Gloria Steinem on Palin:
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.
How it's done. I especially like "I don't doubt her sincerity."
Lots of other good stuff there. Read it all.
Seems like the "progressive" blogosphere isn't all that progressive; four days making running "mate" jokes and going after 17-year-old girls and babies with Down syndrome and at the end of the day it didn't fucking work, as Biden rules the family "off limits.". Four days out of the what, sixty-some, that are left. If that's what they thought would be effective, that's bad. If they were acting as Tier Two of the Obama campaign (my view), that's even worse.
Now there's a winger populist barracuda loose in the water, and nobody seems to know what to do. And it's really too bad. If only... If only Obama had a surrogate, somebody who could speak to real issues in people's live with real details about policy, and out populist the populist. Maybe even a woman. A Mama Barracuda to take out the cute little Baby Barracuda. Wouldn't that be great?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Feminism Is A Progressive Value
which is why Steinem's takedown is so effective, it's a feminist, progressive takedown of Palin instead of using sexist non-progressive bullshit.
But the problem is that a lot of Blogger Boiz don't really care about reproductive freedom or women's equality and so it doesn't occur to them to go after Palin on these issues. Because they don't see these as issues except, of course, to beat Democratic women over the head with.
it's a progressive takedown,
but not a feminist one, i don't think.
Since when is feminism only concerned with supporting some women some of the time?
When did equality and choice and choices and stuff get limited to only matter to some women in the world and the workplace instead of all who are there and need the help and opportunities?
To Me
you can't have equality so long as the state can control your body. So to claim to be a feminist and believe in equality but at the same time advocate for the state to have control over women's bodies doesn't work for me. If she thought abortion was always wrong and advocated against it, but didn't want to give the state control over women's bodies to stop them, then I'd probably think differently. Because what anti-abortion forces mostly care about is controlling women, much more than they care about "life" and I don't think you can align yourself with people who want the power to control women and be a feminist.
I do agree Palin is much better than Schafly in that she doesn't make a career out of telling women that they can't have a career. In that sense, I think Palin is for women's equality, but again she limits it and defines it based on her sense of right and wrong, when true equality would permit each woman to make those choices for themselves.
TY amber...
when I read the piece, I was appalled that anyone would think that what Steinem did was a "feminist takedown." What does (false representations of Palin's positions on) global warming and teaching creationism have to do with feminism?
I agree with Melissa over at shakesville -- you can't be a progressive unless you're a feminist -- but you don't have to be a progressive in order to claim that you are a feminist.
The Mama Barracuda will come through
Whatever I may think of Hillary Clinton on other matters, I do believe that she would fight to the death for the Democratic Party.
...for the rest of us
Too bad
The Democratic party didn't want to fight to the death for her. Obama could be riding a wave to November, now he's struggling to stay afloat.
It doesn't matter
A good many people have one thing as a goal: unseat the powers that be that gave us this travesty of an election. To protect what few rights we have left as women, we are going to work for progressive down ticket Dems. At this point, it doesn't matter which team we pick. We're screwed as woment. The only thing we can do is make sure there is some core of a progressive party left after the purge.
Steinem can stuff it. The time for her to speak up was back when Hillary still had a chance. Yes, I know she did but she and Katha Pollit switched to Obama without demanding a damn thing from him.
So, thanks, G-L-O-R-I-A, we'll take it from here.
Come together at The Confluence
Sardonicus, we don't care
Back in June, we told the Clinton campaign that this was much bigger than her and her ability to affect our voting decisions is very limited. Not because she isn't a great leader. She is. But this issue goes to the very soul of what it means to be a Democrat- honoring every voter. Obama didn't and he's the one who is running. We're not voting for him and there is a growing contingent who will be voting for Palin. The progressive blogosphere sent them over the edge with the stuff on the over the top non-stop misogyny of the past several days. That's it. No mas. Beating Hillary to help him save his bacon will backfire on Obama. We're sick of it.
Come together at The Confluence
Silly me, I still think there's hope,
but it's on the level of last season BUFFY: Everyone who could be a Slayer, is a Slayer.
Every congresswoman and senator who is female and a Democrat, step up and fight in every district we've got, with the full backing of the DSCC and DCCC.
They get the firepower they should have gotten in the Year of the Woman, 1992, and lay waste to all the sexist talk and racist accusation the GOP has hid behind.
Then again, I believe in the Easter Bunny.
Sounds really exciting, goldberry
except for the part about your claims being untrue - or lies, depending on your level of ignorance.
Here we see clearly from Gallup that "swing" voters, those not stating that they are fully committed to either Obama or McCain, have begun to make up their minds. (Latest data are from August 28-31.) The trend clearly favors Obama, although we will have to wait until a few days after the Republican Convention to know how solidly.
The major driver for Obama's advantage comes from former Hillary supporters, who have shifted dramatically towards committing to Obama and away from uncertainty and John McCain. The number of former Hillary supporters now favoring the Republican is no different than what we have seen from supporters of losing candidates in other presidential elections; from Obama and the Democrat’s perspective they are not worth the trouble to pursue.
As for there being "a growing contingent who will be voting for Palin" I see no evidence to support such a claim. If you have anything beyond your own wishful thinking, please provide the data and associated links.
While I have no doubt that some fraction of former Hillarians will act in ways that are self-destructive, as did women generally in 2004 by giving a majority of their support to George Bush and thereby ensuring his re-election, in this cycle most women and by far most former Hillary advocates seem to understand that the choice between immediate disaster and surviving to continue the struggle for equal human rights requires them to put aside hurt feelings and do what they must to drive a stake into the heart of the Republican figureheads supporting the supremely anti-feminist - indeed, anti-humanist - VRWC
Plutocratic authoritarian criminal cabal that has ruled this country for 40 years.
Your POV, of course, may be different than theirs, but spreading deceptions as a part of your campaign of misguided retribution only shows how fully bankrupt your position truly is. By now disparaging Gloria Steinem, whose record of unqualified support for all things positive for women, indeed for all things humanly positive, is absolutely unsurpassed, you and your ilk have moved from sad and pitiable desperation to frankly repulsive self-parody.
Hatred rots the soul; cleanse yourself, before the stench becomes yet more foul.
Women Have Not Been Nearly As Self-Destructive As Men
in their voting. Something that I think should be pointed out. The only reason women are so important is that some of them swing between Ds and Rs, whereas men just vote Rs no matter how much deeper into debt and war the Rs drive them. Women were not the ones who voted for Bush over Gore 53-42% or for Bush over Kerry 55-45%. It's true that women did not prefer Kerry in large enough numbers to save us from the men's Bush preference, but there's only so much we can do when you guys insist on giving such large head starts to these Republican wankers. Even now, men tend to prefer McCain, although recently Obama tied him among men. Of course, maybe the last eight years have been fantastic for men and the 1990s sucked for them and so men are voting their interests unlike all those silly women.
I saw a very interesting presentation at Emily's List. One of the reasons Bush's popularity has dropped the last two years is that men have finally caught up with women on the unhappiness scale. You guys are apparently a little s-l-o-w.
(Sorry but I'm sick of this bullshit idea that men vote rationally and women irrationally when that's simply not true.)
Made no such claims, BD Blue
Men are just as, if not far more than, irrational than women across the board and we see that in many, many ways. Our excuse, such as it is, is that we are driven by testosterone and that particular hormone drives risk-taking and violent behaviors. Some men, clearly not all, are able to largely suppress those drives by sheer willpower; we should all work for a far greater degree of success in that regard.
But here, in this thread, the discussion is about women, feminism, Sarah Palin and the predominantly female residuum of Hillarians who will not vote for the Democratic candidate on the basis of perceived misogyny during the primary. What men have done - or not done - with their votes is hardly germane. Looking to what you freely admit is unacceptable behavior of others hardly provides a suitable comparator, does it? Are you really arguing that "better than men" is as good as women can do in regard to their own self-interests? I should hope they could do far better.
Now that men are, actually, shifting somewhat towards favoring the Democrats we are being told here that we should instead reject them and support the Republicans, even though they are with this ticket even more absurdly anti-woman and anti-humanist than ever before. For the love of God, please make up your minds; do you want to pursue a path towards liberation and equality or embrace further oppression?
Take your time, I've already decided against the worst of the authoritarians, but get back to me anyway; always interested.
Ah yes, "hurt feelings"
Paternalistic; infantilizing.
Better to stick to the data, eh?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Nah, I'm gonna go for the whole truth
Risky, indeed, and thanks for pointing that out.
There is nothing "paternalistic" or "infantilizing" about anything I said. Is it even plausible to deny that the anger expressed here and elsewhere over misogyny/sexism during the Democratic primary is based on feelings that have been hurt? Are we supposed to pretend that advocacy for supporting the Republican Party and the clearly inhumane never mind anti-feminist Sarah Palin stems from a coldly calculated purely intellectual analysis and decision making process? Bullshit.
People get hurt feelings all the time. They make decisions based on the anger that stems from those hurt feelings, all. the. time. On balance, that is a bad idea. As a tool for selecting a President, it is a really bad idea. Damn if I'll accept that I can't talk about it.
Been told here that I can't talk about the truth of John McCain's age, his five occurrences of melanoma, and his obviously increasing physical doddering and mental decline because that is somehow unacceptably ageist. Bullshit, again.
Been told here that I can't talk about the truth of McCain's traitorous behavior while a POW and his absurdly incompetent record in the rest of his military service because that's unacceptably demeaning to veterans. More bullshit.
Been told here that I can't talk about the truth of Sarah Palin's viciously oppressive commitment to destroy women's rights to control their own body because she hasn't succeeded yet in destroying them, and that pointing out the truly undeniably expanding evidence of the failure of her philosophies somehow constitutes crawling up into her uterus or that of her daughter. (A particularly disgusting misrepresentation, that.) Horsefeathers.
Now I'm told I can't discuss the truth about the extent to which hurt feelings play a part in the absurdist decision to support the most viciously committed anti-woman's-freedom presidential ticket ever formed because reality is paternalistic and infantilizing? Baloney.
Bend over backwards and twist yourselves into pretzels all you want, IMNSHO your unwillingness to tolerate open and honest disagreement without disparaging my honor and my integrity will have to be your problem.
Who said you "can't discuss" the truth?
Pish.
Of course a demand for justice begins in hurt -- that's why "tort" and "torture" come from the same root!
But it doesn't end there (at least for some, and I believe not for me).
Paternalistic; infantilizing.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Your feelings
about paternalism and infantilizing; you own them, don't project them on me.
[General pissed-off rant follows, not specific to you, Lambert.]
Been a epidemic here of demeaning and misrepresenting and condemning people who speak the truth. I gave examples of would-be forbidden topics above. A real nice bunch here now who feel they've got the one and only truth and have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees. Sometimes I push back, sometimes I ignore them, but still very annoying because almost always their "arguments" are irrational and based on nothing but their own disjointed - feelings.
Don't at all mind being challenged on reasoning or facts; seeking it, actually. I am totally out of patience for being told to STFU
because speaking the truth causes some people discomfort.
I await a substantive response to my comment
above.
Here's the definition of infantilize:
Of course "feelings" are involved. How not? But to say that -- for example, outrage over misogyny, or outrage over process violatioons -- ends with feelings, instead of merely beginning with them is, IMNSHO "infantilizing" within the dictionary definition of the word.
It's nothing to do with projection; it's the dictionary definition of the word.
I just don't understand this constant repetition that your somehow being silenced. Yet here you are, posting self-described rants. Which is it to be? Silence, or ranting?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Getting a bit meta, lambert
and I'm not about to list specific commentors here. If you want to get down to that level on what I see as being told to STFU
let's take it private.
That I and others have been told to shut up, that there are a growing number of supposedly sacred subjects that cannot be broached because somebody gets uncomfortable, is starkly evident all over nearly every political thread with substantive disagreement and has been for many months. Hardly credible that you have not noticed. As I wrote clearly above, sometimes I let it slide and sometimes I push back, but I am damn if I will shut up because someone no better than me says I should. There is no disconnect, no "Which is it to be?" involved. STFU is happening, I'm fed up, I'm complaining, and it is no more mysterious than that.
Infantilize and patronize: These are your interpretations. They are not based on anything I said. They are how you choose to view what I said, but that does not make them accurate. All of the hoorah around sexism in the primary continues on today as a defining issue amongst a small and rapidly shrinking set. (That is not to say that the rest of us do not feel anger and outrage and frustration over bigotry including sexism; we just don't see it as being as immediately acute an issue as, say, global destruction.) The terms most frequently employed by the Sexism Is Paramount adherents are angry, pissed off, fed up, outraged, offended, etc; all emotional terminology describing feelings.
You say "Of course 'feelings' are involved. How not?" What then is your problem? That's all I am saying. When you say "But to say that — for example, outrage over misogyny, or outrage over process violations — ends with feelings, instead of merely beginning with them is, IMNSHO 'infantilizing'..." you are projecting claims that I did not make. It may well be that someone somewhere has transitioned to an intellectual, dispassionate, rational position that rejects the Democrats and Obama and obtains a beneficial alternative; I haven't seen any evidence of that, but I am open to the possibility. I have asked many times for such an exposition, but have yet to see a plausible response. What I do see continually are purely emotional statements, proposing the entirely irrational transaction that losing will somehow (Underwear Gnome Logic) transform into victory sometime later, that reluctantly but deliberately choosing the lesser of two evils is somehow not a correct choice and embracing the greater of two evils is morally superior, that Obama has failed to say some set of magic words in just the right prescribed incantation sequence and therefore the Democrats must be condemned and the truly evil Republicans should be embraced, and on and on in that emotionally-driven irrational vein to the point of nausea.
I write "hurt feelings" because that is exactly what is happening here. People got their feelings hurt, they got angry, and they are still angry. In many, that anger is being nurtured and preserved, the embers blown on and fed with whatever scraps of fuel can be gathered, and held close to the heart where the hurt has blossomed into full-blown hatred. The idea that punishing Obama and the Democratic Party by voting for McCain is a good and rational decision makes no sense from the standpoint of logic, no matter how by that anger and hatred it is twisted and turned. Doing so in the actual hope of electing the Republican ticket is not just irrational, it is self-destructively irrational; it is a pathological position, driven entirely by emotion that has become unbounded by any reason whatsoever.
There is nothing "infantile" about falling into that emotional trap, it happens to adults all the time. To call it out does not accuse anyone of being “infantile”, merely that they are enmeshed in an emotional response that has overwhelmed rational thinking. There is nothing "paternal" about pointing it out; it happens to both men and women, and the accident of conception that made me male has no bearing on my powers of observation in this regard. That you dismiss my considered opinion, however, one IMNSHO that is very much reality-based, by charges that impugn my character and my intellectual honesty says volumes about your own investment in emotionally-based decisions which you cannot defend through logic or reason; instead, out of a desperation born of that deficit of rationality, you resort to demonizing and demeaning me. These are your interpretations and your feelings; they have nothing objectively to do with me or anything I have said.
I don't think you or others who hold similar views on current electoral strategy are bad people, in fact almost all of you I see as very good people indeed; but I do think you are definitely wrong. I don't need to reach for polysyllabic denigratives to make that point, and if you have a logical point to make then neither should you. When, however, as occurred upthread here, the arguments include falsehoods and deceit then I sometimes feel the need to comment and set the record straight in no uncertain terms. I would be remiss to see arguments being made here based on error – or worse – and let them go unchallenged when I know that they are false. If others decide to feel discomfited by that, so be it.
Feh
OK. It's all about "hurt feelings." Check.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Rationality
I'm partial to what philosopher D.H. Mellor has to say on the topic, "Appeals to rationality are mostly bluff. There is no good theory of what it is nor of how to recognize it."
PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!
ah, but cg.eye- that's not *exactly* how season 7
ended, now is it? (and i love that there are buffy fans here) indeed, if you followed the storyline, the select group of slayers gathered "after" the end, not in fact the entire female population of the world.
it's a question i often ask myself: is 'total' feminism possible, in the way that we effectively have total acceptance of men's rights? even in those states where there are slaves, there are men enslaved who fundamentally believe they have the right to be free. will we ever get to that point with women? it's hard to say in a patriarchy-constructed discourse.
anyway, palin is obviously a demon who clawed her way up from hell into a female body (angel ref) and should be treated as such. glad to see folks here sticking to the message many people are telling me "will work." after the election i'm going to write about lessons learned this cycle, lessons about feminism; i think i want to see 'how it ends' first before i decide what it is i'm being taught.
I Look Forward To It, CD
I loved Buffy. Or at least the first five seasons of Buffy. Seasons Six and Seven (musical episode excepted) sucked. Hard. Although I did like the ending Josh gave the series a lot of damage had already been done, IMO.
Did I *say* the total female pop of the world? No.
I said those who could possibly help, did help.
The closest political analogue we have are the female Dem officials who sat on their ass during the Clinton Hate
Season, finally being put in to play.
[And those Slaya chickies gathered in one place before the big-ass fight in the Hellmouth... but first they had to learn how to get along, and survive Cap'n. Rev. Tightpants, Misogynist-fer-real, but that's another story...]
I'm thinking Jasmine, aren't you?
Angel ref, but it seems to fit, even though Jaz has a touch of Palin and Obama to her, worshiper-wise....
Rationality aligned with passion is the only way out of this mess.
I was thinking
More of the demon that took over Fred.
it's a lousy piece--
Steinem never connected Palin's beliefs to how she governed, really--and that's the relevant point. We've heard this before, too. Palin is not Schafly -- who was a total hypocrite.
And i thought feminism was about equality and opportunity--Steinem should make it clear that she's speaking as an Obama supporter--she certainly isn't supporting Palin, who is a feminist--and a working mom who actually has a husband who gave up his job for her, which helps equality and equal parent responsibilities far more than most other families--political or not.
Just because Palin isn't pro-choice and liberal doesn't mean she's not a feminist. She actually belongs to Feminists for Life at a time when many liberal woman run away from the term "feminist".
& all working moms deserve more than scorn--
all of them.
No. she's a cafeteria feminist, who wants the advantages
feminism gives her in the workplace, but refuses to defend the rights women need to be truly autonomous: The right not to have a child, or to have a man control her body.
It's one thing if she wanted a Quiverfull of children; if she's not burdening anyone else, mazeltov. But once she denies the right of *other* women to choose whether or not to get birth control or to have a child, she's crossed a line.
It's like me not being cool with someone calling me 'bitch' or 'nigger', but insisting that all the guys I know go out and demean every woman and/or black person they see, just for shits and giggles.
My rights are women's rights; women's rights are my rights. We are all in this together, or feminism means nothing. I'm not stopping Gov. Palin from overpopulating Alaska; I just want her out of my womb, along with the rest of the GOP.
Why is that hard to understand. You don't take Black Republicans at face value when they pull this crap, do you?
but has she denied that choice to anyone
in reality?
or is it just rhetoric that she lives by but doesn't legislate by?
she's anti-gay by religion too--but vetoed a bigoted thing that would have hurt us, putting the law and Constitution and Courts above her religion, as it should be.
And why should it matter if she's cafeteria? We're all cafeteria in one form or another.
and conflating her party with her gender
is a mistake--that's what's off about this to me. Republicans--all of them--are officially anti-choice. Republicans--all of them--are officially anti-equality in many ways.
That's different and separate from any individual Republican woman in office, and if you're using feminism or women's rights as the attack and basically calling her a traitor/Schlafy/hypocrite because she's woman in office (which is what's happening and is not party-dependent), then you're conflating and attacking the wrong thing about her, i think.
She's not pro-equality, but when push came to shove, she was on the right side LGBTwise--show me where she's been right or wrong in her official actions that have hurt women.
She is the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party
How more Republican does she need to be, to be identified with her party?
And she was on the right side LGBT-wise because she though the procedure used would not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. If it came through the right way, she would have signed into law gay-hating legislation gladly:
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=...
that's my point--
she put the Constitution over her words or religion or questionnaires or speeches, etc.
that's what matters.
That's Simply Not True
Not all Republicans are anti-choice.
Olympia Snowe has an 83% NARAL rating and a very good voting record, better than a lot of Democrats when it comes to choice, including Joe Biden. And yes I would consider Snowe a feminist even if I don't consider her a progressive.
Susan Collins, also pro-choice.
Christie Todd Whitman, also pro-choice.
Condeleeza Rice, mildly pro-choice.
I'm sure there are more. It's true, McCain would not and could not have chosen any of these women as running mates because of their position on abortion, but that doesn't mean all Republicans are anti-choice. They're not. And I would consider many of the pro-choice Republican women to be feminists even though I disagree with them on many issues.
pro-choice GOPers don't get to be
on Presidential tickets--just as anti-choice Dems don't get to be on Presidential tickets.
That's gender-irrelevant, but it does help my point here, which i'm obviously not explaining well. Snowe is a Republican and a woman. If you're going to attack her, is it because she's a woman or because she belongs to a party that is antithetical to issues important to her?
Right
People who believe that the state should not control women's bodies don't get to be on the GOP ticket. Ergo, IMO, people on the GOP ticket are not feminists and do not believe in complete equality for women. (I'm not sure I'd say that the people on the Democratic ticket do either, btw.)
I am not attacking Sarah Palin because she's a woman. I'm attacking her because she supports policies that are aimed at women and are bad for women.
At this point, however, I'm not sure what point you're arguing. If it's that Palin is a feminist, then we simply disagree. If it's that Palin shouldn't be criticized from a feminist perspective, then we disagree (I certainly criticize Obama, Biden and McCain from this perspective). If that she wouldn't seek to impose the positions she's clearly stated she holds (e.g. overturning Roe) once in office, then we disagree. I have no reason to doubt that Palin would support the policies she says she would support.
"because she supports policies that are ... bad for women"
--that's kinda the only point that matters to me--and it's not because of her gender or her feminism or lack thereof.
"If it’s that Palin is a feminist, then we simply disagree. If it’s that Palin shouldn’t be criticized from a feminist perspective, then we disagree ... If that she wouldn’t seek to impose the positions she’s clearly stated she holds (e.g. overturning Roe) once in office, then we disagree."
We do disagree, sorta. I don't see her party membership or religion as invalidating her as a feminist-(from membership in Feminists for Life, to her very very equitable parenting arrangements, etc.)
I don't see criticizing her from a feminist perspective invalid in any way--it's using her words and religion and parenting choices that rubs me the wrong way--as opposed to using her actions in office--given that she's a politician running for office.
I think there isn't actual evidence enough to state that she'd work to impose her religion, etc, on all of us--and i'd further say that she wouldn't even be in control of that kind of stuff as VP under McCain. I'd say that the GOP always swears to overturn Roe but never ever does--for a reason. I'd say that Palin hasn't shown a record of legislating the way she talks about this stuff, like most of her party. And that of course the GOP will appoint anti-choice and anti-worker judges and that that's also regardless of what gender a VP is.
"Feminists" for Life
Are not feminists.
Hope that helps.
A feminist can disapprove of abortion, but if they are working to take away that choice from a woman, they are not a feminist.
Palin is not a feminist.
She Hasn't Had the Opportunity
She's been Governor for two years and there is the mangled remains of Roe to deal with. When given the opportunity, however, there was at least one occasion when she was in a position to forward an anti-abortion argument:
She's also made it very clear she supports overturning Roe and restricting abortions to only those situations where the life of the mother is in danger (no incest or rape exceptions).
And I wouldn't get too excited about her signing the gay benefits law. She did so because she was following the Alaskan Supreme Court, she made it perfectly clear she disagreed with it and would try to change it:
was she willing to go to US District CT or Supremes?
did she push an amendment on it like they did about gay marriage there?
I see what she chose to do about it as ineffective on purpose yet mollifying to her party or base--esp if she's such a fire-breathing Christian and that stuff is as big a priority as people are saying.
A re-hearing before the same judges and court would not have had any change in law. Going to US District Ct and even to the Supremes--or even refusing to accept their decision and going ahead with the law anyway until it was stopped by the Courts, etc--that would have been actual action.
US Courts
would be unavailable on an issue of Alaska Constitutional law so her only option was a rehearing and she took it.
Personally, I'm not willing to give a leader credit for following the law. Bush has not lowered my standards that much.
ah-thanks--
i'm not giving her credit so much as i'm trying to point out that the stereotypes and images of her may not match the reality.
take Kucinich--he rocks on almost everything--but he's pro-life. It's not a legislating priority for him tho and he'd never work to overturn Roe. So, does that make him less good or anti-woman or anti-feminist? If he spoke against choice more would it?--even if he still would never legislate that way or make it a priority?
As if the Republicans honor every voter?
As if the Republicans aren't misogynistic?
As if Sarah Palin has any feminist credentials?
As if putting the American economy in the hands of people who want to crash it will help advance the cause of progressivism?
Look, Obama is no saint; I understand that. But the Republicans have proven time and again that they have no room for liberals in their party. Why any feminist would want to throw in their lot with Bible-thumpers who believe life begins at conception I will never understand.
(BTW, if Obama does lose and it leads to a purge of the DNC, it won't be the conservatives who go. Trust me.)
...for the rest of us
it shouldn't matter what party--
unless they're legislating against women and working to hurt women.
Take us LBGT people-- we out the closetcase GOP hypocrites who vote against us gays and hurt us--who take action against us--but don't do so for those who don't. It's based on their records, not their party membership.
Feminists are not only Democrats--and supporters of equality aren't either.
But Republicans, by their platform, funders and their daily
actions, *are not feminists*.
The proof is in front of you, on the record, and in the testimony of people whose lives have been made worse by Republican rule with little Democratic pushback.
Are we to dilute feminism to something nice on a placard, that the Dems can further ignore, or do we stand up NOW, and make them reacquaint themselves with what feminism should be for everyone in this country?
In that regard, I out Sarah Palin as the equivalent of a closeted gay Republican -- freedom's fine for herself and her circle, and they'll go as far as say 'feminist' without choking, but they'll be damned to allow other women the same luxuries of having legal abortions and equal opportunities in their fields.
but then she would have
made AK schools practical sex-ed free, and pushed for legislation that outlawed abortion, like in SD, etc, no? She would have been proactively working to stop choices and rights.
That's what i don't see in her actions as Mayor or Governor--at all.
They Never Do, Do They?
The assholes of the Democratic Party seem to always be there year after year.
I'm begining to lean towards - Obama and the DNC deserve being left holding the bag. They've enabled and abetted. They deserve it. Because only if they win, can they lose. The DNC won't be purged if Obama loses, but if Obama wins and is a disaster, you can bet Dems looking to hold onto their seats will be looking for new leaders and faces to put on the party. Or at least I think it's more likely. There's still the chance that Silber's right and it doesn't matter because Obama won't be a failure in the sense he'll simply run a more competent mafia and the entire mess will lumber along longer than it would under old, crazy McCain.
Wow, is this election depressing.
Trash her as a Republican; trash her as a Christian;
etc...
Trashing her as a woman who hurts all women and as not a feminist is baseless unless you show how she actually hurts women.
Why is criticizing her
Why is criticizing her trashing her? That seems to be what the Republicans want to do, immunize her against any criticism making it seem like trashing.
I don't care what anyone thinks of Obama, tell me that convention wasn't about "trashing" him.
because the criticism is about her personal life
and personal/family choices and beliefs--and not her professional life.
don't women deserve equality whether
they're stupid or not?
whether they believe in God or not?
whether they would never abort or not?
whether they work or not?
whether they defer to their husbands or not?
whether they're Democrats or not?
...
a thief deserves citizenship until she steals from me;
a thief gets no leniency if I found out if she has stolen from someone else.
I know women who'd never ever abort, and they tell their daughters not to. They'll spend their old age taking care of children; that is their way.
But if they advocated for me not to get served at a pharmacy for birth control pills, or picketed a Planned Parenthood, I think I have the right not to call them feminists, because they want freedom to go away for women.
Note they never tell men to use condoms, or get vasectomies, or otherwise keep it zipped up in a way equivalent to how they police girls' and women's bodies. Women are their target.
i'm with you, but i don't see
how or when Palin has ever done that or campaigned on that or used that as the reasons to elect her (besides the usual GOP partyline, that is)
It's like thinking Obama will be proactively good for women simply by virtue of his party membership--even tho he never has been in his votes (Present is not YES), and his rhetoric ("feeling blue"-mental health allowance, "consult her pastor", etc) actually hurts choice.
Can someone else do the research to rebut?
I'm going to back away from this, so I don't have a conniption.
i'm not trying to be an ass or anything--
when it comes to all politicians, i judge them by their actions--it's why i can't support Obama--his actions don't match his rhetoric at all, and his lack of actions as well--it's their track records and what they've done (or not done) with the power they wielded that tells me what matters to them and what they'd do with more power.
It's not their religion or party or gender or color -- or their talk.
But faith without deeds is en vogue these days
Didn'cha know.
Second that request
if the sources are reasonably objective and fact-based, not opinion pieces or interest group fund-raising letters, because so far, I'm not finding evidence that Palin has crusaded much for her conservative social values.
According to an interesting piece in Time recently (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...) on her early political activity in Wasilla, she did apparently bring abortion into the small-town mayor's race, but since then hasn't made an issue of it.
Similarly with gay marriage, sex education and discussion of creationism in the classroom, she has her beliefs but I can't find references to her actively pushing to foist those beliefs on the rest of us via legislation or regulation.
In fact, an awful lot of what I've read about her views on these things comes back to a single source, her brief written answers to an Eagle Forum (yech) questionnaire during the primary race for governor, reprinted here in the Anchorage Daily News because it seems to have disappeared from the Alaska Eagle Forum site
(http://community.adn.com/node/130311)
I would not like to see someone who holds these views even privately in a position of power over me or anyone else, but calling her things like "an extremist harpy," "frenetic extremist," "christianist extremist bent on reducing rights" and "vicious and vociferous," as just the first few graphs of the Agonist post linked to here does, seems to me without justification. And hysterical. (And can someone remind me why "harpy" isn't sexist language please?)
I'm not prepared to call someone a "loon" or "batshit crazy" only on the basis of their religion-inspired ideas about personal morality (not least because my own religious beliefs would be instantly declared "batshit crazy" by the vast majority of Americans). Palin may, in fact, turn out to be a loon and batshit crazy as time goes on, but case not anywhere near proved as of now, IMO.
I'm depressed and dismayed that there appears to be literally no place in America, on the Internet or anywhere else, where it's possible to have a rational, reasonably fact-based exploration of who this very odd figure in American politics is, one whom we still know precious little about and who appears to be entirely sui generis.
I'm honestly baffled by the ferocity with which this woman was instantly attacked and demonized, and with which the small number of us who've raised a hand and stuttered, "But, but, but" have been berated. It really does feel like a replay of the Hillary wars.
Maybe I'm just getting old.
Today I linked to a reliable source at DKOS about
on her Dominionist ties.
http://www.correntewire.com/help_is_wher...
I put on my armor for Palin, Chief Justice Roberts, Alito, et al., because they have been groomed to dogwhistle what they believe to the faithful, but leave no procedural fingerprints about their faith in action.
As in, writing no opinion in the case of the Supremes that would indicate they would outlaw abortion.
Even thought Palin and the conservative Justices have memberships to political groups that hammer those culture war points home, through position papers and other second- and third-hand tools.
Don't you think that's a bit deliberate, so their appointment/election to positions isn't hampered by protests of stands they actually took?
Obama's followed the same pattern with abortion and with anything else controversial... and all we have to judge him on is that he is a Democrat, and that have to trust him.
You see how much we're fucked?
it's remarkable
this cycle--all these things--they're all tests--a feminist test, a party-line test, a religious test, a "good mother" test, an "acceptable black guy" test, a "how should a woman behave" test, etc
it's tragic.
I will read some of the Kos material
And yes, I agree we're fucked, although maybe not for the exact pantheon of reasons you would cite. But we are for sure fucked.
But CG, maybe I'm not reading you right, you aren't really suggesting, are you, that Roberts & Alito et al are such Manchurian candidates that they were careful never in their entire professional careers to write a word about abortion or sit on a case involving abortion just in case some day a semi-reformed fuck-up with a fraticidal psyche cheated his way into the White House and happened to be there when there was a SC vacancy and would happen to choose them?
Once Bork happened, it's certainly true that it became pretty much impossible for any president to appoint a SC justice with a clear record on abortion, pro or con, and both sides have scrambled to find potential appointees to their liking who've never had to come out of the closet, so to speak, with their opinions on the subject. Maybe Ginsburg is an exception to that, I don't remember clearly, but I've gotta go to work so don't have time to try to look it up.
Roberts & Alito...
Gyrfalcon writes:
I can't link to it, because I'm not sure what to search on, but I seem to remember discussion of such a strategy at the time for Federalist Society operatives. It was IIRC a reaction to their loss with Bork, who left a huge paper trail.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
a bit about the Federalist Society:
So in 1982, Meese, Rehnquist and other first-generation legal conservatives reached out to law students and encouraged the founding of a new organization: the Federalist Society. Funded generously by Richard Mellon Scaife and patrons, the Federalist Society became a national networking organization that nurtured young conservatives and swiftly became the crucial channel to Supreme Court clerkships and prestigious jobs in the Reagan administration. In "Closed Chambers," former clerk Lazarus outlines how Federalist Society clerks formed a self-described "cabal against the libs" to push justices in a rightward direction. Conservative
donors like Scaife were encouraged to endow professorships and to fund conferences and training institutes to tutor judges in corporate deregulation and other articles of conservative legal faith.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/03news...
A sample concerning Alito:
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp...
And, this is where Gov. Palin is now:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/...
If she goes with the strategy of limited/non-existent interviews, then we know where she stands: In a place where her views can't be questioned.
That's why Obama and Biden have to, must present themselves to the American people as openly as possible, to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Gyrfalcon....
... I think that Corrente, for good or ill, is about as close as you wil come to that place.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Close, Lambert
but veering awful near the edge sometimes, IMO.
Sometimes...
... it's an overly dynamic process.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
cg.eye, let's not go there
i'll embarrass myself; my almost eidetic memory (ok, not really, but close) reminds me of all these little details that it's totally not worth hashing out here on a 'political' blog. but if you want to know what i'm remembering, think of the abused final ep 'new' slayer who stood up for herself by catching her abuser's fist; she didn't join them on the hellmouth (as i believe josh was implying, b/c she didn't have to, she was already there). and no, i'm not thinking of Jasmine, although that's worth watching again. i'm thinking of angel season 5, when necromancy was dealt with in at least two eps. surely you remember the Senator?
anyway, returing to the Serious
: one blogger reminds the rest of the blogosphere of the very issues discussed here. y'all aren't alone; sexism for sexism is not the answer, it seems.
wow, I'm probably wrong, there.
I thought all the Slayers rose up before the big battle, not after.
But the Senator, yeah.
eew.
'Member the Bestest Ax ever and Willow doing the mojo?
It was during the big battle, just before the ubervamps come climbing up the wall to get Buffy and the Slayerettes. 'Member? Willow does the spell, hands the ax back to Kennedy (You're a goddess. / And now you're a slayer), and then Willow falls over on her side with, "That was nifty."
And you call yourselves fans...
"And it (is) as a politician she should be attacked"
"Palin doesn't make sense as a politician. And it as a politician that she needs to be attacked."
--exactly. It's not a woman thing or a feminism thing simply bec she's a woman. Reducing her and viewing her thru that lens alone is sexist.
Steinem's no wing-nut or pure partisan
that's why she's effective. I don't agree with McCain/Palin (but I don't think they will govern nearly as bad as everyone claims) nor do I need reasons not to vote for them.
I need a reason to vote for Obama that overcomes the bogus election. We had FL in 2000, OH (NM, etc.) in 2004, and now the Dem primary in 2008. Each instance is less obvious, but just as potent. This slow decent to casual acceptance scares me. Dems made a a stink in 2000 and 2004 (but gave up), in 2008 they were doing it themselves. I'm not willing to "get over" a fraud election. I can't accept a stolen election even if it is in my best interests or if I believe it "is best for the people". That's how tyrannies start. And that is something that I want no part of.
we're drowning in 'reasons against' all of them--
and starving for 'reasons for' any of them.
And *that* suppresses voter turnout.
And both of the parties realize this.
If they could have an election solely composed of their lobbyists and advisers, they'd jump at the chance to simply let the crackpipe get shorter, and get rid of those pesky constituents who don't have the cash to bribe them.
I just had a very cynical thought!
Yes, it will suppress voter turnout -- except, and only except, the youth vote Obama hopes to turn out. Gad.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
I've got plenty of reasons to vote for Obama
1. He's a Dem
2. Wes Clark and Hillary Clinton are supporting him
3. He says some good stuff (though I don't believe much of it)
4. He's got some good advisers mixed in with bad ones
But none of those are enough to overcome what happened in the primary and my overwhelming fears at the casual acceptance of fraud elections. Nor do they overcome my skepticism of anyone who would accept the nomination the way it was handled.
But perhaps it's just my paranoid trailer trash self talking.
Palin is Faith
I mean the Buffy one, not any gawd-associated one.
She dug the power, but what side she wielded it for wasn't all that important to her.
I'm kinda disappointed in Gloria's piece. Pretty pushbutton. I've heard her do off-the-cuff analysis that was much better than this.
Eg, Palin is antithetical to what 'at least a plurality' of women support. Plurality? wtf was that, just a way to edge in more laundry list items that some women, somewhere will be offended by? Is hunting a feminist issue?
What's the premise here, what's good for women is what's popular with women? That Palin's not a feminist?
The Steinem piece is making the rounds, cited by people who'd wouldn't give Gloria the time of day if she asked. The argument I wish she'd made (maybe was trying to make) is that while Palin, as an example of a strong woman in a position of power, may help change ideas about whether women can be fit for power (imagery alone is powerful; and dollars to donuts Gloria's made that very argument at some point), her views are mostly antithetical to the critical types of progress we need in order to achieve real equality.
Instead, it's a laundry list of buzzwords of all the things any good liberal or woman must faint at the sight of, or run around screaming about.
I'm a bit tired of this idea that I must be forced to admit that Palin's an irredeemable monster or lose my feminist cred, or maybe even get kicked out of the woman club. You can admit that an opponent may have some strengths or some valuable characteristics without ceding the argument overall; just make the argument credibly that the negatives outweigh the positives.
After all, I loved Faith, but I loved Buffy more.
I felt sorry for Faith, because she was abused and
messed with and even the Watcher she needed to protect and nurture her was just in it for the power -- then she got in with the dangerous crowd because she couldn't stop hurting people.
But at least she saw her evil, confronted it, and surrendered to a prison cell where she's learning her lessons about not hurting people.
At least she was until the Apocalypse happened....
i wish she would have made
that argument too.
Yes, Faith sought her own redemption
And should get muy points for it. I should have said Palin is Faith pre-path to redemption. But I didn't know just how wonky the Buffy fans were here!
I knew Faith
And Gov. Sarah Palin is no Faith.
I do so miss Buffy....
-----------------------------
Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites
Lemme get one thing straight
It is not because of feminist issues, but because of their laissez-faire economic philosophies, that I regard Republicans as categorically unfit to hold high political office. I have no desire to return to 1930.
And I was trying to say something nice about Hillary Clinton, for Chrissakes. Football's on. As you were.
...for the rest of us
more like 1890s--Robber Baron days
--that's how i see them--no labor or food or any safety laws, company towns, breaking the heads of organizers, pitting one group against the other, ...
Alright, alright
It was an analogy, not a recommendation!
I'm with Amberglow, I'm tired of the tests. They're the last resort of those without positive arguments. They make me cranky.
And I must say, anyone who castigates PUMAs et al because of 'perceived' misogyny during the primaries (during the primaries? when did it end?), are just about to feel the real power of perceived misogyny once the Republicans get done with it.
Believe me, Rudy Freakin' Nutball Guiliani is the very last person I want to be stuck with standing up against sexism, but it seems he's my only choice this year.
BIO
No.
I'm not voting for Palin. Or McCain.
Your argument fails here: while yes, people emotions are often tied up in their choices, you haven't connected that phenomenon to the people who are, in this case, making a strategic choice.
It's an old lawyers trick (an old debater's trick too, I'm sure). State a truism, or near-truism, ignore that it's nonresponsive to the question or issue at hand, and demand your opponent refute it. When they can't, because it is, after all, a truism (Are you saying puppy-killers are good!!?!?!), declare victory.
Valhalla
Whatever.
Once again a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and I suppose I could
wastespend more time once again straightening out the threads with meta-meta only to be faced with more misrepresentations, but I have better things to do - a root canal would be better - so I'll just leave the thread itself for anyone interested in sorting out the truth of the matter.No tricks, nothing up my sleeve, just the blunt truth. Deal with it, or not.
"I can't handle the truth!"
Sooooo... if we insist we're coming at this with something besides hurt feelings, we're not handling the "truth" now?
But what is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
Instead of asking open-ended questions
say what ever it is you have to say.
If you have anything that isn't purely emotional, it will be a nice change of pace.
Let me remove the Tim Rice, then.
If someone's advising you, two months before an election, to ix-nay on things like investigating others' uteri, or giving working moms with infants a hard time, or bashing McCain's service record, then maybe, just maybe, they know - two months before the election - that that crap is LOSERVILLE except in the sheltered little bubble the OFB
lives on and posts on.
Maybe, just maybe, they're worried not so much about the touchy-feely, and the PC, and everybody's hurt feelings, but offering friendly advice to a political machine in which all our "Democratic" future now lies, and which also seems determined to drive off a cliff at 100MPH.
And maybe, just maybe, they coach their suggestions in touchy-feely courtesies and are not more direct precisely because they know you people are emotionally retarded wrecks, looking for your messiah on Earth, and go off like firecrackers
if your every crayon drawing isn't given gold stars.
Ah, the ever-reliable OFB card
always a safe play, sure to strike down anyone defiant enough to question the wisdom of an experienced political operative such as yourself.
Ya really got me there, pal. I am so OFB
.
See Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here.
Next, please. A little less emotional and a lot more rational would be appreciated.
Your self-centeredness is astounding. Oh, wait....
You asked (repeatedly) a generic question about - gosh - why you get the feedback you do. I outlined the state of things today in September 2008 wrt the things you ACTUALLY complained you were getting static on.
You respond with your portfolio.
So you got that emotional maturity down... I guess you're not OFB after all!
Wrong on the history, Tony
Bringiton was a warrior for Hillary, as he claims.
Interestingly, though, it really is possible to reason from bad inputs to a correct conclusion, at least with respect to " ix-nay on things like investigating others’ uteri" -- and leaving aside the personalia.
I'd call it a poor inference, rather than the sort of "emotion" that is, presumably, since Tony cannot managed it, is to be managed by others. Infantalizing, as I keep saying.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Manchurian candidates
Most judges don't have all that much choice which cases come before them, or which they must decide. Chief Judges have some power over who gets to the write the opinion. But not everyone gets to be a Chief Judge, and few judges get to be Chief the whole time they're on the bench.
So it's more that when Presidents go looking for candidates to appoint, they zero in on those that don't have any strong written record on hot issues, but who they have some reason to believe are solidly on their side.
very relevant take--
(i think, at least)--
The Rain in Spain ... --