Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
history
-
►
2012
(82)
- December (5)
- November (5)
- October (8)
- September (11)
- August (6)
- July (10)
- June (4)
- May (3)
- April (4)
- March (7)
- February (14)
- January (5)
-
►
2011
(50)
- December (12)
- November (2)
- October (3)
- September (3)
- July (4)
- June (3)
- May (3)
- April (5)
- March (3)
- February (5)
- January (7)
-
►
2010
(36)
- December (1)
- November (3)
- October (1)
- September (3)
- August (4)
- July (6)
- June (3)
- May (2)
- April (2)
- March (3)
- February (4)
- January (4)
-
►
2009
(52)
- December (5)
- November (2)
- October (1)
- September (7)
- August (4)
- July (6)
- June (9)
- May (3)
- April (8)
- March (3)
- February (1)
- January (3)
7 comments:
She speaks very strongly to my heart, when I'm not gleefully aghast over what the Enquirer has uncovered. Neither of the above, though, has so much to do with what I'll be weighing in the voting booth.
i find her to be quite appealing too but many of the women i know seem pretty shocked when i admit to that.
i don't like people's dismissive attitude toward her.
A lot of it is an unwillingness to look at nuance. There is also separating out various aspects of her: presence, family skills, governing skills, policy stances, cultural significance, etc. The vibes I like about her may not be the ones I vote on, or vice versa. But it takes a bit of sitting and sifting to say "I like this about her but not that," etc. I'm doing this on a lesser degree for Biden, Obama and McCain over the next few weeks.
Of course everyone could just watch the Gibson interview, which speaks volumes.
as far as these articles go, I find them pretty humdrum. although i must not that this is typical conservative anti-feminist banter - unexplained detractions from feminist women:
"She differs from mainstream feminists in that her sexuality and fecundity are not in tension with her achievement and power. If anything, they rise out of them."
I don't find that my "power" is limited by my sexuality, at all. Do you?
Second of all, yes, I am disturbed by sarah palin's political viewpoints and I'm disgusted that her personality is viewed as somehow making up for it. She thinks women should be forced to give birth after being raped or subjected to incest. To put that more plainly, she thinks that if a mom finds out her 12-year-old daugther was raped, that mom shouldn't be able to take her daughter to get an abortion from a private doctor. Whether that 12-year-old girl would be more traumatized by an abortion or having a baby is a difficult decision that neither of us, thankfully, have any experience with. But in Palin's world, that tough decision that is not made by the girl's mom. It's made by the government. How a libertarian like michael could not be completely turned off by that viewpoint is beyond me.
Sarah Palin either does not know of or supports the doctrine of pre-emptive strike (see charlie gibson interview). She opposes same-sex marriage and supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples. She inquired how to get books banned from the local public library.
So yes, I am dismissive of her because her views are diametrically opposed to mine, and I won't give her a second look just because she's a woman, or because she's young.
And in terms of nuance to look at, i wish there was some. those "obama wants sex ed for kindergartners" don't provide any.
So, first, I don't think that taking the, "She differs from mainstream feminists in that her sexuality and fecundity are not in tension with her achievement and power. If anything, they rise out of them." line and replying that your power isn't limited by your sexuality and practically daring anyone to disagree with you is a little unfair. Leaving out any mention of either 'fecundity' or 'achievement' from your reply is ignoring a pretty big part of the point.
I daresay that your sexuality does not limit your 'power,' but (and I hope you don't mind if I use you personally as an example) didn't you recently consider abandoning a career 'achievement' for a relationship? And don't you think that if your 'fecundity' proved out (that is, if you had a child) it would rather strictly limit your ability to move, by yourself, to a foreign country and take occasional jaunts into Pakistan to investigate human rights abuses?
Secondly, I assume that when you mention 'michael' you're talking about Linford, (since he pointed out the articles in the first place, and would seem to be a much bigger fan of the republican ticket than I am) but as a fellow libertarian and michael, I'll take a stab at answering anyway.
I imagine michael is repulsed by her abortion policy (I certainly am) but is even more turned off by other policies from other political parties. He's probably become accustomed to disagreeing fervently with parts of the platforms of every major political candidate he's ever encountered. Possibly (I'm now entering the realm of pure speculation) he doesn't think that Gov. Palin would have any success in forcing her views on abortion upon the nation, and so he doesn't care what they are. Maybe he thinks Roe v Wade is a bad decision and would like it overturned and the decision returned to the states. I can't say for certain, but I think there are a variety of reasons why he wouldn't hate a candidate based on their policy in one particular area.
All that being said, I agree with you, basically. Based on your political views the only sensible thing for you (and me!) to do is to dismiss her as far as the possibility of voting for her goes, but I think some in the 'liberal media' are dismissing the possibility that she is a dedicated and competent person who believes what she says she believes. As far as that goes, her views, and campaign tactics, however much you might dislike them, aren't really relevant.
how about this? esp. post gibson interview, i think a comparison to g.w. bush is apt. I think bush is competent, he's dedicated, and that he truly believes the best way to make decisions is "without blinking," that our wars have something to do with god's will. maybe people ARE dismissing palin in part because she is a woman - an attractive one, or one who has five kids...because she is different. that wouldn't surprise me, and it's worth decrying.
but i think another reason people might be dismissive is because palin shares personality traits and political beliefs with g.w. bush, and we supposedly spent the last couple years, as a nation, being totally contemptuous of them. we supposedly saw how much "don't blink," anti-intellectual, christian-right-pandering decisionmaking and policymaking screwed us. so, how is revulsion of bush totally upended by the arrival of palin? how could it be? and some of us say, "noo, it can't be." but if you never really were dismissive of bush's policy and personality in the first place, then yeah, it makes sense not to be dismissive of palin either.
so, about the sexuality-fecundity bit: i think first there is some conflation of sexuality and romantic commitment, and i don't really understand why, because for all we know palin is repressing lesbianism to meet the american family dream and i have multiple orgasms a day in my effete new yorker/liberal east coast elitist lifestyle.
but okay, let's say sexuality and romantic committment are the same, and i'd say i don't see how my situation wis much different than that of palin, or maybe henny not going off to new zealand - people DO compromise their careers, to whatever degree they feel is reasonable, to be close to people they're in love with. i don't really understand why palin's sexuality rises from her achievement (if i'm reading that sentence right), or vice versa, and why mine doesn't. also to clarify, if i had stayed in new york i wouldn't have been pitching my career over, as i'd have kept the job here, but i would be worried it was somewhat less than optimal for career and i'd be throwing away the "life experience" of moving to london. i'm not sure how the decision to go cuts, then, because it was made both for sake of career and because i admittedly didn't want to be here post a breakup.
Doing the sexuality-fecundity bit first: I suppose sexual fulfillment does not necessarily go hand in glove with romantic commitment, and perhaps there's nothing to be gained in talking of anyone's sexuality as being fulfilled or not, as there's no way we could possibly know. So, while sexuality is probably poor shorthand for romantic commitment, I think in this instance it's what was meant.
But that, like my first comment on your reply to the rather strange sexuality-power assertion, is just quibbling over details. In the course of the dozen times I've heard the "Sarah Palin story," I think I picked up the tidbit that her political career started after she joined the PTA, I don't know if that's true, but it's the impression I received. The point being, if that's the case, then her career and achievement did actually stem from her fecundity.
Anyway, that's the only possible meaning I can discern from the statement. It seems to me, that, generally speaking, everyone, both men and women have to balance sexuality (and romantic commitment) and fecundity against professional careers, non-romantic relationships, hobbies and half a dozen other things all 'in tension' with each other.
I'm not sure I can lay all the blame for my attitude towards President G. W. Bush at the feet of the two party system, but I think a lot of my indulgence of him is based on the fact that he isn't one of Them. I think it's very likely that he and his policies would truly infuriate me if it weren't for the fact that they so much annoy the people whose policies I dislike even more.
I'm not going to comment on whether Gov. Palin is Pres. Bush come again, I don't really have an opinion on it, but I think that being dismissive of Gov. Palin after a few weeks and being dismissive of Pres. Bush after eight years are two different things.
Post a Comment