Palin Goes Rogue on Feminism

[Puppycow]

Hannah Rosin and Emily Bazelon nail Palin on her dismissive attitude about feminism while hypocritically complaining of sexism.

Loves the gender equality, hates the people who fought for the gender equality.

For example:

Quote:

Sarah Palin likes Title IX because it allowed her to play basketball, which is something elite Northeastern women apparently don’t do. She writes that she is “proud” of the legislation and a “product” of it. But then one paragraph later, she quotes an obscure book ranting against the National Organization for Women and other “so-called ‘women’s groups’” that got it passed. She does not attempt to reconcile these two views.

[Ziggurat]

Why do people who like George Washington not like slavery?

Unless you can get more specific about where this supposed contradiction is, then you aren't really asking for consistency, you're asking for ideological rigidity.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why do people who like George Washington not like slavery?

Bad analogy. A better one would be someone who loves the American revolution, but hates Washington, Jefferson, the Minutemen, etc.

Quote:

Unless you can get more specific about where this supposed contradiction is, then you aren't really asking for consistency, you're asking for ideological rigidity.

The contradiction is in celebrating the results of feminism, and trash-talking the people who got those results.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why do people who like George Washington not like slavery?

Unless you can get more specific about where this supposed contradiction is, then you aren't really asking for consistency, you're asking for ideological rigidity.

I thought he was

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Loves the gender equality, hates the people who fought for the gender equality.

Actively acknowledging the benefits gained for you by a movement, while disparigang the movement is somewhat contradictory.

And the Washington reference is a complete non-sequitor. The closest you come is liking a movement/person (Washington) but non-liking something that he did not create. The fact that Washington did not end slavery is completely irrelevant to the analogy you seem to be trying to make. People tend to like movements/people for what they did do, not what they did not do.

[Brainster]

It should be a rule that no woman can ever question any aspect of feminism if they have benefited from it in any way.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Cleon

The contradiction is in celebrating the results of feminism, and trash-talking the people who got those results.

Why is that a contradiction? Does having done something good immunize one from any criticism? It might perhaps reflect some ingratitude, but you'll have to do more than this to demonstrate a contradiction.

[Eyeron]

It should be a rule that no person can ever question any aspect of (liberalism, conservatism, religion, etc) if they have benefited from it in any way.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It should be a rule that no woman can ever question any aspect of feminism if they have benefited from it in any way.

But what "aspect" of feminism is she "questioning"? The thing in the OP just says: "ranting against the National Organization for Women and other “so-called ‘women’s groups’” that got it [Title IX] passed".

An actual quote from Palin's book would be nice at this point.

[Morrigan]

If she said something like "While I appreciate their effort in accomplishing X, I find that their current actions regarding Y is questionable"... I would see no contradiction. But somehow, I suspect she wasn't so rational.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Brainster

It should be a rule that no woman can ever question any aspect of feminism if they have benefited from it in any way.

Criticizing what a person says is not the same as saying a person should not be allowed to say what they say. No-one is denying Palin's first amendment rights.

[The Fool]

Just want to point out something, especially to those that still have to talk her up because there may still be an outside chance that you are forced to support her in the future.

What I want to point out is that the Lady is a joke. The whole world is laughing...Not with you....at you.

What stupidity ever spawned this person onto the political stage....as the GOP vice presidential nominee no less ??? Good grief.


please imagine a long line of laughing dogs....I can never find the right icon.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by The Fool

What I want to point out is that the Lady is a joke. The whole world is laughing...Not with you....at you.

Of all the criticisms of Palin, this one rings among the hollowest. Palin is not universally admired, but she is still very popular among a lot of people. Whatever your opinion of Palin or the people who like her, "the whole world" is rather obviously not laughing at her or her supporters, because a big chunk of the world is those supporters. Them's the facts, fool, however much you might wish it were otherwise. And sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everyone laughs along with you won't change that.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of all the criticisms of Palin, this one rings among the hollowest. Palin is not universally admired, but she is still very popular among a lot of people. Whatever your opinion of Palin or the people who like her, "the whole world" is rather obviously not laughing at her or her supporters, because a big chunk of the world is those supporters. Them's the facts, fool, however much you might wish it were otherwise. And sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everyone laughs along with you won't change that.

Well, yesterday, Ms. Palin came to my State (IN) to do some signing for her book tour and and this was discussed on the weekly political round table, Indiana Week in Review, in the evening on NPR. Before you dismiss NPR as liberal, the round table includes two memebers from the state assembly from each party and occasionaly the governer, a Republican (although not last night). The Republicans, while not exactly laughing at her, were very clear that they did not consider her a serious candidate. One pointed out that while she does well with a part of the Republican party, that demographic is enough for a successful nationwide book tour, but nowhere enough for a successful national political campaign.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by The Fool

Just want to point out something, especially to those that still have to talk her up because there may still be an outside chance that you are forced to support her in the future.

What I want to point out is that the Lady is a joke. The whole world is laughing...Not with you....at you.

What stupidity ever spawned this person onto the political stage....as the GOP vice presidential nominee no less ??? Good grief.


please imagine a long line of laughing dogs....I can never find the right icon.

You might go back to an older post of mine in which I describe her variation on the Peter Principle. Consider it the Palin Principle (or corolary) as the Peter principle applied specifically to politics: people tend to rise to the level of their incompetence, in her case, the one step beyond Governor of Alaska. At that level, she seems to have been successful enough. The next level seems to be beyond her, still, though not for a lack of effort. I offer that President G W Bush is an OK example of the Palin Principle.

DR

[Whiplash]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of all the criticisms of Palin, this one rings among the hollowest. Palin is not universally admired, but she is still very popular among a lot of people. Whatever your opinion of Palin or the people who like her, "the whole world" is rather obviously not laughing at her or her supporters, because a big chunk of the world is those supporters. Them's the facts, fool, however much you might wish it were otherwise. And sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everyone laughs along with you won't change that.

It's wishful thinking for some of them, sadly. They just handwave her as irrelevant and really think that that's reality and closes the deal.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by cwalner

The Republicans, while not exactly laughing at her, were very clear that they did not consider her a serious candidate.

No surprise there: she's dangerous to the Republican establishment, because she comes from outside it, has no allegiance to it, and is willing to oppose it. It's not just democrats who view her as a potential threat. One need only look at what happened in NY 23 to see the tension here.

Quote:

One pointed out that while she does well with a part of the Republican party, that demographic is enough for a successful nationwide book tour, but nowhere enough for a successful national political campaign.

Quite possibly true. Doesn't make what the fool said any less foolish.

[Eyeron]

Hmmm... Palin goes rouge on pessimism.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by cwalner

Actively acknowledging the benefits gained for you by a movement, while disparigang the movement is somewhat contradictory.

I think this is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why can't people support some, but not all, of the goals of the feminist movement?


I think it's a bit like saying that anyone who opposed Soviet-style communism can't be happy about overthrowing the Czar.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think this is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why can't people support some, but not all, of the goals of the feminist movement?


I think it's a bit like saying that anyone who opposed Soviet-style communism can't be happy about overthrowing the Czar.

A better analogy would be somebody accepting royal patronage from the Czar while supporting the revolution on anti-monarchistic grounds. I will concede that this can, in certain circumstances, be justified, but so far, in her case, Palin has made no attempt to reconcile the discrepency or make any such justification.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Hmmm... Palin goes rouge on pessimism.

Boy, is her face red.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of all the criticisms of Palin, this one rings among the hollowest. Palin is not universally admired, but she is still very popular among a lot of people. Whatever your opinion of Palin or the people who like her, "the whole world" is rather obviously not laughing at her or her supporters, because a big chunk of the world is those supporters. Them's the facts, fool, however much you might wish it were otherwise. And sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everyone laughs along with you won't change that.

Just reminded me of an article in today's paper.

Originally Posted by Muriel Gray

[....] And there she is, folks. Sarah Palin. The poster girl for breathtaking idiocy. This gimlet-eyed, egomaniacal half-wit is surfing the wave towards a presidential campaign largely on the back of her religion. Her supporters, above all, paint her as a “woman of faith”. Palin’s faith is a most peculiar kind of Christianity. Jesus would have been unlikely to be a fervent supporter of the National Rifle Association, of which Palin is a lifetime member, given that he was apparently keen on not killing people. Palin disagrees with her god and thinks all households should have guns, including semi-automatic weapons with which to kill people more efficiently. She also thinks women should not have abortions and she has time for creationism as an alternative theory to Darwinism. She believes that men should be the head of the household, that homosexuality is just plain wrong and gay marriage should be abolished; that some books may be morally bad for people and shouldn’t be easily available; that health care should not be universal for all; and that global warming is just a theory because it interferes with her pipeline plans in Alaska.

But let’s be clear. Palin is no Thomas More, ready to die for her beliefs. As with Bush, much of her religious posturing is constantly revealed as hypocrisy or self-serving convenience. In other words Palin is a thoroughly nasty little piece of work who wants to bring a repressive, right-wing religious agenda back into the White House and curtail the freedoms of her fellow citizens, but since she has neither the intellect nor the poise of Obama to help her she is travelling instead on the ticket of the folksy supernatural.

But let’s ask again. How can a country so smart in so many other ways be so stupid as to take this individual seriously? Who are these people who turn out in their thousands to support her? What intelligence gap has occurred in this supremely clever country that leaves them open to such blatantly moronic posturing? Have they learned nothing whatsoever from the tidal wave of global destruction their last educationally subnormal evangelist launched from Washington? If we in Europe are going to have to fight against the threat of a new religious repression, that the wonderful Peter Tatchell rails against, we are going to need the Americans’ help. Wouldn’t it be tricky if that threat came from them?

Maybe laughing isn't the right word. But however many "admirers" she has in America, I don't think "a big chunk" of anywhere else is falling at her feet.

Rolfe.

[Eyeron]

Quote:

Why can't people support some, but not all, of the goals of the feminist movement?

Which feminist movement?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No surprise there: she's dangerous to the Republican establishment, because she comes from outside it, has no allegiance to it, and is willing to oppose it. It's not just democrats who view her as a potential threat.

Yep, she is dangerous...note the following from March 2009:

Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday picked an Anchorage judge to fill the latest vacancy on the Alaska Supreme Court despite efforts by a conservative Christian group to convince her to do otherwise.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen, on the bench since 2002, will be just the second woman named to the high court in the 50 years since statehood.

"Alaska's Supreme Court bears the awesome responsibility of ensuring that our court system administers justice in firm accordance with the principles laid down in our state Constitution," Palin said in a written statement. "I have every confidence that Judge Christen has the experience, intellect, wisdom and character to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice."

Morgan Christen, a former Planned Parenthold board member and one who was very much opposed by the religious right.

More likely that Palin thinks independantly, and won't toe a party line, than that she fits the stereotypes that are trying to be shoved on her.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Maybe laughing isn't the right word. But however many "admirers" she has in America, I don't think "a big chunk" of anywhere else is falling at her feet.

Doesn't matter. A big chunk of America is still a big chunk of the world.

Oh, and your choice of links? It's rather pathetic, in fact. It's filled with rather obvious strawmen. For example, the claim that "Palin disagrees with her god and thinks all households should have guns" is a lie. That's not her position, and it's not the position of the NRA.

Really, Rolfe, you're smarter than this. I know you don't like Palin, and you're certainly entitled to not like her. She's not above criticism. But do you have to make such criticism so transparently pathetic? Surely you can do better than the fool did. It's really kind of sad to see so many people shut their brains off when they start attacking Palin.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Doesn't matter. A big chunk of America is still a big chunk of the world.

The USA has approximately 5% of the world's population.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

The USA has approximately 5% of the world's population.

And her supporters don't comprise a big chunk of the U.S. population. So we're talking about a minority of 5% of the world's population (i.e. substantially less than 50% of 5%).

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Bad analogy. A better one would be someone who loves the American revolution, but hates Washington, Jefferson, the Minutemen, etc.



The contradiction is in celebrating the results of feminism, and trash-talking the people who got those results.

You have to understand the mind-set. If it helps me, it's a great moral good.
If it helps someone I don't like it's bad.

Simple isn't it.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Which feminist movement?

And that's a good point, too. (Of course, it isn't sufficiently detailed to know what you were actually thinking, so I'll project my thoughts onto your statement, and it will be a good point.)

The changed status of women in today's society was brought about by a heck of a lot of different people, and many of them claim the feminist mantle despite holding opposite views on some issues. NOW and similar groups were one part of a coalition that helped bring about that change. It's inaccurate for someone to say that she is criticizing the people who brought about that change.

[Eyeron]

I wasn't trying to make a point, I just wanted to know which style of feminism you were referring to because i was little confused.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

The USA has approximately 5% of the world's population.

Did I say anything about a majority? No, I believe I did not. But, say, 40 million people is still a big chunk. There are lots of big chunks of the world, because the world is very big. Not to mention that if you really want to take this approach, then it STILL doesn't rescue the fool's claim, because much (and perhaps even an absolute majority) of the world probably doesn't even have an opinion of Sarah Palin, and so wouldn't be laughing at her or her supporters.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Did I say anything about a majority? No, I believe I did not. But, say, 40 million people is still a big chunk. There are lots of big chunks of the world, because the world is very big. Not to mention that if you really want to take this approach, then it STILL doesn't rescue the fool's claim, because much (and perhaps even an absolute majority) of the world probably doesn't even have an opinion of Sarah Palin, and so wouldn't be laughing at her or her supporters.

Would it be fair to say a vast majority of the developed world finds her interesting in a hilarious way, then?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Would it be fair to say a vast majority of the developed world finds her interesting in a hilarious way, then?

If you've got polls showing something to that effect, yes. If that's just your suspicion, well, that's not really very authoritative. And if popular opinion, especially an imagined one, is what you base your own evaluation of Palin on, that would be kind of sad.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Doesn't matter. A big chunk of America is still a big chunk of the world.

Oh, and your choice of links? It's rather pathetic, in fact. It's filled with rather obvious strawmen. For example, the claim that "Palin disagrees with her god and thinks all households should have guns" is a lie. That's not her position, and it's not the position of the NRA.

Really, Rolfe, you're smarter than this. I know you don't like Palin, and you're certainly entitled to not like her. She's not above criticism. But do you have to make such criticism so transparently pathetic? Surely you can do better than the fool did. It's really kind of sad to see so many people shut their brains off when they start attacking Palin.

Even quite a big chunk of America is a tiny minority of the world.

If you don't like Muriel Gray's article, don't read it. It's an example of what's being published in the non-US press. I doubt if you'd find a single admiring article about Palin outside the USA. And "not-the-USA" does actually comprise quite a big chunk of the world.

Rolfe.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

*snip* And "not-the-USA" does actually comprise quite a big chunk of the world.

Rolfe.

Something which, for some strange reason, seems to be an endless source of surprise for a great many USA citizens

Hans

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

If you don't like Muriel Gray's article, don't read it. It's an example of what's being published in the non-US press. I doubt if you'd find a single admiring article about Palin outside the USA.

Quite the rigorous sampling method you've got going there, Rolfe.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Of all the criticisms of Palin, this one rings among the hollowest. Palin is not universally admired, but she is still very popular among a lot of people. Whatever your opinion of Palin or the people who like her, "the whole world" is rather obviously not laughing at her or her supporters, because a big chunk of the world is those supporters. Them's the facts, fool, however much you might wish it were otherwise. And sticking your head in the sand and pretending that everyone laughs along with you won't change that.

Sure if you think between Palin supporters and 9/11 conspiracy believers you have about 50% of the country right there.

Her problem here is that she is incapable of articulating a nuanced position.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think this is an example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why can't people support some, but not all, of the goals of the feminist movement?

There is no problem with that. The problem is that she is no where near articulate enough to present such a position. Is there any evidence that she has ever presented a nuanced position on anything?

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I doubt if you'd find a single admiring article about Palin outside the USA.

This isn't overwhelmingly admiring, but it's probably at least reasonably balanced. http://www.economist.com/world/unite...ry_id=14915160

Quote:

Some women think her feminism is fake. But others are inspired by the way she has juggled five kids and a career. When she first joined the Wasilla city council, she found it full of patronising old men. But she took her baby daughter to meetings, breastfed her while recording radio spots and “didn’t care too much what the good ol’ boys said about it.” She made enemies the right way—by shaking up the corrupt culture of her own party. And when she was elected the first female governor of America’s most lopsidedly male state, she worked well with Democrats, largely avoiding divisive social issues in favour of practical ones, such as oil and gas. At one point she was America’s most popular governor, in that nearly 90% of Alaskans approved of her. But all that changed when Senator John McCain thrust her into the national spotlight.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Quite the rigorous sampling method you've got going there, Rolfe.

It the sampling method of "what I read in yesterday's paper". If I'd read a piece praising Palin, I'd have mentioned it. I haven't, not yesterday and not in the time since she first came to international attention.

Even the one Francesca found, is more "balanced" than admiring, and most of the positive things are simply giving reasons why she is popular among some segmnents of the US population.

Rolfe.

[Meadmaker]

I think the Economist piece shows that she was doing great in her niche, but she just wasn't ready for prime time.

I'm not sure that that, by itself, is a knock against her. I think US presidential politics is pretty ridiculous, with the "gotcha" politics, sound bites, the fake scandals, and the general tendency toward muckraking. Still, like it or not, those are the rules, and she couldn't play them very well.