Rant - "the woman candidate"

[doc_strange]

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.

Comments

[caladri.livejournal.com]

I tend to look at politics through a lens that removes qualification, considering mostly the pandering and FUD, since that's what seems to swing (at least) the polls, and moreover some elections. Certainly George W. Bush was vastly under-qualified the first time he was elected, for example. I think the McCain campaign shot themselves in the foot by choosing Palin, since she is roundabout the same ballpark of qualification and experience as Senator Obama, who the McCain campaign have often caused trouble at the polls by way of FUD about being inexperienced. With all voters a little shaky about McCain's age and health, phrases like "a heartbeat from the presidency" are bound to be thrown around about his VP pick with slightly more earnestness than normal. In this case, you have Governor Palin a heartbeat away, and that really takes away McCain's ability to call Obama out on experience grounds.

They've also made a point of drawing attention to Obama's appearance from time to time — that he's a good-looking, vapid celebrity. I think it's (politically) fair to throw that back in their face on Governor Palin, if one can say with a straight face that she's some sort of überpretty (I don't think I can, even by the low standards for politicians.) The way I see it, they had several possible VP picks who were almost identical to her but with more experience, and who were mostly more established politically. Governor Palin slightly sharpens McCain's maverick image, but her own anti-corruption story is as stained as his, if much shorter, so she at most only barely helps there.

I think it's cynical, but not misogynistic, to think, given all that, that one of the main reasons the McCain camp chose her was that they thought that she would win over the moderates, who they assume will decide the election in large part, who were going to vote for Sen. Clinton just because she was a woman. They've reduced the politics of the candidacy to that before, and I don't think it's unreasonable to do that, especially in light of the increased noise about people who wanted to support Clinton but wouldn't support Obama around the DNC, during which the McCain campaign attempted to steal some thunder by offering up what they thought those woman-seeking moderates were disappointed to not get in Obama's announcement. The McCain camp has said a lot of dumb, misogynistic things about women wanted to vote for a woman, and fanned the flames of that problem within the Democratic Party. To assume that they would reduce the politics of winning to such absurdity is not misogynistic, it's just assuming their thought processes have some continuity, when it comes to manipulating the politics and image of the campaign.

And of course, Governor Palin is a member of a group (according to various Family™ organizations, anyway) called Feminists for Life. They like the Life bit, they don't like the Feminist bit, but she is in part a pander to the social conservatives who just don't believe McCain after all the years he's been a thorn in their side. They got very alienated by Romney's flip-flopping in the run-up to the decision on the top of the ticket, and hadn't really come back to the table yet. Now it looks as though they might swallow their pride and endorse McCain because of, in no small part, Governor Palin.

Choosing a VP is usually a very calculated political choice to balance the ticket and to attract people from across the aisle and who were otherwise disillusioned, and I don't think that's not the case in this election for some mysterious reason. I'm certain that part of why Governor Palin was chosen was to (1) give the campaign a younger look (2) draw some people who wanted to vote for a woman, any woman, in the White House (3) bring the pro-life and social conservative crowd over. I think #1 was a mistake and #2 and #3 will come back to bite them, if they haven't already, but that's neither here nor there.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Ok, I can appreciate that argument, and while I think some of the points about ability may or may not stand up to scrutiny, the larger discourse on the impetus behind the VP decision is well stated, albeit one we can only speculate about for now. But I also note you don't call Gov Palin a "token uterus" or say that the party is being insulting to women by putting forward a "dumb bimbo," which at least it's clear she is not. You don't resort to such language because it's not a layer of sludge at the bottom of your mind. Some people, however, not so much, at least so I think.

I am very happy to engage in and discuss the qualifications and positions of these candidates, from McCain's (sloppy and frightening) pandering to the far right despite his history of ignoring them, to Obama's promise to create domestic security forces and (no doubt miscalculated) statement that he intends to reduce the US to the per-capita energy consumption of the 1780s. Same with the VPs - is Biden beholden to and tied in with big banking, and is Palin the same with big oil? Is Palin who we want as "one heartbeat away from the presidency" with under 2 years of exec experience? Is Biden really who we want as "one heartbeat away from the presidency" when he could barely garner 1% of the primary vote? Is McCain who we want in the presidency, considering his health? Is Obama, considering his lack of any major exec experience and less than a year as Senator before he began running? Those are interesting questions that serve to elucidate matters, and do not seem to unearth latent prejudices.

[caladri.livejournal.com]

That makes a lot of sense to me. I think one thing I'm especially wary of right now is that voting history, ties and qualifications are very selectively reported and sometimes hard to figure out even if one is set on doing so. I read a fair amount of news right now, having read a lot more a few months ago, and less during the start of the primaries. I find it hard to keep straight exactly how much experience Obama has with what, and whether McCain is pandering or has changed his views or whatever. There's so much spin and selective-reporting that it's difficult to keep all of the relevant context for serious discussions in one's head. Hell, perhaps that's no small part of why I focus on the FUD and propaganda.

I certainly wouldn't call her a dumb bimbo, but I've only seen that kind of talk from people I already unfriended or considered unfriending during the primaries given their extreme political commentary with disturbing emotional undertones. I mean, mindless vitriol and assumptions of bad faith and slander are just fundamentally gross.

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

I mean, mindless vitriol and assumptions of bad faith and slander are just fundamentally gross.

YES. And I guess that we can get plenty of it on TV if we wanted it. I read my friends' comments because I want to know what they think, and to discuss it. I do get a little shocked when I find my ankles in sludge, however.

What is interesting is my very most extremely political, dedicated-left, activist "friend" on my list has managed to create massive rips on Gov Palin without once tapping the misogyny button except to state that the Democrats are going to have to figure out how to tear up this candidate without actually going there.

[caladri.livejournal.com]

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?

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

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.