Deranged About Sarah Palin
We are not going to describe this page (which sells t-shirts).
And we warn you not to go there is you dislike nasty sexist language.
But the fact that these t-shirts actually have a market says volumes about the attitudes of a large part of the left.
And we warn you not to go there is you dislike nasty sexist language.
But the fact that these t-shirts actually have a market says volumes about the attitudes of a large part of the left.
Labels: Leftist Intolerance, Liberal Intolerance, Liberal Sexiam, Palin Derangement Syndrome, Sarah Palin
posted by John McAdams at 4:30 PM
11 Comments:
Are they as bad as the ones about Senator Clinton comparing her to ____tree music?
It speaks "volumes about the attitudes of a large part of the left"?
Can you show me, you know, how many leftists have actually bought this shirt?
A "large part" of the left would not even buy those t-shirts. A "large part" of the left would not even use the c-word.
Can you show me, you know, how many leftists have actually bought this shirt?
Of course not. I'm sure they don't share that information. But it seems to be worth selling.
And I'm aware that "cunt" is politically incorrect. But a lot of politically correct people, faced with a woman like Pelin, let politically incorrect things slip out.
Like Sally Quinn asking whether Palin has any business in politics, as opposed to staying home and taking care of her kids.
"A "large part" of the left would not even buy those t-shirts. A "large part" of the left would not even use the c-word."
mu student leftist doesn't read many liberal blogs then or is in massive denial.
For a political scientist to regularly commit the fallacy of hasty generalization is somewhat, well, let me just say, surprising.
In case you don't know what I am talking about:
Hasty Generalization--a fallacy committed when an inductive generalization is made based upon insufficient evidence. (Like when an author, say, cites the fact that someone has something for sale on a website and then goes on to infer from this that a "large portion" of a particular group endorses that product.)
I realize that you are only trying to entertain people who already agree with you and so logic is not really that important; but it seems that for reasons of self-respect alone you would want to have some standards of argumentation.
And by the way, on the same site that you found the offensive Palin shirts, you can also find anti-Hillary shirts that say "Life is b**ch; don't elect one", and "Iron my Shirt", and one with Hillary standing at urinal with the words "She's not what she seems."
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/2658842
So do you think it is right to infer that a "large part of the" right endorses that "nasty sexist language"?
Or is the point that a large portion of the right is nasty, sexist and Hillary-deranged, but is at least honest about it?
Can you show me Conservatives who act this way?
Nah. Didn't think so.
Libs know. They just don't care.
Anonymous,
Check more recent posts on this site, and you can see much more deranged hatred of Palin.
You're correct that one case doesn't prove much.
But there is a lot more than one case. Indeed, feminists will admit that they hate Palin.
I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record, but all of this horribly sexist material surrounding Palin is not indicative of prejudices of the left or of the right. It is indicative of the fact that society permits and encourages the objectification of women, and that there are enough people out there who find sexism funny that they will buy such degrading items. Feminism actively discourages such behavior. (Seriously--Shakesville has published 17 posts about sexism directed against Palin, and Feministing has several as well, even though they disagree with her politics.)
I also would like to point out that it is not un-feminist to choose not to support Palin. I disagree with her stance on most issues, and she will not be receiving my vote. However, I will still criticize any sexism directed against her. (I wonder how many conservatives were willing to criticize the sexism directed against Hillary Clinton. Not many, I believe. The fact that those on the left are willing to defend Palin says a lot, I think.) So even if feminists "hate" Palin or her views (just as they might "hate" McCain and his views), that is not in and of itself sexist.
I would also like to say that much of the pro-Palin rhetoric is sexist too--reducing her to a "MILF" or a mere sex symbol (such as those nasty action figures) is also degrading, and I have heard plenty of conservatives making those sorts of comments.
Sexism is bad. It's bad for women, bad for politics, and bad for parties. However, sexism does not belong to one party alone. Clearly, people like to use sexist arguments since they are seen as entertaining or funny, and they strike a chord with the public. That is scary.
But however disappointed I am in the sexist rhetoric in which both republicans and democrats have been engaging, I will vote for the policies that I think are best for all citizens in this country, including women. I believe that the Democrats' policies are stronger and will vote accordingly, even if some die-hards on the left will do whatever it takes (including resorting to sexism) to win.
After all, republicans really were no better in terms of their use of sexist rhetoric, and they do not have the policies to back up their newfound stance against sexism. (For example, the conservative take on the Ledbetter case was pretty outrageous.)
femmemeister said...
Your post seems reasonable enough, but you have conceded a lot of things that most feminists won't concede.
The feminist position is that Republicans are sexist. You seem to believe this too.
So I'm pounding people like you with examples of liberal sexism. Admit there is a lot of sexism among Democrats, and I've won.
By the way, on issues: you do understand, don't you, that women aren't more pro-abortion than men, and indeed in some polls are a bit more anti-abortion.
So if you prefer liberal Democrats, it's not because you take the "women's" position.
Palin is just as much a woman as you are.
It's because you take the liberal/left feminist position.
That's only a minority of women, although it may well be the majority of your friends, professors, etc.
Hmmm. I think that acknowledging the fact that some Democrats are sexist does not make Republicans any less sexist. In fact, that just confirms what feminist philosophers have been arguing for a long time: society permits and encourages sexist behavior. Even self-proclaimed feminists can be sexist. Even women can be sexist. One of the major goals of feminism is to point out when certain ugly prejudices rear their heads--no matter where--and to figure out exactly why they occur and how to prevent them from occurring in the future. That goal is a nonpartisan one, and this election confirms why feminist activism is still necessary.
I can see why you are trying to steer the conversation toward abortion (it always gets people revved up one way or the other)--however, Palin's stance on abortion is only one of a number of issues on which I disagree with her. (Health care, education, sexual violence prevention, sex education, equal pay, etc. are important too!) I feel abortion is a topic best left debated in its own thread so as not to distract from the issue at hand, right? After all, I never said that Palin is "not a woman". She is a woman with whom I strongly disagree on many issues. I am happy that the Republican party is supporting a woman candidate . . . but that does not mean I have to like or support her.
I do hope you feel free to continue "pounding" "people like [me]" with examples of sexism in the media. After all "people like [me]" have been pointing out the very same things you have been pointing out for a while now, and without being driven by partisanship. So perhaps your "pounding" figure is not appropriate.
Ah, well. In any case, I really do not think that pointing out sexism is a competition in which people "win" or "lose." With sexism, everybody loses.
To claim otherwise is to prove that one's interests are not in helping women or in encouraging a political dialogue based in issues, but rather in using the most convenient means to score political points. That's a shame.
...on the plus side, she'll fill the niche void in the economy caused by the end of anti-Bush products.
Post a Comment
<< Home