doc_strange | Rant - "the woman candidate"

Current Mood: angry

Rant - "the woman candidate"

Those of you expecting a rant against the Republicans on this score, you're about to be disappointed. Nor is it praise for them. Nor anything about the Democrats.

Let's talk a little about Governor Palin. Oh, wait, don't I mean "Sarah Palin?" No, after all, we complained the press weren't calling Senator Clinton by her title while calling her opponents by theirs, as that's demeaning; but Palin, we're gonna never use her title? Strike one. You know who you are. Shame, shame. You can demean her by leaving off her office when you buck the party and fight your way to an office supervising over half a million people and over a half a million square miles.

If she were less comely, I suspect her actual history of 2 years in office might be in discussion rather than her looks. Admittedly, of course that's not a long time in high office - but how about we actually, you know, discuss it? Senator Obama is just as inexperienced and he's at the top of the ticket, and we HAVE discussed it.

Yesterday and today, I've read (all from people I took for social liberals) comments on her being a "bimbo," a "whore," a "walking uterus," "a token," and even some worse. Very interesting. Not a word on her actual 2 years as governor - for example, bucking the party on constitutional issues on the advice of the state attorney general, bucking party line by obeying court orders, renegotiating critical contracts with big oil, and opening up pipeline bids to international takers (Canadian company won), etc. I guess I have to ask if her 2 years as a governor are too little, then why are Obama's as a Senator not? Closet misogyny, that's why. If McCain had picked Liberman, would we be talking about the token Jew, a Kike, a Himey? Would Jindal be a token Indian (and he's really, really young), or called a "baby [ethnic slur here]"?

The obsession of looks->negatives is mostly coming from the general left, and maybe that's slanted because my friends' list is generally very left - but reading this outpouring of misogyny - and it is, you deniers, it is - I can only wonder if the left has more closet misogynists than the right.

During Senator Clinton's campaign, the media - even the left media - did some rather amazingly (closet) misogynistic things. They commented on her clothes and makeup as much as her speeches and positions. They made rude predictions on former President Clinton's role in the White House, and they questioned whether "having a woman in the White House" would affect our miltiary bearing. Rather a surprise for me how entrenched in the core of all US society misogyny is.

Senator Clinton complained about it, and, damned if she wasn't right.

And now we have it - worse, with real acid - for Governor Palin. Rather a disappointment for me, a disappointment in many of my friends. It's like discovering many of them are closet anti-Semites who believe they aren't prejudiced. "Hey, it's OK, I'd vote for a Jew candidate!" Uh, huh.

Why not discuss her as a candidate, rather than by her looks, as a "bimbo" for the right, etc.? Why is she not "the Republican Candidate"?

Remember the Saturday morning PSAs on prejudice?

"Who's Senator Palin, Jimmy?" "She's the Republican's woman candidate." Uh, huh.

Noooo, that's not showing a prejudiced core. No, sure isn't. Uh, huh.

My friends list is being trimmed, permanently. I will not remain "friends" with people whose souls are full of acid but who think they are full of balm. Those of you full of acid and happy to admit it, please stick around. You at least are honest, and sometimes a lot of fun.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

There are people for whom the gender mix on the ticket is the most important issue...

Agreed. And the tendency of some to discount that set of single-issue voters while not similarly discounting other single-issue voters is very telling.

Also generally agreed on the other points. Thanks.

Ah. Ok, I wouldn't call someone a "token" who has several dimensions of appeal. More to the point, on the issue of discounting one set of single-issue voters as opposed to others, see

attutle's post above and my response thereto.

That's really cool. The biggest lefties I know are not nearly so deliberate or thoughtful, so your experience is actually reassuring to hear. Are the posts public?

Not at all. It's a rare public post for me on such a public issue. I am glad you liked it.

Excellent! "Willfully sexist for the sake of humor" is exactly what I was aiming for. My worry about the GILF comments is that it's not over-the-top *enough* for people to recognize it as irony, though reading some of the rest of the Big Ugly Man Doll should put it in context. (OK, that *name* should put it in context.)

The funny part (to me) is that I'll write about the actual issues on which I'm guiding my choices on your blog - but not on mine, for the most part. My primary goal is not *specifically* to get people to think, but rather to get them to laugh. If I can also associate an issue with a joke in people's minds, and influence them subtly in what I think is the right direction, I will - and that won't always be the moral high road, and I know that. Humor isn't nice - humor hurts.

Should I take your response to mean that you think we, as pundits (to whatever extent), should aim for the moral high ground?

And, if the conservatives aim low, is it OK to lower our aim? Heinlein reminds us that "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion. And usually easier." And so I wonder.

What do you think?

I'm also unimpressed with her creationism. Nor her suit against the federal government trying to delist polar bears as an endangered species.

I'd be more impressed with her as a reformer if she wasn't under investigation for pressuring state officials to fire her brother-in-law during his divorce from her sister.

I'm in Philly right now, which means I check my e-mail in a coffee shop, and they have the news running. I forget which channel was running, but I heard it from McCain's campaign itself, and I paraphrase, that the more he thought about it, the more he realized he should select "a woman." (The quote is direct.) Nor has she been exactly subtle about hoping that disaffected Clinton supporters would find her an acceptable pallative.

I've read plenty of Republicans chortling about how if Democrats criticize Gov. Pallin's inexperience it plays right into their hands regarding Obama, but I haven't seen many Democrats taking the bait. Rather, I've been seeing Democrats amused (and believe me, I am one of them) at how his choice of Gov. Pallin undermines his criticism of Obama.

On the other hand, she is on board with Obama's energy plan, so one could even make the case that she's actually more qualified than McCain.

References: (I'd hyperlink inline, but they're not sufficiently tagged for precision)

What is McCain Thinking? One Alskans Perspective
McCain's VP Choice under Ethics Investigation

I gather then from that discussion that your claim that I am misogynistic stems from my deriding voters who place "woman in power at all costs" rather than deriding other single-issue voters in a similar fashion. Would that be a fair characterization?

Oh, he's very, very deliberate, and very very much a party loyalist (hack? ;-)), too. Thoughtful? Depends on the post, but it's telling that I can disagree with him on facts without the jar of subtexts of prejudice.

I'm talking about

yesthattom with whom I often disagree - vehemently - but who has (so far) managed to create even intentionally-venomous anti-spin about the nomination without hitting that button (well, except for one attribution to the Democrats' need to paint Gov Palin as badly as possible while avoiding misogyny territory). I think it illustrates how someone who has no trace of the taint of cultural misogyny sounds when tearing down a female candidate.

If you aim for comedy, aim wherever the laughs are. That's a comment on society.

If you aim for social change, aim high, where your own actions won't reverse progress.

If you aim for social change through humor, study Lenny Bruce and Belle Barth.

This fortune cookie will self-destruct in 5...

The deriding part, yes. It discounts the importance of the issue not just to those people, but in fact socially.

Now this discussion is very interesting, sir.

Personally, I am finding out more about her, especially what her administration took on and did. The investigation, I think, is going nowhere with even the special prosecutor's office saying they're getting full cooperation and no major results so far; and even the Alaska Democratic party leadership has good things to say about her.

Re: creationism - I think the full article rather undermines the interpretation of that one line from one debate. She straightforwardly says she is for open dialog on religion: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

I for one am very much against "creation science" as a curriculum item, but very much for discussion of the differences between science and religion. And no need to disparage either in that discussion. Then again, my schooling involved a state-wide top science program taught within a religious institution. It was impressed upon us that science is a matter of methodology, and religion a matter of faith, each to its own purposes. Mixing the two, it was explained, is best reserved for philosophy classrooms.

Let's compare comments on appointing a "token woman|bimbo|uterus" with an actual criticism of the merits and risks, experience questions and problems of VP-nominee Governor Palin: http://volokh.com/posts/1220123152.shtml - by UMN law professor and UChicago Law graduate Dale Carpenter. We'll also note that Carpenter says he was leaning towards McCain.

I actually think it's one of the better vettings (in terms of tone and focus) of Gov Palin on the experience question I have yet read, even if he does never call her "Governor Palin."

I think any voting decision driven by the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or other non-policy aspects of the candidate or party is worthy of my derision.

And I agree that this discussion is engaging as hell.

Ok. And I think that if people take that derision itself to the point of [negative]-ist contents, then they should have a look in the mirror and ask themselves if they are really helping the anti-[negative]ist movement. . . Or if they are still themselves subtly in thrall to the negative symptoms of the society that contains such [negative]-isms.

FTW: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/08/sarah-palin-sexism-watch-1.html

"I will defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because I like or support her, but because that's how feminism works."

A fine and well-put rant.

Cheers.

luckally I have a much different friends list from you.

I don't like that he picked someone that I see as a bow to the conservative religious right portion of the republican party.

I do have a concern about her being a female in that she has a 4 month old child with special needs - I know that if I had such a new baby I wouldn't be able to be out on the campaign trail.

Heh. For example, take my post - PLEASE! ;->

"bitter is no excuse"

Of course not. Trying to understand, not to justify.

Ah, I was vague - your making of the comment I took as explanation not justification. Those harboring bitterness, I condemn for the outbursts, though they are no doubt just "bitterly clinging" to their politics.

It's entirely possible Palin is also the best candidate if you discount gender

Since getting elected is about getting votes, and gender is a factor in getting votes, you CAN'T discount gender. Keep in mind that in choosing a running mate, a presidential candidate is far less interested in picking the best person for the job than he/she is in picking the person most likely to help him/her win the election.

Hrm, makes me glad I have a tendency to just sort of jump over most political discussions these days.

I know the news is making a big deal about Palin's gender, and while I do think one reason she was picked was her gender, it has nothing to do with her; it has to do with the fact that it seems like there's always some purely vote-gettin' reasons when it comes to who people pick as running mates (all parties, not just the GOP). But it can't be the only reason, or every single candidate ever would only pick [insert some under-represented group in politics] as their running mates, and from what little I know about her (not much, I admit, because it's not like I was waiting to see who McCain's running mate was before I decided I wasn't voting for him) I imagine they also figured her political views would balance McCain's some. You would think that would be the assumption by most people, and what people would care about.

I had missed people were discussing her looks, and boy am I glad. I don't really care what my presidents and vice presidents look like, and if anyone else does, they're just wacko.

Long time no see. And a very fine entrance if I may say so.

*agrees on all counts*

The investigation, I think, is going nowhere with even the special prosecutor's office saying they're getting full cooperation and no major results so far

That's embroidering reality a bit: She's actually been rather uncooperative, and certainly not transparent

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 3

Rant - "the woman candidate"

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Rant Response

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Rant Response

no subject

no subject

Comparative criticism

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: Rant Response

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject