Palin\'s comments on Hillary--video She said:
"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her -- a statement like that."
Decide for yourself. I personally think it's hilarious in a darkly cynical way that makes me think McCain is going to win.
I heard the interview from HotAir as well and also laughed (it's either laughter or tears) at how Betty Jean Kling and Robin Rollinson were voting for Palin based on the issue that women's rights were human rights. I wondered if they really knew what that meant in terms of
issues of bodily autonomy, health care, equal pay, etc. I heard a lot about her
being a woman, but nothing actually about why she's the
right woman and what about her/McCain's policies speaks to
women's rights specifically (since they brought it up).
As a third wave feminist, I have my issues with Gloria Steinem (y'know for anyone who thinks the feminist movement is a monolith). However, her position was
vastly more nuanced than that of the women above. I thought her column brought up some good points here about the politics of Palin and how they might part with women's issues:
[Palin] opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
The "democratic" women in the interview say
nothing to counter this. Apparently these issues are made insignificant by the simple female
presence on the Republican ticket. They criticize Steinem for talking about the agenda of the democratic party as if it has nothing to do with women and leave it at that. The largest faux pas here is that
this completely erases the fact that Hillary did not run because she was a woman, but because she thought she was the best candidate.Slate has a lovely article
here which echoes disturbingly:
But my real problem with the Hillary Harridans—and the media's relentless focus on them—is that they give new life to Paleozoic stereotypes about irrationally destructive older women.
None of this has anything to do with the legitimate outrage most of us felt about sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign. Women have many reasons to be angry in America, and I am not suggesting that all political discourse must happen in hushed voices and bowties. It is not insignificant that Hillary supporters felt disrespected, shut down, and unheard in the primary process. But as Taylor Marsh has pointed out, they've now become victims of the same sexist media machine that turned Clinton herself into a parody of a madwoman. They have fallen prey to an "echo chamber that promises hope, but only delivers deceit by offering claims of something that will not come." They are given unlimited airtime, so long as they continue to threaten to topple the entire edifice of the Democratic Party in pursuit of some ephemeral, unreachable sweet revenge.
The 2008 election has offered an object lesson in the need to open up our political discourse to include different voices and styles and beliefs. Everyone is entitled to speak and be heard, but there is a cost—a tangible cost—for women who insist on speaking in the irrational, angry, and vengeful voice of an outdated literary archetype. Particularly in 2008, when we don't need to invent "mad doubles" in order to topple the patriarchy. We can do that just by showing up.
Vote for whatever makes you passionate, but Palin hardly provides a rational base for a vote against sexism...at least as Hillary understood it.
alcyone
