Palin PUMA Watch

Michelle Bachmann, feminist.

I might add that Karen can't write for shit:

Like all children, [Bachmann] went beyond her home boundaries and attended Virginia’s William and Mary Law School where she graduated with a degree in tax law.

All children attend William and Mary?

Karen, a college student, explains how she researched her post:

I went to wikipedia first, and it was difficult for me to figure out how much was smear, distortion, and fact. So I just stuck to her official webpages.

heeheeheeheehee.

Anyway, Bill Prendergast, of Dump Bachmann, tries to reason with Karen:

The fact that what you found on Wikipedia seemed unpleasant to you, does not mean you should have dismissed it as “smears and distortions” and substituted material written by Bachmann’s staff instead. It would be a mistake to take a similar approacht to , say, an short biographical profile of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Limiting your research for this article to materials provided by Rep. Bachmann is also a kind of “distortion,” and (I’m sorry) but in this instance the kind of research you did calls your personal judgment and the value of the publication you represent into question.

Amy Siskind, however, is having none of it:

Karen is a hard working college student who is taking the time to research and learn about women candidates and other women’s issues.As such, please go easy. We have invited you all to contribute blog pieces on any women candidates or issues that you would like. TNA is an organization, not a blog. Our blog is a meeting place to exchange ideas.
Karen is not endorsing Bachmann, nor is TNA. Karen is a young woman learning to do research. Let’s go easy folks.

Well, there we have it. Heaven forbid a "hard working college student" should be called it on it when she does her research badly. That's not what college is about at all!

Amy isn't done:
Just a thought - it might not be such a great reflection on you personally Bill to be so overly critical of a very young woman learning her way in the world all over the blogosphere. You made suggestions and let Karen learn and rewrite her piece.
I, for one, as a mother, if I saw you coming out to post all over about a girl learning to research in college, I might wonder. Just a thought. You’ll do as you wish.

I am so, so sick of reading variations on "How dare you ask us to be competent? We're women! YOU'RE SEXIST!" (I'm not seeing the "overly critical" in Bill's comment, either, but then, I'm not a delicate precious snowflake blossom like the women of TNA.)

I've been doing research projects since elementary school. If Karen has made it to college without learning the first thing about research, it is high time she learned. If she's made it to college, she's had more opportunities to pick up research skills than many people her age.  I know TNA is all about how middle-class white women are THE MOST victimized, but really.

H/T: Rumproast.

Madama B writes something I agree with.

Perhaps she's coming out of the PUMA stupor?  This post directly contradicts much of what she and others wrote on the PUMA blogs. 

Legislatively speaking, the pro-life movement has done its very best to make it impossible for women to control their own reproductive organs, and they continue to do so at every opportunity. From attempting to overturn Roe v. Wade and return us to the days of the coathangers and back-alley abortions, to their latest crusade against contraception (falsely conflating it with abortion) and pushing abstinence-only education (which, ironically, has led to more unwanted pregnancies and STD’s), to the heartless lies the Pope recently told about condoms and AIDs, to the senseless murder of Dr. Tiller (which the lovely Ann Coulter has characterized as “termination in the 203rd trimester“), the pro-life community has been utterly consistent in its refusal to see the massive amounts of harm it is doing to its own sisters and brothers; real, fully adult sisters and brothers who have to live with the consequences of their moral myopia.

I honestly do not see how in the world a woman can call herself a feminist, and still reserve the right to meddle in and ruin the lives of other women (and the men who love and support them).

This goes against pretty much everything ever said at The New Agenda, where the murder of Dr. Tiller was not even mentioned.  They were too busy writing twenty posts about how evil David Letterman is. 

Seriously, though, read the whole thing.

Sarah Palin belongs to a political party that wants to ban abortion; she speaks at anti-choice functions; her Eagle Forum questionnaire answers made it pretty clear where she stood on what "we" can "allow" women to do with our bodies; she refused to state that violence against abortion providers is terrorism; she belongs to an organization, Feminists For Life, that makes it clear in their publications that they are effectively anti-contraception and pro-early motherhood for all women. The evidence just piles up.

Maybe she wouldn't do anything to restrict abortion access if she had the opportunity (as Madama B herself claimed back in the fall), but why in the hell would I believe that when she describes herself as "unapologetically pro-life"? 

AngelShepherd disagrees in the comments:

I could be wrong, but I believe Sarah’s position on the issue is that she supports ‘the peoples right to decide’, despite being ‘pro-life’ herself. Meaning that she supports the individual states’ laws regarding abortion as passed by their elected representatives (my read on it). As one who is uncomfortable with some aspects and forms of abortion, such as late term with no health risk to the mother or child, I regard this as the intelligent and moral position.

The individual states' laws regarding abortion.  That's entirely reasonable.  I mean, if individual states want to criminalize certain decisions people might make about their own bodies, that's cool, right?  Totally intelligent and moral.  No reason to object.

As for "late term with no health risk to the mother or child", um yeah, that totally happens all the time, because women (other than AngelShepherd, if AngelShepherd is female) are weird creatures who like to have horribly painful, expensive, multi-day surgeries.  I've never been pregnant, but sometimes when there's nothing good on TV, I go in to a medical clinic and have my cervix dilated for funsies.  Jesus fuck.

Madama B responds:

I recognize and understand that there are varying degrees of being “comfortable” with abortion. But to be a member of the “pro-life” community is to own the massive damage they have done to women’s rights over the past several decades.

I find it very sad that this community is now coming to New Feminist groups and painting themselves as victims, and the New Feminist groups are buying it.

I won’t be a part of that nonsense.

She forgot to add "any more", but still, I guess there's hope.

First of all, a good post here about Violet Socks and her projections, and big flaming WORD to this paragraph in particular:

I have listened to and read Palin speeches and interviews, and I do not think Sarah Palin knows what Sarah Palin believes. She doesn’t seem to have any cohesive political ideology beyond what plays well to the crowd. And when the crowd wants red meat, she throws it with the best of ‘em.

Sarah Palin is a great object for worship because she hasn't said a whole lot that's conclusive. She clearly believes that she personally is competent and capable; she personally seems to have a fairly egalitarian (or at least not traditionally patriarchal) marriage; she's said a few generic things about the "power of women" and relatively uncontroversial feminist issues, but as far as actual policy positions goes...she believes in "free enterprise" and "fiscal responsibility" and "small government" (translation from Republicanese: vastly restricted social services + unlimited military spending), she thinks abortion is a Very Bad Thing but hasn't clarified what she wants done about it, she's "all for contraception" but opposes "explicit" sex ed (whatever that is to her), etc.  She speaks in buzzwords and businessese -- "effecting change" (change in what?) and not doing "politics as usual" (how?) and "making a difference for our priorities" (what priorities?).  Because she hasn't explained her opinions in detail, her fans project on her whatever they want to believe. 
( more )</div>

The Lily Ledbetter Act passed the Senate; the global gag rule has been overturned; Hillary Clinton's replacement in the Senate is a woman; so now it's time to talk about...typefaces.

Yes, you read that right: typefaces.

See, the Obama campaign was incredibly disciplined about their use of typefaces, to the point that they never, ever published signs using the wrong font. It was always Gotham, not Arial. Which leads to this:

It’s extraordinary: a campaign so relentlessly on-message and attentive to detail that they never even used Arial font when it was supposed to Gotham, not once, not even for a last-minute extra batch of signs.

And we’re supposed to believe that the sexism was an accident?

Well, now, y'see, the -- dare I say, obvious -- problem with this little analogy is this: It's really easy to tell when you've accidentally set your font to Arial instead of Gotham. It's a black-and-white issue, so to speak. You can go into your design software -- whatever the kids are using these days, I don't even know -- and change that shit in a matter of seconds. 

Not so with any kind of bigotry.  It's easy to make ignorant statements by accident; I've done it many times in my life and will no doubt do it many times in the future.  And after that come the defenses and the arguments: I didn't mean it THAT way, you're misinterpreting me, I meant no offense so you shouldn't be offended.  Do you know how hard I've worked for you people all my life, you've got no right to criticize me.  I love members of your group, I'm married to one, aren't I.  You're too PC.  Et cetera.  Many of TNA's members are extremely good at doing this dance themselves.  It's complicated. 

I think the Obama campaign was sometimes thoughtlessly sexist, sometimes deliberately sexist, and sometimes read as sexist when it wasn't.  It's all very interesting to unpack, rather like Bush v. Gore, but you know, stuff happened after Bush v. Gore.  The Bush administration did things that had to be reported on and analyzed and protested.  I wonder if there are people in the blogosphere still fulminating over the fact that George Bush spoke at Bob Jones University in 2000, ignoring everything he did after that.

I hope TNA can move beyond this, because some of the other work they're doing is admirable.  I would appreciate it if they would stop publishing posts about abstinence education in sub-Saharan Africa as if they actually gave the twentieth part of a shit; as far as I'm concerned, they have zero credibility on any issue related to policy.  (If it were up to most TNA members, the Lily Ledbetter Act would be headed for a veto, the global gag rule would be firmly in place, UNFPA wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting their funding back, and Title X funding would be going to crisis pregnancy centres indefinitely.  Y'know, just for a start.)  But if they can stick it to sexist creeps like Chris Matthews and push more women to run for office, they're doing something of value. 

In other news, this is an interesting photo:

What I find fascinating is the caption given to it on TNA: "President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts shake hands."  I mean yes, that happens, but who's in the dead centre of the photograph?  Malia Obama.  She's unmissable.  And yet somehow they've managed to miss her.  It's not "President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts shake hands as Malia and Michelle Obama look on"; it's not "Malia Obama watches as her father, President Barack Obama, shakes hands with Chief Justice Roberts"; it's...nothing. 

Given the ongoing Palinist attempts to cast Michelle Obama as a hyper-conservative Stepford wife/angry black radical bitch, and the Obama girls as pathetic victims of a father who cartoonishly loathes all females, this stuck out at me. Perhaps it has no significance, but I found it jarring. 

(And yes, I'm aware of the irony of posting to this particular blog saying "can't you move past this".  But every few weeks I feel the urge to dip a toe in; what can I say.)

As you can see, posting is slowing down a lot here. Belle has a rundown of the latest bit of PUMA persecution angst.

What fascinates me, aside from the obvious ignorance, exaggeration and appropriation, is the way some PUMAs regard their identity as pretty much immutable, even after such a short time.

(I seem to recall reading that the early Puritan settlers in Massachusetts considered themselves the "new Jews." Hmm.)

We see this again with this comment on The New Agenda, to an article about the historical struggle for birth control access in the United States, which would be perfectly inoffensive were it not for the whole "no really, I invented it, I call it a...hueel" thing:

Ali:

“An unlikely alliance”…. I love this. Imagine what we could accomplish if women with different backgrounds and even ideology could work together. Then we wouldn’t have to “Sarah Palinize” anyone or throw any woman under the bus. Well, thanks to New Agenda for taking this on!


It's as if ideology is a background, and not, you know, ideology. I find this especially interesting in the context of birth control. Very devout Catholic and Quiverfull women oppose the use of birth control; they cannot work with other women on that issue because of their ideology. Many fundamentalist women oppose the use of most forms of birth control -- the pill, the IUD, emergency contraception, Depo-Provera, etc.

In other words, contraception is still controversial, and the only feminists who don't know that...are the ones so threatened by established feminists, by women who have actually read and written and studied and thought for longer than they have, that they hang out on sites like The New Agenda and pretend they thought of everything themselves.

Amy Siskind explains her own journey: it sounds as if she put a kind of trust in the Democratic Party that many "Obots" never, ever did. It also sounds as if she's trying to out-Linda Hirshman Linda Hirshman:
 

It’s when you are canvassing the projects in North Philly asking for a vote. And you happen upon a woman who lives in a tenement whose windows have been replaced by cardboard boxes. And when you knock to ask her for her vote, she cries instead about raising her child alone. And her son is in trouble at school. And no one will listen. And no one will help.

And this is very sad. But perhaps it is not a problem that you will solve by voting for people who slash social benefits and reform tax codes to redistribute wealth up, up, up; and perhaps it is not a problem that you will solve by getting Sarah Palin elected or Caroline Kennedy appointed to the Senate; and perhaps this poor woman in North Philly needs a properly heated home more than she needs you to take on Jon Favreau for the fifteenth time.

I'm not saying it's not all connected or that taking on Jon Favreau isn't important or meaningful.  What I am saying is that perhaps your stated priorities and your stated goals should be, you know, kissing cousins to each other.  And that perhaps, appropriating the struggles of poor women to serve the goals of affluent women -- on some trickle-down theory of female empowerment, oh sorry, 30% Solution -- is a questionable move.

There's no real coherence to this "movement" any more, that I can see; now that PUMAs don't have a right-wing woman to rally around, many of them are returning to their anti-religion and basically liberal positions while pretending that they didn't abandon them at all. See the many complaints about Rick Warren, who, on women's issues, is not substantially different from James Dobson -- you know, the guy their beloved Sarah Palin was so honoured to talk to before the election -- or, likely, from most conservative evangelical Christians, the women TNA and other PUMA sites were eager to court in the fall.

Like Hillary Clinton, like Obama, the Sarah Palin of the PUMAs has nothing to do with the real Sarah Palin, the anti-choice conservative Republican; the Palin of the PUMAs has been reinvented as...well...Cynthia McKinney in a bouffant hairdo.

In other news, this is a brilliant summary of the whole "movement." (Via Rumproast.)

 

In light of the very disappointing Rick Warren pick, I've realized that in PUMA-land there is pretty much no way Obama supporters can win.

If the Obama supporter communicates her disappointment, it's likely to be jeered at as "learning Obama isn't really your Messiah" or something, even if said Obama supporter never took that line.

If the Obama supporter says "well, hold on, it's just a speech, yeah it sucks but let's not get overwhelmed", it's a sign that the Obama supporter is drifting to the right to keep her Messiah fantasy alive (which is like totally different from deciding reproductive rights don't really matter because you like Sarah Palin).

Anyway, The New Agenda is just frothing over it.

Rick Warren is a male supremacist. He’s a man who picks and chooses his Bible verses to buttress his preferred beliefs. Selecting him, of all people, to deliver the Inaugural invocation is yet another insult to the millions of women who voted for Obama, trusting — despite the sexism of the campaign — that Barack Obama would prove to be a champion of equality.

"Champion of equality"? No. The millions of women who voted for Obama believed he would be better on the issues they cared about than McCain and Palin would be. I still believe that on women's rights, GLBT rights, and so on, he will be.

Frankly -- despite the deluge of bullshit emanating from the PUMA-sphere -- that's not much of a hurdle to clear.

Is Obama simply intent on wooing conservative evangelicals, six weeks after the election? Though even that speculation is a tiny bit unfair — to evangelicals. As we saw with Sarah Palin, it’s entirely possible to be a conservative evangelical Christian and still believe in gender equality. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

At what point has Sarah Palin ever put her money where her mouth sort of was on feminism and gender equality? This is a woman who openly admitted to wanting DOMA written into the Constitution, who belongs to an organization (Feminists For Life) that promotes early marriage and motherhood for women and says almost exclusively negative things about birth control, and she's a fan of James Dobson's -- what do you bet she's also a fan of Warren, who, after all, was probably picked because he's really fucking popular among evangelicals? 

Oh, and if she says anything negative about the Bush administration's latest fuck-you to the women of America, I'll be very surprised.  Hell, I'll be surprised if Violet Socks or Amy Siskind say anything negative about it.

Time for comments:

Marie: Hillary would never have deliberately slapped the gay community...


No, her husband already did that.

(I don't mean to blame HRC for DOMA, obviously -- just to point out that Obama is hardly the first President or President-Elect to make a move like this.)


Amy Siskind: I guess Ludacris wasn’t available?

You know, there are millions of misogynists in the United States, including a hell of a lot of evangelical preachers; why single out the rapper?  I wonder why...


KendallJ: I’m not at all surprised about Obama’s pick. What astonishes me is that others are. This is a man who campaigned for Odinga, who ran for president in Kenya on a platforn to impose Sharia law. This is a man who has an iffinity for misogynistic rap music. This is a man who slapped his wife on the ass in front of several thousand people. This is a man who ran a campaign that promoted and facilitated misogyny and in some quarters, homophobia. This is a man who pays his female staffers 78 cents to his male staffers’ dollar. This is a man who denounced the mother and grandmother who raised him, in favor of the father who abandoned him. This is a man who had no compuncture to smear the finist living civil rights leaders in our country, from Jesse Jackson Sr. to Hillary Clinton.

An iffinity!  For rap music!  Oh noes!

Really, I don't have the energy for this.  I have no idea about the Odinga thing, the rap music thing is just stupid and racist (white Americans listen to a lot of rap too, and if you think all rap is misogynistic or all misogynistic music is rap, you're a dumbass), he did not slap his wife...oh whatever.  Bah.

madamab:  I am supremely unshocked by this revoltin’ development. Obama has made his pursuit of the evangelical community quite plain for months and months. That means accepting and endorsing the misogyny and homophobia that many of these churches embrace and preach as doctrine.

Obama doesn’t want votes or support from “those people,” meaning women who see through him. He has proven he can win without us, and it was the evangelicals that made that happen by staying home and not voting Republican this year.

He owes us nothing. We’re under the bus, and Obama is giving us the finger as we choke on the fumes.

...is she fucking kidding with this shit?  Sarah.  Palin.  Is.  An.  Evangelical. 

And madamab's statistics are...well, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're bullshit.  More women than men voted for Obama.  The drop-off in evangelical voting would not have been enough to push McCain over the top.  I expect a lot of those non-voting evangelicals live in solidly red states.  Also, if you were pursuing the votes of the evangelical community, wouldn't your eeeeeeevil plan be to try to get them to vote for you (as Sarah Palin did with her pro-life speeches, interviews with prominent evangelicals, and "pro-America" rabble-rousing) rather than trying to get them to stay home?

Oh, also, way to be welcoming to all women, including those oh-so-important evangelical women, on the oh-so-nonpartisan TNA site. 

Zee: I wonder if we’re going to hear the same howling of the mob who trashed Palin for being pro-life? My bet is we’ll hear … ::crickets::

If you hear crickets when you stick your fingers in your ears, you should seek medical attention.


Anna continues to raise logical points because she doesn't know where she is:

So, I thought, TNA wants to be inclusive, to draw in women from all sorts of backgrounds, to find common ground, etc. So, in theory, whether one likes Obama or not (and I am a NOT fan), one could argue that he’s being “inclusive.”

How would we, at TNA handle a situation where a member is conservative, perhaps evangelical, perhaps with strong feelings against homesexuality, and so forth. Is she welcomed into the fold in our commitment to inclusion?

…But then I read on and the thread noted this particular pastor having views toward women’s place in society and that stopped me in my tracks since, if someone were to join TNA and share such views, this would likely not be the place for them.


...uh, yeah.  Which is kind of what us Old Feminists have been saying since the beginning.  If you can't play nice with me on common ground without requiring that I roll over on things that are really important to me -- on a personal level, even, not just a political one -- I'm not going to play with you.  Really simple, that.

Kiuku: Obama is a political rapist.

Kiuku wins the thread.


The post is cross-posted at Reclusive Leftist, where Alwaysthinking has some...uh...thoughts:

I told my husband during this year’s primary season that I believed if Christ were to return to the Earth, he might come as a woman. No one would recognize him/her. I now believe it more than ever because Obama certainly is putting us through persecution, just as the Romans tended to do to their Jewish captives.

How appalling it is that every day we see Obama and his minions seeking to destroy half our population. I am making my husband miserable, I am sure, but I have told him that I will not allow the man to be seen on my television — so he has to be muted — his smirk, his voice, his horrible, belittling attitudes. (I’ll read, though, to be prepared to fight against the evil things he stands for.)

I need a drink.

The New Agenda blog has a thread with a clueless male troll, and seems to be dealing with him fairly well, until this point:

Clueless Male: I live in a world with a large and diverse population of women. Some of the women I know avoid “Women’s Organizations” because they long since got tired of being told that they were not real women due to the fact that, at times and places of their choice, they get somewhat lusty and indulge themselves in some give and take with the men in their lives.


Lisa: John, you live in a world full of the young women that have been complicit in bringing up backwards to this point obviously.


Coalitions FTW!

Thia, GA: I think there is a difference between someone voluntarily disrespecting themselves and an actual assault. Having said that, I think both need to be addressed because we have 14 yr old girls circulating naked pictures of themselves and they seem to have no sense of dignity or self-respect.

...well okay, we'll let the "dignity and self-respect" line go for the moment, because...

Lisa: There is no difference. Voluntarily disrespecting oneself happens because society hammers it into young women that being beautiful and slutty is perfection. Be a perfect sex dolly for a man and you will get lots of love and attention.

John considers himself enough of a feminist to come to this site and read the articles and participate in discussions, and yet even he sees a woman voluntarily demeaning herself as healthy “lusty” activity, and tries to make us feel not normal if we think otherwise.

Bear in mind this is all happening in a thread about Jon Favreau.  And..."slutty"!  Awesome.  Please to watch your language, lady.

Sigh.  This slut-shaming shit makes it very difficult to discuss issues around straight sexuality and pop culture.  You know, like how a woman could be uncomfortable with Hugh Hefner, Axe ads, Girls Gone Wild, etc., etc., and still want "love and [sexual] attention" from (some) men?  Or enjoy being sexually objectified at some times and not others, by some men and not others?  Or be very interested in pleasing her partner(s) but uninterested in learning what some random asshole on the Internet masturbates to?  You know, that kind of thing.

Thia, GA: I am was trying to point out that with an involuntary assault, there is no education of the victims that would make any difference (hence involuntary) but the voluntary disrespecting of themselves can be changed by giving them an alternate way to feel good about themselves that is not related to sexualization.

...sigh.  This pushes one of my buttons, actually: while I agree it's unwise for 14-year-olds to put suggestive pictures of themselves on the Internet, the idea that 14-year-olds shouldn't have sexual or romantic feelings (or that parents should be especially proud of teenage daughters who aren't interested in boys -- teenage lesbians are usually off the radar, IME) makes me angry. 

Now, perhaps Thia just means that 14-year-olds should have safer ways of exploring sexuality, but these two are certainly coming off as "no, no sex, none".  Which, of course, leaves the floor wide open for exactly the kinds of depictions of straight sexuality (male-centred, objectifying, etc.) that these women object to; and on and on we go.


Lisa: They shouldn’t be using “Girls Gone Wild” videos for modeling behavior, and if they aren’t getting the correct message from their home or mothers, then there needs to be other resources.

..."home or mothers".  wtf.

Over at PUMAPAC, there's a schism happening (hat tip: Belle).  What surprises me at this point is that TNA and PUMAPAC were ever allied; the former is merely reactionary, the latter is...PUMAPAC.  Where they are suggesting that Jon Favreau has committed "sexual assault" and should be jailed for groping a cardboard cut-out.  Which...uh...no.  Not enough no in the world.

Apparently the good people at PUMAPAC are mad at The New Agenda.  TNA is not radical enough.

Well, duh, sez I: TNA never set out to be radical.  It appears that TNA set out to be a conservative-friendly alternative to NOW, which we at TNA still don't like:

bruce nahin: NOW has tilted so far left that it isnt the organization I joined in the early 70’s. It truly should change its name to the national organization for extremely liberal women. it is less concerned with women’s equality and more involved in a left wing agenda not always related to its original mission statement of womens equality and parity.

Bruce doesn't feel that NOW represents women's equality interests.  He doesn't say how NOW fails in this, but, uh, it does. 

Also, I wasn't there, but I find it hard to believe that NOW was more right-wing in the '70s than it is now, given that it was a much less right-wing era overall.


Sis: Interesting comment. I think NOW is not left at all. I think they are so far right they’re making Palin look left.

Image taken from Yes To Democracy, because I couldn't resist.

 

The New Agenda is trying to decide what makes a feminist a feminist.  Anna has some questions about supporting other women:

1. What if the woman in questions is espousing hateful rhetoric abut another group?

2. What if the woman has commited a heinous crime?

3. What if the woman, as happened this year in many cases, supported Obama and not Clinton without stating any reason for this support as based in gender?

4. What if one woman is walking into a clinic to have an abortion and another woman is standing outside of the clinic screaming anti-abortion messages at her. Do you support both women, or does your support take a side?

There are more questions but I'll focus on these.  I like how supporting Obama over Clinton is right after "heinous crime".  Anyway, #1 doesn't get dealt with at all, #2 is a no-brainer, #3 doesn't get dealt with (but I didn't snip it because it amused me), and #4...ah, #4.  samanthasmom has answers:

In my mind supporting other woman does not mean always agreeing with them. It does mean that if I disagree with them, I will voice my disagreement without attacking them as women. For example, I would not support a woman who is standing outside an abortion clinic screaming anti-abortion messages, but I would not call her crazy or stupid for believing what she believes.

That's nice.  Except you left the woman screaming outside the clinic.  I guess the other woman going about what is still, legally, her personal business (who probably is not feeling that wonderful that day anyway, just a guess) is just supposed to deal with being screamed at?  

This isn't hypothetical.  I volunteer at a clinic that gets protesters.  They upset the patients.  Elsewhere -- not at my clinic -- protesters have gone a lot farther.  How much will you tolerate?  Where do you draw your line?
 

Anna: For me, you articulated a really central point in voicing that supporting other women does not always mean agreeing with them. I think this is central: That we are free to agree or disagree, but with the crucial element being that we don’t disagree based on gender, but instead on principal, point of view, etc.

Yawn.  Again, you left the woman screaming abuse at another woman, which leads me to think that you condone that kind of harassment even if you don't "support" it.  No?

CynthiaC: One example might be that one might support women’s right to choose when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy but the same person may not encourage a friend to have an abortion who is conflicted about it. I support the freedom of assembly but I do not encourage individuals to gather at Planned Parenthood to protest.

It's like banging one's head against a brick wall, it really is.  Not telling other women to have abortions isn't a "compromise" position between pro-choice and pro-life; it's just pro-choice.  As for not encouraging people to harass patients at Planned Parenthood: gosh, that's big of you.

Anna: It sounds like you’re a proponent of giving people the information and tools they need in order to make informed decisions for themselves. I, for one, don’t see how this conflicts with the ideals of feminism (whatever those may be!). Sounds like empowerment, personal freedom, etc.

Liberalism 001: ur doin it...pritty well ackshully.

Conundrum:

IF we agree that information/education and empowerment is a goal and is one that is compatable with being a feminist,

then…

how do we reconcile those women who we could presume to be sufficiently informed (assumption) who then freely decided to support Obama, who we have somewhat castigated as being “faux feminists” or some other derogatory term?

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING

CynthiaC believes in building bridges.  It's a nice sentiment.  However, I have a feeling that if she is sincere she will acquaint herself with the Old Agenda, since the new one is...well, check out their work on defining sexism.

Marchelle on how the media were sexist to Sarah Palin:

Constantly scrutinizing her experience. While she is a sitting Governor with more executive experience than any of the candidates, this fact was minimized and, in many cases, belittled by the MSM.
 

...that was sexist?

I'm pretty sure I'd be equally skeptical of a man who had been a governor for less than two years and, before that, mayor of a town the size of a large public high school.  But then, I am in my twenties, and as we see...


JB in VA: I feel sorry for the 20-somethings who are incapable of perceiving what is all around them. For many of them it may be too late — although it will certainly catch up with them one of these days — but it’s NOT too late for the under-12 generation.

It's too late for my generation!  Whoops!

JB also objects to:

...the hundreds of news reports and columns devoted to Palin as a mother and Hillary as Bill’s wife, defining them first and foremost not even as individual people, but in terms of their relationships with others. No offense to mothers or wives, but this approach itself automatically belittles their existence and validity as public servants: people with serious jobs, hard-earned capabilities and experience, important responsibilities to large, varied constituencies, and valuable ideas.

Take it up with the GOP, who thought it was a good idea for Palin to introduce her entire family in her convention speech and call herself "just an average hockey mom."

Oh, no, wait, it's okay if you're a Republican.

Briar: As for the betrayal by young women - well that is the result of a clever campaign lasting decades to redefine feminism as sexism. Modern women imagine themselves as to be empowered by their sexuality. Whether they visualise themselves as fertile homemakers or as ironically exploitative manipulators of men, they make their identity primarily as objects of male desire and see nothing wrong with this. It is all to be done again, those decades of deconstructing the male gaze and creating a female identity which was something more than being its object - all those advances have been torn up and spat on as neither sexy nor cool.

I know I'm not a fertile homemaker, so I guess I'm primarily an ironically exploitative manipulator of men!  I had no idea.  Maybe I should start posting nekkid pictures. 

Kiuku: How I define Sexism:In case I need to spell it out, once again: you cannot "support women" while trashing and excluding large groups of women.  It can't be done.  TNA's founders understand this about Republican women, to the point that they are willing to shape their "agenda" to fit those women's wishes at other women's expense, but apparently do not care if the same courtesy is extended to young women or to liberal women who don't act like this.

I think I'd like TNA better if it were just an openly conservative feminist blog.  

Gloria Steinem is in big trouble!

AniEm: It is a big war and I am only one person, but I can do what I can do, and help others to understand whenever possible. I threw away Gloria Steinem’s book “Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions” that has been part of my book shelf for decades. That was my little act of rebellion against Steinem’s article on Palin.

I am reminded of 2003, when good American patriots (so the story went) bought French wine so they could pour it down the toilet.  That'll show 'em!


I continue to be fascinated by the peaceful coexistence of man-hating separatists like Kiuku and women like this one:

PhilosopherP: I’m not sure how to go about rebuilding feminism, but I do think the attacks revealed some not-so-good sides of feminism. As a fairly new feminist, I have to admit being pretty shocked concerning the degree to which many feminists are comfortable trying to dictate certain kinds of ‘choices’ to me.

For example, I was married before I was 22 — and I took my husband’s last name. NOW (18 years later) I get static for that choice — When there is actually a discussion about it, my reasons are ignored and I’m treated as something less than a real feminist as a result. What is even worse, my husband has had a considerable amount of flack for MY decision — as if he were somehow responsible OR should have stopped me.

This sort of attitude needs to change. As feminists we need to continue to fight for actual choices AND support those who make choices we wouldn’t have made ourselves. To do anything less is to exchange a paternalism for an equally unacceptable level of control by women… (I don’t want to call that ‘feminism’ or ‘maternalism’… because those words don’t have the same impact).


Oh lord.  Well, as long as the choice is one Focus on the Family would approve, I suppose, it's sacrosanct under the New Feminism; but pose in a slightly revealing outfit and get ready to watch the knives come out.  (Not that this commenter is necessarily endorsing that state of affairs, but...oh man.  So a few feminists somewhere were jerks to you because you made a choice that something like 89% of straight women make upon marriage?  Yeah, that is definitely our biggest problem and definitely a sign we need to throw out the whole feminist movement and start again.)

------

Now it's time for more fun and games at The New Agenda!  How do we feel about the word "feminist"?

Mary Lou: In thinking about feminist, I realized that words with the “ist” suffix often convey something perjorative - agist, sexist, racist, etc.
Though I like humanist, I’d prefer a word without the ist….

...populist, anarchist, centrist, economist, dental hygienist...

------

On a more or less unrelated note, uclassify.com pegs the author of this blog as gender-neutral (WINO?) and an INFP.  Heh.

On Hillary Clinton as (possible) Secretary of State:

Anne Marie: We’re commenting on the word empowerment over at another post, its bad connotations. I know it’s superficial, but I really dislike the word “secretary”. I don’t want Hillary to be a secretary…But if she is, she’ll get people used to seeing her in a national position of influence, and maybe she will run for president again and win this time.

Um.

goesh: Secretary to Obama, that’s how I read it, enacting Policy set by Obama and his trusted inner circle, fine, but maybe Patriarchy has a deeper hold than some are willing to admit or realize, that any position of power is better than none regardless of attachments and conditions and principles. Do you really think she will get much lime light? Hardly, the Obama camp had to slam her and cheat her to get the reins of power so why would they push her to the front now? There are no honorable men in politics.


...huh?

Lizzy in CT: I am saddened - for Hillary - should she accept this position. It seems to me like the final step in surrendering herself. She would be serving at the pleasure of BO. period. She would be following his orders. period. She would lose her voice and become BO’s puppet. She would lose her power to further the issues she has worked so hard to improve.

ugsome: Here in California we have a political catastrophe on our hands thanks to BO’s clearly-telegraphed homophobia. Now that self-congratulatory white libs like Terry Gross, Paul Krugman, my Obot spouse and the dude who trolls me on Facebook have their precious coupons good for one racial redemption in their grubby little hands, they’ll go back to sleep and let thinking women and gays clean up the goddamn mess.

All this and happily married too, huh?

This has been a theme in the last few days.  A number of commenters at TNA, RL and The Confluence have reported troubles in intimate relationships since Obama won.  I find it hard to believe that election results could create a rift in a really happy relationship.  This has contributed to my impression that a lot of Palin PUMAs feel underestimated and underappreciated in ways that have little to do with Obama; Palin in particular symbolizes The Average White Woman Finally Getting Her Due.

madama b: How do you guys think I feel? My stepmother literally helped Obama win Virginia. (Yes, she’s AA.)

Yes, you're the only person who has political differences with relatives.  You poor thing!  (You poor, totally un-racist thing!)

polly styrene: In relation to the homophobia - anyone remember when Lindsay Lohan offered to support BO and he said he didn’t want her support?

Yeah, that was definitely because Lindsay Lohan is in a relationship with a woman and not because of the scandals that surrounded her in the years before she was in a relationship with a woman.  That's why Obama also objected when Melissa Etheridge endorsed him and refused to go on The Ellen Degeneres Show.

-----

The New Agenda continues to cheer the woman who symbolizes everything they stand for:

And on a final note, some of you may know Gov. Palin’s nickname in Alaska: “Sarah Barracuda.”  Let’s just say that over the next couple of years, we would not want to be the folks that have crossed Sarah Palin. 

The New Agenda is gonna tell on us to Sarah!  Oh noes!

"Sarah Barracuda" wasn't initially intended as a compliment, last I checked.  It alluded to Palin's ruthlessness and vindictiveness.  You know, the "first Christian mayor" stuff, the summary firing of people who "didn't support" her, Troopergate...

lightacandle: Women took one look at Sarah Palin’s hair and decided she “had” to be “dumb.” She was too sexy and beautiful to be smart. Those same women did not bother to do ANY research into Palin’s record as mayor and, now, governor. She has an outstanding record as governor — a record of accomplishment and reform most of us would welcome in our own states.


You're right, lightacandle!  Women are stupid, catty bitches!  Save us from ourselves!  Show us the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy!

Marnie Delano: So many fine thoughts in such a positive environment. There is peace in truth and so it is here, where “feminism” eliminates no one and supports everyone. This is a site and an organization in which we can breathe easily, deeply and freely.

The women at The New Agenda really don't see themselves, do they?  (Not that I am the queen of enlightened self-awareness or anything, just...I can see that they don't see themselves.)  I recognized that TNA was not a friendly place for women like me in September, when a commenter named Maura snarled at a pro-choice commenter:

Is this what it has come down to? Pro”choice” women believing Sarah Palin is anti woman because she is anti abortion? She has never tried to change abortion law while in office, but personally believes that abortion is wrong and she walks her talk. Don’t worry Zoldie = no one is going to take away your right to murder any baby you may carry. It’s too important to far too many left wing “feminists”. Just remember: some of those babies are female too - who is defending them?

Nobody at TNA -- certainly nobody who stuck around -- called her on her inflammatory statements. 

I'm young, left-wing, pro-choice and interested in "the issues".  The New Agenda isn't a place where I can "breathe easily, deeply and freely".  The New Agenda may not even be a place where I can comment.  (At this point the skeptical comments have pretty much dried up -- either because the skeptics have thrown up their hands and left or because of tight moderation, or possibly both.) 


In other news, Greenconsciousness is mad at me and it's funny.  The comment has been deleted on the site, but this is what it said:

I stand by what i actually said as it is exactly what feminists will face.

You of course will be exempt because you will not be considered one of those typical old bitter racist white women but a superior woman who has transcended all that annoying whining of those poor losers.

You worship at the shrine of the big prick and are therefore acceptable. It is called “passing”. In some countries these are the women appointed to cut the clitoris off young girls.

I worship big pricks and "pass".  Is she saying I look like a man?  I'm a slut who looks like a man and belongs to some kind of pagan phallic cult and mutilates the genitals of little girls.  My life is so much more exciting than I thought! 

Note how she can. not. resist the urge to bring it back to big pricks/dicks/cock/empty suit on a good-looking man/et cetera.  Another data point for my collection.

And ain't that the truth with these people.

Anne-Marie: Who cares if I have the right to abortion if I’m disrespected and demeaned by democrats who say don’t put dumb Sarah in the same class as Hillary, but then tell me when I ask them that no, they didn’t vote for Hillary.


If you didn't actually vote for Hillary, you have no respect for her.  (Unless, of course, you are a Republican.)  Well, that's interesting.

This "I don't care about my rights any more because you hurt my feelings" thing really sums up the PUMA approach -- donna darko's "Fuck Roe, the Obama campaign made me feel raped" is another example of this kind of comment. 


Patty McDonald: I’m very concerned about my country!!!!!I am a 53 yr. old mother and have never been so involved in an election like this one.I pray for my children and their children to have back the country that i love so much!!!!!!!


This is very clearly not about fighting sexism, since the United States has never been free of sexism.  This is about getting "back" either white or conservative dominance, I'm not sure which.

In other news, TNA is taking credit when NOW does things they like.  That's kind of hilarious.

ms mississippi: As I expected, Obama’s cabinet is shaping up to be nothing more than the all too familiar old boys’ network. Too bad he doesn’t have the chutzpah to make bold choices like:I really think TNA's blog is shaping up as a safe space for certain kinds of women to say stupid things without getting called on it.  Unsurprising, since allowing certain kinds of women to say stupid things without being called on it is, as far as I can tell, the most important part of their mandate (witness, for example, their to-the-death defense of every dumbass statement Sarah Palin has ever made, as compared with their millimetre-deep support for things like equal pay legislation). 

I need to wind down post-election.  I also need to document the explosion of crazy at the PUMA blogs.

We have a new acronym: WINO. I assume it stands for "Woman In Name Only." 

Aren't these the same people who hated it when certain young women said Palin didn't even seem like a woman to them?  Is it okay to revoke womanhood or isn't it?

Lexia: One thing I like - most of those WINOs are women in just one more way than name. They’re breeding age.

...huh?  I can think of at least three reasons this statement makes no sense.  See if you can find more!

( Read more... )

So some of the commenters aren't sure about Amy Siskind's appearance on Fox.

Briar: You do realise that outside the US, Fox is a laughing stock, widely recognised as a totally biased right wing mouthpiece of the neocons, serving the interests of the Murdoch family, not the people?

Maura Orla: You do realize that inside the US, the NYT and CNN, LAT, and MSNBC are recognized as totally biased by many people? I think Fox is less biased than those outlets, and I think they get a bad rap, but that’s ok. I’m sure their ratings keep them from getting too offended.


Well, that took care of that.  I think.

( more fun and games )

The debate continues over whether Robin Morgan et al. should be put out with the trash.

delphyne: ...One of the ways that sexism works against older women is by regarding them as useless or past their sell by date or disposable like rubbish. That seems to be what you are saying there.

Morgan and the other second wavers (and the majority of third wavers who hate, hate, hate Palin - much more so than the second wavers but nobody is calling them rubbish or wanting to put them on the scrap heap) are wrong on this. That doesn’t make them worthless or deserving of being thrown away, it makes them wrong in this instance and deserving of criticism for their use of sexism.

Sexism in jokes ain’t funny. Sorry to pick at it but I find it heartbreaking to see the way some feminists have gone after Palin but it still hurts to see sexism being used against them too. Is it possible for one woman to disagree with another without beating one another with the misogyny stick?

We have a huge amount to be grateful for from people like Steinem and Morgan and others. They get it wrong once and suddenly they are worthless? I have to disagree.

Aside from the assertion about Third Wavers, who a) for the umpteenth time, are not a monolith and b) are being called lots of names and accused of lots of heinous things, that's not a bad rundown.  However, samanthasmom is unfazed.  I shall reproduce her reply, with my own comments.

In the past thirty years these women have contributed nothing of substance to the feminist cause. (1) Now that we are on the brink of moving forward again, they step up to block the way. (2) If they truly believe that Obama will be better for women, why didn’t NOW, the Women’s Media Center, and Ms. Magazine sponsor a debate where Obama and McCain could have answered questions about women’s issues put to them from women? They had the resources to do that.  (3) Instead, they have become part of the patriarchy themselves telling other women who is or isn’t a feminist based on the same criteria that they used thirty years ago- criteria that divided women then and continues to divide us now. (4) These women were my heroines, and I respect what they did up to a point. However, their unwillingness to accept that their way to equality for all was not the way that was getting us there is one of the major reasons we have made so little progress. (5) Their role now seems to convince us to wait until the men are willing to concede some of the power. (6) There is no sign that will happen anytime soon if we wait for the Democrats to do it. Yes, elderly women are often marginalized, and these women have allowed themselves to approach senior citizenship sitting on their hands . They have marginalized themselves as far as the feminist cause goes. I’m sure they have lovely gardens. (7)

(1) A broad and unsupported generalization!  How convincing.

(2) Only if you believe that voting a right-wing evangelical into office is "moving forward".  That's a belief; you don't get to claim it for a fact.

(3) Non sequitur.

(4) By this she means abortion, although I've always understood that the porn/BDSM wars were far more divisive among feminists.  But what she seems to be talking about here is the sin of dividing women generally -- right-wing women from left-wing women, feminists from antifeminists.  I suppose everybody who disagreed with Phyllis Schlafly about the ERA was also "dividing women" and therefore unfeminist and bad.  Why couldn't they just roll over and forget about it?  Bitches.

(5) Backlash?  What backlash?

(6) Strawfeminist ahoy!

(7) Ageism and sexism: okay if you're a Republican.

samanthasmom: When I was in college in the early 70’s, women like Steinem and Morgan were my heroines. Unfortunately, they moved from being activists to being impotent whiners. What’s the last great move forward for women? Title IX, maybe? Roe v. Wade? We’re talking early 70’s here. These women are like the grandmothers who are guests of honor at a family gathering. Highly respected but not very relevant anymore. Some grandmothers are highly supportive of their children and grandchildren and provide the spark that moves the future generations, and some are jealous because they know their time has come and gone. And some just belong on an ice flow (sic). We have a “new agenda” to work on. We respect the hard work of those who have come before us. We’d like their support. If they can’t do it, then their silence would be appreciated. If they can’t refrain from bashing other women, then maybe a trip to Alaska should be in their future. I think I know of a feminist who could find us an ice flow or two.

delphyne did call her on this, but I think it's illustrative of the attitude Riverdaughter showed in the Confluence post I quoted yesterday, the attitude that crops up regularly on the PUMA blogs.

Women who don't get with the "new agenda" are expendable. Not politically expendable -- literally expendable.  (As for "highly respected but not very relevant any more", wtf?  Do people really think of their own relatives that way?)

In other news, Zee has some privilege issues.

[Morgan] turns from attack to fevered rant:
” ‘teaching the Democratic leadership a lesson’ brings us to the heart of it: Since when do feminists sacrifice women’s basic survival needs in order to impress men?”

Um, talk about a few watts short. What “basic survival” needs are these? Roe v. Wade? In a world with birth control and morning after pills?

I remember a radical feminist blogger who no longer blogs.  A couple of years ago, shortly before she stopped blogging, she had a condom break. She went to the hospital for the morning-after pill, only to learn that the doctor wouldn't give it to her because she wasn't married and hadn't been raped; as I recall, she lived in rural Ohio, where packing up and going to another hospital wasn't really an option. She had three children and didn't want any more; she had a health condition that would have made it very dangerous to have another child.

This woman ended up having an abortion "in a world with birth control and morning after pills" because her birth control failed and she was denied the morning-after pill.  Other women, women who felt connected to her through her blog, donated money to help her afford the abortion; she couldn't pay for it on her own.

 

Dismiss women like her all you want; they exist, and Republican-sponsored "conscience clauses" are increasing their numbers.  Suggest that she should have just sucked it up and had the baby, despite the risks to her health, despite the fact that it was the last thing she wanted.  Tell me that women like her, and like me, and like Robin Morgan, don't matter unless they sign on for your "new agenda".

Go ahead and do that if you want, but don't call it feminist.

ETA: samanthasmom is still at it!

Second wave feminists were always accused of not having a sense of humor. Amy suggested leaving them by the side of the road. We could donate them to Goodwill. Whatever you do with things that are no longer useful to you would be fine with me. I just thought that maybe Sarah would be willing to help out since they’re getting in her way.

Wow.  WOW.

1) She's accusing second wave feminists like delphyne of lacking a sense of humour.  Which is apparently totally fine if you're a Republican.

2) Older women who don't agree with you are just objects that have outlived their usefulness!  Hardy har har har!  It was EVIL for Obama supporers to say this about Hillary supporters, but it's TOTALLY COOL for Palin supporters to say this about Obama supporters.  IOIYAR.

3) Heaven forbid anyone should get in Sarah's way!  (And they call Obama supporters cult-like.)

What a tool.

In other news, it only looks as if Obama's going to win because people are afraid to admit they're voting McCain in case the pollsters call them racists.

Read the comments.  They're grand.

In other news, Sarah Palin is a Rorschach for feminists.

There's lots of misinformation going around about Palin, but here's the thing: I don't like her actual policy positions.  Why am I supposed to be thrilled at the candidacy of a woman who's spouting the same old Republican crap -- who supports policies that I believe will be bad for large numbers of women in the U.S., even aside from the young women Palin PUMAs want to punish?

Add to that the fact that Republicans are promoting Palin and expressing approval in sexist ways, and in ways that make it very clear that they are supporting her because they believe she shares patriarchal values.  Palin PUMAs are fine with Republicans being "proud to vote for the hot chick", I guess. 

ETA: Commenter newswriter (bless her) says it much more eloquently:

I’m all for telling the truth about every candidate and not basing decisions on who to support based on lies and exaggerations. But I don’t need lies and exaggerations to know that Sarah Palin is not someone I want to see in the White House. She opposes embryonic stem cell research. She believes abortion should be a state issue and not a federal one, despite her belief that the constitution offers an inherent right to privacy. She is a free marketeer. She does not support same-sex marriage. She does not believe that health care benefits should be given to same sex partners (although she did veto a bill that would have denied them, saying it was unconstitutional, despite her agreement with it — that’s a point in her favor). She thinks creationism should be discussed alongside evolution in schools. She supports No Child Left Behind. She wants to drill in ANWR. She opposes a great number of environmental protections. She shoots wolves from helicopters. She supports John McCain’s plan to raise the cost of health care for most Americans. Supports the McCain tax plan.

Now it's time for some more WTFery.

Nancy: ...while women may not agree with Sarah Palin’s positions,
they should be able to appreciate her strength and the fact that she has not imposed her personal beliefs on the world; so let us not do that to her. Let’s recognize that she is accomplished in many ways; one example - going out before millions, both at the RNC and Vice Presidential Debate and was remarkable under stress and did women proud!

I'm...sorry?  We're supposed to be proud of her because despite being a mere girl, she can read a teleprompter, recite talking points, and refuse to answer questions as well as the big boys?  Does Nancy think that little of women? 

The Bush twins spoke at the 2004 RNC.  It's a shame they're not running this year.

As for imposing her personal beliefs on the world, that's a bizarre PUMA meme.  Palin is pussyfooting around divisive social issues now ("I would counsel that person to choose life"), but before she got the VP nomination she made it very clear where she stands.  Anyway, most of the things newswriter objected to were not "personal beliefs" but Republican policy.

Kitkat argues for content-free feminism:

People who “cling” to the issues miss the point. It is those “issues” that make you hostage to a party, reduce your power (and why the DNC so easily dismissed Clinton and her 18M voters). The issues (to which the parties often on pay lip service only) can be fought for through associations and your own grassroots work….but putting a women on a national ticket is something we have seen only once in recent history and this is my FIRST TIME to have the PRIVILEGED of voting for a WOMAN on a nation ticket for VP.

And I am so very excited to vote for Palin, a very accomplished, hard working woman that will do great things for this country, and I am very proud to be part of this historic moment.

What if I don't believe she will do great things for America?  Where does that leave me?  And why is having a woman (ANY woman) on the ticket not an "issue"?  Even a "single issue"? 

Zee: Regarding that common ground. When did feminists start becoming pro-abortion instead of pro-choice? And if you are pro-choice, shouldn’t that include allowing women to choose a “pro-life” stance?

OH FOR THE LOVE OF FUCK.  If I see one more PUMA conflating personal choice with political standpoint, or mindlessly repeating a ridiculous anti-choice smear...

Now it's time for the very next sentence:

Most of the vehement antichoice organizations were (and are) run by men.

Non sequiturs: U has dem.  Also: Leslee Unruh. 

What happened to “make abortion safe and rare?” Couldn’t that be a starting point for common ground?

Yeah, it's not as if the Democrats have been trying and failing with that tactic for, um, DECADES.

“Feminists for life” do believe in contraceptives. More common ground.

No, Feminists For Life takes no position on contraceptives, I imagine because it doesn't want to piss off devoutly Catholic or Quiverfull women who don't use contraception (or who did before they were menopausal and now Regret!  It!  So!  Much!  that they want to take that choice away from younger women).

 

Shorter Amy Siskind: Palin has been so smeared and abused in this campaign that criticizing her in any way is sexist.

In other news, Cynthia Ruccia has more to say:

Unlike racism, which we are growing to tolerate less and less in America, sexism is absolutely acceptable.

If a black man wrote "Unlike sexism, which we are growing to tolerate less and less in America, racism is absolutely acceptable", how would Ms. Ruccia react? Just let me guess.

(I am assuming Ms. Ruccia is white. If I am incorrect, I apologize.)

I could list many examples of what Governor Palin has endured—the ridiculous clothing flap (who cares?), the trashing of her family (after all, women must pay for their sins of the family—Geraldine Ferraro did and Hillary paid for the sins of her husband), the c**t t-shirts that the creators wore with glee (they got more “attaboys” for having the courage to do it than shame for having done it), the constant minimizing of her accomplishments, since, after all, she’s only a woman.

Yes! How dare we ask what Sarah Palin actually accomplished in office! That's just like bashing her family! Sexist, sexist, sexist! As for the people who made the "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" T-shirts, how on earth does she know they got more positive than negative feedback for that? How would you establish such a thing without hours upon hours of research? This is absurd. (Oh, I'm sorry, I'm questioning a woman's argument, so I must be a sexist.)

Anyway, let me admit something here. I don't think much of Palin's mayoral experience, but it's not because she's a woman. It's because I come from a city whose population is several times that of the state of Alaska, and I just don't believe a town of five thousand could be anywhere near as complex or as difficult to run.  (Palin's poorly disguised attacks on cities and city people do not help.)  While I agree Obama is inexperienced in some areas, he appears to me to have a stronger understanding of law and policy on the national level than Palin, who has even admitted her own ignorance on these matters ("I've only been at this five weeks", "I have to find out exactly what the VP does day-to-day", her inaccurate and worrying statements about the role of the vice-president, et cetera). That matters more to me. That's my judgment; others can make their own. It may be a bad judgment, but it's not sexist.

We have one great strength as women—we are huge in number. If we can come together and work on this problem immediately, then our lives will have truly meant something for all of the women yet to come.

Yeah. You're not going to get there by making gratuitously nasty comments about Michelle Obama, Third Wave feminists, young women, and every Second Wave feminist who's come out for Obama in the past few months. You're not going to get there by making grossly ignorant statements about pro-choice women or failing to rein in commenters who do so. You're not going to get there by making or hosting racist comments, because most women of color aren't going to believe you're just talking about men (and even if they did, why should they put up with you trashing their brothers and fathers and sons?). You're not going to get there by disowning lesbians. And overall, that's probably a damn good thing.

Amy Siskind is right pissed off.

Bear witness to the continued disintegration of the moral fiber of our country.

Nice right-wing language there. Hmmmmmmm. Maybe all that time she's spending on Fox News is getting to her.

Women have officially taken a seat in the back row. How do we know that women have become second class citizens in our society? A picture is worth a thousand words. Simply put, lynching a woman in effigy is not a crime. In fact, to many it is downright hilarious.

Back in the day, Larry Flynt thought gang-raping a woman on a pool table or putting her body through a meat grinder was hilarious. McCain thought joking about women being raped by gorillas was hilarious. Rush Limbaugh thought calling Chelsea Clinton the White House Dog was hilarious. I could go on for years. How have women "become" second-class citizens? Did I blink and miss some golden age of equality?

Oh, I see. We need to pretend we had equality so we can complain that Barack Obama took it away.

Chad [Michael Morrisette] thinks that because October is “Halloween month”, his creation ought to be tolerated as an “art project”

.

Chad is an asshole.

The villains of history are those who seek to keep others down. They are the ones in the chimney full of flames.

This is amusing because Chad put a model of John McCain in the chimney full of (imaginary) flames. I mean...uh...what?

goesh: The first rupture in the patriarchal shield occured with the passage of the 19th Amendment, Geraldine Ferraro was the 2cd rupture and now Sarah Palin is the 3rd rupture. Hers is the most threatening because she is vibrant, intelligent, aggressive, attractive and she is a mother and so opposite of patriarchal expectations and demands that she had to be labeled a cunt then lynched - there was no alternative from the patriarchy but to kill her in such a symbolic manner.

Sarah Palin is "opposite of patriarchal expectations and demands"? Being "attractive" and "a mother" is "opposite of patriarchal expectations and demands"?

Is that why the religious right loves her? I know the motto of Focus On The Family is "If I Had A Hammer, I'd Smash Patriarchy."

pacific-cali: Good point about Prop 8. I guess the West Hollywood community forgot that their largest block of supporters (prop 8 & everything else) in the straight community are white women: the people they think its so funny to hang in effigy.

Collective guilt! Awesome.

samanthasmom: I’m not sure I understand why [Clinton] is supporting [Obama] so vigorously, and I think she may be sacrificing her political future by doing it. I know that should she run again in 2012 or 2016, my support for her will be tepid. A good concession speech asking her supporters to give their support to him should have been enough. Cross-country campaigning for him sends the message that sexism and misogyny are not important issues. Nor are caucus fraud and vote stealing.

Wow. Just wow. Again, Democrats have to be perfect and Republicans just have to show up.