And the “fair and balanced” mainstream media quote of the day goes to … The Australian!
From “Redefining feminism: Have activists morphed into female chauvinist piglets?”:
Unlike the professional feminists who love to wallow in victimhood in their purple ghettos, Ms Palin exuded strength in her first major speech of the campaign.
Like Margaret Thatcher a generation earlier, she showed an admirable immunity to liberal-left ridicule: “Here’s a little news flash … I’m not going to Washington to seek their good opinion – I’m going to Washington to serve the people of this country.”
Ain’t that special?
The Australian today seeks to defend Palin from evil supposed feminists everywhere who are (apparently) attacking her for her reproductive choices. Feminists are being blamed for the faked-pregnancy claims: the claims that were fomented at antifeminist bully-den DailyKos, the claims that feminist blogs have been slapping down ever since they arose.
The journalist reverently invokes Peggy Noonan as a staunch defender of Palin. The same Peggy Noonan who was caught with an accidentally open mic saying that Palin was unqualified and that the Republican campaign was “over” because of Palin’s nomination. That Peggy Noonan.
And a completely unsourced quote is being bandied around in the lead paragraphs of both antifeminist articles run by the Australian today. Apparently some “feminist”, somewhere, said that Sarah Palin is “living the life of a caricature of the feminist who ‘wants it all’.” We don’t know who is supposed to have said this, but we’re expected to accept this as an exemplar of What Feminists Think.
I don’t know exactly what you have to read and watch in order to see only lifestyle snipes and no criticism of Palin’s policies, but it must be bloody hard work maintaining blinders that selective. Because I’ve seen criticism of her policies every. single. place. I. go. Substantive, informed, thorough criticism. That’s some giant boulder the dudes at the Australian are choosing to live under.
Newsflash, the Aus: Not all women are feminists, and not all self-described feminists speak for Feminism. If you want to maintain your precious charade of presenting a balanced viewpoint, it would serve you well to speak with feminists who feel that Palin’s reproductive choices, and those of her children, are off limits when it comes to discussing her campaign. Our purple ghetto is not hard to find.
Similar Posts:
- Goward on Palin: “She has led a conventional life, a conservative life, and liked it.” by Lauredhel
- Republican sexism watch: Sarah Palin gives us no evidence that she values girls by Lauredhel
- Feminism Friday: Right Wing Women, Sarah Palin, and Me by Guest Hoyden
- Nuance for Dummies by tigtog
- Faves: Feminism by Lauredhel
{ 1 trackback }
{ 133 comments }
← Previous Comments
More from the ‘the people of America would never stand for the State interfering in their reproductive rights’ files:
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/97457
Wow. Just wow.
Pretty much, yeah.
It doesn’t matter what we Americans would stand for having done–protecting minority rights is currently a very difficult thing to accomplish.
I would say that tig tog is dismissing, and making unnecessary judgements about either the ‘coherency’ of the views expressed at, or affiliations with Strange Times, especially as to their persuasiveness rather prematurely. (Just as readers here appear to have done when it comes to opposing or supporting any candidate for an election that has only just begun in a far away land) It just doesn’t make sense to take such a partisan position and from such a distance especially from a blog that is devoted as feminists? to improving the social conditions of all women and girls, regardless of how their parents vote – aren’t they?
Over at Strange Times Arthur linked to the hysterical debates occurring at Kasama by those who are going nuts over Sarah Palin’s candidacy for VP – threatening to leave the country and the like if she’s elected, and attempting to bring Obama to account for not coming down hard enough upon the face of clerical fascism in 2008? What twaddle. This is the same sort of posturing by some Australians b4 the Howard govt. was elected and the sky fell in. (not)
Orlando expressed the tendency to ‘de-feminise’ women with differing political views. “Palin is buying herself a pass as an honorary man by giving support to the anti-women’s-rights status quo. It’s the oldest colonial narrative.” This position exactly expresses designating women as non-women and is evident in positions expressed here. Why not use being ‘feminist’ to celebrate the achievements of women overall as Annabel Crabb’s article did rather than from afar pronounce judgement upon a partisan political issue and at such an early stage. – btw I didn’t say you hate Annabel Crabb but that it seemed that it was building up.
informally yours, I’m finding it hard going deciphering your comment. As far as I can tell, what you’re trying to do is scold people for holding and expressing their opinion on the US election – and that you think it’s unreasonable for people to have decided which candidate they would prefer.
You seem to consider it “too early” to prefer one candidate over another, only around seven weeks out from the election in a four-year cycle.
And you think Australians shouldn’t express opinions on US politics.
Is that correct?
IY, if I’m not persuaded then obviously I don’t find those views persuasive. What’s wrong with stating so?
The election campaign began months ago. I’ve known what McCain’s election platform for the whole of this year, enough to know that were I American I would not vote for him in a pink fit. His selection of Palin merely puts him further away from any positions that I could possibly support.
As to your final paragraph, like Lauredhel I find it difficult to decipher, which I suspect is mostly down to you being disingenuous.
Sorry for not being clear. Also that in answering Lauredhel I’ll be seen to break the rules of engagement but it definitely counts as perspicacious imv. So, who agrees with Orlando?
Who says it’s OK to deem some women non-women as you call them honourary men while actively opposing them? When actually the woman body politic requires that a ‘feminism’ do the exact opposite and to disengage from partisan matters such as is on display here. Partisan disengagement is the classic kind of Women’s Electoral Lobby approach and I support it. Let the women who’ve joined the Democrat political party fight the partisan battle, or if you can’t resist the urge join them and campaign from within because if you don’t when your movement wants to lobby the next government for better services for women and girls then you will be at a disadvantage. (or the Aust. Labor Party [ALP] if in Australia) That way feminists can be the diplomats and hand out the kudos to political parties for taking women more seriously and the barracudda’s can get out of the kitchen.
If you are not in the Democrat Party why publicly campaign for them especially when doing so can come back to bite you and the movement you work for on its arse? So it is not a question of don’t take a stand from afar but of when to, and I say this stance is wrong (and preemptory) and counter productive. I have just noticed that a Socialist Unity piece has been linked to at Strange Times where they sayofPalin; “When she eventually starts giving media interviews she will do well, and she will talk directly to the anxieties of middle class Americans in small towns. America stands as a land divided.”
I totally disagree that the term “honorary man” is deeming a woman a non-woman. Perhaps you have some non-standard definition of the term “honorary”.
How can you ask this when so many planks in the platform of the Republican Party are clearly anti-feminist?
The Democrats are notorious for talking the feminist talk and then not walking the walk, but there is at least a chance of pushing Dems to fulfil their feminist rhetoric. If the Repubs get in and push through socially conservative nominees onto the Supreme Court while having the numbers to harden even more socially conservative legislation, where will women’s rights to bodily autonomy and equal pay for equal work be then?
I can’t see how it is either wrong or counter-productive to point out that the Republicans are an anti-feminist political party. The GOP’s nomination of a socially conservative femme who has actively opposed programs that help struggling women during her time in public office merely underlines this.
What? Please explain what you mean by barracuda in this context. Because it sounds somewhat vicious and dehumanising of women – particularly when read in light of this definition:
a woman manager in corporate america who will micromanage you or bite your ass
Also, who said feminists wanted to be diplomats? Is that not what is required of us over and over again, to people please and silence our own opinions, to speak in code when we know what we say will have approval? To work quietly in the background having our opinions ignored, co-opted, taken up strategically and discarded?
Well, see it isn’t *partisan* to say “Sarah Palin is being pushed as a victory to feminism and yet she is anti choice, anti sex ed, anti same sex rights – women’s rights are at risk” – and distance is irrelevant.
Well that’s the whole point – yes, we want to improve the social conditions of all women and girls, yes, of course “even” Palin and family – we will fight for her rights to live her life how she pleases, but it appears she will not fight for ours. Again, she has the right to run for office, and we have the right to denounce that campaign.
FP – Sarah Palin’s nickname since she played high school basketball has been Sarah Barracuda.
I’m pretty sure that was all that IY was referencing with her use of the term, although (edited to add (for the benefit of the terminally obtuse):) as a separate issue your reference to its usage as a slang term is quite fascinating, especially when one considers that in the song by Heart that Palin is using on the campaign (eta: much to their disgust) the eponymous “barracuda” is a predatory male recording executive.
Yeah, it’s way past time for that macro cascade. I’ll start:
Isn’t it technically correct that ‘honour’ would come through either men deeming women honourary men, or through its opposite women deeming men honourary women but when it comes to women, especially feminists deeming women honourary men there is nothing to do with honour; it’s straight out wrong and dehumanising.
When FP says feminists don’t want to be diplomats, we will speak out etc., (implying I am a putting forward a sexist ‘trope’, an honourary man, a door mat), it is rhetoric and her feeling good and militant and not about how one develops a winning strategy to establish say an abortion clinic as the Coalition for a Woman’s Right to Choose did when it advocated for the Pregnancy Advisory Clinic and was actively seeking bipartisan support for the measure over a period of years before its inception.
I didn’t use barracuda as an eponym for implying barracudda’s are male predators as suggested by the final comment of tig tog. I’d forgotten about the Heart song (great first album) I used the term because it is Palin’snickname, and due to the word limit to quickly describe the more cut and thrust required of women when they pursue feminist agendas in more mainstream political parties.
Your position is that it’s all pre-judged and to hell with what the current Tweedle candidates say, or their actual policies, because they (like the Libs) are fundamentally anti-woman and to be opposed everytime and the party of Tweedledum is to be ‘critically’ supported. I get that and don’t buy it. For me this means you’ll be correctly criticized for ‘wallowing.’ (tailing the pseudo-left as they tail the ALP/Dems) The masses of women will instead look for women to represent their views, and largely be on the side of those actually representing those views. I could continue…
I did not suggest that you did, I was merely discussing more generally the term. I specifically said that I presumed that you were only referring to Palin’s existing nickname.
This level of either incomprehension or misrepresentation is what makes people testy with you. That and the constant clumsy segues into your hobbyhorse of the “pseudo-left”.
Yawn.
Enough with the bitching about the word limit! Write your own post, please.
Except for the fact where the woman representing the views of women on the American right isn’t representing the views of the rest of American women, IY. And there are a lot of them considerably more moderate than Palin, probably the majority. And when Palin’s views have hurt women (see yesterday’s revelation of paying for rape kits), I think it’s pretty safe to say that she only represents women’s interests in the sense that she’s a woman and has interests. Not ‘women’s interests’ as a whole.
(Or are we talking Aussie politics now, in which case I have little knowledge and will duck out?)
Oh for crying out loud IY stop shifting the terms of the argument. I did not say feminists *don’t* want to be diplomats or to do x, y or z – *you* implied that what feminists *shoud/need to/have to* do is to join a party, play the diplomat, give kudos to the parties and then…get the barracuda’s out of the kitchen. Shall I point out you used a plural and non capitalised ‘barracudas’ and referred to getting them out of the kitchen. I asked for clarity as a/it didn’t make sense, and b/I maintain the phrase ‘the barracuda’s can get out of the kitchen’ (as if all that stands between feminism gaining acceptance, and what booting Singular Barricuda out of…the ‘kitchen’ is a bad attidude you could correct for us)
It all seemed to tie in to one para of “Feminism: You’re doing it wrong”.
What I said in response was “Who SAID feminists want to be diplomats?” – and pointed out the enourmous pressure on us to shut up when we complain, to play nice, the sort of pressure that your comments reflect when you suggest there is one way to do feminism, and it’s your way, ours is wrong and doing harm, and THAT is what I object to there.
I also love your little sleight of hand where you pretend it’s Hoydenizens et al who are ignoring her *actual policies* – that’s what this argument is all about. We’re under pressure to support someone whose politics operate on the assumption that it’s ok to deny women their choices *just because she is a woman* and apparently this represents some *magical shift* of thinking. It is THIS argument that ignores Palin’s actual policies.
No one here is telling you how to live your life, how to think, speak, vote and win friends with salad – it is this that I fundamentally object to, that you presume to tell others how *they* should “win the good fight”. The discussion of the Hoydenizens has been on policies, politics, the potential outcomes of the election, the media treatment of it, and the vitriol directed at feminists.
FP Not sure I understand the need for the long-winded ‘grammatical correction’. ALL, stop pretending that you don’t understand what I’ve said and stop twisting what I say to segue into what next suits your little whinge. If you expect commenters not to treat you as unintelligent it goes both ways. This is about ideas and discerning correct strategy not misrepresentation and correcting poor spelling and or grammar.
I also don’t understand why you’d say you feel pressured – this is my 5th post over a series of days. Also, I’ve implied nothing, but have stated my position baldly and sought to expose the limitations of the political ‘analysis’ of the ideas offered here. You need to look at yourself if that feels like being pressured.
ContrarytoFPassertion I have not presumed to tell anyone how to live their life, how to think, speak, vote, and win friends with salad” or said that Sarah Palin in any way represents a “magical shift”, but that McCain choosing Palin as VP has re-energised the U.S. election campaign and countered the ascendancy of the Demscampaign and that is keeping politics interesting.
FP, Tig tog and Mindy, I have not argued for you to support Sarah Palin because she is a woman but to at least allow her to give her first media interview as a VP candidate before labelling her unsupportable or embodying anti-woman policies. SP is a relative unknown until just under 2 weeks ago and so I criticized Hoydenizens for opposing her so actively from afar and at such an early stage in her run for office. I argued that this is counterproductive and that you need to look at your reasons for actively opposing her at this stage. FP accuses me of fabricating through ‘sleight of hand’ the idea you are ‘ignoring the policies’ when in fact it is your own statements that have caused you the grief you are now complaining of.
I have not argued for feminists to go out and join political parties I have said that it is strategically better for a woman’s movement to be non-party-political or at least bi-partisan. I said that if as a feminist you really believe that your party is the best for women then support the Democrats or whomever you most support by joining the good fight from the inside instead of watering down the potential of the correctly positioned women’s movement to lobby for services etc., from the outside.
How dare I presume to criticize the self-appointed representatives of all women for following a wrong political strategy?? Which planet are you from? Definitely not planet politics. If you are making your views public then be prepared to have them challenged and to defend them, or dump them.
An interview which she has been strenuously avoiding until the reporter promises to be “deferential”.
Seriously, wut? You know there’s a GOP platform, right? (Clue: it was posted here not long ago.) You know that their policies are, like, written down and stuff; we’re not all just whistling Dixie while we wait to find out what they’re about on the eve of the election? You know that the candidates have a record, and weren’t constructed last week in the Republican National Convention Frankenlab?
You’re way off base characterising a couple of women on a blog as THE Representatives of the Movement. If this is all your argument is predicated on, as it seems to be, you can stop right now, because you’re just.plain.wrong. (In fact, please do stop, unless you come up with something new to say. Tediosity, repetitivity, and insipidity are High Crimes and Misdemeanours around here.)
Back to that image cascade, people. Or failing that, feel free to play Bingo.
You’re acting as if Google isn’t my, yours and everybody else’s friend when looking up the public record of someone we never heard of 2 weeks ago. It’s all out there.
No kidding, Lauredhel…finding Sarah Palin’s proven political statements and record is simple. How dare we judge her for things she’s said and implied while in public office that are against established feminist and woman-friendly ideals! The leopard (barracuda?) might change her spots, after all!
I’m sorry, but that is not how political critique works, and in the US, people don’t just switch from that kind of political POV to something else, even to look good for a major race. The last thing the McCain/Palin campaign wants is to lose the evangelical vote, when that group was already dubious about supporting McCain.
Sarah Palin will not change viewpoints, for two reasons: she thinks God is behind her, and because a tactical switch like that is suicide for her ticket and any credibility she may yet have.
It’s not rocket science, we Americans really are as superficial as we seem here. But since I haven’t been heard by IY in any of this conversation, I’m not expecting much. God forbid I know something about just how bleeding virulent the far right can be in my own country.
Bene, word. The elephant in the room for IY’s arguments is also that the US election system offers no way to vote a Palin only ticket this year even for those who think/hope that she’s wearing a halo – to get her into the White House one still has to vote for McNasty McCain.
Anyone hoping that he’ll just drop off the twig and leave her to become Prez simply isn’t taking Cindy McCain’s squillions adequately into account: she’ll transform him into animatronic zombie Prez McCain before anyone has time to notice the body is cold, and the zombie will serve out the full term (probably make better speeches too).
A McCain presidency will make the electorate only too keen to punish anyone marginally associated with it at the subsequent ballot box, so don’t think Palin would make the presidency then either, no matter how much the far fundamentalist right might wish it otherwise – they’re still a minority at the ballot.
I’ve asked and asked for an image cascade, and you just drop this in there without so much as a mashup? For shame.
Sorry.
Of course, he’ll scrub up better once the make-up artists have been at him.
she’ll transform him into animatronic zombie Prez McCain before anyone has time to notice the body is cold, and the zombie will serve out the full term (probably make better speeches too).
Kind of like Kim Jong-ill (fully sic)? I read there was a rumour he’d been dead for four years already!
Let’s compare:
Clearly Cindy’s squillions are already showing an advantage in realistic function.
From this article by Katha Pollitt, who I love:
And she has 10 questions for her:
I haven’t had time to watch the interview you linked to, so I wonder whether any of those were asked!
More like Ronald Reagan and Nancy, people eater. It’s common knowledge she propped him up most of term two.
Gloria Steinem, always one with a gift for the pithy summation, lays it out clearly (emphasis mine):
For IY to suggest that criticising Palin, on the grounds of what is already easily discoverable about her political history and stated ideology, is “rushing to judgement” is simply one of the most ludicrous assertions I have ever read on the Web.
Yes, thanks for pointing that one out TT it was making my brain hurt. Just cos we know how to research…jeez.
Bene, I could only find a Robot Nixon and a zombie Reagan
zomg, robot Nixon. I still say W’s smirk pwns both, though. shudder.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed. If you wish to re-open this discussion, please leave a comment on the latest Open Thread.