PoliGazette Feminist Hatred of Palin
July 6th, 2009 | By: _Patrick Glenn_ (http://www.poligazette.com/author/patrick-glenn/) [ A women named ] Violet of Reclusive Leftist posted a thought-provoking piece on her blog this weekend, _Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin_ (http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sara h-palin) . Violet is a self-described feminist who has been dismayed by the malicious, dishonest attacks on Sarah Palin. Violet is “baffled” by feminists who never bothered to research Palin’s record and policy views. Instead, their hatred of Palin spurred them to intentionally make up lies about the ”second woman in U.S. history to run on a major party’s ticket” and parrot the misinformation being disseminated by political hacks: I don’t agree with Republicans on politics — not by a long shot — but as a person, I found Palin charming in a Harry Truman, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Erin Brockovich kind of way. How could you not? Especially after the goons had spent the previous weekend in a misogyny fest of lurid speculation and grotesque sexual insults about her and her family. I was proud of her for her courage, as well as for her personal accomplishments as a working-class regular person who went into politics and succeeded. Since August 2008, Violet has been countering slurs against Palin on a fact-by-fact basis, but “after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.” Violet contrasts how feminists (and mainstream media) have treated Palin compared to Obama. “The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.” In an effort to defend Palin, Violet does what feminists usually do in a girl versus boy contest, which is disparage the male, but this time she’s the only feminist sticking up for the female. Even more ironically, the man ended up being the beneficiary of gender politicking. Violet even supposes that Palin hatred can be attributed in part to misdirected anger: Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, yet feminists and other leftists are compelled to support him, therefore they redirect their inner-disgust with patriarchal privilege back at Palin. At first, I was skeptical that Violet’s theory could explain why feminists also directed profound hatred at other reviled conservatives such as Clarence Thomas and George W. Bush. After all, neither of those guys lost an election to a postmodern metrosexual progressive like Obama (of course, feminists had other reasons to hate these two). On the other hand, feminists might have pent up hatred from interactions with their supposedly “progressive” male friends and colleagues, which is then redirected at conservatives – a safer target. Another irony: when someone complains about the vicious smear campaign directed at Palin, many feminists respond that it’s Palin’s fault that she’s been on the receiving end of misogynistic attacks because she invited them by doing X, Y, and Z – thus they end up committing a cardinal sin of feminism, “blaming the victim.” Violet admits that her diagnosis of the causes of Palin hatred is on shakier grounds than her astute analysis of the symptoms. Her argument that feminists need figures like Palin to serve as politcally correct “hate receptacles” because feminists have stored up hatred toward certain politicians seems to be circular. What causes the hatred in the first place? I’m inclined to think that the more direct causes of feminist hatred of Palin are related to the three following phenomena, all of which have been discussed elsewhere in depth: * Palin is seen as a “gender traitor.” The Left reserves some of its most vicious invective for those members of protected groups - gender, race, ethnicity, class – who reject the rules of identity politics. * Snobbery. Example: Maureen Dowd referring to Palin as a _Carribou Barbie_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05dowd.html) . * Palin is a threat to the “progressive” team/movement (not just ideology). Elaborating on the last bullet point: Many commentators have observed that the debased attacks on Palin have stemmed from leftist ideology outweighing any alleged concerns about female empowerment. True, yet ideologues of any stripe will tend to alter their positions as political expediency dictates. Ideology leads people to ally with particular groups, but once they have joined those groups, ideologues will viciously defend their “teams” and their teammates, while viciously attacking their opponents. Actual policy positions become secondary. It doesn’t matter if some of their teammates poorly fit their supposed ideological criteria, they will be accepted. On the other hand, ideologues will lie about their opponents to make them seem more extreme. The above phenomenon is not unique to the Left, but it is more prevelant on the Left than on the Right. Violet recognizes this tendency when she points out that Hugo Schwyzer is accepted into feminist circles, but she’s not ready to connect that observation to any larger lessons about the Left. A few parting thoughts: look, it has always been fair game to question Palin’s qualifications to be Vice President - her temperament, policy chops, track record, etc. It’s your prerogative, as a fair-minded person, if you think that Palin is a light weight, a diva, hypocritical. But, if you are incapable or unwilling to admit that Palin has been subjected to one of the nastiest character assassination campaigns in the history of American politics, then I have to question your ability to see beyond the little dome that your academic/media superiors have helped to fashion over your head. Yes, the Clintons were also subjected to vicious attacks from some circles, but these attacks were not amplified to the same degree by society’s megaphones. If the hard-core feminist Violet can see this, why can’t you? The other point I wanted to make was made better by Ross Douthat is in his _column yesterday_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06ross.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) : Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.) ------------------------------------------------------------- Selected Comments c3 July 7th, 2009 at 00:38 _Reply_ (javascript:void(0);) | _Quote_ (javascript:void(0);) | _#10_ (http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/06/feminist-hatred-of-palin/#comment-97584) Discussion of anything Palin is now like discussion of anything Ron Paul. Only the opposite effect occurs: the very mention of her name brings out all of the Palin-haters. Though I disagree with much of the politics of Violet it is heartening to see someone on the other side of the political spectrum be equally baffled by this phenomenon. And if Palin does in fact stay “off the stage” where will these folks go. The Bush comments just don’t work anymore. Beck and Limbaugh aren’t running for anything just blowing hot air. We NEED A CONSERVATIVE WHIPPING BOY/GIRL! -------------------------------------------------------- DonVonChristo July 7th, 2009 at 00:44 _Reply_ (javascript:void(0);) | _Quote_ (javascript:void(0);) | _#11_ (http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/06/feminist-hatred-of-palin/#comment-97586) The thing I don’t get is why some people so insist that Palin is highly narcissistic. I guess they use it to rationalize their other talking-point that Palin “brings it on herself” or “is asking for it”. How does she do that? By breathing? She generally doesn’t say much unless it’s a response to some wave of unfounded criticism or vitriol. It’s not odd for a Republican governor to attend a Republican Governors Convention or to speak at fund-raising dinners for the Republican Party. It’s not odd to go to a Yankee’s game when you’re visiting New York City. Yet these are the events that people point to when they say that she’s “putting herself out there” or “ inserting herself into the media spotlight”. The fact is, people who hate Palin have deep insecurity issues with themselves as well. If someone truly thinks she’s so dumb that she can’t be taken seriously as a candidate or a even a valid person, then they would not waste their time and focus their attention, thought, and emotion on anything having to do with her. ----------------------------------------- Oz July 7th, 2009 at 03:47 _Reply_ (javascript:void(0);) | _Quote_ (javascript:void(0);) | _#21_ (http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/06/feminist-hatred-of-palin/#comment-97600) Most so-called feminists either succeed on the coat-tails of men (Pelosi, Clinton) or want special privileges because they are women. Sarah Palin, like Margaret Thatcher, does neither and has been successful nonetheless. “Feminists” cannot stand the way this shows them up. Even more galling, Sarah Palin does not bother to point out their failings. “Statists”, whether Democrats or Republicans, can’t stand the independent way she and her family live their lives. They know it reflects how a huge number of Americans live or want to live, and that independence (upon which the country was founded) is a massive threat to those whose lives depend on fostering government and draining the country. The “statists” are terrified of anyone who has the clear potential to be a rallying point for personal independence, as Sarah Palin does. To cap it all off, Sarah Palin’s has principles and lives what she believes in — unlike most politicians. In that respect she is very Reagan-like and very unlike most politicans, who change the words to suit the audience and who are malleable in the pursuit of power. Obama is also a politician with principles: big government, socialism, special benefits for the elite, the antithesis of the founders of the US. But he is not honest about his principles. He lies to conceal them and lies about the impact of his policies as they are being implemented. Sarah Palin, like Ronald Reagan is quite open about her view and policies, there is no hidden agenda. Also, unlike Obama and typical feminists, she has not tried to trade on some alleged minority injury. Obama has shown himself to be a cowardly bully, ie he will (frequently illegally) use force against anyone that opposes him, but backs down when faced by someone with the power to resist. Sarah Palin does not. So Sarah Palin’s public existence is a continual visible demonstration of the puny character of the oppressives’ (they are certainly not progressive) champion, and of their own shallow, weak character. They cannot forgive her for that. But it does not end there. Sarah Palin, like Reagan and Thatcher is a fighter, as is her husband. She has not quit. She will move to a position where she can better fight for her principles and those of most Americans. Like the terminator, and not the governator, she is coming to get the oppressives and the big government Republicans and they are afraid, they are very afraid. They had hoped she had gone away but she has not. All this is obvious even from the other side of the world. -------------------------------------------------- Chazzle July 7th, 2009 at 15:59 _Reply_ (javascript:void(0);) | _Quote_ (javascript:void(0);) | _#35_ (http://www.poligazette.com/2009/07/06/feminist-hatred-of-palin/#comment-97631) Back in the 80s, I relied heavily on marketing insights based on Arnold Mitchell’s book The Nine American Lifestyles. One gem that I have seen in play time and time again is that entry into what he called the Societally Conscious lifestyle (synonymous with the left elite), required an active repudiation of middle-class values. You cannot drive a Ford and hang with the beautiful people or, god forbid, serve Jello at your dinner party. No politician at the national level in long memory has evinced middle-class values so much as Sarah Palin. This allowed me to predict on the day she was nominated that she may well prove a game-changer (blown by McCain) but that she would certainly become a litmus test. I no longer live in the SF Bay Area but in rural Texas. I’m around middle-class folk all the time, and I can tell you the spectacle of Palin being trashed is hitting at some deep resentment simmering in a class feeling less like the backbone of the nation, more like a looked-down-upon and taken-for-granted bloc there only to be milked for its votes. If Palin (or someone else) plays this right, the middle class has more votes than the college-educated elites of he GOP and Dem party combined. We could see quite a shakeup not far down the road.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
