Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: So it’s come to this Previous entry: FL: Palin rally is something out of ‘All About Eve’

Faux feminists and the Palin obsession

Say what you will, but Robin Morgan is a funny lady, and is so even when I’m disagreeing, I’m laughing.  Her latest target is the minority of self-described feminists who are either wildly racist or just have lost their minds known as PUMAs, though Morgan redubs them as Spalinists, probably because they’re spazzing.  (Or because it sounds like “Stalinist”, as a commenter notes.  Which does make a lot more sense, since I don’t think Robin Morgan is of the generation that tends to say that someone is spazzing.)  As I’ve written before—-and believe me, I was sad to write a post that’s the equivalent of writing, “Grass is green.  Ducks can swim.  Birds can fly.”—-the only ticket that’s a feminist ticket is Obama/Biden.  One ticket supports equal pay, reproductive rights, economic policies to help people trying to scrape by (who are more likely to be women), and taking measures to reduce violence against women.  One ticket is indifferent to openly hostile to feminist goals, even the supposedly uncontroversial goal of reducing battering and rape.  But a handful of so-called feminists see that Sarah Palin has managed to hold a job while raising children and think that makes her the new goddess of feminism, because they see themselves in her.  Which I find interesting, because it’s hard for me to believe that someone who supports McCain/Palin and calls that “feminist” has the baseline intelligence to hold a job, or even remember how to get to your job every day.  But even Elaine Lafferty, who was intelligent enough to run a magazine, has bought into the Palin hype, writing a pro-Palin essay that all but praised her as a genius because her subjects and verbs generally agree even when she’s off the teleprompter.

Morgan eviscerates these women.

You might have noticed a recent media burp—gassy, though blissfully short—about a handful of faux “feminists” backing the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket. I won’t name these women out of concern that feeding their misplaced sense of self-importance may risk them bursting into shriveled balloon ribbons of overextended ego. If you’re addicted to surreal humor you can find such SP supporters (I call them Spalinists) via Google—if you lack an excuse to put off, say, cleaning the garbage pail, and if you can manage it without bladder-challenging fits of hilarity at the cognitive dissonance invoked by juxtaposing words like “feminism” and “Palin.”

But if any actual feminists are concerned about the effect on Women’s Movement institutions and energy of this clutch of “formers” (a former chapter official of a national feminist organization, a former editor of a feminist publication, former Democratic funders, former Hillary supporters, and so forth), let me reassure you.


I like the diagnosing of the problem as a matter of egocentricity, which answers a lot of questions I’ve had when I see “feminists” defending Sarah Palin.  You just have to sell your soul for an opportunity to irritate feminists and get attention.  Needless to say, Gloria Feldt’s blog (where this is posted) got swarmed by the moron patrol.  Examples:

As a 57 year old woman who experienced sexism first hand in the workplace and at home, I can’t help but wonder what your definition of “feminist” is today. Reading your post, it sounds to me as if you define a feminist as someone who agrees with you on every issue relating to women. It seems that you now define feminism by the issues rather than the right to choose what you believe about those issues.

Thus, if you believe that bitches ain’t shit, that actually makes you a feminist, because you chose to believe that.  We all knew that “choice feminism” would reach this point, I suppose.  It’s just a matter of time before Palin defends her desire to ban abortion by using choice—-it’s feminist to deprive other women of their choices, because she chose to do it, wouldn’t you know?

Hi, I’m 75 and must admit I’ve never read such silly hogwash in all my life. Ms. Morgan you absolutely ooze jealousy, green over the fact that an intelligent beautiful woman has made it this far without being on the “left.” I’ve certainly and am still experiencing sexism, especially at home.

Sexism such as assuming all disagreements between women go back to our all-consuming desire to be prongable?  Sexism like telling a woman that her criticisms of Palin couldn’t have anything to do with policy, but have to be because you’re jealous of her looks?

It continues in this vein, and hilariously, some people accuse Morgan of being jealous of Sarah Palin’s earth-shattering beauty and fertility in one sentence, and then denounce cattiness in the next.  I suspect most of them haven’t used the word “feminist” in a positive way until they needed it as a way to shield Palin from legitimate criticism, but there’s a couple genuine-seeming Spalinists in there. 

Last night, I took the Sarah Palin costume out for one last ride, going downtown dressed as Palin, bouffant, gun belt, a multitude of flag pins and all.  I just wanted to have a fun costume, but what I got was an interesting social experiment.  People had strong reactions, wanting to come talk to me, get a picture, talk politics even.  I don’t think I’ve ever talked to so many strangers in one night.  Love her or hate her, there’s something about Sarah Palin that just provokes really strong reactions, to the point where you get a small taste of it just dressing like her.  I confess that I don’t fully understand it, but I also confess to being sucked into the national obsession. Palin has managed to turn herself into a Rorschach test—-people see what they need to see in her.  For liberals, she’s fascinating because she’s the embodiment of every overconfident asshole who is openly hostile to learning and thinking.  To anti-choicers, she’s a saint of fertility, a Good Woman to bash all the Bad Women out there with.  To right wing wankers, she’s some sort of proof that the world favors them and gives them hot chicks.  And apparently she’s also available for fantasies about strong women who somehow have it all by sheer force of will, and a handful of self-described feminists have gotten lost in that fantasy.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 08:33 PM • (119) Comments

You Feminazis just wish you hadn’t botoxed away control of you’re winking muscles.  Sarah Pallin is a real woman, one who can teach her brood how to shoot from a moving plane, how to milk oxen and do it with makeup on.  She has showed the world how lovin Jesus and building a massive oil pipeline are not incompatible, particularly as a woman.  You DEMONcrap ladies should follow her example and fix yourselves up nice once in a while.

Comment #1: Rugged in Montana  on  11/01  at  08:45 PM

I don’t think “Spalinist” is about spazzing.  I think it’s about unquestioning loyal devotion to a sociopath (think “Stalinist”).

Comment #2: BABH  on  11/01  at  08:47 PM

I’m really happy I’ll never have to hear about this woman again after November (or at least not in a serious way).

No, she’s not getting the nod in 2012. The party leaders are going to dump her after this week. Watch ‘em.

Comment #3: Ben D.  on  11/01  at  08:53 PM

” It seems that you now define feminism by the issues “

Issues?!?  Oh no!

Comment #4: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/01  at  09:05 PM

Maybe I’m just being stupid, but it seems much more likely to me that ‘Spalin’ just a contraction of ‘Sarah Palin’.

Comment #5: Alexander  on  11/01  at  09:08 PM

“You DEMONcrap ladies should follow her example and fix yourselves up nice once in a while. “

Even if you’re involved in a campaign that is woefully out-funded and out-manned.  Go ahead and spend $150,000 on clothes.

Comment #6: Notorious P.A.T.  on  11/01  at  09:08 PM

Sorry, I meant to say: “... that ‘Spalin’ *is* just a contraction of ‘Sarah Palin’.” Eesh.

Comment #7: Alexander  on  11/01  at  09:10 PM

how to milk oxen

I’m not usually a fan of parody trolls, but this was a nice touch. grin

Comment #8: Andrew  on  11/01  at  09:17 PM

Milking oxen? That’s laying it on a bit thick.

Comment #9: bad Jim  on  11/01  at  09:18 PM

We’ve seen how RiM relates to Poe’s Law, but I’m starting to think that a Turing Test would be more appropriate.

Comment #10: Damian  on  11/01  at  09:24 PM

The most dismaying “former”, to my mind, is Phyllis Chesler, who was a serious feminist scholar in the Seventies and is now rather attached to Pam Geller and David Horowitz.  What’s up wi’ that?

Comment #11: Josh  on  11/01  at  09:35 PM

Pfft. Palin = feminist? Pshaw. My eye.

I talked to a woman whose costume didn’t add up. Reindeer antlers on her head and a ratty-headed doll wrapped in a blanket? I hadn’t noticed the jacket and pearls with down-to-earth jeans. The ratty doll was Trig, which was a nice touch.

Comment #12: Orange  on  11/01  at  09:43 PM

What’s up with crazy anti-feminists named Phyllis?  I don’t know if I have ever heard of a normal person with that name.

Comment #13: GumbyAnne  on  11/01  at  09:43 PM

Is it just me? Most of these PUMA / Palinists seem like post-menopausal heterosexual women who, as such, don’t feel that they need to care about things like reproductive rights and gay marriage and silly little ‘issues’ like that. Seems like a bunch of “I got mine, fuck ya’ll” and at this point they are just interested in the vicarious thrill of seeing a woman in the White House before they die.

I get that, I do, but used to “good feminism” was about leaving the world a better, freeing place for your daughters and granddaughters. And even if you didn’t have children, you still sort of cared about other people’s daughters and granddaughters. Because, you know, they were FEMALE.

Sigh.

Comment #14: Ellen  on  11/01  at  09:48 PM

That is dismaying, Josh. I looked her up and saw that her virtual house arrest when she was married and living in Afghanistan helped make her a feminist, but it seems that she’s decided that the problem was Islam instead of the patriarchy, and she doesn’t quite grasp that Islam is just one manifestation of the patriarchy.

Comment #15: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/01  at  09:48 PM

This is a bit nit-picking, but I personally would prefer the qualifier “of a major party” added to “the only ticket that’s a feminist ticket is Obama/Biden”. There are other options, though sadly lacking in viability.

Comment #16: AndersH  on  11/01  at  09:49 PM

Seems like a bunch of “I got mine, fuck ya’ll”

The conservative slogan.

Comment #17: Ranylt  on  11/01  at  09:53 PM

Yeah, I guess you could throw your vote away on a third party candidate so that you can feel self-righteous and still be a feminist.  But then you have other problems.  The fact of the matter is that it’s not certain Obama will win, and even if he does, the larger his margin of victory, the more he can govern from the left, citing that he has a mandate.

Comment #18: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/01  at  09:55 PM

Ellen, I recall actually reading an article on PUMAs where one said that she didn’t care because she wasn’t going to be having any more kids, anyway.

Comment #19: annejumps  on  11/01  at  09:57 PM

It occurs to me that if one is sufficiently wealthy, the actual policies of a particular government may not particularly apply to you.

Healthcare a mess?  Well, maybe for some people, but the Mayo clinic is just fine.

Abortion outlawed?  Well, yes, for those people who shamefully can’t even fly to Europe for the weekend.

Economy a wreck?  You have people to go look after that money stuff for you.  Besides, a wrecked economy makes it easier to find good help.

etc.

Anyway, if government policies really don’t matter to you at all, the presidential race is just a contest of symbols.  Although this doesn’t explain all of the self-professed feminists supporting Palin, it may explain some of it: if all you see is the symbol of a black man vs. the symbol of a woman - in jobs that historically have only gone to white men - I can see how someone might think the Republican ticket was the feminist choice.  Again, it requires a viewpoint that totally ignores policy and sees only the race and gender of the four on the two parties’ tickets.

I find the ignorance necessary to take that viewpoint appalling, but it isn’t completely incomprehensible.

Comment #20: Daniel Martin  on  11/01  at  10:02 PM

Watching the office right-winger (she was a total Guiliani Girl and was horribly offended when eHarmony pegged her as “nontraditional”), I’ve come to realize that a great deal of these sorts of oddities are due to being a latent authoritarian follower.  They can be all down with the theoretical feminism, even support it when they are part of a feminist community.  And they like feminism when espousing it gets them ahead.  But when the cold wind starts a blowin’, they want a strong leader who will come to save them and they want him now.  And they pretend that misogyny began the day women started getting feminist notions in their heads.

If you are curious about authoritarianism, go over to Orcinus and read Sara Robinson’s Cracks in the Wall series.

BTW - I had a pair of 10? year olds stop by last night, one was Sarah Palin and the other was FLDS wife.  They were having a blast.

Comment #21: mracine  on  11/01  at  10:14 PM

Still doesn’t make that ticket the only feminist one. In fact, it reduces the standard we hold the Democratic party to “be better than the Republicans”. I’m not saying we should propagate some “both parties are the same” bullshit, as that’s clearly not true, but rather that ignoring smaller, more interesting parties can send the wrong kind of message to the Democratic party. I trust that actual voters will make the right strategic choice.

Comment #22: AndersH  on  11/01  at  10:17 PM

Is it just me? Most of these PUMA / Palinists seem like post-menopausal heterosexual women who, as such, don’t feel that they need to care about things like reproductive rights and gay marriage and silly little ‘issues’ like that.

Bingo.  Riverdaughter pretty much said as much here.  In the comments to this post, you can see that they deride women who care about the “issues”, because being devoted to “issues” is imprisoning yourself or some shit like that.  I don’t even get it.  They trot out tired anti-choice smears, say nasty shit about Michelle Obama (calling her a “Stepford wife” and sneering at her clothes), insinuate that young women are idiots and sluts, dismiss the entire Third Wave as anti-feminist, dismiss any Second Waver who comes out for Obama as not a real feminist (not just Morgan but Steinem, MacKinnon, Pollitt, etc.), and then have the temerity to claim that they have 52% of the population on their side and it’s other women who are being divisive.

I’ve been following these particular people closely and blogging about them for the past month.  (Yes, I need a new hobby.)  They fascinate me; it’s like a car wreck.

Comment #23: killjoy  on  11/01  at  10:40 PM

IMO the construction “Grass is green.  Ducks can swim.  Birds can fly.” is unfelicitous because ducks ARE birds.  “Fish can swim” would have been better.

Comment #24: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/01  at  11:04 PM

“I got mine, fuck ya’ll”

I prefer the British “I’m alright Jack”, via Pink Floyd.  Apparently it was a catchphrase from a pro-labor movie in the 60’s, and meant exactly that.

Comment #25: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/01  at  11:09 PM

say nasty shit about Michelle Obama (calling her a “Stepford wife” and sneering at her clothes),”

Ha!  I got banned from ginmar’s for calling them on sniping at Michelle Obama.  But that’s what happens when you offend the officers of the HRC Fan Club.

Comment #26: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/01  at  11:13 PM

Anders:

I’m not saying we should propagate some “both parties are the same” bullshit, as that’s clearly not true, but rather that ignoring smaller, more interesting parties can send the wrong kind of message to the Democratic party.

This is, of course, a complete myth. Voting for third parties doesn’t send anyone at all a message, because this isn’t India or Israel. There will never be a viable third party in this country. The Democrats aren’t going to totally freak out and turn into a party of unbelievable super-progressives if the Green Party gets 0.12% of the popular vote instead of their usual 0.1%. So just get over it, already.

Comment #27: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/01  at  11:23 PM

Not to speak for ginmar, but—she is now voting for Obama and has distanced herself from the batshit PUMA blogs.  Palin didn’t play with her.

Comment #28: killjoy  on  11/01  at  11:24 PM

It was funny, although I wouldn’t put Peter Sellers’ shop steward as making it pro-labor:

In postwar Britain tricky Bertram Tracepurcel plans to get an Arab arms contract for his missile company then arrange for a strike so that his partner Sidney Cox gets the work at a higher price. Central to the scheme is Tracepurcel’s innocent nephew whom he persuades to take a job on the shop-floor knowing he is bound to cause union problems. With shop steward Fred Kite always ready to assert workers’ rights trouble is indeed assured, though not quite in the way Tracepurcell and Cox intended.

Minister of Labour: [to the press out side Number 10 Downing Street] I see great principles at stake here. As Minister of Labour you can be sure that I will act. You shall also be sure that I will not interfere… That is with those great principles I deem to be at stake…

I think “post-menopausal heterosexual” is probably a slur that should be avoided. It ain’t about their childbearing status or whom they like to have sex with (or even the insinuation that they’re not getting enough because, y’know, they’re way past the Derbyshire Limit).

What these women seem to have in common, along with a bunch of younger ones, is an upbringing in the kind of “feminism” that says what women really need to do to succeed is to act like men. Don’t challenge the structure of the patriarchy, just put on your white penis and go beat other people down, damnit!

If you start from the proposition that acting like a stereotypical male asshole is the only way to succeed, then by golly you’ll be proud of a woman who has done exactly that, only backwards and in high heels. If you start instead from the proposition that men and women should be able to succeed by acting in lots of different ways, preferably not including the male-asshole model, then, well.

Comment #30: paul  on  11/01  at  11:35 PM

Is it just me, but I don’t think Palin is even the least bit “hot.”  She gives me a “Stepford wife’ vibe.

Comment #31: woodrowfan  on  11/01  at  11:38 PM

Thanks, DA&G;—I misremembered it.

Comment #32: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/01  at  11:51 PM

How hot she is or isn’t is really irrelevant, though.  I mean, it’s relevant that Republican men think she is, but not relevant whether she actually is.

I think “post-menopausal heterosexual” is probably a slur that should be avoided. It ain’t about their childbearing status or whom they like to have sex with (or even the insinuation that they’re not getting enough because, y’know, they’re way past the Derbyshire Limit).

Hmm, that’s not how I mean it, certainly.  Women who are not at risk for getting pregnant by accident, or getting gay-bashed, probably find it easier to dismiss the concerns of women who are.  They can promote policies that hurt other women, knowing those policies will never have an impact on them.  I do think that’s somewhat relevant, although not the most important thing.  As for not getting enough, well, when they insinuate that young women are sluts who worship Obama’s cock or whatever, it’s hard for me not to see it as some kind of twisted expression of jealousy, but I will admit that most of them don’t do that—they just don’t care about things that don’t directly affect them, and what they care about the most is that the Obama campaign offended them and the Democrats must be punished, no matter what the cost to women who aren’t them.

If you start from the proposition that acting like a stereotypical male asshole is the only way to succeed, then by golly you’ll be proud of a woman who has done exactly that, only backwards and in high heels.

Well, a lot of them like Palin because she supposedly hasn’t done that, because she does have more children than the average woman and therefore has “embraced her femininity” and “not compromised” or something.  Personally, I think that’s essentialist bullshit, and I deeply resent the suggestion that a woman who has one or two children is less of a mother than a woman who has five, or that women who don’t have kids are “giving in to the patriarchy’s hatred of children” or wtfever. 

There’s also some anger being expressed about the devaluation of motherhood and the things mothers do—but it’s being directed at women who won’t embrace Palin; it’s like if you don’t believe that being a mother qualifies a woman to be Vice-President you don’t believe it qualifies her to be anything.

But Palin, as a very energetic, individualistic woman, hasn’t really challenged patriarchal notions of what a worker should do.  I’m impressed at her ability to “do it all”, but I don’t think that should be demanded of other women when it isn’t demanded of men who want kids.

Comment #33: killjoy  on  11/01  at  11:54 PM

Speaking as a heterosexual post-menopausal 68-year-old woman who’s been a feminist since I attended my first Woman’s Lib meeting in 1970, I don’t have a single feminist friend who’s less of a feminist now than she was say 30-40 years ago.  We are all—whether always for Obama or for Hillary before Obama—appalled and devastated by Sarah Palin.

I’m thinking that older women who support Palin must be women who for whatever reason did not take advantage of the greater opportunities that became available to women starting in the 1970’s (and likely had lesser lives for that reason whether or not they admit it to themselves or are even aware of it) and experience Palin as some sort of vindication of their life course.

Comment #34: PeggySu  on  11/01  at  11:56 PM

This is, of course, a complete myth. Voting for third parties doesn’t send anyone at all a message, because this isn’t India or Israel. There will never be a viable third party in this country. The Democrats aren’t going to totally freak out and turn into a party of unbelievable super-progressives if the Green Party gets 0.12% of the popular vote instead of their usual 0.1%. So just get over it, already.

This.

Also, that third-party voting in this election is likely to have even less of an effect than it normally would. There’s a Republican in office. The Dems are out of power and trying to pick up the middle. Voting for the Green Party might make slightly more sense in 2012, but right now, that big a swing ain’t going to happen.

Comment #35: Rebecca  on  11/01  at  11:58 PM

Wow, killjoy.  She outright said that forced childbirth is an appropriate punishment for young women who stole the Clinton nomination from her.  Wow.

Comment #36: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/01  at  11:59 PM

Elaine Lafferty is one of the most objective woman on the planet right now. Lafferty, Camille Paglia, and Cynthia Gorney have all managed to overcome “knee jerk liberal feminism.” These women dared to think outside the feminist box.  Brava!

Another thing: Palin/McCain aren’t gonna ban abortions, if W. didn’t, nobody will.  They are just trying to win single issue voters.  I’m calling their bluff.

Comment #37: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  12:01 AM

A “feminist” VP pick for McCain would have been Kay Bailey Hutchinson.  Instead, McCain picked a “trophy running mate” almost 30 years younger than himself.  Reminds me of when he dumped his first wife for a younger woman.

Comment #38: Ming  on  11/02  at  12:03 AM

I think “post-menopausal heterosexual” is probably a slur that should be avoided. It ain’t about their childbearing status or whom they like to have sex with (or even the insinuation that they’re not getting enough because, y’know, they’re way past the Derbyshire Limit).

Sorry, I didn’t mean that as a slur. I simply meant that if you are past the point where you might need an abortion, it may become easier to see abortion as a non-issue. Same for “heterosexual” - first they came for the gays and I did not speak up kind of a thing.

Nor did I mean in any way to insinuate that some/most/all “post-menopausal heterosexual” women are not feminists - just that this very, very, very tiny collection of Palin supporters seem to fit that mold.

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Comment #39: Ellen  on  11/02  at  12:08 AM

Peggy, you might be on to something there.  The PUMAs I’ve read are mainly the “essentialist” kind of feminists, which are a kind I never liked to begin with, the kind that think that men and women are very different and the problem with the patriarchy is not male dominance, but insufficient worship of some essential femininity.  They have an opinion of women’s moral superiority that is so similar to the chivalrous ideal that sometimes it becomes inseparable—-and naturally, they’re the ones who think snuffing out porn and BDSM should be top feminist priorities.  It’s easy to see how they easily drift into adopting reactionary attitudes about female sexuality that would incline them to taunt young women with the risk of pregnancy as punishment for “sluttiness”.

Comment #40: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/02  at  12:10 AM

“Milking oxen? That’s laying it on a bit thick.”

“Truth, sir, is a cow that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.”——-Dr. Johnson

Comment #41: bekabot  on  11/02  at  12:12 AM

Another thing: Palin/McCain aren’t gonna ban abortions, if W. didn’t, nobody will.  They are just trying to win single issue voters.  I’m calling their bluff.

And I’m sure we’ll all be really thankfully to you when we have to start stockpiling wire hangars again.

Presidents do not “ban abortion”. Presidents stock the SCOTUS with conservative wingnuts who uphold one of the many, many Roe challenges that come rising up in an attempt to be “the one”. The SCOTUS has *already* chipped away at abortion rights in this last decade. This confidence that Roe is unassailable… the stupid - it burns.

Comment #42: Ellen  on  11/02  at  12:12 AM

Christina continues to prove my point—-obviously too stupid to understand that abortion’s legality is dependent on a Supreme Court decision that is only upheld with a 5-4 majority, and that a pro-choice judge is likely to die or retire in the next 4 years, which means that the next President will in fact be the one who determines if Roe is upheld or overturned.  But she can operate a keyboard, so I suppose Elaine Lafferty would give her a Nobel prize.

Comment #43: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/02  at  12:13 AM

yay nobel prize!  well either way the president decides who those new (prob 3) justices will be, so it would b the prez’s decision.

Comment #44: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  12:21 AM

yay nobel prize!  well either way the president decides who those new (prob 3) justices will be, so it would b the prez’s decision.

And…what? You’re assuming that McCain will be really mavericky and nominate Hillary or some other pro-choice judge?

Where is the part where you call their “bluff” and it turns out to indeed be a bluff? I’m confused.

Comment #45: Ellen  on  11/02  at  12:25 AM

Did you all read the comments on that site?  Un-fucking-believable!

And Phyllis Chesler, someone whose work I read and admired in some way many year ago, lost her marbles after 9/11, and has embraced the pro-Likud agenda 110%.  No feminist, she.  She could give a shit about women from the larger Islamic regions of the world, and would rather bomb them to oblivion.  She is a smarter version of Pammycakes of Asshat Shrugs.

A Proudly Menopausal Woman Who Cares about Human Rights for All Women, Especially Our Young Women.

PS. I still have a really hard time forgiving Morgan and Steinem playing the Oppression Olympics early on in this campaign.

Comment #46: Kathy  on  11/02  at  12:28 AM

Palin’s more than just a Rorschach, she’s a ‘Judas goat’ for women.  And sadly, some are taken in.

Comment #47: alicia-logic  on  11/02  at  12:35 AM

They have an opinion of women’s moral superiority that is so similar to the chivalrous ideal that sometimes it becomes inseparable—-and naturally, they’re the ones who think snuffing out porn and BDSM should be top feminist priorities.

Did you notice that on the Feminists For Life website (the “feminist” Palin fans are big on FFL) they’re explicit about wanting to look back to the sexual mores of the First Wave/feminist purity movements of the late nineteenth century?  Those women didn’t like that women had to have children they didn’t want, but for various reasons, they thought the solution was for married couples to cultivate “purity” and not have sex very often.

This made sense as a solution in the 1890s, when you consider that a) the marital rape exemption was still on the books, b) there wasn’t much in the way of reliable contraception, c) arguing for women’s autonomy in marriage was probably a harder sell than arguing that sex was dirty and debasing, and d) a lot of Victorians assumed women didn’t like sex anyway.  But to promote this in 2008?  seriously?  WTF?

Comment #48: killjoy  on  11/02  at  12:36 AM

Christina: McCain stated in the final presidential debate that he would not nominate a judge that supports Roe v. Wade. Now (I’ve written about this before, here) I don’t think that the Court would ban abortion, no matter who McCain would nominate. (Because Roberts is still CJ, and while he’s right-wing, he’s not batshit insane like Thomas or Scalia.) But they sure as hell would let states ban it, which screws over a lot of people.

Elaine Lafferty is one of the most objective woman on the planet right now. Lafferty, Camille Paglia, and Cynthia Gorney have all managed to overcome “knee jerk liberal feminism.” These women dared to think outside the feminist box.  Brava!

Opposing equal pay for women = anti-feminist.
Opposing financial help to new mothers = anti-feminist.
Saying that health is something women make up in order to have abortions = anti-feminist.
Supporting a candidate who holds the above positions = anti-feminist.

I wouldn’t call it “thinking outside the box” so much as “not being a feminist anymore.”

Comment #49: Rebecca  on  11/02  at  12:38 AM

Rebecca:

“Opposing equal pay for women = anti-feminist.
Opposing financial help to new mothers = anti-feminist.
Saying that health is something women make up in order to have abortions = anti-feminist.”

I don’t recall Lafferty, Paglia, or Gorney opposing these things or supporting Palin (in terms of voting for her). I believe they all support Obama (as I do).  I think some women just accept Palin as a feminist, just not a liberal feminist.  To Palin the definition of a feminist:( the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes) means something different.  I may disagree, but I respect her right to her opinion. 

Thank you for your respectful engagement, I appreciate it.  I look forward to reading what you linked to.  Thanks!

Comment #50: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  12:55 AM

Oh, and lest I forget - making rape victims pay for forensic investigation = so anti-feminist!

But Sarah Palin is patently not a feminist. Equal pay for equal work isn’t a radical concept.
(Lafferty, by the way, has worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign.)

Eh, it’s an old piece. I may re-post it at my current blog sometime.

Comment #51: Rebecca  on  11/02  at  01:04 AM

To clarify, perhaps: I think Palin’s position as governor of Alaska is a symbol of how far women’s rights have come, but it doesn’t mean that Palin herself is a feminist. I also think that it is not enough to say you are a feminist while supporting policies that oppress women. Perhaps Palin really believes that women should have equal rights, but she certainly hasn’t done anything to get them equal rights.

Comment #52: Rebecca  on  11/02  at  01:06 AM

I don’t recall Lafferty, Paglia, or Gorney opposing these things or supporting Palin (in terms of voting for her). I believe they all support Obama (as I do).  I think some women just accept Palin as a feminist, just not a liberal feminist.  To Palin the definition of a feminist:( the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes) means something different.  I may disagree, but I respect her right to her opinion.

Yes, but it’s still seems to me very much tied to the mainstream and is not very tolerant of diversity, variants in American culture or even the existing subcultures in American society (i.e., the various ethnic subcultures in American life, which, while they all have problems with patriarchal behavior, still have aspects which may suggest solutions to American society as a whole)

Comment #53: gwangung  on  11/02  at  01:10 AM

Rebecca:

“I do not want Roe to be overturned, or at least not until we have something better. The ideal situation, in my opinion, would be a new case leading to a ruling that women have the right not to have their bodies used, which would then become the definitive abortion rights case as Roe is now.”

Great point!  I learned a lot from your post.  This is why the internet is great: it links me to smart law ppl like you. 

“I also think that it is not enough to say you are a feminist while supporting policies that oppress women.”

I get what you are saying, and I personally agree.  That said I understand that many religious pro lifers (like Palin) believe innocent human lives are oppressed by abortions.  I do believe that fetuses are individuals, and I could see how Palin would see aborted fetuses as “oppressed and murdered individuals”.

Comment #54: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  01:22 AM

Palin opposes abortion, true, but she also opposes sex education, and the “Feminists for Life” organization to which she belong opposes contraception. If you really believed that abortion was murder and weren’t just out to curtail women’s sexual activity, wouldn’t you support sex education and contraception so that there would be less unwanted pregnancy?

Comment #55: Rebecca  on  11/02  at  01:28 AM

Isn’t this the same woman who wrote that somewhat racist and ageist screed that ammounted to NO FAIR! (stomp) when Hillary didn’t just get anointed as THE candidate simply for being a privileged educated baby boomer female and “her turn”?

Comment #56: Ms Kate  on  11/02  at  01:40 AM

If you really believed that abortion was murder and weren’t just out to curtail women’s sexual activity, wouldn’t you support sex education and contraception so that there would be less unwanted pregnancy?

I would and do, but I’m not sure Palin necessarily agrees with everything the “feminists for life” organization believes either.  For example contraception includes the morning after pill, which I could see her and others opposing b/c it could abort a potential life, BUT I’m not sure they feel the same way about preventative measure like the pill, condoms, coitus interruptus etc. 

As for sex education, I can understand that parents may want to include religious elements when teaching their kids, (like the importance of marriage in sex).  Public schools would probably neglect to stress the importance of sex and pregnancy being tied to marriage.

Comment #57: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  01:45 AM

“If you really believed that abortion was murder and weren’t just out to curtail women’s sexual activity, wouldn’t you support sex education and contraception so that there would be less unwanted pregnancy?”

that’s a quote from Rebecca in my previous post

Comment #58: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  01:47 AM

By what justification do the FFL oppose <u>contraception</u>??????????x a million

(And ONCE AGAIN, the morning after pill inhibits ovulation, not implantation, so no it cannot abort a “potential life”.)

“Public schools would probably neglect to stress the importance of sex and pregnancy being tied to marriage.” [emphasis added] Which is debatable.  VERY debatable.

Comment #59: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  01:54 AM

I would and do, but I’m not sure Palin necessarily agrees with everything the “feminists for life” organization believes either.  For example contraception includes the morning after pill, which I could see her and others opposing b/c it could abort a potential life, BUT I’m not sure they feel the same way about preventative measure like the pill, condoms, coitus interruptus etc.

Palin doesn’t oppose contraception or sex ed, although it’s not totally clear what kind of sex ed she’s okay with.  Still, I do think she’s made it clear that she’s in favour of something better than abstinence-only.  IIRC, she’s even said that her daughter’s pregnancy demonstrats the importance of teaching about contraception in schools.  I still find her profoundly unappealing as a candidate, but she’s not as bad as McCain on those issues. 

Palin has said she wouldn’t personally take the morning-after pill but “doesn’t know that it should be illegal”.  As for “aborting a potential life”, in order for that to be true of EC, you have to believe that life begins at fertilization, which isn’t really a mainstream position; also, if EC is abortifacient, that’s also true of the birth control pill and the IUD (which is why anti-contraception nuts target all three). 

And Feminists For Life isn’t technically anti-contraception—they just don’t take a position on it.  Which I think is bullshit, but not quite as bad as being anti-contraception.

Comment #60: killjoy  on  11/02  at  01:59 AM

And ONCE AGAIN, the morning after pill inhibits ovulation, not implantation, so no it cannot abort a “potential life”

I thought it could inhibit implantation as well.  I just don’t see inhibiting implantation as “abortion”.

Comment #61: killjoy  on  11/02  at  02:01 AM

Oh, also, Christina, what the hell?

Public schools would probably neglect to stress the importance of sex and pregnancy being tied to marriage.

If they did stress that, what effect would it have on kids whose parents aren’t married?  Do you really think schools should be in the business of telling kids that their parents are bad people and they shouldn’t have been born?

They can learn about the vital importance of marriage in church.  Public schools are supposed to serve all kids, not just the religious ones.

Comment #62: killjoy  on  11/02  at  02:07 AM

Public schools would probably neglect to stress the importance of sex and pregnancy being tied to marriage.

Well, then, let the schools teach the non-religious part, and let parents teach the religious part, if they think marriage-before-sex is important. Not all parents are going to want their kids taught that they should wait for marriage, so it’s not fair to try to get the schools to do that—especially since it’s a matter of religion.

Comment #63: Nenya  on  11/02  at  02:08 AM

killjoy

“If they did stress that, what effect would it have on kids whose parents aren’t married?  Do you really think schools should be in the business of telling kids that their parents are bad people and they shouldn’t have been born?

“They can learn about the vital importance of marriage in church.  Public schools are supposed to serve all kids, not just the religious ones. “

I believe sex ed should be taught in school and I don’t really care if they stress the importance of marriage or not.  My comments were about me trying to understand why FFL would oppose sex ed.  I came up with the possible idea that extreme religious ppl may take issue with public schools omitting something they consider “sacred” like marriage, out of the whole sex ed talk.

Comment #64: Christina Stroz  on  11/02  at  02:16 AM

My comments were about me trying to understand why FFL would oppose sex ed.  I came up with the possible idea that extreme religious ppl may take issue with public schools omitting something they consider “sacred” like marriage, out of the whole sex ed talk.

Oh, that they certainly do, and in fact they go a lot farther; abstinence “educators” do their educating with exercises designed to suggest that a woman who has had sex with more than one man is disgusting and dirty and no one will ever love her, that boys care about sex and girls care about love and marriage, that condoms don’t work, etc., etc. 

This is certainly the case with Feminists For Life—but that’s why they’re not actually feminists, just as the Independent Women’s Forum isn’t actually a forum for independent women.

Comment #65: killjoy  on  11/02  at  02:27 AM

I thought it could inhibit implantation as well.

They did a recent study of Plan B (it was on Pharyngula) that showed that it only inhibits ovulation.  Basically, there isn’t enough time for it to thin the uterine lining like there is if you take a BCP every day.

So the people telling you that Plan B or any other morning-after pill causes an abortion or even prevents implantation are fucking liars.

Comment #66: Mnemosyne  on  11/02  at  02:32 AM

So the people telling you that Plan B or any other morning-after pill causes an abortion or even prevents implantation are fucking liars.

Good to know.  Thanks.

Comment #67: killjoy  on  11/02  at  02:36 AM

Sex-ed should basically be BIOLOGY and HEALTH: Biology for the mechanics, and Health to do it safely.

Everything else should be left up to the parents.

(If one WERE to address other issues, it would be under the heading of CIVICS.)

Comment #68: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  03:04 AM

I daresay you’re too young too remember, Amanda, but when Bush I nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, a lot of groups were loath to oppose him even though they would have fervently opposed a white guy who had the same views (such as Robert Bork, whose nomination our side had recently succeeded in shooting down).  Same kind of phenomenon.

Comment #69: Frederick  on  11/02  at  03:09 AM

The thing that bothers me is these centrist/conservative feminists-or-what-have-you complaining that somehow ostracizing a woman because she takes positions counterproductive to womens’ rights in general is wrong. I struggle to see how this makes sense—it’s politics. What’s more important, issues or identity? If you say the latter, you’re a worthless piece of shit and I have no use for you.

Killjoy’s riverdaughter link, btw—if that isn’t a crystal-clear example of “I’m all right, Jackie”, I don’t know what else is. It’s as if riverdaughter felt that feminism was worthwhile only for her own generation and these girls today aren’t worth protecting.

Comment #70: Brian X  on  11/02  at  03:12 AM

Not to speak for ginmar, but—she is now voting for Obama and has distanced herself from the batshit PUMA blogs.

There are feminist groups (or groups calling themselves feminist) too batshit for ginmar?

Difficult to believe…

Comment #71: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/02  at  06:25 AM

Dan and Rebecca, I completely agree, which is why I did not advocate voting for a third party.
If the OP had been written “the only feminist vote this election is a vote for Obama/Biden,” I wouldn’t even quibble, but this is more about the discourse surrounding the Democratic party. What do we gain by ignoring tickets that are feminist (even more feminist) than the Democratic one? I firmly believe in the theory of dynamic responsiveness, wherein a winning party moves farther in “its” direction when winning, so even voting for the lesser evil makes sense in a two-party system, as we could then expect it to move in a less-evil direction. Just as with the Democrats with liberalism.
However, as I said, this is about discourse, so I think it’s important that feminists are in a situation where that leftward direction can be influenced in a feminist manner. “Left” doesn’t automatically mean “feminist,” after all. And I think that that cause is helped by ignoring other feminist tickets.

Comment #72: AndersH  on  11/02  at  06:53 AM

Here in whitest Whitesylvania, the Murtha Redneckistan, the kids have sussed that Health is a joke.  By 15 the gays are mostly ‘out’ and nearly all the kids have blended or mixed marriages in their family.  So, when Sarey Palin talks of traditional marriage…most of the kids get that she’s full of beans.

Comment #73: Mold  on  11/02  at  09:29 AM

It’s not just post-menopausal heterosexual women who are opposing women’s rights in this election.  My sister is a pre-menopausal homosexual woman who could not give two shits about birth control, abortion, and a bevy of other feminist issues because it doesn’t affect her personally.  What does affect her are policies that affect the amount of money she brings home from her orthopedic surgery.  So she’s totally all for McCain on those grounds.  When I tried to talk to her about HHS and various other things going on to curtail women’s rights, her response was, “Yeah? So what? Doesn’t affect me, so I don’t care.”

Comment #74: speedbudget  on  11/02  at  09:42 AM

The most dismaying “former”, to my mind, is Phyllis Chesler, who was a serious feminist scholar in the Seventies and is now rather attached to Pam Geller and David Horowitz.  What’s up wi’ that?

If you read _Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness_ you would’ve seen it coming. She reveals herself as unhinged and paranoid in it.

Comment #75: pablo  on  11/02  at  09:51 AM

Interesting that none of you mentioned Palin’s anti-choice even if raped stance.

Comment #76: phylosopher  on  11/02  at  11:01 AM

Okay, Christina.  You got attention and convinced everyone else that you are in fact a pissypants who doesn’t care what happens to other women as long as you get your way.  And attention! You’re special, much like Sarah Palin.

Comment #77: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/02  at  11:35 AM

Also, you’re exploiting the fact that she’s a governor and hasn’t got a long record.  I’m sure even you realize if she were a Congresswoman, she’d have a loooooooong record of anti-choice, anti-woman, pro-violence, anti-working class votes.  She’s a Republican, a hard right Republican, and her entire stump speech is about that.  And to trick morons like you, she hides a lot of it in dogwhistles.  And like foolish children, you eat it up.

Comment #78: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/02  at  11:37 AM

And Feminists For Life isn’t technically anti-contraception—they just don’t take a position on it. 

They say they don’t, but are lying.  Their position is anti.  They distribute materials explaining why the pill is Bad For Women, which are based on lies.

And while Christina may hide behind Palin’s lack of record on contraception and sex ed, that doesn’t change the fact that the actual candidate McCain is hostile to contraception and has fought pretty tirelessly to defund government programs that help get contraception to poor women. Meanwhile, Obama has introduced legislation to expand contraception access—-not just voted for it, but introduced it.  So even if Palin somehow privately is pro-contraception (yeah right), McCain is not.

By the way, Christina, I don’t buy for one second that Palin is a dipshit pro-lifer who thinks this is about “life” and not controlling women’s sexuality.  They made a BIG FUCKING TO-DO out of her daughter getting married at 17 as a moral values statement.  QED, this is about tying sex to “consequences”.  Palin clearly doesn’t think it’s murder, because she continues to express pity for women who have abortions, i.e. murderers.  Anti-choicers want to have it both ways.  They want to call it murder, but don’t really want to act like it’s murder, because they know that it’s not.  They want the punishment for sex to fit the “crime”—-forced childbirth, not prison.  So they deny that women have agency and refuse to call the “murderers” murderers, but instead refer to them in language that shows exactly what they think of women—-that we’re dumb bunnies, easily misled by evil men who only want the sex.  You know, instead of full adults with sexual desires of our own.

Comment #79: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/02  at  11:38 AM

My sister is a pre-menopausal homosexual woman who could not give two shits about birth control, abortion, and a bevy of other feminist issues because it doesn’t affect her personally.

She’d bring home less money (net, not gross) if she were to (god forbid) get raped and pregnant and forced to carry the child to term, which is what could happen under McCain / Palin. No one plans ahead anymore.

I used to go to a college that expelled girls for pregnancy. That was fine with the student body because “only sluts had sex before marriage”, until several “good girls” girls got roofied, raped, and pregnant within the course of my four years there. You want to guess if the administration relaxed the pregnancy-gets-you-expelled rule? If you answered ‘no’ you get a cookie. The public reasoning was that if they made an exception for raped girls, everyone would claim they were raped. The REAL reasoning was that if we were allowed to see that pregnancy isn’t the end of the world, we wouldn’t have been so frightened of it.

Comment #80: Ellen  on  11/02  at  12:03 PM

Amanda, as you know, we have had our differences.  But when you write this kind of uncompromising, ass-kicking post, I just want to kiss you.  Truth! 

And:  Sounds like an utterly TERRIFYING costume.

Comment #81: DaisyDeadhead  on  11/02  at  12:04 PM

Crap, I hit ‘send’ too soon.

Anyway, all of which to say that if you elect someone who has a demonstrable interest in taking your birth control away, sending a clear signal to men that rape is acceptable and will not be prosecuted, and force women to carry their rapists babies to term, well, those policies can affect your wallet as least as much as a McCain tax cut for the wealthy. Just sayin.

Christina, I can’t help but notice that you stated that abortion isn’t going away (under McCain or anyone else) and then agreed that, ok, it CAN go away under McCain. So please explain how a vote for the anti-abortion crowd is a feminist vote?

Comment #82: Ellen  on  11/02  at  12:06 PM

There are feminist groups (or groups calling themselves feminist) too batshit for ginmar?

Dude, let it go. 

Interesting that none of you mentioned Palin’s anti-choice even if raped stance.

Um, why is that interesting?  Lots of people mentioned she’s anti-choice.  Most of us think anti-choice positions are bad, period, so of course we didn’t go on to say “and she’s anti-choice even for rape victims!”

They say they don’t, but are lying.  Their position is anti.  They distribute materials explaining why the pill is Bad For Women, which are based on lies.

Ooo, sweet.  I didn’t know that.  Another brick in my anti-Spalinist wall.

Comment #83: killjoy  on  11/02  at  12:17 PM

The large subset of gay males involved make similar limpid arguments about GLBT rights. PUMA is a GOP ratfucking operation and the fools who buy in are doing so because they don’t like “those ones”. Oh, they’ll get all indignant and tell you they’re lifelong liberals and\or democrats or feminists and yada, yada, yada, but it’s blatantly obvious they’re a bunch of racist dirtbags.

Comment #84: PanAmerican  on  11/02  at  01:05 PM

Anders:

If the OP had been written “the only feminist vote this election is a vote for Obama/Biden,” I wouldn’t even quibble, but this is more about the discourse surrounding the Democratic party. What do we gain by ignoring tickets that are feminist (even more feminist) than the Democratic one?

The ability to say without dishonesty that we aren’t wasting our time with irrelevancies?

I firmly believe in the theory of dynamic responsiveness, wherein a winning party moves farther in “its” direction when winning, so even voting for the lesser evil makes sense in a two-party system, as we could then expect it to move in a less-evil direction. Just as with the Democrats with liberalism.

Bullshit. “Dynamic responsiveness” is exactly the thing that I called a myth in my first response to you. In a mass-mediated society, all political discourse moves in whichever direction is most privileged by the media. It’s worked that way since the advent of daily newspapers. Specific electoral results have nothing to do with it.

The Democratic Party has become noticeably less liberal in my lifetime, regardless of whether it was winning or losing. The United States no longer has a liberal party and a conservative party (if it ever did, but that’s a different discussion). It has a center-right party and a crypto-fascist party.

However, as I said, this is about discourse, so I think it’s important that feminists are in a situation where that leftward direction can be influenced in a feminist manner. “Left” doesn’t automatically mean “feminist,” after all. And I think that that cause is helped by ignoring other feminist tickets.

The problem with this argument is that there is precisely zero connection between “other feminist tickets” and the ideological or practical stance of the Democratic Party. To rephrase what I said before, the Democratic Party does not give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what “other feminist tickets” are doing. In fact, I’d be somewhat surprised if the Democratic Party leadership were even aware that such tickets exist in the first place, because they have the privilege of heading one of the only two parties that will ever be even remotely relevant in this country.

Again, the DNC does not care in the slightest if the I’m-More-Ideologically-Pure-Than-You Party garners another ten-thousandth of a percent of the popular vote more than it did in the last election. They don’t have to numerically, and they shouldn’t just on principle. And neither should we.

Comment #85: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  11/02  at  03:43 PM

The PUMAs I’ve read are mainly the “essentialist” kind of feminists, which are a kind I never liked to begin with, the kind that think that men and women are very different and the problem with the patriarchy is not male dominance, but insufficient worship of some essential femininity.

that is an interesting point, one I’ve not considered, and it does fit what I’m seeing this election.  thanks

Comment #86: Woodrowfan  on  11/02  at  06:10 PM

Dan:

Bullshit. “Dynamic responsiveness” is exactly the thing that I called a myth in my first response to you.

Not at all, dynamic responsiveness is when a party wins, they move more towards the extreme they represent, and moves the other parties with it, as per this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=49fQZP2QUvMC&pg=PA36
Not that they react to some fringe parties getting a fringe amount of votes.

<blockquoteThe Democratic Party has become noticeably less liberal in my lifetime, regardless of whether it was winning or losing. The United States no longer has a liberal party and a conservative party (if it ever did, but that’s a different discussion). It has a center-right party and a crypto-fascist party.</blockquote>
Is it a different discussion? After all, if we talk about change over time, the question about the situation as it was before is very relevant. As I recall, the Democratic party has generally lost (from a situation of a massive majority), and is still dealing with the largest shift of the past 50 years: civil rights and the loss of the south. The parties will respond to electoral result, but an important part of that is what they perceive themselves to have run on, of course.


Look, I’m not saying that the Democrats will look at the electoral results and care about the Green party’s result, what I think is that it’s definitely wiser to vote Democratic and get engaged with the Democratic party to push the feminist agenda, but as feminists, I think it would be a good idea to keep in mind the “better” tickets, to, for example, give an idea of in which direction the Democrats can move forward when there is an electoral opening for such a progressive movement.

Comment #87: AndersH  on  11/02  at  06:24 PM

Anybody who respected Hillary Clinton could not help but be moved by her speech where she asked, “Were you in it just for me?” That’s what I don’t get. It was a call to arms, to selflessness. It was a call to remember the others, the young women who would have abortion taken away, the black people who were seeing something many obviously never thought they’d see. I have my problems with Obama still but to be honest a lot more of those problems come from his supporters. The last two bannings on my blog were a woman who ignored the fact that I’d defended Michelle Obama in favor of being a rude snot, and a male poster who felt that saying, “Fuck you, cunt” and posting a NSFW icon were ways of showing his intellectual prowess and superiority.

If anybody wants an eye-opening examination of the scary PUMA phenominon, I’d recommend heartily Palinpumawatch on Livejournal, which quotes from the cesspool of PUMA thinking. They were declaring Anne Pressly dead long before she died in favor of blaming Obama for it, and too many other things too stupid to remember.

And, Eric, I can’t ban people who don’t have livejournals, and as far as I remember, discussing Michelle Obama’s clothes has never happened on my blog. Cindy McCain’s, Sarah Palin’s, and so forth—-but not Michelle’s.

Comment #88: ginmar  on  11/02  at  07:22 PM

OH, and Palinpumawatch has some of the most scintillating and interesting writing on intersectionality I’ve ever read. It doesn’t hurt that she quotes from some truly bone-headed sources, but it’s extraordinarily illuminating and she deserves far more readers.

Comment #89: ginmar  on  11/02  at  07:25 PM

There are feminist groups (or groups calling themselves feminist) too batshit for ginmar?

She’s a radical.  She’s not a stupid shit.

Comment #90: Ms Kate  on  11/02  at  07:28 PM

This is ironic coming from PIATOR who seems to want credit for giving me advice about my nauseating panic attacks, and then slam me later. I’d prefer he pick one and stick with it: all asshole, all the time.

  I really don’t get the journey from “Hillary’s a great candidate!” to “Palin’s a victim! RAR!” I’ve had people delete comments when they posted blatant lies such as Palin’s a feminist, pro-choice, and the rape kit story has been ‘debunked’. And that any criticism of her is sexist. Then they turn about and go, “This is what she said.” And, yeah, some of the group are women my age, whose reproductive danger age may be over, or in some cases that I know of, over without ever having gotten started.  After seeing hundreds of pictures of the way Obama relates to children—and female children——-and the visible hope he inspires, I’m at a loss to explain how that fragile sense of possibility could arouse anything but protectiveness in compassionate people. There’s a picture of a black man standing in the rain with a rain-smeared “Hope” sign, weeping, and if that doesn’t move you, I’ll be damned if I know what could. 

  If Obama wins and black people in this country can say that they voted for a black president, and America can say we rejected the last eight years of war and lies and torture and cruelty, then it seems to me that all of us have won something, that the victory has been for everyone who’s ever felt or been disenfranchised, silenced, and trod upon. The fact of the matter is, that slavery cannot be compared to anything else, and it casts its shadow to this day, with the children of slaves voting for a black man for president. It’s extraordinary. And it’s for all of us, black, white, male, female——all of us who too often are dismissed because we’re not white or rich or male. 

  Palin’s deluded fans utterly flumox me because I’ve never seen anyting like their ‘logic’. So. um, you adored Hillary Clinton. I understand that. She kicks ass in so very man ways. But you think Sarah Palin is…..a feminist? And she’s being attacked because she’s a woman? And criticizing her words, her acts, and her policies is….sexist? Huh? She’s a big girl. If she’s good enough to be a heart beat away, then goddamit, she ought to have enough of a backbone to fucking say, “No, thanks, pal, I’ll wear my own clothes, we’re the party of the proles, right?” Or something to that effect. I mean….Huh? Just….Huh?

Comment #91: ginmar  on  11/02  at  07:40 PM

Speedbudget, tell your sister, from a fellow M.D., that although she may be over the 250,000.00/year taxable income line that would get taxed an extra 3.9% max under Obama, she is just as much a service worker as the woman who scrubs the operating room floors. “Professionals”, that is, highly paid service workers, depend on having a broadly middle-class clientele, in this case, people with decent private insurance or CHAMPUS/TriCare, who can afford to pay and to have semi-elective surgeries. I am an academic in a relatively low-paid specialty so I am not affected by the Obama plan, but I do realize that if the number of people who can afford services goes down, the competition for paying patients goes up, and the reimbursement is likely to go down both per procedure and for overall income.

Comment #92: NancyP  on  11/02  at  07:43 PM

Ginmar Wrote:

She kicks ass in so very man ways.

Freudian slip? grin

Comment #93: Ms Kate  on  11/02  at  08:04 PM

*reads comments at the GloriaFeldt.com article* Man, and the “ur jus jellus” comments just keep on coming, even after they’re called out.

Comment #94: annejumps  on  11/02  at  08:12 PM

That’s so very weird. More like a finger slip. I’ve kicked a few asses myself and it doesn’t vary: foot, connect, ass, howling, etc., etc.,

Comment #95: ginmar  on  11/02  at  08:43 PM

hi ginmar: on LJ I do have a blog, just not under this name.

AND, the case was: you and one of your good buddies (the one I like least, can’t remember which) sniping at Michelle Obama for not beaming beatifically at HRC throughout the DNC speech.  The sniping was ridiculous, which I pointed out.  Here’s the/a mnemonic trigger (IIRC): “fandom” or “fannish”.

::shrug:: Your blog, your rules.  No worries.

Comment #96: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  09:23 PM

Grrrr, the “jealous” thing makes me crazy.  It’s ENVY, not jealousy.

(And if it’s not, it should be!)

Comment #97: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  09:24 PM

Just found this site.  Interesting discussion here, and as an old late 60s, 70s radical & feminist, it’s been a bumpy ride through the 80s, 90s and now.  In some ways it’s hard to understand present day feminists.  But I have to say—no woman since Phyllis Schlafly has gotten my bile up more than Palin, the first woman I have used the “B” word on in decades, but her Aryan persona just drives me to it.

Comment #98: pacifem  on  11/02  at  09:35 PM

Over and over I keeps seeing this idea that the Republicans are “thought of as the working man’s party”—where the hell did that idea come from?  I’ve always felt they were the party of the country club and the golfing set.

Comment #99: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  09:37 PM

...I keeps see’in’ ‘dis idear dat de Republicans, day are t’oght of as de party…..

Comment #100: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  09:38 PM

Faux feminists agree with Samantha Bee (no relation): “As a proud Vagina-American, I will be voting for Senator McCain in November.”

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=John-McCain-Chooses-a-Running-Mate

Comment #101: Hector B.  on  11/02  at  09:43 PM

the Republicans are “thought of as the working man’s party”—where the hell did that idea come from?

Farmers and small businessmen identify with corporate tycoons and the ultra-rich. I would say they form the social conservative backbone of the party, rather than the “tax someone else, thank you very much” bunch. Farmers, especially, believe their success or failure depends on the will of God.

Comment #102: Hector B.  on  11/02  at  10:00 PM

Eric, that is passive aggressive bullshit. I have no fuckin’ clue what you’re talking about or who you are and evidently you won’t come clean, so I’m just accused of something that I can’t defend against. You make an accusation that I can’t disprove without going through thousands and months of comments while you get to take your shot and I have no way to figure out what in fuck you’re talking about. Not even the name you claim you got banned under.

  God, this is the kind of shit that made me pay attention to the PUMAs before they went off the deep end into the Kool Aid pool….back in the good old days of “Honey pie baby ass.”

Comment #103: ginmar  on  11/02  at  10:01 PM

Aw, fuck, I"m pissed off so I’m going to step off till I’m not. Except about the honey pie baby ass shit because that’s still bullshit. Sorry, y’all.

Comment #104: ginmar  on  11/02  at  10:04 PM

One of the supermarket tabloids has an article on Sarah (the chosen one) Palin titles ‘She’s the Gov, But Todd’s the Boss’ or some such twaddle…

So, with the GOP/RNC have their hands full keeping Todd out of lady Liberty’s pants the way he’s in for distance in running Alaska.

The Palin’s have every quirk and kink that could very well make Dick Cheney look mild. Given that the ‘liberal’ media is in bed with ALL of the republican zealots, there won’t likely be any follow up or accountability for it either.

I predict more time in the ‘undisclosed location’ and heavy rabble rousing over who really controls the country: John and the RNC/GOP or Sarah Palin and ‘Boss’ Todd…

Please God, I prey… Do not allow the underlord of the underworld to assume control of this country to continue the great satan’s work on your land. Your people have suffered far than enough at the hands of satan’s wrecking crew and all in your great and powerful name. Well, either that or you really don’t exist and those that claim to operate in your name are pulling the biggest and most heinous swindle on the unsuspecting and mentally challenged on this planet. All for their own benefit. Cute…

Comment #105: PinkyLeftBrain  on  11/02  at  10:54 PM

This is ironic coming from PIATOR who seems to want credit for giving me advice about my nauseating panic attacks, and then slam me later. I’d prefer he pick one and stick with it: all asshole, all the time.

He koura koia, kia whero wawe?

Comment #106: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/02  at  11:03 PM

Sorry, Ginmar - someone who gets panic attacks doesn’t deserve that last comment.  I apologise.

Comment #107: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/02  at  11:21 PM

OK, geeze: it’s jeric_synergy.  Cool off: what part of “it’s your blog, your rules, no worries” didn’t you get?

Comment #108: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/02  at  11:40 PM

jeric, it’s not your patented phrase, asshole. You didn’t get banned for that. You got banned for pulling yet another one of your bullshit acts, in which you crossed the line, I demanded an apology, and you slithered away. The banning was supposed to be for twenty four hours. You never came back, and I figured you didn’t give a shit. It’s not like I haven’t given you about four chances already. Some assholes really are independent thinkers. Some, however, are just assholes. I’ve said I’m sorry for some shit on occasion but I don’t ever recall you ever apologizing or admitting there might be a possibility you’re just being an asshole.

PIATOR, thank you. I appreciate it. That was gracious.

Comment #109: ginmar  on  11/02  at  11:49 PM

What does affect her are policies that affect the amount of money she brings home from her orthopedic surgery.  So she’s totally all for McCain on those grounds.  When I tried to talk to her about HHS and various other things going on to curtail women’s rights, her response was, “Yeah? So what? Doesn’t affect me, so I don’t care.”

NancyP got to it first, but if McCain’s scheme of taxing health care benefits as income comes to pass, your sister may well be looking for a new line of work since very few people will be able to afford her services.  So it may help to point out that in voting for McCain, she’s voting in favor of reducing her income and the size of her practice, assuming she can stay in business at all.

Comment #110: Mnemosyne  on  11/03  at  02:42 AM

Any wimmins who don’t think likes mez are bitches. Is that the whole point of this exercise? I thought that was the patriarchy’s job, ain’t it?

Comment #111: Shayne  on  11/03  at  02:49 AM

Shayne:

You’re missing the point, aren’t you? Issues, not identity. Or would you think it a step forward if the KKK started admitting black people?

Comment #112: Brian X  on  11/03  at  04:20 AM

I think Shayne is performance art.

Comment #113: ginmar  on  11/03  at  05:30 AM

Ginmar, whatever.  IMO (&IIRC;) you and N. needed to be called on your petty sniping.  So, yeah, no apologies. 

All this energy you spend frothing and typing hundreds of thousands of blogwords would be better spent on your Iraq book, which would have been a powerful entry in the litany against the occupation.  But that time is probably past.

Comment #114: Eric, Rejector of Memez  on  11/03  at  12:09 PM

Actually, I was seeing the point as name calling. Which seem to be getting ahead of both issues and identity. I’m not seeing as how name calling is helping any big picture.

ginmar, why would I be performance art?

Comment #115: Shayne  on  11/03  at  02:48 PM

Frothing? Yeah, same avoidance as always, Jeric. You were and are an asshole, I nailed you for it, and you slithered away just the same way you’ve done numerous times before when you got called for it.  As long as you’re so het up on rejecting memes, try rejecting that for a change. I got more fucking complaints about you than anybody who wasn’t an obvious troll.

You try apologizing just once when you get called on your shit—-JUST ONCE—-and I might even think about giving a fuck about you. But that ime is probably past.  As it is, who needs advice from a guy who doesn’t have the guts to admit he’s wrong?

Comment #116: ginmar  on  11/03  at  03:10 PM

Yo, jeric_synergy.  The one you “like the least” would have been me, and let’s get the record straight, shall we? 

I made a comment about Michelle Obama looking tight-lipped and irritable at Clinton’s speech, as if you couldn’t force a smile out of her with a crowbar.  Her displeasure was absolutely palpable, and I commented to that end.  Ginmar agreed with me, and then you jumped in to criticize us for expecting Michelle to be Suzy Sunshine.  Only, you did it in the rudest way you could manage, and it was your attitude that got you banned.  You couldn’t simply disagree with us and politely suggest that we were being overly critical of Michelle in your estimation, or whatever; instead, you had to be sarcastic and rude about it, and when Ginmar told you to apologize for the crude way you chose to express yourself, you made yet another rude remark, something along the lines of you doubting that anything you said could sway the opinions of Hillary’s fan club.  You were initially rude, and you continued to be rude, and condescending to boot, when you were told to apologize.  Hence, you got banned.

Of course, I can recall about four or five previous incidents of you openly pissing on Ginmar’s readers in comments, attacking them for stupid, off-the-wall things, such as when you snarked about one reader’s means of dealing with her dyslexia.  You are a nasty, meanspirited little troll who likes to randomly change the subject for the sole purpose of insulting someone, without any provocation, and you FINALLY got your sorry ass banned for it.

Comment #117: Nimbrethil  on  11/03  at  03:47 PM

Ah, I see this is a personal discussion between some of you. So I’ll stay out of it.

I’ll just make one last comment to BrianX, issues and identities aside, I still see it as telling me how I’m suppose to think. Even if I agree with what’s said, I have a personal quirk about being told I must see it that way. Some people are like that, I’m not sure why. And insulting the intelligence of someone who doesn’t think exactly as you do is always fodder for fucking up the message. That and it seriously does smack of patriarchy tactics.


Just curious, but is the article by the Robin Morgan who is vehemently anti-transgender?

Comment #118: Shayne  on  11/03  at  04:01 PM

Now that the 2008 election and its historic high turnout is history, there is much greater appreciation for the privilege of voting.

But most people don’t realize that out of 44 American presidents, only the last 15 were elected in a truly democratic fashion by all of our citizens—men AND women.

Until 1920 women were denied the vote, and few people have any idea of the struggle our suffragettes had to go through to right this wrong. It’s an amazing, awe-inspiring story!

Now you can subscribe FREE to my exciting historical e-mail series that reveals HOW the suffragettes won votes for women. Believe me, it wasn’t easy!

“The Privilege of Voting” is drawing rave reviews from readers all over the world. Dramatic, sequential short-story episodes follow the lives of eight of the world’s most famous women to tell the true stories of the courage of the suffragettes.

The more we know about the powerful women of women’s history, the more powerful we are.

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

Comment #119: Virginia Harris  on  11/08  at  05:22 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.