them up in her closet for the duration of her campaign? I don't understand what Palin could have done that would have pleased you. If she lets her kids come to her speaking and fundraising events, she is using them as a prop. If he left them at home she probably would have been a bad mom. If I was running for VP I would have been happy to show my kids off. They wouldn't be happy about being left at home while Mom is the center of attention and on TV. I swear it's like you guys have no idea what it's like to be a mother. She didn't use her kids as anything. No matter what she did, you know that the media circus is going to dig up dirt and what better fodder than a politicians' family. It's the oldest game in the book.
I am really getting sick of all this.
What planet does that writer live on? Certainly not Alaska, USA, Earth, where I am. "Honest" and "down-to-Earth" are some of the very first words I would use to describe what Sarah Palin is not.
Her statements rarely make any coherent sense. So it's a stretch to say she "lies" but nonsense is certainly not "honesty" either. On the few instances were she said something factual I'd say something like 8 out of 10 of them were outright and very clear lies. All politicians lie, but most politicians who are not Sarah Palin do not lie so often and so outright about things that can easily be fact-checked.
Whatever... I am more dumbfounded by the "down-to-earth" thing. She has never been in touch with the Earth! She lives in a fantasy world, with her head in some clouds, she has no grasp of reality. For crying out loud: She doesn't even believe in the Earth!
"blah blah blah Sarah Palin blah blah blah" is certainly an apt title for this post, for that is the conversation it inspired!
I asked her her name she said blah blah blah...
Sigh. There sure are a lot of garbage comments on this thread.
And people ignoring the fact that I sure as hell am going to call anyone an asshole who thinks they know what every marriage, every evening of sex, and every family should look like in the whole goddamn country. Samhita wasn't accusing Palin of being a generally bad mother. She was pointing out the blatant HYPOCRISY of Palin not even living the things she's trying to force on everyone else.
I try not to make judgments on political candidates until I'm knowledgeable about their positions on the issues (e.g., many Dems are anti-choice, some Repubs are not as wingnut anti-choice as others, etc.), but once I picked up on Palin's platform, no, I never once "secretly wanted her to win." What the fuck? Are women so fucking comfortable in their lives they don't realize the enormous THREAT people like McCain and Palin pose to reproductive (and other women's) rights? Would we all like to regress to being denied our birth-control pills at the pharmacy counter? Would we all like to regress to not being allowed legal abortions past the first trimester? Would we all like four or eight more years of gays being pushed into the corner? Because THAT is what Palin stands for.
I wrote a post on my blog back during the election about feminist responses to Sarah Palin. Basically, it bugged me that the prevailing media narrative at the time was that Palin represented a conundrum for feminists who support woman candidates in general but despised Palin's politics. Meanwhile, no one was looking critically at how Palin's personal life challenged conservative assumptions about a woman's place being in the home.
I have always believed that knee-jerk support of a woman candidate just because she's a woman is just as sexist as non-support because she's a woman. I have no problem with Palin as a person - none of my business - but when her supporters claim that her executive experience supervising a large family qualifies her for office, IMO it demeans the real work that other women in government have done. It's not fair for Palin to use her children as resume-builders (doesn't anyone else remember her implication that having a son in Iraq trumped Biden being head of the Senate Foreign RElations Committee?) and then expect that no one will call her on it. From the very beginning of her turn on the national stage, Palin has behaved as though she's special and immune from the things that other political figures have dealt with. To me, that makes her un-feminist. Just my opinion.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my antipathy for Sarah Palin is in direct proportion to her supporters' insistence that I worship her, when she's done nothing leadership-wise that would impress me.
This comment has been deleted.
Testing the new comment moderation policy are we? Good luck with that.
While the specific criticisms you leveled could perhaps be considered valid, why present this in a way that is all but guaranteed to get you moderated/banned?
"mean-spirited hipster douchebag" did get a chuckle out of me though, even if it is pointlessly snarky. That's just a nicely put-together phrase.
I'm just testing the boundaries. :)
I should lay off the personal attacks, though, because I actually do admire the people who run this site, Samhita included. I really don't want to get kicked off, because I think I serve a useful purpose in edifying some of the arguments around here by playing devil's advocate.
I just feel like someone should keep this place honest so it doesn't become a cult of personality. That's all. No harm intended.
Again, good luck with that. I'm inclined to believe that you're sincere, but frankly, I'll be rather surprised if you're still around by this time tomorrow.
On the upside, you'll make an excellent example of why tone really does matter in online discourse and why telling people that they'll accomplish more if they try to be a little more pleasant is actually an accurate assessment of the way the world works rather than a silencing technique.
So rest assured: throwing yourself beneath the wheels of moderation policy will not be in vain, Courtship_Dating! Your legacy will live on! =)
(I hope I'm not being too facetious - but if I am, and you call me a douchebag, I swear to Eris I'll use the "Report Abuse" button on you.)
Ha! Well I'm not serving up Apples entirely for the sake of Discord. I like Apples!
Oh, and I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. That said, I honestly don't expect to be here this time tomorrow, but if I am, it'll certainly raise my estimation of the moderators and the community as a whole.
You're kind of fun. E-mail is user name at gmail. Keep in touch; at this point I'm pretty certain that you're a real live human being and not a cabbage or something. =)
Samhita to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2y8HDU7-U
Yes. Yes I do. :)
I'm sure none of you are irritating trolls who go about spouting your 3-credit college-class-level "expertise" on social movements you actually know little to nothing about, or anything like that.
Oh! Zing! Nice one, allegra. Nice one.
"irritating trolls"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
I love that movie!
"irritating trolls"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
I'm tired of hearing very little about the sexism towards Palin (AND Clinton) from so-called feminists. It's like, "Yeah, people are sexist towards her but what we're talking about here is..." Sexism was brushed aside during the entire election process and it still is. This election actually made me very jaded towards liberals, and I was once Queen of the Liberals. Feminists brushed off both of the women involved with it. We have shown the world that we can overcome racism, at least in part, but not sexism. Not even clost. Most of the "feminists" I know were as bad as, if not worse, than men when criticizing Clinton and Palin. It's bullshit and I'm tired of it. I think they should run together in 2012. I'd vote for them in a minute. At least they get shit done, whether you like what that shit is or not.
I'm a feminist and a liberal, but I have to say the way that Clinton and Palin have been treated has made me recognize that a lot of what is called "feminism" is actually "progressive liberalism".
Feminism is always first-and-foremost a tool of leftist marxists. It will always play second fiddle. It grew out of that whole movement, and was completely informed by 60's radicals. It will take generations for feminism to overcome the adverse effects that those lame, ridiculous people placed on our backs. The legacy of baby boomers is ultimately one of naïveté and elitism. Feministing at times is just unwittingly playing out it's part. I think posts like the one Samhita made are sad examples of feminism being the second fiddle.
You're a feminist who's apparently never heard of "suffrage," which was in fact not at all "informed by '60s radicals." And many feminists have thoroughly criticized Marxist theory for including basically zero women's voices and for claiming women's issues would "naturally" solve themselves after capitalism dissolved. Plenty of Marxists were infamous womanizers. So were plenty of capitalists, and plenty of Christians.
Neat, huh.
Second wave feminism absolutely grew out of the awakening anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist consciousness of the 1960s. That consciousness was absolutely informed by Marxist ideology. At the same time, rampant sexism existed within these groups, which resulted in the offshoot that was the Women's Movement of the 1960's and 1970's.
That said, they really are similar. I shouldn't have implied that they were out-and-out Marxists. In fact, there's a bourgeois element that is rampant in both camps that I'm sure Marx would have despised. Nevertheless, liberalism is the prevailing ideology in these parts, even though Jessica uses this platform to shamelessly peddle her wares.
But I see what your saying. You make a valid point.
BTW, I think it's cool that Jessica uses this platform to peddle her wares. I like capitalism. Heck, I like marxism, too. Just saying.
Very true.
Really?
"Sincere criticism vs. 'gotcha!'",
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016007.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016134.html
I assume you're satirizing, but if not could you explain what they get done? Then could you tell me what governing policies a Clinton/Palin ticket would advocate?
Females in power face more criticism (often in the form of crude, sexist remarks) than males. There's no doubt about that. However, I disagree with the prolifers I've spoken to on the matter that Mrs. Palin has suffered more badgering than any other politician. She's been USED more than most, true.
The conservative side used her as a beauty queen (seeing her looks as more important than her skills and insisting that being pretty makes her somehow a better leader).
The liberal side trashed her for her looks (I've come close to kicking the shit out of some so-called "liberal" ass over some of the sexist comments I've seen/heard about her looks either making her a MILF or a hollow, pretty political trophy).
I honestly can't stand the woman but my reasons for feeling the way I do have everything to do with her gleeful support of gunning down wolf packs, forcing rape victims to pay for their own rape kits and overall anti-woman, anti-planet politics. I'm sick to bloody death of everything being about her looks or her kids.
Hey, if you can't intimidate a woman off the podium by treating her like a piece of meat, insulting her looks or insinuating that she's stupid due to her gender, go for her kids! Maternal instinct might do the trick!
Sick of it all.
I agree with most of what you said, but I have to point out that the rape kit policy is a myth that has been thoroughly debunked. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but AFAIK, Palin never instituted or endorsed this policy, which is a policy that is no longer in effect anyway. It's a terrible policy, I agree. Again, please correct me if I'm mistaken.
I hate that I'm coming to the defense of Palin, and I know how that looks, but it's absolutely disgraceful the things that get said about her. People in this community have referred to her children as piglets. Absolutely disgraceful.
Rape kit fact check:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_sarah_palin_make_rape_victims_pay.html
Yep. That's what I thought. I don't know how these myths get traction. It's kind of like what Sartre said about anti-semites and jews. People invent things to justify their hate for someone.
You call that debunked?
Yes I do. She certainly isn't "forcing rape victims to pay for their own rape kits", is she? After all, that's what's been casually passed around as "fact" for the last 9 or 10 months.
Anyway. I'm not here to defend Sarah Palin. I just think it looks ignorant and uniformed to repeat false information as fact. To me it looks as foolish as the Obama "muslim" lies that get passed around among ridiculous conservatives.
But her police chief did while she was mayor. We don't know how much if any of it she specifically endorsed, but at the very best she obviously didn't care to stop it.
Exactly. Her police chief did it when she was mayor.
A person who does not think Palin is responsible, well...doesn't understand management.
I am responsible for how the people who answer to me interpret my policies. And if people who answer to me make policies, I AM RESPONSIBLE for the results. If Palin didn't actually chase women down expecting to rip checks from their checkbooks, she is still responsible for women having to pay for rape kits.
Or was Henry II innocent in the murder of Becket?
Add to that the insanely high rate of sexual assault in Alaska, and the fact that no other crime results in the victim having to pay for the solving, and you have an administration that targeted women.
"A person who does not think Palin is responsible, well...doesn't understand management."
That definitely includes SP.
I hate Sarah Palin because she goes against absolutely everything I believe in. I think she's an asshole. I think she's too dumb to be President. I think she's a scary fundie. That would be true if she were a man as well.
I have made comments about Sarah Palin being the Britney Spears of politics - but she was fetishized and sexualized by her own party (and the Dems to an extent) and I find that interesting/sad/scary. More importantly though, I think her children should have been left out of it.
Despite the not-so-savory way in which she flamed out, to infer that not wanting Sarah Palin to succeed makes one a bad feminist is laughable. In fact, I'd be wary of any feminist who was rooting for that woman. Sarah Palin is a fundamentalist Christian and kill-em-all Conservative hellbent on eliminating access to contraception and abortion. She's folksy and brutal in the same way Reagan was. We're still suffering the repercussions of that era. And if Sarah Palin had been a prominent and successful woman, we'd be feeling the aftershocks for decades. I believe she could have pushed through some pretty abhorrent legislation if given the opportunity.
I'm glad she failed. I just wish that failure wasn't facilitated by jokes about her kids. The feminist in me wanted her to fail because she legitimately failed, not because she was harassed into failing. However, I cannot say that her being gone from politics would be a bad thing. So I'm torn.
I reserve the right to criticize any of her policies but I will not go anywhere near her parenting skills. Bristol Palin is now 18 years old and can decide her life for herself. Todd Palin is also a parent in this relationship. They have an extended family in the state. She is not the first politician to use family as political pawn. Do you think we would have the Chanel-scarfed wives if it wasn't so important to project the "perfect family" image.
I am hopeful that this is the last we see of Palin, but I think not. I don't agree with her stand on abortion, creationism, guns etc. But I am leery of this kind of post because I think it adds to the "lefty massacre" the right wing looks for.
As a mom, I don't think it is appropriate to criticize anyone's parenting skills unless what they are doing qualifies as abuse. We may not like her policies, we may not like her way of speaking, but we have no right (as women and/or feminists) to criticize her parenting. She does what works for her, and quite honestly those kids look healthy, well fed, clothed, and seem to love her so guess what? Not my place to intervene. Do I agree with her parenting style? No. But that does not mean she's a bad parent. Just means I wouldn't do what she does.
Sidenote: If it was a male politician, would we even question his parenting style? Likely not. I have never seen or heard anyone say, "How dare Billy get a BJ from that woman- he's a dad!" Sure they criticized it overall, but never because he was a father. Something to think about.
Now, to respond to the NPR writer: actually, I have to admit, I tend to find the same thing re: packing it up and going home. There are days I wish I was home, playing with my son. Days I wish I could pack it all up and call it a day. Most of my mom friends feel the same way. This, however, does not mean I agreed or worshipped Palin, EVER. I admired her ability to work, be a mom and wife, etc. But her policies left much more to be desired for me. I do not associate with her JUST because she's a mom. It is, and should be, much more complex than that.
At the end of the day, she is just like every other politician I do not agree with and am tired of reading about.
I did not have a chance to read through all 169 posts, so if I address issues already covered in sincerely apologize...however...
I cannot begin to explain how disapointed in this post I am. I, like many feministing readers, do not support Palin on a political and social level. However, I believe in good manners, civility, and contructive crticism; very little of which I have seen in this post. Specific points that are discouraging to me are
a) attacking her mother skills and claiming she is not a "good mother" does nothing to promote a feminist agenda; and if anything puts more attention on her personal life that perhaps should be left more private. How often on this site are we critical of media outlets that describe influential women only in terms of their realationships/families/spouses rather than their professions. Crtiticizing her mothering skills only contributes to this.
b) Though I dont agree with Palin's stance on women's issues I sincerely doubt that she "hates women"; this language is reckless and creates more fodder for all the righty's that want to claim that feminists and feminism do nothing to address sexism directed at Palin.
c)And hate to say it but the media and other popculture outlets has been critical of her, in some instances rightly so, but think back to SNL skits, photoshopped pictures of her on nude models, the Palin porn video (Nailin Palin or something to that effect) that was created, the Palin action figures, she is the "bimbo" gov., the Letterman fiasco, and so forth. Though I dont identify with her I am mindful of some of the obstacles she faced on a personal attack
level.
This post contains nothing constructive, nothing that advances feminism, and only adds to the sensationalizing of everything that surrounds this woman. This post is immature, flat out, sorry to be so blunt, and I rarely post, but I just hung my head when I read this..
The SNL skits were dead on, Tina often quoted her verbatim (which with Palin counts as cruel slander). Your other points are good.
This site called out a lot of the sexist BS you mention, including the pornification of Gov. Palin. A lot of that came from her "supporters," BTW.
I agree 100% with you on this, which why this post slamming her personally and her mothering skills makes me upset. It seems contradicting to me to say "we will call out sexism aimed towards you then criticize your mothering skills and say you hate women"
Her supporters talk about her like she's their favorite stripper.
Samhita, what the hell? Before you posted this, did you consider what you intended it to do for feminism or for the Feministing community and readership? What did you intend for it to do, anyway? If you don't care about Sarah Palin, why write and post this on a blog you know is a major feminist forum?
I ask because I can find no journalistic value in this post. It contributes nothing to any kind of political discourse, and from the sound of it, it isn't even trying to. For chrissakes, you can do a lot better than to say you never wanted her to succeed and to criticize her parenting. (And didn't you editors decide long ago that such criticism was anti-feminist and off-limits?)
I'm weirded out by this post not because it says anything all that egregious (you know there's been far worse) but because, from what I can tell, it doesn't even purport to have anything insightful or valuable to say about anything. All it does is voice some mean-spirited, knee-jerk antipathy and lazy potshots and risk damaging feminism. Gee, thanks.
"And didn't you editors decide long ago that such criticism was anti-feminist and off-limits?"
Exactly. This post reeks of do as I say and not as I do.
this was intended to be a reply agreeing with everybodyever's post, that reply button is sneaky!