MW: Real Feminists Don’t Support Sarah Palin. Or, the Democratic Party.
Posted by: madamab on: August 30, 2010
- In: Current Events | Feminism | Hillary Clinton | misogyny | Morning Widdershins | Obama | Open Thread | Patriarchy | Politics | Propaganda | Sexism | Women
- Comment!
fem·i·nism / ˈfeməˌnizəm/ • n. the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Source: The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, 2009.
Widdershins, ever since I read about Sarah Palin’s Facebook post on the anniversary of women’s suffrage, I have been in an incoherent rage. Why? Because she used the word “feminist” about eleventy thousand times – and it appears she’s dropped the word “conservative” as a mollifying modifier. As I have stated more than once, I feel La Palin’s using this word to describe herself is about as apropos as Newt Gingrich using the word “faithful husband” to describe himself. But how could I write about these feelings calmly, without degenerating into a string of expletives which would be more at home in a Tarantino film?
Thank goodness, someone else did it for me; two someones named Rebecca Traister and Anna Holmes, in their Op-Ed in Saturday’s New York Times entitled ”A Palin of Our Own.”
Ms. Palin, in turn, has been making a greedy grab at claiming feminism as her own. She recently marked the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment by expressing her gratitude “to those brave feminist foremothers who struggled and sacrificed, endured imprisonment and ridicule … to grant future generations of American women a voice.” On the same day, she sent out this Twitter message: “Who hijacked the term ‘feminist’? A cackle of rads who want 2 crucify other women w/ whom they disagree on a singular issue.”
Uh, no, Sarah. Not that anything would stop you from rewriting history to please yourself and your Party, but the word “feminist” means what it means and it has NEVER MEANT “against women’s civil rights,” as you and your fauxminist “mama grizzlies” are. If you want to be a feminist, you have to be pro-choice, because you must believe that women deserve the same rights over their reproductive system as men do. End of discussion for anyone who possesses both a dictionary and a modicum of intellectual honesty. As for the words “crucify” and “cackle,” don’t think Palin chose those words by accident. Despite the avowals of almost everyone on the left side of the spectrum, Sarah is not stupid. Too bad she is using her powers for eeeeevil instead of good.
Speaking of “good:”
…Ms. Palin has spent much of 2010 burnishing her political bona fides and extending her influence by way of the Mama Grizzlies, a gang of Sarah- approved, maverick-y female politicians looking to “take back” America with “common-sense” solutions.
Sure, the Grizzlies sound somewhat progressive on paper. But from their opposition to reproductive rights to their work against health care reform and labor policies that would empower American women, their ideas are just antiquated clichés dressed up in designer suits. Like Ms. Palin herself, their talk about being “mama bears” and “tough as an ox … wearing lipstick” simply reduces female candidates’ political prospects to maternal worth and sex appeal.
Well-written, ladies. There’s nothing new about this patriarchal claptrap, except the fact that an attractive, appealing woman is selling it as “feminism.”
So much for the elephant in the room. Now it’s time to talk about the donkey.
But the sad truth is that Democrats often prefer their women fulfilling similarly diminutive models for behavior. Consider how Hillary Clinton has been treated, at times, by those in her own party: Democratic leaders never really celebrated Mrs. Clinton’s nation-altering place in history as the first female candidate to get so close to a major party’s presidential nomination. Indeed, she is most appreciated when she plays well with others in the Senate or the State Department; when she behaves like a fierce competitor, she is compared to Glenn Close’s bunny-boiling virago from “Fatal Attraction.”
The left’s failure to nurture and celebrate female politicians has had a significant effect on its policies. In recent years, Democratic majorities and progressive legislation seem to have been built on steady trade-offs of reproductive rights, culminating this year when the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was forced to push through health care reform with a compromise on abortion financing.
Finally, FINALLY, lefty, feminist women are noticing that the Democrats are selling women down the river just as much as the Republicans are. Halle-freaking-lujah!
I’m not sure I agree with the authors’ prescription for future Democratic success, but it is interesting.
Imagine a Democrat willing to brag about breaking the glass ceiling at the explosive beginning, not the safe end, of her campaign. A liberal politician taking to Twitter to argue that big broods and a “culture of life” are completely compatible with reproductive freedom. A female candidate on the left who speaks as angrily and forcefully about her rivals’ shortcomings as Sarah Barracuda does about the Pelosis and Obamas of the world. A smart, unrelenting female, who, unlike Ms. Palin, wants to tear down, not reinforce, traditional ways of looking at women. But that will require a party that is eager to discover, groom, promote and then cheer on such a progressive Palin. (emphasis mine)
Yes, and the Democratic Party is not that Party; and at this point, I don’t see it ever becoming that Party. It seems that Holmes and Traister are finally realizing that.
Perhaps their op-ed is a sign of things to come; a dim light in the darkness of today’s political landscape. For if you don’t support Palin’s twisted form of feminism or the Democrats’ (iron my?) pink t-shirt form of condescension, then maybe, just maybe, you can see your way clear to supporting real feminism wherever it is found, regardless of Party affiliation,
Could be. Who knows?
This is an open thread.
Like this:
43 Responses to "MW: Real Feminists Don’t Support Sarah Palin. Or, the Democratic Party."
August 30, 2010 at 9:08 AM
@1 – I know, right? I was shocked that this type of subversive article was allowed to besmirch the Grey Lady’s august pages.
That’s why it gives me hope. These are pretty mainstream feminists who supported Obama in 2008. If they’ve come around to this point of view and were published in the Times, perhaps these ideas are spreading.
If women could get together and stand up for their rights the way they did in the past, we might be able to reverse our country’s descent into theocracy.
If Saturday’s rally is any indication, Palin, Beck and their God Warriors are more than ready for their jihad against the Constitution and secular government. Will anyone fight back? I sure hope so!
August 30, 2010 at 9:13 AM
Between Sarah Palin rewriting feminism and Glenn Beck rewriting American history . . . I am in a serious funk. Post a brewin’ but I’m having trouble corraling my rage (just like you MB).
August 30, 2010 at 9:58 AM
BL, why would a bunch of white conservatives pretending they are taking on MLK’s mantle be upsetting to you? I think it was just peachy! (SNARK!)
August 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM
And let’s not forget, as Judge Walker pointed out in the Prop 8 ruling, not legalizing marriage for gays, is not only gender discrimination, but it is sex discrimination as it relates to lesbians.
This hypothetical glass-ceiling breaker needs to come out swinging with that too. Confront all the discriminations based on homegrown Fundamentalist dogma from the get-go.
They are going to have to figure out a way to frame the discussion to open up that can of worms on the public stage. Where is the woman that can put that in perspective and communicate that?
If the erosion of separation of church and state is not addressed at the same time, everything else will be half-measures. We need someone to help us frame that language.
The Fundamentalist have the upper and they know it. They just pull out the “Religious Hater” card to shut down the dialogue. It has worked for way too long.
Now we have the public service announcement for Jesus Camp on the national stage.
August 30, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Some wag mentioned that if Sarah Palin looked more like a “grizzly” herself she would have disappeared from view long ago.
Her defenders can’t quite make up their minds: they decry any criticism of her on the grounds that “she is not running for office” and therefore should be free of any attacks.
On the other hand, you have those who declare that she has every right to share her specious comments since she is a possible future presidential candidate and should be taken seriously.
She has been declared a “feminist” solely by means of her gender because her words do not indicate that she has any interest in defending or fighting for women’s issues yet the argument prevails around this label.
Why this woman, with her lack of knowledge on most critical issues, continues to attract attention every time she sends out a “tweet” or posts a Facebook commentary is beyond my understanding. It would seem to me that her constant mention of the fact that she “chose” to go forward with a complicated pregnancy and would seek to deny that same choice to another woman would be enough to uphold her very hypocrisy with regard to this one issue alone.
Feminist? No. Opportunist? Absolutely.
Defending her positions simply on the grounds of gender is what drives this faux label. Many women are considered “sexist” by even the merest suggestion that Sarah Palin is unfit for office based on her own performance. A critical look is often drowned out claims of “misogyny” and her the “victimization” she wraps herself in.
Remove the glamour and the celebrity she enjoys and you have just another radical right winger who poses a dangerous path on the road to equality for women’s rights.
August 30, 2010 at 10:33 AM
Absolutely, LTD. This hypothetical “Palin of Our Own” would have to be anti-theocracy and pro-Constitution, which would mean pro-LGBT equality as well.
Pat, there is another reason why Palin is so powerful: She has the support of powerful people and entities. The Repubs actually supported her for VP and the Tea Party is supporting her as their conservative Messiah. There are no lefty women who currently enjoy such backing.
August 30, 2010 at 10:50 AM
madamab: I agree she enjoys the financial support of some very powerful right wingers, but I do sort of disagree that she was “supported” by the Repubs during the election. Many of that base chose to remain home rather than casting votes for that ticket.
Her strongest base is among the fundies, granted, but there are enough women out there who still believe it is their “duty” to defend and support her even as her positions toward feminists views flies in the face of logic.
They keep comparing her to Hillary Clinton, the true and proven champion of women’s rights for decades, in constantly referring to the criticism of her positions and utterances as “victimization”.
My position is and always has been: you cannot call yourself a “feminist” if you would deny women the right to choose their own destiny. Period. For me the argument is lost by insisting that what Palin represents is “good” for women when by any stretch of the imagination it is quite possibly the “worst”.
The left had its “face of feminism” in Hillary Clinton. They chose to trade that in for a man who has not intention in defending, upholding, or fighting for those rights.
The idiocy of not looking beyond her positions and portraying her as “misunderstood” and a “victim” of the mainstream media is what is driving this train. Had a male politician holding these same views be covered as generously as this woman does they would have been rightly vilified and openly challenged by feminists for holding the same indefensible views.
August 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
@9 – Unlike Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin was allowed to become a candidate from her Party. I am speaking of the national leadership that spent time, money and energy promoting her. Hillary Clinton was sabotaged by her own Party from the beginning of her candidacy.
If you are talking about voters, Hillary was actually MORE supported by the Democratic base as a primary candidate, than Palin was by the Republican base as a VP nominee. So, we are in agreement there.
I also agree that Hillary was the one the authors of the article were waiting for. But they saw her as too old and too centrist to be relevant. They even say so in the article, that Hillary’s generation sees touting their feminist creds as impossible.
Well, I think it was pretty clear, from both Hillary’s record and her campaign, that she stood for all women. She was held to a standard (by “progressive” feminists) that would have been impossible for any candidate for U.S. President to meet; and they did not hold Obama to the same standard. They, and almost every other “progressive” feminist, are partially to blame for what happened to Hillary Clinton; however, I believe that the Party was determined to nominate Obama no matter what, so the largest part of the blame must be placed squarely at the Democrats’ feet, as the authors do so well.
August 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM
And, I will add, the Republican rhetoric about revising the 14th Amendment to deny automatic citizenship, was sexist too. It blatantly was recommending we deny the reproductive rights of a women to have a child where ever she wants to in the world.
Oh, we heard the cries of “Racism”, but who in the mainstream media pointed out the sexism. Who from the left reframed it with the reproductive rights of both a woman. Talk about the epitome of separate but equal. You can have your baby elsewhere but not here.
What? Were they calling for a Catholic, as the majority of Hispanics are, to take birth control or have an abortion? What “Palin of Our Own” came out swinging to counter that Fundamentalist hypocrisy.
August 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM
“I believe that the Party was determined to nominate Obama no matter what, so the largest part of the blame must be placed squarely at the Democrats’ feet, as the authors do so well.”
I started pointing that the DNC planned the Democratic nominee acceptance speech on the anniversary of “I Have a Dream” as far as way back from January of 2008.
Oh, it was okay for the DNC to use MLK to manufacture their historic moment dream but not for Beck? Did Sharpton point that out at his rally on Saturday? Fuck no.
August 30, 2010 at 11:25 AM
My biggest fear is that should this unqualified woman actually secure the nomination, that the groundswell of her support may increase due to women who feel duty bound to “correct” that treatment of Hillary by spitting in the eye of the leadership who pushed her aside.
I too am disenchanted with the party bigwhigs who thrust President Indifferent onto the national scene but to use that as an excuse to “get even” is treacherous for the outcome.
I can almost guarantee that many women will get onboard with the promise of “breaking that ceiling” and calling to mind the “historic nature” of a female in the WH aside from the undesirability of the candidate leading the charge.
This possibility is what gives me nightmares.
August 30, 2010 at 11:35 AM
Yes, LTD, it is sexist too. And I agree wholeheartedly that the DNC co-opted MLK’s legacy as well, but at least it was somewhat apropos in that they were celebrating the nomination of the first black person to be President, instead of touting a jihad against secular government in America. Sadly, Obama’s policies are in direct contradiction to everything MLK believed in, as we know.
Pat, I am quite sure that there will be plenty of women who will vote for Palin, if she runs, because she’s a woman. That is her only selling point; well, that, and her political savvy.
I hope that at some point some other, non-patriarchal entity will start supporting women the way Palin has been supported. Whether it’s the Democrats or NOW or some other group of lefty women, it hardly matters; but I believe whomever this “Palin of our own” would be, needs an organization behind her. I think that American women are ready for this type of leader, just as we were ready in 2008. But this person can’t emerge unless she has the resources to break through the anti-feminist forces that will be arrayed against her.
August 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Every Hillary supporter that jumped for joy when Harriet Christian came out saying “An Inadequate Black Male” sat up this “Unqualified Woman” dynamic too. Many of those woman went to the McCain camp to ask that a woman be put on the ticket and asked that be Palin. Now if they wanted to manipulate getting Palin on the ticket in 2012 so only Hillary can be the one to run and beat her, well screw them for setting up their manufactured historic moment too. I am so sick of these manufactured historic moments that I can’t see straight.
August 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM
It is one thing to vote for an inexperienced woman for VP, and quite another to vote for an inexperienced woman for President. Not to mention that when she was put on the ticket, Palin was known as a moderate Republican governor with a high approval rating. It was not until she quit the governorship and started running around endorsing every fundiegelical on the planet, that people really started understanding how radical she is.
August 30, 2010 at 11:52 AM
I think we can all agree on the essence of the argument as we have been together for too long not to know where we are all coming from.
I have only two points of disagreement: one is that Palin was “plucked from obscurity” in a shallow attempt to entice the disaffected Hillary supporters a mere 12 weeks before the election itself. She did not campaign for it as did Hillary who worked her butt off, she was selected based on craven politics and an unvetted process to bridge a gap. No one outside of Alaska knew who the hell she was. The McCain staff even admitted to “googling” a name of a female GOPer who held elective office and her name popped up. We have been stuck with her ever since.
As for Obama and the MLK speech date, at least he held the rightful claim to make an appearance on that date owing to his ethnicity. I agree that this site was “chosen” far in advance of the nominating outcome, but at least he shares his ethnicity far more than that of Beck or Palin who just wanted to elicit a “poke in the eye” to civil rights by holding that simultaneous “event” on that date.
Crass.
August 30, 2010 at 12:07 PM
@16 I disagree, MB. She revealed her Fundiegelical (good one, cackle) when she said “I tolerate” the homosexual lifestyle, “I tolerate” homosexuals while saying, “One of my best friends is a lesbian” in the same breath, three or more times in the VP debate.
I pointed that out to “that” group of women, those will shall not name, on the night of the VP debate, and that started my journey of getting a long string of STFU, or subtle attempts to shut my voice down, on those ThatGroupLand boards long ago.
August 30, 2010 at 12:14 PM
@18 – Well, many of us felt that since she did not govern according to her personal beliefs, it did not matter; at least, that was my position. Once she quit, she let her true colors show. After all her pushing of extremely right-wing candidates during the 2009 and 2010 Republican primaries, one can hardly claim she would not be just as right-wing as President.
August 30, 2010 at 12:44 PM
I do not want to rehash the past. That is not my intent. I only bring this up now because, if Hillary did run, I would be supporting her lifelong commitment to civil rights which is why I got involved in two party politics in the primary, but not many people I met along the way. I will have one hard decision to make not because of Hillary but because of them. “That group” needs to start taking responsible for their part now if they want to help Hillary if she were to run. They better start figuring out a way to extract themselves of the tangled web they helped to weave, whether they intended to weave such a web or not. I will drop it now.
August 30, 2010 at 1:52 PM
No problem with me, LTD. I do think it would be quite interesting to see how these women would vote if the choice were between Palin and Clinton for President.
BTW – love your new gravatar!
August 30, 2010 at 2:03 PM
not only did Stupid sarah Highjack Feminism she HighJacked the bear movement to I take great acceptance to that as well since I am sure Ms Palin and her possie shave!
August 30, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Thanks, MB. I guess I’ve gone so far Green that the little pink triangle just ain’t enough anymore. But I did score on that random pick that fit me too. Unlike Pat’s old one with the tape over it’s mouth. Cackle. That so wasn’t her. I love the Green Parties new logo. It shows some fight in them. Love their one with Rosie the Riveter too!
August 30, 2010 at 2:13 PM
@ 22 Cackle (My newly re-embraced word today)
The Bear Movement definitely does not discriminate in gender or orientation or meaning!
August 30, 2010 at 2:13 PM
@22 – LOL! Yes, how dare she call herself a “bear” of any sort!
August 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM
And in another vein. I sure would like to know if has endorsed shooting “Bears” for population control like the wolves. I do know as Gov that she wanted that Polar “Bear” off the endangered species list so she could lather up with some oil.
August 30, 2010 at 2:46 PM
I remember she said the polar bears weren’t really endangered. That was ridiculous.
I’m off for a while. High Holy Days are coming up, and I have my first rehearsal tonight. Oy vey! 
August 30, 2010 at 5:06 PM
On my way to rehearsal, I just saw that Bristol Palin is going to be on “Dancing with the Stars.”
Remember when the word “star” actally meant something?!
August 30, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Young feminists – are there any that understand what the word means? My own daughter is learning, now that she is out in the work force, that all my “diatribes” were spot on. Unfortunately, she’s no further ahead than I was 30 years ago, cause to misquote an empty meaningless Virginia Slims ad slogan? – Baby, we haven’t come a long way. Quite the contrary, we’ve lost ground. And btw, she makes less than what I did thirty years ago, and she has better educational qualifications.
August 30, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Like I’ve said before — the word feminists is now meaningless.
If the rat fuc*er 0bowma is called a feminist — and he is certainly is not — by MS mag and the hags who fawned after him — then that word is now useless.
Let her and Him have the word and move on.
We are in the middle of a vast realignment where words are now meaningless.
I’m just sitting back and watching show.
I’d like to return to a time when the good guys and gals wear the white hats and the villains wear black.
August 30, 2010 at 7:02 PM
In the last thread I posted a Youtube of Isabel Allende taliking about stories of passion its worth a watch because she talks about feminism and specifically what it should be called if people think the term is dated….
August 30, 2010 at 7:03 PM
I like the Term Womynist myself or am I just being PC?
August 30, 2010 at 7:13 PM
@31 – NWR – you’ve got a point there. I think I’ll just stick with Humanist. The fundies run like that one like the wicked witch ran from water.
August 30, 2010 at 7:19 PM
Fuzzy, I watched that video – Isabel Allende is quite a profound woman, and the video is well worth the time – had me in tears at the end, because of what we could have had, and what we have lost.
August 30, 2010 at 8:20 PM
We need to stop giving them all our good words. IMHO. I’ll let go of “feminist” when I’m dead.
August 30, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Sorry for the dramatics, but I feel very strongly about this. I don’t mind if people use other words like “humanist” or “womynist” too, but I don’t think the cartoonish Miss Sarah and her tribe of poseurs should get to call themselves feminists. Hell to the no!
August 30, 2010 at 9:09 PM
I know what you mean Madamab. Seems like all the terms we held dear, like Liberal and Feminist have been co-opted and turned against us. Smart marketing on their part, but it hurts. I will always be a Liberal, and I will always be a Feminist – both in the traditional sense. FDR and Eleanor are my heroes and always will be.
August 30, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Well we finally found something that we can only pry from Madamab’s cold dead fingers and suprize its not made by smith and wesson!
I love feminist to I will always wear that title with pride as long as you let me!
August 30, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Amen, HT!
LOL, Fuzzy! Darn right my pacifist hands won’t be gripping a gun anytime soon! But as far as I’m concerned, you will always be a feminist and a bear – two things Palin isn’t!
August 30, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Problem is that the “conservative” women (gop) really don’t understand words —
Many get confused and think that feminist has to do with sexuality — and the fundies are scared shi*less of sexuality.
In the 70s to until a few years ago the word feminist was twisted to mean — man hating, castrating bit*h. This was probably the result of the fundies and their hatred of women and they drive to subjugate all women.
Then there are the highly evolved males who know that the only way that the human race is going to survive is if they realize that the true meaning of feminism (as defined so clearly at the top of this discussion) is an empowering force for both males and females.
gop women seem to be the tools and servants of the patriarchy — the patriarchy is our lethal enemy. They are the true evil in this world. The patriarchy plays with words — twists words.
The fauxfems who turned on Hilary Clinton tarnished the feminist brand.
It used to be a good word but the majority of people don’t even know the true definition of the word. The word has been redefined by the fauxfems and the hate radio jerks.
WE are in the middle of a life and death struggle of good and evil — and I don’t believe in that crap any more. It could be devolution vs moral evolution?
August 30, 2010 at 10:00 PM
Northwest, I couldn’t agree more. Feminism is not about sexuality, it’s about EQUALITY, and all that encompasses. And yes, I remember the twisting of the word feminism to mean hairy women harridans who hated men and would castrate in a moment’s notice. Geez, you’re revisiting all the insults I had to endure in the 60′s and 70′s, and good grief, it’s forty years later and we’ve moved where? Nowhere. And while I’m on the Hyde Park dais, Sarah Palin, while I admire her grit, is the worst thing to happen to feminism since – Barack Obama. Geez, I wish that Brad Pitt had decided to run for President. He would have mowed down all the opposition (not Angelina of course, because, although she is arguably more intelligent and engaged, she has those scary lady parts). My point, Neither Brad nor Angelina is qualified, nor should they ever be considered, yet they have a vastly superior resume to both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. JMHO of course, but George Clooney has a superior resume. Do I want any of them to run – of course not, however, the comparisons are interesting are they not.
Comments are closed.
L 2012 – Support Your Local Lefties!
Recent Comments
 | madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | Eddie on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | HT on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on Happy New Year – We… |
August 30, 2010 at 8:20 AM
Wait, this article appeared in the NY Times? Did their presses not explode?