Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: So-called feminist admits: She thinks about murdering Palin

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

So-called feminist admits: She thinks about murdering Palin

"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage. When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull. And I'm not the only one! I had simultaneous IM conversations with many friends, who said things like, "she seems like a fucking monster" and "this feminist wants to murk that idiotic cunt."

Read further and you discover she's really upset because Palin reminds her of the Homecoming Queen.

5 comments:

Jadis said...: And people wonder why a strong woman such as myself wants NOTHING do to with the modern feminist movement?!?

Imagine if a man had said such things about Hillary - the idiot who wrote this garbage would be foaming at the mouth with outrage.

How in the hell can these people NOT see their own hypocrisy?!?; September 18, 2008 at 7:05 AM
Amy said...: And people wonder why a strong woman such as myself wants NOTHING do to with the modern feminist movement?!?

AMEN, Jadis. Amen.

How in the hell can these people NOT see their own hypocrisy?!?

Because when everything (especially morals) are relative - as liberals think they are - it's okay to be a big, flaming hypocrite because you have no code with which to measure your behavior.

But it should be alarmingly clear to any woman with a brain that THIS is how liberals treat you if you don't shut up and act like an Obama robot.; September 19, 2008 at 5:39 AM
Ciccina said...: I can't even begin to describe how upset I am from reading those comments (well, the first 20, anyway) at Jezebel. First of all, thank you so much for posting the link here.... this is something every single person who calls herself a feminist needs to address head on. The comments at Jezebel were frightening, disgusting, disturbing.... I can't believe these people don't see in themselves the same misogynist rage, the same violent language, that they would condemn if coming from anyone else. Good lord, they are talking about wanting to assault, sexually assault ("kick her square in the uterus") and murder a woman because she has different political positions. This is pure insanity.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, both personally and as someone who has worked professionally for feminist organizations for the last 15+ years. And I have to echo Jadis' comment - I want nothing to do with these people either (who in their right mind would!!!!) with one caveat.

These self-proclaimed "feminists" - no matter what they call themselves, no matter how many of them there are right now - do not represent feminism. (For the sake of an analogy, they are to real feminism what Operation Rescue was to the majority of people who hold a pro-life position). Feminism has been a political force - sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker - at least since the 1700s and Mary Wollstonecraft's treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Women. There are feminist movements in every country around the world. Feminism is HUGE. These pipsqueaks at Jezebel have no clue what they are talking about.

I am glad that The New Agenda is working towards dealing with this issue within the feminist movement. If I didn't have an outlet, my head would explode.

Amy, I agree with your point about moral relativism. That is certainly true of the people at Jezebel and a lot of liberals/progressives. Obviously they have one set of rules for themselves, and another set of rules for other people. Disgusting.

But that's not real feminism. If you look among the women and men who actually work on feminist issues in real life - like, for example, those who work for UN women's programs like UNFPA, UNIFEM, or UNAIDS - they are not like this. They have a cross-cultural, trans-national perspective and realize that there is one standard of rights, one standard of equal treatment. All women are equal, not just women who look or act or think a certain way. And all men are equal too. The women and men who work for Planned Parenthood are the same way - they provide services for everyone, female and male, at the same standard, regardless of ideology, religion, culture or what have you.

The spoiled, lazy-thinking, resentful, nasty, selfish, trifling amateurs at blogs like Jezebel who spew this hateful, hateful crap do not and cannot be allowed to represent real feminism and the real good it has done in the world.

Sorry for the rant but I am utterly horrified by what I read.; September 19, 2008 at 7:06 AM
Anonymous said...: "Imagine if a man had said such things about Hillary - the idiot who wrote this garbage would be foaming at the mouth with outrage."

Actually, since it's apparent from her comment that she's not really a feminist, but just enjoys the bumper stickers, she's probably one who laughed along at the Hillary-Hate and thought Obama's shoulder-brushing jesture was super-cool. I'd bet she thinks Keith Olbermann is the awesomesauce too.; September 20, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm struck by two things. First, there's the readiness of women to hate and speak lethally about other women, also demonstrated by the vicious hate campaign against Hillary Clinton (still the only viable Presidential candidate, especially when compared to the two male nominees competing to be most bland and reassuringly conformist). Secondly there's the way the internet invites such extreme and violent acts of speech-outrage, from men and women, and on every issue under the sun. Thanks to cyber space the dark and primitive areas of the human brain are fumbling their way into the light.; September 29, 2008 at 3:11 AM

Post a Comment

What is sexism?

All criticisms of Sarah Palin are not sexist. It would be sexist to expect that she would receive no criticism, or that she SHOULD receive no criticism, because she is a woman. I admit that some of the criticism of Palin may really be the result of ideological bias, or simply sloppy reporting, not sexism. Some of the questions are fair game in isolation (yes, of course, it's fair to talk about Palin's experience in general; it's that she's held to a higher standard than males in the race that's the issue).

The Palin piling on is a complex cultural stew. In some cases, I suspect ideological and gender bias are working together. A reader has challenged me to define what I consider to be sexism. Broadly, I would define sexism in the political sphere as the following: When the woman is held to a higher and different standard than a similarly situated male, especially but not limited to issues that have no relevance to the race and that tend to diminish the woman's professional accomplishments by playing into gender stereotypes.

Specifically, here is a list of what I consider to be sexist behavior:

Coverage of a female politician that fixates on her physical appearance, pro or con. I admit that male politicians sometimes face this (Obama walking shirtless out of the Hawaiian surf got a lot of attention, and there was a lot of attention about John Edwards' shiny hair). And I think that some women have mixed feelings about this. After all, who doesn't want to be considered good looking? But, for many women, when they are in a professional setting, and supposedly professional media commentators place the focus back on their physical appearance, as a positive or a negative, it feels diminishing of their professional accomplishments. This works both ways, of course. Hillary Clinton has been viciously attacked by some on the right for supposedly not being good looking. That, too, is sexist, especially since unattractive male politicians are generally not held to this standard. If you think about it, good-looking male politicians also find their appearance the topic of discussion in many cases, but that's not true of unattractive male politicians. It's true in both cases for women. Simply put, appearance is not relevant to competence, so why are we talking about Palin's hair and looks?
Sexual-related comments about a female politician.
Blatant belittling of one's intelligence without evidence and in a manner not accorded to male opponents (i.e. saying the woman is stupid, needs a teleprompter, needs a lot of coaching, etc.)
Implying that the woman must not really believe her positions or must be under the intellectual sway of a more powerful male. (This happens in racism too. Consider how opponents argue that Clarence Thomas is a tool of intellectual white men like Antonin Scalia).
Double standards relating to motherhood; i.e., the female politician is asked questions about motherhood that her male counterparts aren't asked about fatherhood. (Why doesn't Palin stay home to take care of the kids? Hillary, why don't you want to stay home to bake cookies and hold teas?) The reverse is also true. It's also wrong for people to demean females who CHOOSE to stay home and raise their families. I personally believe that whether a woman chooses to be a housewife, a career woman, or, like Palin, a mixture of both, is her personal decision and debate about it really isn't relevant in a presidential election.
Slurs that are typically used to demean women but aren't applied to similarly aggressive men; i.e. when attributes that would be praised in a man are reduced to a negative in the woman (b-tch, nag, etc.). The Martha Stewart phenomenon. The tough woman is a b-tch, but the overly emotional woman is too weak to lead (women can't win sometimes!)
The woman is held to higher standards for intelligence/professional qualifications than a male opponent. (Palin is utterly unqualified, but Obama is then not?)
Diminishing of traditional female roles as being silly (the PTA, chortle, chortle, chortle. She was a housewife once, how pathetic, etc.). I don't know about you, but right now I am thinking about the woman, a housewife, who ran my child's Catholic Bible school this summer, and she was quite a force to be reckoned with. I'd love to pit her against Putin.
Emphasis on female roles traditionally seen as silly when discussing an accomplished, professional woman (she was a beauty queen 24 years ago!!!!!!)
Assuming incompetence. (she's a woman, so she won't be a strong leader, etc.)
The woman becomes defined by a single gender-related issue in a manner that males do not (consider how the abortion question is defining Palin, but doesn't define Obama or even McCain.)
Issues that aren't used against male opponents are magnified out of proportion against the woman. (Bristol-mania. I admit this one might be ideological bias more than sexism, but I do think it's caught up in Palin's cultural role as a "mother")
Invasion of the personal sphere and personalization/lifestyle focus of/on the candidate. In other words, covering the woman through the gauze of personality and lifestyle issues, rather than professional accomplishment. (Why are we talking about Palin's prenatal care and amniotic fluid again? It's creepy. Do we talk about Biden's sperm count? I admit that's a really creepy thought, and I do admit that Palin invited some of this by talking about her breastfeeding to People magazine. But still.)

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

So-called feminist admits: She thinks about murdering Palin

5 comments:

About Me

Sexism Wall of Shame

What is sexism?

Blog Archive