Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Social justice for wizards Previous entry: CSA Week 5: Kohlrabi

Saints and martyrs

One of the great mysteries of Tea Party politics has been the place of female leaders in their pantheon, from the whole coinage of "Mama Grizzly" to the baffling enthusiasm for Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.  It's not that Tea Partiers have suddenly decided their lifelong hostility towards feminism was misguided; Palin and Bachmann's prominence has been accompanied by a dramatic turning up of the volume of anti-feminist hysteria.  Of course, that anti-feminist hysteria has been focused mainly on controlling and punishing female sexuality, which I think gives us a path to understanding what seems contradictory on its surface.  

But when I started to read Roy's column about rightbloggers trying to pretend the latest propaganda film about Palin is some nationwide hit, something clicked.  I realized that Palin's main role is to be a saint and a martyr in the civic religion of Tea Partyism.  Think about it: while the Tea Party is incoherent enough that a lot of people with diverse approaches to being resentful wingnuts feel welcome, the language of Biblical literalism has been amply applied to their illiterate readings of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.  (It's why I blanch at the word "literalism", which implies having actually read and attempted to understand the text, when what it means is coming to a text with authoritarian leanings and claiming, regardless of the evidence, that an immoveable object or deceased authority supports your contentions. There's nothing literal about it.)  Because fundamentalist Christianity is being wound up into it, the distinction between religious figures and political figures has collapsed. And that explains how women can somehow rise to prominence in a world that quite literally depends on a hyper-chauvinist take on patriarchy as the source of virtue, where a comic book masculinity takes the place of the garments of priesthood. Even in societies where women have almost no real life outside of the home, female figures can be prominent in faith.  In fact, often prominent female figures exist to shore up misogyny---the figures are idealized women who are used to punish other women for being merely human.

Fundamentalist Christianity has mostly missed the train on this, until somewhat recently.  Catholics have it down cold.  I mean, their most prominent female figure is a woman who managed to be both a virgin and a mother---the two ideals of woman a misogynist society holds up above others.  But of course, the two roles contradict each other, so if you're one, you're failing at the other, because the first rule of patriarchy is Women Are Always Failing.  The Virgin's role is to drive home how every other woman who has ever lived is an utter failure.  But Catholicism also has a role for prominent female martyrs, and yeah, virginity is practically a requirement---some died so they could stay virgins.  

Obviously, what's required of female ideals and martyrs changes from culture to culture depending on their needs.  But I'd say that Palin and Bachmann are, for the Tea Party faithful, playing the role of both idealized women and martyrs.  Their popularity depends on using them as a weapon.  They're packaged as hyper-fertile but chaste, sexy without having sexual demands.  So as the Virgin can be used to bash women who can't be both a virgin and a mother, Palin/Bachmann are there to bash women who can't be sexy but chaste, submissive without losing that appealing spark, and able to raise huge herds of children without losing their waistlines or two hours in the morning to get beautiful for their husbands and the world.  Right wingers try to bash feminists with them, but suddenly it occurs to me that they're being venerated for the effect on the ordinary women of the Tea Party faith as much as anyone else.  When right wingers solemnly intone that feminists are jealous, we can laugh because hey, most of us don't see any virtue in the sexy-but-chaste thing, much less the huge herd of kids thing.  (The fertility goddess thing is particularly important during a stampede to force women to link childbirth and being sexual, no matter how unwilling or unable they are to have more children.)  But for women who are involved in that values system and having to traverse the impossible contradictions every day, well.... And hearing the line that "feminists are jealous" would be remarkably effective at tamping down your resentments if you were a female conservative.  You can't point out that Palin/Bachmann are promoting an impossible myth, because next thing you know, you're going to be called a feminist.  And you can't have that. 

And of course, they're also martyr in the Tea Party eye---sacrificed for their devotion to chaste motherhood, just as the virgins of old were forced to commit suicide instead of allow rapists to take your virginity.  Which also means you can't complain, if you're an ordinary woman.  After all, you aren't as brave as the saints and martyrs, right? 

Of course, the question remains, "Why do they give them leadership roles, if they're more idealized women in this civic faith?"  And the answer is, because they have to.  I mean, how else do they show support?  Palin is trying to make it as a more media/commercial figure, but that requires some coverage from the political media, and they aren't going to give it to her if she's not considered, you know, an actual politician.  Bachmann's position is even more precarious.  They need media to feed the faithful, but the media needs politics to consider them relevant.  But also, their ability to be politicians while still playing the submissive wives is just one more contradiction that makes emulating them impossible for ordinary women, and after all, isn't that the point? 

------

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 07:44 AM • (50) Comments

Know what else the Virgin Mary had? A husband that wasn’t looked at too much.

Comment #1: 3letterjon  on  07/18  at  09:33 AM

Excellent post.

As many have pointed out, Bachmann’s uberquiverful narrative is highly hyperbolic propaganda.  Sh elikely didn’t raise those kids, but had them for little more than a week or so of sleepover time.

And Palin has turned out to be a piss-poor parent, by her own “family values” standards.  The oldest two both having gone the preggers before marriage route.  (To clarify - nothing is wrong with that route, particularly for those who do so as mature adults, intentionally choosing and planning their family this way.  The problem is the hypocrisy.)  And the whining, bratty attitude of the youngest girl shows just how hard it is to be both a parent and work outside the home.  Again, nothing wrong with being both, and many who do have very well-behaved children.  But it’s the hypocrisy that Palin is somehow superwoman who can do it all and says it’s not hard.  It so obviously shows a level of denial so obvious that she can’t afford to realize just how bad the kid’s behavior is, thus it continues. So just calling bs, again, on the hypocrisy.

Comment #2: phylosopher  on  07/18  at  09:37 AM

The favored trope at Jill Stanek’s blog (and among some other conservatives) is that feminists are just jealous because Palin has five kids and “didn’t abort any of them!” How do they know? People don’t typically go around announcing it when they’re running for office as a family-values Republican, and it’s not like Palin would ever admit to it if she did. Some replied, well “she didn’t abort Trig!” Just because she felt equipped to mother a special needs child in her 40s while she was living in the governor’s mansion with a bunch of hired help to take care of him doesn’t mean her life was always like that. Which brings me to the second favorite trope among conservatives—“Feminists are jealous because Palin can do it all!” Yes, raising five children and having a high-powered career is easy when you have a seven-figure income and nannies you can dump your kids off on if need be. Angelina Jolie “does it all” too.

 

Comment #3: Ashley Herzog  on  07/18  at  09:52 AM

Bachmann was well-compensated for her ‘charity’, phylosopher, foster-parents who will take care of infants/toddlers are hard to find and are compensated accordingly all over the country.

And Palin has turned out to be a piss-poor parent, by her own “family values” standards.  The oldest two both having gone the preggers before marriage route. 

Hell, she was pregnant before marrying Todd, they were probably making the beast with two backs for months before she ‘had’ to get married.

 

Comment #4: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  07/18  at  09:53 AM

I think of it as the Serena Joy effect: the saintly, submissive woman who gives up her preferred role of wife and mother to stand before the masses, bravely telling them how they *should* live their lives.  As anyone who read “The Handmaid’s Tale” knows, she didn’t like living in the world she helped create, and that’ll be the fate of Palin and Bachmann if they ever get real power [shudder].  Phyllis Schafly can be included in this group; the patriarchy/theocracy they claim to support will thump them down in a hurry.

Comment #5: NobleExperiments  on  07/18  at  09:55 AM

But they’re not submissive at all. They are ambitious. Bachmann wants to be President. I think it’s hard to square either of them with the ‘submissive’ role. I think the narrative is more like the guy who goes to school on the GI Bill, buys his house with a govt back mortgage and sends his kids to college on govt student loans but bitches and moans about ‘big government.’

They are clearly benefiting from big gains made by ‘left wing’ feminists. They just take these gains for granted.

Good news though.
I think Palin’s 15 minutes are drawing to a close. Bachmann and her craaaaazy eyyyyyes shouldn’t get too far either. She makes Ron Paul look like a statesman.

The other thing that’s coming out is that they are clearly hostile to each other. We can’t have two dominant mama grizzlies.

Comment #6: KingElvis  on  07/18  at  10:17 AM

Not disagreeing that Bachman was compensated, DAGCM.  Just showing that the idea that she parented the foster kids at all on any type of longterm basis is false.  IIRC, she talked about “raising” 23 foster kids.  Raising implies taking a child from childhood to adulthood, with a lot of parental investment in concern and worry and planning and missteps and corrections of those missteps along the way…..having a kid for a week or two =/= raising.

Comment #7: phylosopher  on  07/18  at  11:10 AM

Ah, here’s the quote and numbers:
“According to Goldberg, the Minnesota Department of Human Services reports that Bachmann’s foster care license allowed her to care for at most three children at any one time; she had the license for 7 1/2 years
ANd in her own words:
Asked to explain her situation with her foster children, Bachmann said “we took children in as teenagers.”

SO, allowing unknown teens into your home, with state $ paying for their support may be laudable- motivation depending. It isn’t comparable to taking in infants or young children for long term. 

Comment #8: phylosopher  on  07/18  at  11:15 AM

feminists are just jealous because Palin has five kids

Riiiiiight.  We hate kids and want to kill them all but are jealous because other women have more than we do?  Palin can have her five kids.  I’m content with being an aunt right now—when they start stressing me out I can hand them back to Mommy raspberry

Comment #9: Jayn Newell  on  07/18  at  11:21 AM

If she can say she helped raise 23, many experienced schoolteachers could say they helped raise hundreds if not thousands of children. I’d like to take Bachmann at her word, since I think that over my mom’s 30+ years teaching she had a positive influence over that many. I think her record is a great thing to build upon rather than something to just scoff at. And my own experience with foster care (adopting a six-year-old) tells me that those people who do that are brave and loving. There’s no need to dismiss her efforts (which isn’t really being done here, although there is a strong effort to dismiss her in her entirety) but there is a need to correct the record. Thread that needle and it’s not hard to make her private life into something that completely contradicts her political aims and supposed beliefs.

 

Comment #10: 3letterjon  on  07/18  at  11:30 AM

“We hate kids and want to kill them all but are jealous because other women have more than we do?”

Don’t expect them to keep their stories straight. When asked about this, they explain that feminists are actually suffering from unrecognized “post-abortion syndrome” and just don’t KNOW that they secretly want to have a half-dozen children. If anyone responds “I’ve never had an abortion” or “I’m happy with my two kids, thanks,” they’ll ignore you. It’s like a tornado of bullshit. I’ve even heard commenters at Stanek’s site make the argument that women are secretly miserable about using birth control. You see, they WANT to get pregnant every time they have sex (because we all know women don’t like sex and only tolerate it to have babies), but evil feminists have tricked them into having goals and desires besides nonstop childbirth. That’s funny. I’m pregnant right now. Not only has it not been the most blissed-out experience of my life (far from it), but I have absolutely no desire to do it again for a few more years. In the meantime, I also have no desire to be celibate.

Comment #11: Ashley Herzog  on  07/18  at  11:36 AM

I’m not jealous of Palin.  I had, and raised, nine kids and am starting on a tenth. Almost all have been adopted or fostered.  Did a bunch of other stuff too, but I’m not running for office, so I don’t have to talk about it.

Comment #12: Older  on  07/18  at  11:38 AM

....I might be more open to having more kids if, like Sarah Palin, I had a team of cooks, nannies, and helpmeets around to hand the kids to when I felt like doing something else. Or traveling for days at a time without them.

Comment #13: Ashley Herzog  on  07/18  at  11:38 AM

As I’ve said many times before, the very fact we know the names Michele Bachmann, Sarah Plain, Phyllis Schlafly, “Dr. Laura”, or any of the rest of the slime who use feminism why decrying it is proof what massive hypocrites they are.

All of them should have been home, submitting to their husbands, having and raising a quiver-full of future soldiers and future submissive wives, baking cookies and cakes, keeping the house spotless, making sure dinner is on the table when hubby comes home.  And it better be good food, not some take out or frozen stuff.  And breastfeeding and diaper changing.  In staggering amounts.  And home-schooling.  Think of a (satanic?) combination of Martha Stewart and Michelle Dugger…

Since they would have been continually occupied with being wives and mothers, right out of high school (or before — they could get married as soon as menarche!  That’s certainly been a “traditional value” over the millennia…), none of them would have attended college, none would have ever had a career outside the home (after their own kids are raised and married off, there are grandma’s responsibilities to help raise the grand-children).

But no, we have to live with these profound hypocrites telling everyone else to live the lives they couldn’t pull off.  And the 27%-ers eat it up.  (“Hey Cletus!  Let’s go on down to the thee-ate-or and watch that Sarah Palin movie agin!...”)

Comment #14: MikeEss  on  07/18  at  11:47 AM

In some ways, the Tea Party saints are *even more limited* in their available roles.  The Catholic Church, at least, has a tradition of nuns who exercised more authority than would have been available to them as wives.  (Yes, the whole glorification-of-the-virgin thing is problematic, but given that childbirth was pretty deadly and most married women led extremely restricted lives, being a nun had some advantages, like not being married off to a man twice your age or dying of puerperal fever.)  They ran convents, wrote books, and were often quite politically shrewd. 

There’s really no place in the Tea Party canon for a woman who eschews marriage and children—that would be totally unnatural, in their view.  I seriously doubt that a woman who wasn’t at least nominally under the control of some man would make it far.  Their view of women’s proper sphere is even more constricted than traditional Catholicism, which is saying something.

Comment #15: Kit-Kat  on  07/18  at  11:48 AM

Have you ever seen the religious coming of age movie “Pamela’s Prayer?”  It’s rife with the ideas of female purity and unlivable standards.  At one point Pamela (not really the main character) tells her father that her best friend has had sex. He is shocked so much you would have thought she was murdered.

This is the female sainthood that the religious right looks for.  Women can be great only if they’re bland and are obedient to their fathers and husbands.  Property doesn’t look much different.

It’s worth reading the comments on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Pamelas-Prayer-Rick-Scheideman/dp/5552406303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311005042&sr=8-1

Comment #16: sonya  on  07/18  at  12:05 PM

I seriously doubt that a woman who wasn’t at least nominally under the control of some man would make it far.

That’s what I find so amusing; you just know that if either of them get the Republican nomination, there’s going to be massive pressure on them to ensure it’s a man in the VP slot…more specifically, someone who the Teabaggers can feel safe in knowing is really in control. Because, you know, you can’t let a woman have the keys to the nuclear arsenal, they’d blow up the world every month, har har har.

(Pointing out that Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, and Golda Meir had the keys to their nukes and the world hasn’t ended will, of course, be met with silence.)

Comment #17: KeithM  on  07/18  at  12:14 PM

Ashley: The only thing this feminist is suffering from is perpetual headaches from listening to Reichwing bullshit (and occasionally a shrieking 2-year-old).

Comment #18: Jayn Newell  on  07/18  at  12:16 PM

..having a kid for a week or two =/= raising.

She didn’t say exactly how many ‘teenagers’ she took in, but she certainly didn’t ‘raise’ any of them.

It isn’t comparable to taking in infants or young children for long term.

People make money taking in the infants/toddlers even on a short term basis.

The teenagers might not provide a lucrative stream of income, but I’d argue that they are ‘profitable’.

Comment #19: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  07/18  at  12:34 PM

I distinctly remember the wingnuttery comparing Palin to Esther (old testament) when she as picked to run for VP. She was allegedly exalted for “such a time as this” to lead her people to the promised land.—defeat at the polls.

Palin is past her prime and fading quickly. There is a funny article up on The Atlantic where some poor reporter had to go and watch the Sarah Palin movie—all alone as no one else showed up (except some kids making out). This was in Orange County so the theater owner was not willing to admit that he really would have liked to use that space for another showing of Harry Potter. Probably afraid the tea baggers (who weren’t willing to pay $10 to see the movie) would swoop down in protest at his theater.

Bachmann has completely eclipsed Palin as the tea bagger darling but it’s hard to believe that a woman with her all encompassing ambition won’t trip up at some point and admit that she really believes she is as competent and capable as any man, not just Barack Obama who they view as the anti-Christ.

Comment #20: serious bette  on  07/18  at  12:43 PM

There’s really no place in the Tea Party canon for a woman who eschews marriage and children—that would be totally unnatural, in their view.

Even Ann Coulter?  Though I gather, like Sarah Palin, AC’s beginning to wane, with a new generation filled with the likes of S.E. Cupp and Dana Loesch rising to replace them.

But I’d say that Palin and Bachmann are, for the Tea Party faithful, playing the role of both idealized women and martyrs.

And for the wingnuts, criticizing Palin and Bachmann = misogyny.  A couple of weeks ago, Bill Maher had Ann Coulter on as a panelist on Real Time.  He asked her “How exactly am I a misogynist.”  Her answer was something along the lines of “Every time you criticize Michelle Bachmann,” to which he rightly replied (to the best of my memory) “What, because Michelle Bachmann is a woman, I’m not allowed to criticize her?  And I criticize her not because she’s a woman but because of her positions.”

The favored trope at Jill Stanek’s blog (and among some other conservatives) is that feminists are just jealous because Palin has five kids and “didn’t abort any of them!” 

And the anti-choice crowd conveniently ignores the fact that most women who have abortions have either already had children or plan to have children in the future.

Comment #21: Tommykey  on  07/18  at  12:44 PM

Ann Coulter isn’t a politician, she rose to prominence pre-Tea Party, and her star is on the wane.  And she’s ridiculously misogynistic.  Certainly, there are women who don’t fit the mold of the ideal woman, but these women are generally not the standard-bearers for the Tea Party.

Comment #22: Kit-Kat  on  07/18  at  01:02 PM

Since they would have been continually occupied with being wives and mothers, right out of high school (or before — they could get married as soon as menarche!  That’s certainly been a “traditional value” over the millennia…), none of them would have attended college, none would have ever had a career outside the home (after their own kids are raised and married off, there are grandma’s responsibilities to help raise the grand-children).
Comment #14: MikeEss on 07/18 at 11:47 AM

They get around this by having the husband tell them to get educated.  You apparently missed where Bachmann said Marcus Bachmann told her to become a tax lawyer, even though she had no interest in it, because it was God’s word via her husband.

http://thenevadaview.com/?p=1170

I can’t help noticing that the narrative these women as presidential candidates offers is that a strong woman takes responsibility after the Black man screws up and leaves.  Just like their image of single-mother “ghetto” families.

Comment #23: oldfeminist  on  07/18  at  01:32 PM

To be precise, Ann Coulter is part of the neocon old guard. I think a lot of people on the left aren’t really paying attention, but I’ve heard Sarah Palin referred to as a neocon, which tells me a lot of people don’t know what is really going on out there.

Comment #24: BrianX  on  07/18  at  01:40 PM

People make money taking in the infants/toddlers even on a short term basis.

The teenagers might not provide a lucrative stream of income, but I’d argue that they are ‘profitable’.
Comment #19: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein on 07/18 at 12:34 PM

I have a dear friend who was fostered by one family for at least a decade before her mother finally agreed to give up custody (complex situation).  Those were real parents for her, not just foster farmers. 

And not every short-term arrangement is profit-only, either. 

You can profit from fostering if you cheap out on what the kids need, but there’s no reason you can’t treat them like real people and spend more than the State gives you, just as my friend’s parents did.

I have no idea what camp the Bachmanns are in.  And maybe Michelle B believes she’s doing all this for God and family and America, and it’s her husband who is the real hypocrite.  It wouldn’t be the first time a man got a woman to do all the work for his benefit.  He could well have thought this all out in advance, knowing he didn’t have the image for public office but she does.

Comment #25: oldfeminist  on  07/18  at  01:43 PM

Of course, the question remains, “Why do they give them leadership roles, if they’re more idealized women in this civic faith?”

In addition to your answer, which I agree with, I’d suggest that conservatives don’t elect these people to actually wield power as much as they elect them to be figureheads. Because like you said, it’s all a sort of civic religion to them. If they’re so deeply engaged in magical thinking, my suggestion is that part of that thinking is that if they elect just the right God-approved pantheon of Teabagging politicians, America will return to its former (white Christian male) glory.

Comment #26: Triplanetary  on  07/18  at  01:49 PM

You can fully understand this phenomenon when you realize that Margaret Thatcher wasn’t so much the UK’s first female Prime Minister as she was Airey Neave’s 4th choice. A shill is a shill, and if you find one that can make your movement look less horrible, so much the better.

Comment #27: Liz212  on  07/18  at  02:02 PM

I’m Catholic (in the born-and-raised sense), and Amanda should also emphasize how Mary’s pregnancy was non-consensual. God didn’t appear to her and ask her if she was up to the task of carrying Jesus. Nope, Jesus just materialized in her womb one day, and an angel appeared to tell her she was pregnant and there was nothing she could do about it.

Back when I was in Catholic school, a couple of the books they gave us emphasized how terrible Mary’s life would have been in this situation: women pregnant out of wedlock were shunned and forced into prostitution or executed for adultery. The fact that she never complained about being forcibly impregnated and subject to punishment is hailed as something to admire her for. Anyone else see what they’re getting at?

Comment #28: Ashley Herzog  on  07/18  at  02:03 PM

Your theory lacks credulity. Your answer for why they are given leadership roles falls short because it requires the Tea Party members are superrational (in the game theoretic sense) or they somehow have managed to obtain an implausible amount of social cooperation to overcome the collective action problem (even more unlikely). The more likely, but still implausible, superrationality theory requires that each Tea Partier is using superrational reasoning to cooperative with every other Tea Partier for candidate and idol selection, in order to facilitate media coverage. Your idea requires each Tea Partier is deviating from individual rationality under the realization that each other Tea Partier will also deviate from individual rationality since all of them realize that selecting a women will make us all better off in a collectively rational sense and thus everyone selects the same equilibrium solution. Technically this solution isn’t off the equilibrium path, but it’s nearly impossible in equilibria to maintain (not to mention it requires assigning a very high level of intelligence to your average Tea Partier). Your fallacy comes from the fact you are thinking of the “Tea Party” as a single decision-making agent, you are ignoring that they are a collection of millions (?I don’t really have a good idea how numerous they are?) of people that each make their own decisions without a centralized implementation of information transmission and punishment. Thus, the type of collectively rational solution you imbue to the Tea Party is next to impossible to obtain.

The more plausible theory is that people just like them and don’t mind having a women in political power. I think the problem people have grasping with the Tea Party Women Politician is that the majority of feminists misunderstand what modern-day “misogyny” (an outdated term in the majority of cases) really is. The oppression of women today has little to do with hatred of women. Most patriarchal oppression isn’t because men hate women, it it because men desire to control women. In fact, the majority of people (men or women) desire control and dominion over others. It’s a very rare person that actually believes in an egalitarian distribution of power (political, social, or otherwise). A system of patriarchy is just the use of cultural and social institutions and norms for the purpose of systematic repression. Hate doesn’t enter the equation so much, at least not for most men (obviously some men who do particularly vile acts like rape or beat women are in a different category). Any given man doesn’t have much power. His power is mostly isolated to the home and some aspects of his workplace. A women in political power doesn’t abstractly pose a threat to his domain of control. A women in political power only poses threat to his control if her beliefs and policy positions attempt to dismantle the institutional and social norms that perpetuate your average mans control. Women like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin do not pose such a threat because they seemingly want to enforce, and even expand, these oppressive features of our culture. Since most men don’t hate women for the mere fact they are women, they don’t have a problem endorsing or voting for Bachmann and Palin. The reason many men dislike female feminists isn’t that they hate women - they hate male feminists as well! They hate anyone who poses a threat to their social control.

Also, I think it’s worth noting women politicians pose little threat to patriarchy anyway - except in-so-far as it proves a women is competent enough to lead (though I suspect this has little influence anyway since the mind has powerful ways to explain away inconvenient facts). Very little of what the feminist movement achieved was through exogenous political success. The gains from feminism were almost entirely from getting both men and women to reconsider the social infrastructure, any political gains were largely endogenous results. The male patriarchy is, I think, more threatened by Amanda Marcotte than they would be a female President (even if the female President were a radical feminist, for example).

Comment #29: Ted H.  on  07/18  at  02:52 PM

oldfeminist, my father fostered several of his nephews and a niece, but he’d never make reference to it in public or talk about it because he would’ve done it even if he hadn’t gotten money from the state to help out with expenses.

The checks helped us to eat cheaper but not cheaply because Dad would buy half a steer from a friend of his, have it chopped up and we’d have everything from burgers to steaks depending on what Mom felt like cooking the next evening after we’d take something out to defrost overnight.  I would imagine that a similar arrangement would be available in MN, it being a primarily farming and rural based state outside of the big cities, like us folks in Tulare County, CA grin

Ashley, Ti-Grace Atkinson was famously assaulted by one of the Buckley clan for saying that the Virgin Mary had gotten “Knocked up by God”.:

The Virgin Mary got support of a sort from two embattled females at Washington’s Catholic University last week. Ti-Grace Atkinson, mighty mouth of Women’s Liberation, told an audience of students, priests, nuns and laymen that in the Virgin Birth poor Mary had been more “used” than if her Son had been conceived normally. “I can’t let her say that!” yelled Patricia Buckley Bozell, the managing editor of a rightist Catholic magazine, Triumph, and sister of right-wing Columnist William Buckley and Senator James Buckley. To the podium stormed Patricia; she aimed a hefty slap at Ti-Grace, who managed to ward it off. Hustled outside, Pat shouted, “To hell with Catholic University!” then knelt to say the Rosary in protest, together with a group of students that included one of her ten children, Cathy, 19. Ti-Grace, considerably shaken, cut her speech short. “That face,” she said later, “I’ve seen it in so many churches—the hysteria, the desperation. I felt for her. It’s outrageous that it’s the women who are the sufferers.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/165819/defending-virgins-honor/kathryn-jean-lopez

Comment #30: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  07/18  at  02:55 PM

and the winner of the ORWELL PRIZE is…


for randi and his army of robot zombie atheists at TAM9

 

@theorwellprize

TAM 9 - atheist revolution? stupid sh&theads;
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=624332

Comment #31: divin6006  on  07/18  at  03:01 PM

Clean-up on aisle 31.

Comment #32: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  07/18  at  03:10 PM

Another aspect of why women have more prominence in conservative politics than one might have suspected… they enjoy being able to say that “their” women have more balls than “our” men.  It reinforces the idea of icky “feminization” by projecting it onto men and liberals.  It might be OK to be powerful and femi_nine_, but one can’t be powerful and femi_nized_.

Comment #33: FlipYrWhig  on  07/18  at  03:19 PM

(Re: my “powerful and feminine” statement, I guess I mean “powerful” in the spectacular/iconographic sense, rather than in the sense of actual political praxis.)

Comment #34: FlipYrWhig  on  07/18  at  03:21 PM

Great anecdote, Dark Avenger.  And that “talking about it” is one thing that bothers me about all these evangelical Christian politicians.  I grew up Catholic, and one of the favorite parables was the Pharisee and the Publican.  The gist of it is that God prefers those who quietly do good, rather than stand up front and talk about how holy they are.  I thought that was one of John Kerry’s disadvantages running against Bush.  Bush could talk a blue streak about how important his faith was to him and how holy he was and how he prayed for guidance all the time, and Kerry couldn’t talk about it, because Catholics are socialized to believe that you should shut up and do good, rather than talking about it.

Comment #35: gretchen  on  07/18  at  03:24 PM

I have always had a pet theory that Coulter is not a conservative, but cynically uses it to bilk stupid people out of their money. She doesn’t practice anything she preaches.  Which isn’t at all surprising in a reichwinger, except that others at least pretend to.  She doesn’t.  Not married, no kids, dresses like the ideal reichwing woman def would not, etc. 

Palin, Bachman, Schafly, even Stanek I’d argue - do the opposite. Whether they are the Ideal or not, they try to pretend to be.  Coulter just doesn’t seem to.

Maybe I’m totally wrong, but I get a faker vibe from her. 

Not saying she’s secretly a left-winger, of course, though I wouldn’t at all be surprised if one day she announces she voted for Obama. Twice. wink

Comment #36: Rare Vos  on  07/18  at  03:29 PM

“Most patriarchal oppression isn’t because men hate women, it it because men desire to control women.”

...which is obviously the exact opposite of hating them.  You love your dog but control him, you love your kids but you control them, you love your wife but control her (let’s face it, if you didn’t make sure she knew who the boss was, god knows how she’d just waste time all day…).  Control only comes from love, where hate only comes from libruls.  War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength…

“In fact, the majority of people (men or women) desire control and dominion over others. It’s a very rare person that actually believes in an egalitarian distribution of power (political, social, or otherwise).”

Do you actually believe this crap?  That everyone is just a closet dictator just waiting for our chance to control and dominate other people?  Really?

Dude, you hang out with some really scary people if that’s what you think everyone wants out of life.  Ever heard of “Live and Let Live”?...

Comment #37: MikeEss  on  07/18  at  04:01 PM

“I have always had a pet theory that Coulter is not a conservative, but cynically uses it to bilk stupid people out of their money. She doesn’t practice anything she preaches.

Isn’t that pretty much proof of her conservative (in the present day sense) bona fides right there?...

Comment #38: MikeEss  on  07/18  at  04:06 PM

That’s straight out of conservative theory 101, MikeEss: that everyone wants power, no exceptions; & the more they have, the more they want.  ‘Really scary people’ indeed…

Comment #39: GSDavis  on  07/18  at  04:38 PM

I have always had a pet theory that Coulter is not a conservative, but cynically uses it to bilk stupid people out of their money. She doesn’t practice anything she preaches.  Which isn’t at all surprising in a reichwinger, except that others at least pretend to.  She doesn’t.  Not married, no kids, dresses like the ideal reichwing woman def would not, etc.

Ann Coulter serves to highlight the differences between old guard conservatives (she’s one), and neocons like Bachman and Palin. 

Palin, Bachman, Schafly, even Stanek I’d argue - do the opposite. Whether they are the Ideal or not, they try to pretend to be.  Coulter just doesn’t seem to.

Don’t forget that Palin, Bachman, and Schafly make their livings directly from telling other people how to behave, how they should live their lives.  They attempt to control those things through direct political influence, by being politicians and, in Schafly’s case, a lobbyist.  Coulter is different in that she casts herself as a political outsider.  All the better to stand on the sidelines and criticize what actual political actors are doing.  Coulter uses the pundit-journalist label as cover, so that she won’t actually have to come up with any practical solutions to political problems.  It’s much easier to criticize how everyone else is handling a situation when you aren’t responsible for actually coming up with an idea to fix it. 

Maybe I’m totally wrong, but I get a faker vibe from her.

It’s not so much that Coulter is a faker, I think, but rather that she represents the ideology of the Conservative Elites.  Coulter comes from a privileged family background.  Her father made his fortune as a Union-busting lawyer, and was so successful at it that he could afford to send Ann to Cornell.  Which is where she met Bill Maher, who has never attempted to conceal the fact that he and Coulter are fond of each other, despite their differences of political opinion.  Maher even goes so far as to jokingly refer to Coulter as his “first wife” on his HBO program. 

Contrast that with the neocons, whose strategy seems to include presenting the likes of Palin and Bachman as “just folks” so as to fit in with the neocon rhethoric of there being great numbers of rural Americans in flyover country who support the Tea Party line because they literally don’t know any better.  Coulter is far too urban, too sophisticated, and communicates far too precisely for her to actually influence the Tea Party contingent.  Palin and Bachman are quite good examples of how the Tea Party takes a conservative female like Coulter, then dumbs her down, repackages her in conservative suits rather than cocaine-smudged minidresses, and sells her back to their base as the sort of woman that Tea Partiers can vote for.  Because they absolutely cannot vote for an overeducated, rich-bitch, nicotine-and-cocaine-addicted harlot in a skimpy dress like Coulter.

 

 

Comment #40: Rachel Tyrel  on  07/18  at  04:45 PM

The other thing is that they’re not exactly being given leadership roles. They’re certainly big spokeswomen, but imagine for a moment that either of them diverged from the party line for 15 minutes.

Comment #41: paul  on  07/18  at  04:50 PM

Do you actually believe this crap?  That everyone is just a closet dictator just waiting for our chance to control and dominate other people?

Hey, projection is a power thing…

Comment #42: EG01  on  07/18  at  04:51 PM

That’s straight out of conservative theory 101, MikeEss: that everyone wants power, no exceptions; & the more they have, the more they want. 

It’s in the same chapter where you learn to do unto others as you fear they would do unto you if you gave them a chance.

Comment #43: junk science  on  07/18  at  08:07 PM

Most patriarchal oppression isn’t because men hate women, it it because men desire to control women. In fact, the majority of people (men or women) desire control and dominion over others. It’s a very rare person that actually believes in an egalitarian distribution of power (political, social, or otherwise).

Tell me, Ted, when people start talking about “emotions” and “empathy” do you wonder what they’re going on about?  Do you see such talk as just another attempt by people to manipulate others?

Comment #44: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  07/18  at  08:18 PM

Phoenician, are you suggesting that crying isn’t blackmail?

Comment #45: junk science  on  07/18  at  09:01 PM

***I have always had a pet theory that Coulter is not a conservative, but cynically uses it to bilk stupid people out of their money. She doesn’t practice anything she preaches.  Which isn’t at all surprising in a reichwinger, except that others at least pretend to.  She doesn’t.  Not married, no kids, dresses like the ideal reichwing woman def would not, etc.
Palin, Bachman, Schafly, even Stanek I’d argue - do the opposite. Whether they are the Ideal or not, they try to pretend to be.  Coulter just doesn’t seem to.
Maybe I’m totally wrong, but I get a faker vibe from her.***

Bingo.  I think Coulter is a live epic troll.  I don’t think s/he is a true believer at all.  S/he’s a classic cynic.

Comment #46: Brian7  on  07/18  at  09:40 PM

The appeal of Palin and Bachman is simpler.

Bush had the appeal because even though he was a blue blood who went to prep schools and an Ivy League university he was able to present himself as an every man, the guy you would want to have a beer with etc.  Ironically that of course was enabled by the Left and the media which took his verbal gaffes and presented him as an idiot.  Had he said there was 57 states it would have been one more example of his stupidity because it fit the predetermined narrative.  In any event it didn’t hurt him with his base.  They are used to being mocked by the ‘elites’ and many remember how Reagan was sneered as an ‘amicable dunce’

Palin and Bachman have a similar appeal.  They aren’t ‘the elite’ and they reflect the id of what the republican base want.  The fact that they get dismissed and mocked by the media reinforces their appeal.

Comment #47: Brian7  on  07/18  at  10:19 PM

as one who attended catholic schools, with mandatory study of both testaments, i haven’t the foggiest notion where either palin or bachmann came up with their own bizarro interpretations of either text, i really, really don’t. it bears little relation (even if you’re talking about slightly different takes on different passages) to the bible i remember, from my wanton youthful days. of course, both the nuns and priests were very careful (being a military brat, i went to catholic schools located near the base my father happened to be currently stationed at) to make sure we understood that the bible wasn’t the same as the constitution; we never confused the pope with the president (though they went bonkers when kennedy was elected). every morning (except in really nasty weather) the flag was raised and we all said the pledge of alliegiance, sang the national anthem, and went in to our classes.

clearly, the clergy in my schools were lax in their duty to brainwash us into thinking the catholic church and the federal government should be one and the same.

Comment #48: cpinva  on  07/18  at  11:40 PM

By the way, everyone please stop assuming that it has been the norm in western (European) history for women to marry in their early teens to men 10+ years older.

That is the pattern for late medieval bourgeois households in Mediterranean countries, most infamously in Renaissance Italy. It was marriage pattern idealized in literature (see LB Alberti’s _Della famiglia_, book III; Alberti by the way was a priest and never married) from classical Greek models (see Xenophon).

For Europe north of the Alps and Pyrenees, the best data, going back to the 12th c., is that the normative marriage pattern is “companionate”—the average age at marriage for the medieval and early modern period for both partners is in the early 20s, with the pair forming a new, independent household apart from both sets of parents.  Average age at marriage drops in the 19th c. (I don’t know the explanation why, you’ll have to ask modern European social historians).

This is not to say that European marriage *ideals* haven’t been patriarchal (with the conspicuous exception of the ideal of marriage as *entirely voluntary* for both partners; the medieval church advanced this against folk and aristocratic notions of marriage as business arrangement between families). It’s just that the past is as complicated as the present, and you shouldn’t make assumptions that reduce to the idea that the deep western past is a dark age, where everyone was just plain stupid or pig ignorant, and everything was horrible, and now some of us are enlightened and we can see our way to it being ever so much better. If we’re going to after the lunatic right for their historical myths, we should be ready to question some of our own.

Comment #49: wapsie  on  07/19  at  11:54 AM

Ted, the solution to the riddle of how it is that the antifeminist (notice that I didn’t write “misogynist”) Tea Party has set up and popularized so many female ikons (notice that I wrote “ikons” and not “leaders”) is a simple one.  It does not require superrational reasoning from anybody.  The solution to that riddle is as follows:

Tea Party adherents are born followers.  Many of them are people who, although their convictions are politically conservative, never felt the need to get involved in politics until certain national changes, mostly of a demographic nature, punctured their complacency and “forced” them to make a move.  Lots of them are old and a disproportionate number of them are male.

They do not pick their own ikons.  Congressional forces, funded by lobbyists and therefore funded ultimately by big business, do that.  The one accusation no-one can lob at big business types is that they don’t understand advertising, and the one accusation no-one can aim at lobbyists is that they aren’t good salesmen (i.e. salesmen endowed with a reasonable grasp of advertising).  All these people, ranked from top to bottom, understand that few things beat a good-looking woman as an advertising draw.  Palin and Bachman have been selected to headline at Tea Party events for the same reason that the automotive concern which wants to sell you a car will first try to get your attention by draping a hot model over the hood.

That’s pretty much all there is to it.  There are some additional wrinkles involved, such as: there is much emphasis placed on Palin’s and Bachmann’s mothering skills by their political handlers and by their fans alike.  That’s a courtesy-nod to the social conservatives, a respectful recognition of a movement which is waning but which still retains considerable power.  Todd Palin is sometimes marketed as a frontiersman character (the second thing the automotive concern that wants to sell you a car will do — especially if the car is a truck — is to run it through some woods where there are no women to be seen) which is an effort, IMO, to save the self-respect of any dude whose masculinity might be threatened at the thought of so much estrogen perched behind a podium.  But, like I said, taken in toto the thing is not too complicated.

(Which is not to take issue with Amanda’s post, which is more of a “how” post than a “why” post and which describes the details of this [advertising] campaign.  Accurately, no question.)

That having been said, thanks for noticing that patriarchy (I use that word for lack of a better one) is more of a system of relations than an Assholes’ Convention.  That’s why Changing Hearts And Minds will never be enough.  That’s why those who really want to meddle have to be willing to get it on and meddle — with the rule books, not their neighbors’ heads.

Comment #50: bekabot  on  07/19  at  06:09 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.