BlogHer - Sarah Palin, Feminism, & Double Standards - Comments

Riots?

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:00:06 -0500

SO, if Carville (who is definitely pro-bama) says there will be riots, it's not racist, but is anyone that's not voting for Obama says the same thing, it is? Did I get that right?

Yikes!

Thanks for responding to my reply. I've enjoyed your postings.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

I agree that the Obama side

amamasblog — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:29:28 -0500

I agree that the Obama side and supporters are the ones using the racism card.

James Carville, on Anderson Cooper, said if Obama doesn't win, things will be "very,very,very, dramatic," hinting at riots. How racist is THAT- implying that blacks will riot if Obama doesn't win. Nothing is said about that being racist, yet when John McCain used the term "that one" in the debate, that was racist.

My grandmother uses that term, and so does my aunt who is 40- they use it when pointing out someone, usually a kid, but never towards an African-American. I never knew that term was racist, and seems like only the Dem.'s are trying to bring racism into the picture, every time they can. I doubt anyone running for the highest office in the land would be so ignorant to label their opponent by a racist term. It is just grasping at straws.

Thanks for your comments, Anne.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/james-carville-hints-riots-if-obama-loses

* A Mama's Blog- A Mama's Blog

Gibson's editing

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:53:33 -0500

Yes, the Palin interview WAS heavily and incredulously edited, seemingly to make Gov. Palin seem the idiot, which she is NOT. I read the entire transcript and I knw that she came off in the televised interview MUCH differently than how the interview (and her answers) went. It was wrong of CHarlie to do that! Of course, as far as how the MSM has behaved this year, it was sadly par for the course.

Sarah Palin is the most popular governor in ANY and ALL of these United States; why else would John McCain pick her? Well, there's her obvious strength, for one rationale.. I do not agree with ALL of Sarah Palin's 'feelings' or beliefs, but I do agree with her regarding the way she has done her job and how she has run Alaska. At least Palin seems to believe in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.., meaning she does follow it~ Anyone who says differently has not done his or her homework on Sarah Palin. Of course, that seems to be a huge problem this year; people believing every little blurb rather than looking it up.

By the way; yes, I am a woman and I am an INDEPENDENT voter who will be voting McCain and Palin this year! --Never did think I would vote for the Republican, but I also never thought that Rep would be McCain, a man I truly do respect.

anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

NOW's endorsement.

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:37:16 -0500

WOW; I had no idea that the LA chapter had come out in support of Govv Palin. But, I am happy to see it. Thanks for posting that and, especially, thanks for the link~

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

Apples and Oranges..

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:33:09 -0500

Comparing earmarks by a GOVERNOR and a SENATOR really is apples and oranges. In fact, Palin could NOT have added earmarks to ANY bill You would have to look to the Congressmen of the state of Alaske for that. However, even when comparing this, you also have to make note that Alaska is still much undeveloped (and in need of ROADS, etc..) AND is the largest Oil-Producing state in these United States.

So, any comparison in earmarks really cannot be rationally made when comparing Alaska and Illinois.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

Hang on there; that LIE has been debunked..

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:21:31 -0500

The ONLY thing Gov. Palin has said about abstinance only is thet she believe it should be able to be brought up , "like in conversation or debate" in sex-ed classes. THAT is ALL Gov, Palin has to say about it.

She has never promoted abstinence-only regarding sex-ed. She does not live in the dark ages and she realises that Sex-Education is an important subject and it should be taught (and IS taught in Alaska, too-- her daughter, Bristol, DID attend these classes in her school).

Please get your facts straight. If you would like, go to factcheck.org to find what HAS been debumked. And, I am talking about ALL of the lies and smears perpetrated BY THE OBAMA CAMP and by Obama, himself, regarding Sarah Palin. It amazes me how gullible some people are (I am not pointing fingers), The FACTS are out there, though, Please investigate!!

Anne\

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

RACISM? Obama?

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:09:51 -0500

HA! the ONLY racist wording I have heard in this campaign (at ALL) has come from Obama's lips. HE is the one who tells us not be be scared of his skin color and his
not looking like presidents on the dollar-bill(s). HE brought this up; he warns that people will say these things, but I have not heard any one person say this (other than HIM). Now, out of the mouths of the obama supporters, I have been CALLED RACIST. WHY? i WAS called this ONLY because I will not vote for him. I have children who are of mixed race, and I am the racist??? These people began on this tirade when Obama came out with his statement of race; Tim Wise then wrote his piece, telling the whole country that "our whiteness is showing". THAT opened the door for all bama supporters to call ME and anyone who votes against him a racist. THAT is wrong!!

Really, I have heard NOT ONE PERSON NOTE ANYTHING ABOUT HIS RACE- other than HIM. SO, if you want to give me just ONE instance where his race was brought up in a negative manner, plese do; Anything that has come out of the mouth of Obama does NOT count!!

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

Huffington? Really?

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:57:48 -0500

I would quote ANY source other than the Huffington report when emplying any argument against Palin, McCain, or any Republican. The Huffington site has devolved into a smear-spot against the entire R-Ticket! So, if you want to argue a point, I'd say use anything BUT Huffington. Honestly!!

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

Obama gracious regarding Palin? WHAT???

abeck — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:53:21 -0500

Wow, it has been proven that OBAMA AND HIS TEAM have been behind the smears perpertated against Sarah Palin (and her family). So you call this gracious? Wow. I think it is absolutely abhorrant and Obama has shown NO grace-- at least behind the scenes. He's been nothing but UGLY there. And, he has been found out!

from NoQuarter: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/23/obama-axelrod-and-smears/

Now, does any of that sound "gracious"? Just disgusting.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

Women have voices and choices!

VirginiaHarris — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:26:47 -0500

Can you even imagine being a woman and not being able to vote?

Thanks to the suffragettes, America has women voters and women candidates, and we are a better country for it!

Women have voices and choices! Just like men.

But few people know ALL of the suffering that our suffragettes had to go through to get the vote for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Now you can subscribe FREE to an exciting e-mail series that goes behind the scenes in the lives of eight of the world's most famous women to reveal the shocking and sometimes heartbreaking truth of HOW women won the vote.

Discover how the cross-currents created by two beautiful and powerful suffragettes, a First Lady, a First Daughter, author Edith Wharton, dancer Isadora Duncan and two presidential mistresses set the stage for women to FINALLY win the vote.

Thrilling, dramatic, sequential short story e-mail episodes have readers from all over the world raving about the original historical series, "The Privilege of Voting."

Read this FREE e-mail series on your coffeebreaks and fall in love with these amazing women!

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

why is it not the same for ALL women, including repub. women?

abeck — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:32:52 -0500

THANK you for this wonderful post. You said exactly what I was thinking, especially regarding Ms Steinem's words. Of course, you also remained calmer than I was and am when I read and re-read what Ms. Steinem has had to say.

As a Mom and a mom who worked up until both of my children were born, and went back to work within 3 days of their birth(s), leaving my dear husband to care for the children as I brought home the "bacon", I find what has been said by all supposed feminists absolutely awful. What would they think of me? After all, my "chidren" are now 23 and 25, so it's been a long time since I had to have care for them... I am disgusted by the double-standard Ms Steinem and MANY Obama suporters seemingly hold dear to; this is the 21st century and I thought that what Sarah Palin is doing would certainly be something that the feminists would be proud to point to for their daughters education of what women CAN do; I suppose not. And, I find it disheartening.

In this election season, we seem to have gone back by decades regarding race and sex and I find it distressing. Hearing what was said by Gloria Steinem is worse because of her supposed stance when it comes to women,, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth, surely! Women cannot sit idly by while this sort of thing is proffered. Women MUST always support other women in their good deeds.

Someone needed to say it; I am glad you did and that you did so very eloquently! Good for you. Thank you, again, for your thoughts; I enjoyed reading.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

Media bias: What Hillary went thru=what Palin's going thru now

mariaconz — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:37:58 -0500

I agree. What Hillary went through was bad, but the media coverage of Sarah Palin is much worse. I haven't read a single media account in the last day or two (10/10-10/11/08) that spells out the facts of Gov. Palin's law-breaking, intimidating, abusive ex-brother-in-law. Law enforcement heads who protect violent, abusive law enforcement officers are legion. It's the firing part that should happen nationwide a LOT more than it does. Sarah Palin did the right thing.

How many of us know police chiefs and local sheriffs who protect wife-beaters among their officers? It happens everywhere. What's unusual is firing law enforcement heads who refuse to fire those wife-beaters off of the force. How many people know from news accounts lately that Palin's ex-brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper, tased his 11-year-old stepson, threatened the Palin family, grabbed a beer and jumped into his squad car, picked a fight in a bar and flashed his badge to get special treatment from the bartender, and hunted out of season with someone else's hunting license? And that's just the beginning of his offenses against the law.

Maria Houser Conzemius

Media bias: What Hillary went thru=what Palin's going thru now

mariaconz — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:37:51 -0500

Maria Houser Conzemius

Quite right!

shellie — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:43:12 -0500

Being a chief executive of a community -- where the buck stops, responsible for a diverse citizenry's health and safety 24/7/365 -- is quite different from being a member of a legislature. Any governor or mayor or mother has better chief executive experience than Obama does!

Palin has run a family, a business, a city, and a state. Really Alaska is much like a separate nation, with no neighboring US states to lean on, and in an isolating, deadly climate.

To have achieved so much in Alaska, in a short time, starting from scratch with no powerful political family behind her, opposing the local 'machine' (Obama supported the Daley machine) -- shows great competence and ability.

As VP or President....

shellie — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 01:30:19 -0500

I wish Couric had been persistent with questions like these: "As VP you would have to vote when the Senate is tied; if you become President you will have veto power. How would you vote, or veto vs sign, a bill that blah blah blah?" And tried to pin her down about what SC judges she would nominate.

However, what Palin has said -- and done! -- so far does add up to avoiding putting her religion's views into her public policy actions. I won't repeat the details, but does anyone have any evidence of her acting otherwise?

If she had tried to force her standards on the people of Alaska, she would hardly have such high approval from all sides. (Iirc 82% in general, 75% from Democrats, in January and again in late August; then the Democrats began polling differently, bringing her overall rating down to 68% iirc, about the same as Bill Clinton's. :-)

Hm, I wonder if Palin's critics would today be rejecting JFK because his church opposes birth control.

Sarah Palin, Feminism, & Double Standards

amamasblog — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:30:42 -0500

It seems everyone has their thoughts and opinions about the first Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, these days, and I am no different.

I was surprised when I heard McCain had picked her, but I was also happy that a woman was now on one of the political party's top ticket. It didn't matter to me what ticket she was on- as a woman and a mother, I thought it was a step in the right direction.

If you are a regular blog reader of mine, you may remember the post I wrote in May, about how I felt the media in particular, had portrayed Hillary Clinton in a sexist and discriminatory way, simply because she was a woman. If I thought that was bad for Hillary Clinton, it has just been beyond belief, the attack the media and blogs have launched against Sarah Palin in just over a week.

This just makes no sense to me whatsoever. For years feminists like Gloria Steinem, have been advocating for women that they should be able to have a choice. They shouldn't have to give up careers in order to be mothers. Women should be considered as equals and they should have the same chances and opportunities as men. One of Gloria Steinem's quotes I have always liked is, "I've yet to be on a campus where most women weren't worrying about some aspect of combining marriage, children, and a career. I've yet to find one where many men were worrying about the same thing."

There is a woman in the national spotlight, in the running for one of our country's highest positions, (never mind her politics for a minute) who has combined marriage, children, and a career, and is successful at it. Instead of feminists like Steinem acknowledging that this is indeed a breakthrough for women, she writes an article for the LA Times (Wrong Woman, Wrong Time) basically saying the only reason Palin was picked by McCain was "to please right-wing ideologues." Steinem also asserts "that feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman, but making life more fair for women everywhere."

If Steinem really believed the above statement, why didn't she make a similar statement about Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton was one woman, as well, running for one job. How does it make "life more fair for women everywhere" if Clinton were to be elected president, but it would not make "life more fair for women everywhere" if Palin was elected vice president?

Steinem continues,

"And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children."

Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, is becoming a stay-at-home Dad. Isn't this what Steinem was hoping for in part when she wrote, "...until there is a support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it? "

Futhermore, when a male presidential candidate picks a woman for his running mate, it sends a message to women and to men, that he believes his pick is qualified and capable of being an effective vice president. What many have considered obstacles and reasons why Sarah Palin should not have been picked, McCain saw the very thing Steinem wants- "a male leader(s) who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it? "

It seems to me John McCain and the Palin family already figured out, what Steinem wrote about. Palin's husband Todd, is equal in the home, and will be home with their children. In my eyes, the support on a national stage for women, that Steinem talks about Obama and Biden needing to bring, is already here.

Why do we need "male leaders" to bring support to working women, and to help make men equal in the house, when it is already been in place for years? Not just with McCain, Palin and her husband, but with the thousands and thousands of working families, where the mother works, and the father stays at home. It seems like a real insult to working mothers, and stay-at-home fathers.

I can't help but wonder if Steinem would feel this way if Palin wasn't a Republican, but a Democrat? It makes me wonder if the type of feminism that Steinem has been pushing for, for all these years, has more do with politics than gender?

The most repulsive part of the attacks on Palin have been her character as a mother. The media and others criticize and judge Palin as a mother. The argument is being vice president would take too much time away from her family, and how could she possibly balance all of that, especially with a pregnant 17-year old daughter, and a special needs infant?

Why is that any of our business? Do we question other working parents, who have more than two kids, special needs, or other challenges, or do we assume they will figure it out? Todd Palin is going to be the stay-at-home parent. Why do we insist on the parent at home in this case has to be Sarah? Where has all the talk about fathers being at home gone? Does this mean that stay-at-home fathers aren't quite as good as stay-at-home mothers? Isn't this what women and feminists have been fighting for all these years for? Now that we see this on a national stage, suddenly women with babies and families, shouldn't be at high profile jobs. They shouldn't be taking on career aspirations.

The double standard here is amazing. Barack Obama has been campaigning now for about 18-months, and I have not heard one word, about how he will balance his family life, nor has he been judged on what kind of father he is.

During the last year and a half, how much time has Obama spent with his girls? Unlike the Palins, Obama's wife, Michelle, has not announced that she would be a stay-at-home parent, should Obama become president. That is their private decision to make, and we assume they will figure it out. Why aren't we granting this courtesy to Palin and her family?

If being vice president takes so much time away from family, (even though the father would be at home) wouldn't being president take even more time away from Obama's family (and we don't even know if there will be a stay-at-home parent?) Yet we don't hear the same "concerns" for Obama's family being discussed. Don't two young girls need their father around during their formative years? Why are we so quick to judge a strong woman as a mother, when we don't judge a strong man as a father?

It is really interesting for me all the issues that have been brought to light by Sarah Palin running for vice president. It has made me question what "feminism" is all about to begin with. Is it only OK to advance your career when you have 2.1 kids, but not three or four, or seven?

Is feminism about advancing women, and breaking through glass ceilings from the board rooms to the White House? Or is it only "politically correct" to break glass ceilings as long as your politics don't fall on the wrong side of those ceilings?

(Orginally posted on A Mama's Blog on 9/8/2008)