Faves for this Web page
This sums up some of my feelings pretty well. And, just as an aside, isn't it a little bit strange that we haven't heard anyone refer to Palin as 'angry' yet? Whenever women are in the spotlight getting seriously fired up about anything they are always referred to as angry. Not so with Palin precisely for the reasons this blog states -- she negates any power she does have in order to seem unintimidating and kowtows to a boys-club-approved brand of "feminism" that isn't feminism at all.
Quoted: Why does this particular pitbull in lipstick infuriate — and scare us — so viscerally? Why does her very existence make us feel — and act — so ugly? New York Times columnist Judith Warner calls Palin's nomination a "thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women," because "Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man." Palin, who obviously is incredibly ambitious, masks that ambition behind her PTA placard and "folksy" talk. ... What's infuriating, and perhaps rage-inducing, about Palin, is that she has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype, playing by the boys' game with her big guns and moose-murdering, and that she keeps being rewarded for it.
Votes for this web page
Add a Fave for this Web page
- What happens when I press Publish?
- Your Fave for this Web page gets shared with the Faves community. You can access it at any time by selecting "My Faves" from the menu above.
- Why do you ask for my email address?
- We use your email address to create an account, so you can easily find your Fave again at a later time.
Related Content from Around Faves
election
-
A great piece on The Root from Henry Louis Gates Jr.
1 FaverViewed: 3 TimesQuoted: From toiling as White House slaves to President-elect Barack Obama, we have crossed the ultimate color line.
- mohit - 16 days ago1 FaverViewed: 2 Times
- shiwani - 16 days ago2 FaversViewed: 2 Times
Excellent points, Ms Kruse...
Quote: "Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man."
Let me get this strait, in order to be a good feminist you have to be intimidating? Do you think the reason she is subordinate is that she running for VICE President?
And whats with the title? All the women I know here at work (mostly liberal) and in my personal life (mostly conservative) don't have "rage" due to Palin. When did the NYT's ever speak for the common person? Those "normally reasonable women" are neither normal nor reasonable. They are the extreme left fringe of society. They are the ones that must come up with these crazy rants and raves when a women comes along with that they can't bring down to their level of contempt for the whole of society and the male gender. When she is smart, capable, principled, and pretty to boot, you get this deranged stupidity that has been so prevalent on faves as of late.
God but I love general election season! ;-)
I don't agree with Palin on most things, but I, too, am trying to understand the "rage." I guess I just don't care. I'm not voting for her; end of story. Right? I mean, the ones who champion her femininity are the ones who already also agree with her. I don't know. I guess I'm just too mellow.
running for VP is no reason to be subordinate...you are essentially running for President, or at least need to appear as capable to hold the position. I feel women's rage concerning Palin probably has alot to do with her position on abstinence education, abortion and women's right to choice, which she is politically against. Personally, how can she say abstinence education works, when she can't even get her daughter to listen to her.
Drock gets it. Feminists are pissed that someone so against women's rights is masquerading as our spokesperson in this historic position. And true, if you can't run your own household how are you going to run a country if McCain croaks? I don't understand how anyone can feel apathetic about this election. So much hangs in the balance this time. And, it's such a historic race on multiple levels. Mel, shouldn't people with kids care most of all? They will have to deal with the harsh consequences an anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-equal pay administration could inflict on the future of our country.
I never said I didn't care about the election. I'm just not as pissed off as other women about Palin. Of course she's the antithesis of what most consider to be feminist. She's a f*ing right-winger! I'm just over it.
And as an aside, how dare she dismiss community organizers as unimportant and useless.
Yeah, at first I thought that was a clever slam (if you're a Republican), but I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that many community organizers get a hell of a lot more done and make a bigger difference than a mayor or even governor.
btw to the question about why women should be intimidating: from ny times blog http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/the-mirrored-ceiling/?em
"And, I think, they find her acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.
That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically.
But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing. "
Exactly right. Everyone expects men at such levels of power to be at least a little intimidating, so a woman at the same level should be too. Again, we saw this double standard in Hillary's race with the 'a' word. Ambition in a man is seen as a virtue, but when a woman is seen as ambitious there's something wrong with her.
the Obammaessiah hardly a lot was accomplished as a community organizer.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWMxNGUxZWJjYzg1NjA0MTlmZDZmMjUwZGU3ZjAwNmU=
Drock you said...
I feel woman's rage concerning Palin probably has alot to do with her position on abstinence education, abortion and women's right to choice, which she is politically against.
You are wrong. Its because she is a WOMAN who feels that way. Its not the stance alone, its the stance in combination with the gender.
The more angry you all get, the more McCain swings in the polls. The average person is watching the media trip all over themselves to try and discredit her and then we have people on the extreme left who are trying to crucify her for disagreeing with them and being female.
Once again a case of "we are for equality as long as we are the ones being elevated."
With Hillary it disagreed with many of her positions, but I feel as strongly about why she shouldn't be President as I do about any man who shares her points of view. With Palin, you have blind, stupid rage that is magnified because she is a woman. Its analogous to what happened to Clarence Thomas. We want black justices on the Supreme Court, but he doesn't count because he isn't really black.
That pendulum is going to swing back hard in the next week or so. Part of the venom has to do with her success on the ticket, no doubt about it. This looked like a cynical, insulting, and desperate move, and the fact that it is working like gangbusters is hugely frustrating to partisan Democrats. But she also has a vaguely ugly personality that is driving animosity, and I think the lack of vetting is going to lead to a steady stream of (legitimate) problems.
Plus, there is her pet project, the Bridge to Nowhere, that is miraculously the subject of flat out lies...that somehow works too and that pisses people off even more.