…Maybe A Little “Projecting” Going On Here…
Published by Lisa Kansas October 22nd, 2008 in Douchebag on FeminismIf you haven’t seen this, you should check it out. If you don’t have the time to watch the whole thing, here’s the summary:
Guy below: “Feminists hate Sarah Palin because she’s ATTRACTIVE and HAPPY!”
“And shit, don’t I know all about hating attractive, happy people or what.”
Not sure where this would belong. Good commentary to be considered though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxhYampIl7A
Incidentally, and I know I betray a bit of ignorance here, but what is the main issue feminists have with Palin? I mean, I see a lot of rhetoric and innuendo. I see a lot of mischaracterization and “she’d probably” projection, but no real specific info as to why she’s so bad.
Care to enlighten?
Aside from being anti-choice, anti-rape kits, anti-science, elitist (”we’re the only REAL Americans!!!”), hateful, extreme Christian theocratic, not to mention dumb as a brick and incredibly obnoxious…honestly, what IS our beef with her?
Probably the best article I’ve read on that question thus far is
this one.
Read the linked article, and I still don’t see her as anything other than a somewhat mediocre politician in a sea of mediocre politicians. In other words, what’s the big deal?
Because frankly, even in the Salon article, the majority of the “discourse” is simple disagreement and intellectual elitism. Don’t get me wrong, I see how some people might complain that the first person to hold the office might be someone they disagree with, but why the overwhelming vitriol?
I mean, she IS hot in a soccer Mom sorta way, but that would hardly swing my vote (if I was American). I did like the rebuttal speech she made at the Republican convention, but I haven’t followed much since then (mostly because we had our election going at the time - the Conservatives won a minority government by the way, I know you were waiting with ‘bated breath).
But really, all I keep seeing is partisan politics dressed up as debate. Silly. Even by political standards.
In my view, absolutely none of your Presidential or Vice Presidential candidates deserve the shot they’re getting (easy for me to say). Certainly none of them are Statesmen (or -women).
Oh, and Canada had a female Prime Minister back in the 90’s. Kim Campbell.
Agreed, she’s a mediocre politician in a sea of politicians. But what you’re looking at here is, sadly, Internalized Sexism!!
Feminists, especially high-achieving ones, are surprisingly prone to that. We expect women who are in such an exalted position…you know, second to succeed to the Supreme Leadership of Our Country…to be the best, the very bestest, example of awesomeness out there. We don’t WANT some mediocre-brained chick in that position. While this does demonstrate that women can be and often are as mediocre as mediocre men, we’d prefer, since we have so rarely thus far gotten the chance to shoot for Supreme Overlordship or next-in-line-to-Supreme-Overlordship, that the chick doing so was, like, a superlative example of our sex.
We genuinely don’t care that she’s hot. Really, with enough surgery, personal trainers and makeup, any of us can be hot. But we can’t all be VP candidates. We want a woman in that position to have earned it by her intellectual brilliance, her composure under fire, her finely honed debating skills, her powerful understanding of the issues facing our country at home and abroad, etc. etc.
That ain’t the Palinator. And that’s why we wish she wasn’t doing this.
I’m fairly certain that Sarah Palin is not the only politician to disappoint in this way. I would venture to say she’s a hell of a lot better than a lot of previous choices for VP (Dan Quayle anyone?….even though he was right about a lot of stuff).
Besides, what have we got here for candidates? A geriatric who has zero understanding of most people’s reality, a political huckster that has never won an election and is connected to some very suspicious shit, a politician whose “proudest moment” (VAWA) is the most biased piece of legislation ever produced on the national stage (and quite possibly rendered unconstitutional by the California Appellate Court), and a woman who is, quite frankly, out of her league.
And I thought the Canadian political pantheon was pathetic. Sheesh.
But seriously, who would want to subject themselves to that kind of trashing? Ask Joe the Plumber how he feels. Anyone with any talent is staying the HELL away from politics, or at least it seems so.
Factory,
You asked why generally the feminist community didn’t like Palin. You got your answers. You ignored them, to pontificate on your own opinion on American candidates. I happen to think you’re wrong on them. But thank you for your opinion. Your services are no longer necessary..
“Aside from being anti-choice, anti-rape kits, anti-science, elitist (”we’re the only REAL Americans!!!”), hateful, extreme Christian theocratic, not to mention dumb as a brick and incredibly obnoxious…honestly, what IS our beef with her? ”
And then there is the visceral reaction a lot of women - all the ones in my life for instance - are having to her as a person. They basically recognize her as a bully. The term I have heard is “mean girl.” The state investigation that concluded that she abused her powers documents overt acts of the personality people are sensing. And since a lot of feminists are women, there is going to be some overlap.
Factory, you were told what the problem is. She’s against many important things feminists believe in. If you refuse to hear this and insist that it has to be something else, then the problem is YOU. In fact, your continuous problems you have with women that you come here to bitch about might go right back to this unwillingness to listen to women and insistence on projecting your own fantasies on them, don’t you think?
Hmm, my understanding of Lisa’s reply is that because she’s potentially the first, everyone wants her to be “best” as well. Most intelligent, most composed, most “Stateswomanlike”. If I got that part wrong let me know.
At any rate, my reply of
“I’m fairly certain that Sarah Palin is not the only politician to disappoint in this way. I would venture to say she’s a hell of a lot better than a lot of previous choices for VP (Dan Quayle anyone?….even though he was right about a lot of stuff).”
pretty much addressed that in my mind. Sure it sucks she’s not some amazing superchick. But seriously, do you think any of the others are any better? (OK, that was slightly rhetorical).
From what I can tell, Palin’s stance on abortion is the main point of contention. From this quote:
“Aside from being anti-choice, anti-rape kits, anti-science, elitist (”we’re the only REAL Americans!!!”), hateful, extreme Christian theocratic, not to mention dumb as a brick and incredibly obnoxious…honestly, what IS our beef with her? ”
All i see here are pro life stance, and Christian, as far as “concrete” examples. The rest is opinion. Being Christian isn’t a Sin (he he) in my book (even though I’m not), and given the fact that I don’t get a choice in parenthood, I hardly have any sympathy if women end up not having any either. It’s not a goal, but it wouldn’t bother me.
I can understand the disappointment aspect. I just don’t get the virulent response. Elections in the US are taking on Quasi-Holy War aspects these days, no one seems to debate issues. Perhaps it’s my own personal “media filter”, I don’t know.
That’s why I asked.
Anti-rape kit isn’t enough a concrete example? Accusing liberals of not being “real” Americans? Claiming Obama pals around with/ is a terrorist isn’t “hateful”? Not knowing what the vice president DOES, or have any ability to name a Supreme Court case isn’t “dumb as a brick”?
And it isn’t that she’s Christian, it’s that she’s theocratic (as in, wants there to be theocratic elements to the government).
Yet, it still doesn’t seem like a “Holy War” to me. I think you’re projecting a little here yourself.
Fac,
Women can die from pregnancy. That’s not something any man ever has to risk, and it’s the one thing that can’t ever be put right again. Not just die, but go blind, sterile, lose body functionality…and it can happen to any woman with no pre-existing risk signs. Besides knowing this from being well-read, I know this from personal experience, both in having a mother that nearly died in childbirth and from developing a life-threatening complication myself twice.
I am assuming you’re arguing in good faith…so that’s why I’m taking the time to point out to you why pro-choice women get so tense about people who are not just anti-choice, but Sarah Palin’s brand of anti-choice…the kind of anti-choice that makes exceptions for the mother’s life ONLY. Because neither my mother nor I would have qualified for an abortion under those conditions until the third trimester, when an abortion is actually more dangerous than remaining pregnant. Because any woman who would be blinded or wind up sterile or paralyzed from remaining pregnant would not be given the choice to abort in Sarah Palin’s ideal world. Because any raped and pregnant ten-year-old would not be given the choice to abort in Sarah Palin’s world.
We’re all used to anti-choicers, but Sarah Palin’s version of it is far more extreme than most. She would really prefer that terrible things happen to us, women of reproductive age, than that we get an abortion, and not only would she personally prefer it, which does not make us feel particularly warm towards her, she would like to grab power and wield it to force those things to happen to us.
This actually has nothing to do with her femaleness. Pro-choice feminists feel exactly the same way about anybody with such an extreme stance. Especially female ones. It forces the political to become personal.
BY anti-rape kit you refer to her “pay for it yourself” thing? Callous as it sounds, but I had a buddy that got stabbed, he had to pay his ambulance bill (here in Socialist Medicine Canada….), another friend got in a car accident, his ambulance bill along with a few other related bills were waiting for him when he got out of the hospital.
How is a rape kit any different from an ambulance ride, or bandages, for a guy that got shot in a convenience store?
Liberals have accused conservatives of those same things, so that’s a wash in my mind. Obama IS connected to some pretty shady characters, not least of which are those in ACORN. I have no idea what the VP does either, and I watched every episode of the West Wing, twice. I know I’m not actually up for the job though, so fair point.
Whenever I have to name a SC case, the first thing that comes to my mind is Roe v Wade. She likely doesn’t want that one to be mentioned.
The theocratic element interests me though. What is she looking to do?
Lisa, I would hope that by now you realize that even at my most belligerent, I still try and argue in good faith.
So really, THE issue is abortion. Everything else is just window dressing….no?
I can understand your feelings on it. Really, I can. My ex and I sat down and discussed it for days before she aborted. Tough decision.
But, you live in a democracy (ok, representative republic, but who’s noticing?), where everyone ostensibly gets a say in affairs. And since when is an anti-abortion Republican news?
Additionally, that could be amended to “quality of life” and placate both fears like yours, and most pro-lifers….er, at least one would think…
“The theocratic element interests me though. What is she looking to do?’
Not her personally, at least in anything she has enunciated, to the extent she is able to enuciate anything but jingoistic gibberish, but she is part of a movement that has tried to pass laws to restrict civil rights of specific groups, to restrict abortion access on religious grounds, to restrict access to certain kinds of literatuee in public libraries and schoools - this is one area where she actaully has a record of her own. In general the theocratic tendencies of American Fundamentalists are pretty indisputable.
And it’s not just a matter of law. Have you noticed how in the culture there is pressure for candidates to display their religious fervor in this country. That is something quite new, however much these people try to present it as “traditional”.
Because a “rape kit” isn’t done for a medical reason. A “rape kit” is part of an evidence kit. This isn’t like your buddy have to pay for bandages (although, I would say that really sucks if he can’t afford it) this is like your buddy having to pay for the DNA test to find out who stabbed him (which is part of the evidence).
And, for the life of me, I can’t find any reason to think that ACORN is shady. I’ve looked, and all I’ve found is some vague insinuation from conservative blogs, and those vague insinuation repeated on the news. The group does a lot of voter registration drives, and is a watchdog for voter fraud. It also has an agenda: to get better low income houses. THAT’S IT. The whole “They cause voter fraud” is bullshit; all they do is register people. If someone puts in a false registration; that person still has to come up with an id at the voting place.
Besides, it’s not about “liberals” and “conservatives”. The supporters and the self-identifies do lots of stupid things on both sides. But, when the person running on the ticket says it, it’s a whole different ball game.
And yeah, not knowing what the VP does, and not knowing any Supreme Court cases makes you patently unqualified for the vice presidency. (seriously, it was a total “Gimme” question, not a “gotcha” question. Bidden had to talk about what case he DISAGREED with and why. She was just asked to NAME one. Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, hell, she could have probably said US v. Lopez if she wanted to do recent ones. These cases are important, and she couldn’t even come up with something a high school grad should be able to answer).
Fac,
There isn’t just any one issue…the abortion one is awfully important, as it can directly translate into one’s own right to live or die, be whole or crippled, eh? But all the other reasons are good and valid ones. In our opinions, of course.
If the “rape kit” is a police inventory item (aka investigative tool) then I definitely agree with your assertion that it’s a shitty thing to do. It’s wrong to expect someone to financially contribute to the investigation of a crime against them.
As to ACORN:
Partisan source or not, this is pretty damning.
http://www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html
I won’t argue with you on the intelligence bit. Quite frankly, I don’t think she was selected for that reason, which might be another unspoken reason why so many are incensed at her selection.
As to the whole abortion debate, like I said, I’m personally pro-choice, but since I don’t have it myself, my sympathies for women are somewhat limited in that regard. I suspect there are a few other men that feel that way too.
Never mind that McCain has plenty of ties to ACORN himself, and even spoke at one of their events in 2006.
And that’s not to mention his ties to Keating, or to the Bush dirty tricks squad which he condemned in 2000 and now pays to do the same smear job on Obama. Obama’s just another politician and his policies are hardly perfect - fuck, he supports ethanol subsidies - but he is of a higher intellectual and moral calibre than any of the other people who have been in this race this year, and the drawn-out stupidity of the process has made that ever more clear. Have you seen the original six-minute Joe the Plumber video? If you’ve time to watch it, it’s worth a look. That’s the guy who I think will be an above-average president, as American presidents go.
Re. Palin as a documented abuser of office and ‘bully’ - it’s curious, but by far the most visceral reactions I’ve seen to her on the internet aren’t on feminist sites, but in usually apolitical parts of the DV survivor community. That was even before her anti-rape kit policy became an issue - for some reason, certain survivors (not me, incidentally) were recognising her as a bully, as the sort of person who’d act nice to your face but turn their back on you as soon as someone else they knew did you harm.
I was confused by the intensity of that reaction, personally. But between her awful policy record, her race-baiting, her lack of constitutional knowledge (I’ve lived in the USA for less than a year and I know more about the vice president’s duties than she does) or even intellectual curiosity, her ties to two different rabid anti-Semites, her consistent state of denial regarding science, and the fact that she’s running for the crazy wing of a party that I wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole anyway, I’ve no shortage of reasons to want Palin to return to Alaska and never leave.
Lisa - re. your comment about outstanding women… I dunno how to explain this but I think that that’s an attitude that a lot of pro-Clinton women have, but which doesn’t seem quite so relevant to pro-Obama women like me. Just a feeling really.
“Obama’s just another politician and his policies are hardly perfect - fuck, he supports ethanol subsidies”
That may be his position as a senator from Illinois, for obvious reasons. He may have another position as President of the whole country.
I’m sure Sarah is a bully. I’m sure she’s not all that smart. I don’t think this distinguishes her from any, or at least many, other politicians.
The one thing I haven’t seen mentioned, and my own pet theory:
Sarah Palin was brought in to pick up the voters who want a female in office, but hate Hillary Clinton. She allows a lot of people to vote Republican that ordinarily wouldn’t, simply because she’s a woman.
In other words….she’s the “token” woman in the post.
AND, it’s working.
Incidentally, has Obama ever won an election?
Thene–you may be right; I was a pro-Clinton woman, though I can honestly say that had the Republican party chosen a woman of, say, Senator Olympia Snowe’s caliber as their VP candidate, I wouldn’t be feeling this way about her. So I’m not sure how much of prior Clintonism is going into this feeling.
Factory,
No, he never won an election. He just magically became a Senator representing Illinois by supernatural edict. And for the primaries and caucases, Hillary Clinton won every single of those, but again by supernatural edict they didn’t count.
/ how does one get stupid answers, again?
Actually Ben, the way I heard it was he got to be Senator by disqualifying all the people running against him.
Just wanted the PAB take on it.
I guess that’s how you get stupid answers.
You are correct about how he won his first seat as a state senator. That’s actually something I find really unfortunate that it happened that way.
For his run as US Senator, it was the opposite; there were lots of other candidates for the primary election, most of whom were more well known. As for the general election, his opponent’s campaign imploded due to scandal.
And this evident use of underhanded tactics to subvert the system for personal gain is somehow…preferable to anyone else in the race? A sign of unimpeachable character?
Hope and Change personified?
Sorry, my cynicism when it comes to politics holds true on all sides.
They all suck.
I’m sure Sarah is a bully. I’m sure she’s not all that smart. I don’t think this distinguishes her from any, or at least many, other politicians.
It distinguishes her from Obama. More to the point, her policy positions stink even more than her record of being an abusive bully.
The one thing I haven’t seen mentioned, and my own pet theory:
Sarah Palin was brought in to pick up the voters who want a female in office, but hate Hillary Clinton. She allows a lot of people to vote Republican that ordinarily wouldn’t, simply because she’s a woman.
In other words….she’s the “token” woman in the post.
AND, it’s working.
Whatever the purpose of Palin was, it isn’t working: her favourable/unfavourable score right now is a 1, lower than any of McCain, Obama or Biden. What you’ve just written is a restatement of the OP, basically - that people who don’t like Palin somehow resent her success. It doesn’t work because there is no success to resent.
I also don’t know that there are any ‘voters who want a female in office, but hate Hillary Clinton’; there’s a lot of people who would never vote for Clinton, some for good reasons, some for bad, but I can’t see many of them as being particularly enthused with the idea of getting a woman - any woman - into office. People who can’t bear Clinton have been in the tank for Obama for the last year.
And as Lisa said, there’s a lot of Republican women with the experience and intelligence to leave Palin in the dust; women like Snowe and Fiorina. If one of those two women had been the veep candidate, we would doubtless be criticising their policies right now, but we wouldn’t be banging our heads on our desks like this - because they wouldn’t be tokens. So in that regard - that we can’t bear the tokenism - I think you’re right but the tokenism aspect isn’t actually a positive for the ticket, and it hasn’t been since about a week after the selection.
So, to dig a bit, do you think the selection itself was flawed based on the dipping approval ratings, or the fact that there are far better suited candidates that fit the same bill? I think they meant to appeal to the “middle America” (whatever the hell that is) everyday Mom. The ones that drive minivans to and from the hockey rink / baseball diamond. I think she was meant to appeal to men that admire women with “moxy”. I think the Washington Intelligentsia had little to do with the choice.
Ask nearly anyone why they are voting the way they are, and they won’t be able to tell you. Issues don’t matter. Intelligence doesn’t matter.
Very few have even the slightest grasp of the issues facing your nation, and therefore the world. But people remember sweaty faces, and stained shirts, and smirky grins, and vote accordingly.
I remain unconvinced she was a bad choice. Spin can do wondrous things, and timing is everything.
So, to dig a bit, do you think the selection itself was flawed based on the dipping approval ratings, or the fact that there are far better suited candidates that fit the same bill?
Those facts aren’t independent of each other. If he’d picked a better candidate - female or male, it doesn’t matter - then that candidate wouldn’t have such shitty favourable ratings. (Funnily enough, all the people I know who really like Joe Biden are ‘middle America everyday Moms’. Dunno what’s with that, but it is so, and perhaps that was calculated - who knows?) I’m an Obama supporter, I don’t want the Republicans to win (and they’re not going to), but prior to the Palin pick I was at least thinking that a new Republican presidency wouldn’t be as bad as the current one - McCain/Fiorina, McCain/Lieberman, etc, would have been an improvement over what we’ve got and would have made for an interesting, issues-based end to this campaign. McCain/Palin…well, we’ve seen the results already. She has an awful favourable/unfavourable score and there’s many people like my husband who were originally not sure who to vote for, or whether to vote at all, but are now voting for Obama entirely because they dread ending up with President Palin.
As for the ‘Washington intelligensia’, they run the campaign and Palin is a call they made. McCain himself has been Washington intelligensia for over twenty years. Some Beltway insiders like to play at being folksy, is all. Perhaps that trick doesn’t work any more because the Shrub wore it into the ground.
Very few have even the slightest grasp of the issues facing your nation, and therefore the world.
Bullshit. Some don’t, for sure, but every person I’ve spoken to about it does. They know why they’re voting the way they are, and even if I don’t think their reasoning is perfect, they’re owning it. People talk about security, energy, money - those are the three issues that people care about most, and they do have a grasp on them. Americans are awful at engaging across party lines but if you bring it up, they know their stuff. And for the record, it’s not ‘my nation’ - I just live here, I’m not a US citizen.
I remain unconvinced she was a bad choice. Spin can do wondrous things, and timing is everything.
Erm, do you not understand what a favourable/unfavourable rating is? Spin can, indeed, do wondrous things, and perhaps it has done so for the other three big-ticket candidates. But it hasn’t worked on Sarah Palin, ergo she was an unwise choice for a VP candidate. She has brought a lot of new volunteers to the ground game, but unfortunately for her that goes for both sides - there’s Democrat volunteers who signed up because they don’t want President Palin to be taking that phone call at 3am. I won’t complain if she helps McCain lose, though.
Actually, what I referring to is the rather violent and unsavoury reaction to her nomination. It REALLY made the left look bad, sorry, it did. I still get the feeling there’s a “bomb” or two in the campaign ready to go off.
On both sides.
Truthfully, as a white male and an MRA, there isn’t one single candidate that speaks to one single issue I deem important. So it’s likely good that I’m not a US citizen.
As a feminist, I can see where you have a “horse in the race” though. Which may give a bit of perspective. You have a couple candidates that are “female unfriendly ” in your view (Republicans). None of them are “male friendly” though.
Which is where Sarah comes in. Because even if she isn’t the best friend of men everywhere, she definitely has far more appeal than the other three. This isn’t just me by the way, I’ve asked a few people I know, and there’s quite a few men that would vote for her, just because she’s appealing as a person. Some of them even lefties. So there quite possibly could be a little bit of gain there.
I dunno…seems like a better choice than yet another man-bashing opportunist.
Factory, I’d need some evidence of said “man-bashing” to take your comment the least bit seriously.
Violent and unsavoury reaction? What, you mean like people in her opponent’s rallies chanting ‘kill her’?
Oh wait, no, mybad, people weren’t threatening to kill Palin. They were threatening to kill Obama. A lot of people (33%, to be exact) really don’t like Palin, but nobody is, say, expressing this ‘violent’ reaction by making website banners suggesting she be strangled to death. Something like this: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7532 (This is because violence is much more commonly a tactic of the extreme right than the extreme left in the USA: see the Oklahoma bombings, attacks on abortion clinics, attacks on black churches and, more recently, mosques - they’ve just got that history and the left here doesn’t).
For the record, no I do not have a horse in this race ‘as a feminist’. I do have a key issue here, but it’s only tangentially a feminist one. Not all Republicans are ‘female unfriendly’ - Snowe sure isn’t, and even McCain was cautiously pro-choice before his decision, in 2006/2007, to sell out every moral he’d ever previously had in exchange for a shot at the presidency. Republicans like those prefer to do harm to all human beings equally.
Your appreciation of Palin sounds as sincere and serious as Weebl’s.
(Lisa, my last comment here went into moderation, I guess because it had links in. Rescue pls?)
rescued!
It’s my understanding the Secret Service has said they have no idea what people are talking about, that “kill him” was never chanted. In any case, I am neither a right wing idealist, nor a religious zealot. And shitty behaviour abounds throughout the political spectrum in roughly equal measure.
When speaking about a horse in the race, I was referring specifically to abortion, which last time I heard was a central issue to most feminists (fer er agin’), and which has been pointed out to me is a good reason why many women, and most(?) feminists, oppose Sarah. That would be the aforementioned “horse”.
The issue touches me not, ergo, I have no “horse” in the race. Because frankly, even if I were an American citizen, precious little of what they speak to has anything to do with lil ol me (standard issue white guy, minimal education). Just how much more tax I’ll have to pay, and who gets the money this time.
Far be it from me to say Republicans aren’t women. I read Rachel Lucas, American Princess, and a few other blogs fairly regularly, and for the most part I’d consider them “politically right wing”. What I will say is there is a fairly heavy weighting among feminists toward the political left. For the record, I really have no idea if these women count themselves feminist.
When I was talking about the violent and unsavoury reaction, I meant that exactly. In fact, the reaction was, for a time, a story in and of itself. I think it’s a bit silly to suggest there isn’t websites, blogs, posters, bumper stickers, etc, that are unsavoury on both ends of the spectrum.
As to the man bashing (Antigone)…
Sounds pretty uplifting eh? Especially when you pay attention to the “positives” and the “negatives”.
And this speech was delivered on Father’s Day….
Nah…no man bashing at all.