printCNN’s Campbell Brown has been a woman possessed even since Palin appeared on the political scene. As I write, she is “investigating” how Sarah Palin’s Pentecostal faith and the practices of her church may impact her political outlook. (The segment was evidently aired earlier today. It didn’t cause Blitzer such apoplexy.)
By logical extension, does Brown—who is not working with much, if you know what I mean—wish to imply that hanging around a Black Liberation Church for 20 years—a church that states its members “are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization”—might poison a presidential candidate’s worldview?
At the time, she and her ilk denied that being a proud, long-time member of a separatist, white-hating “Black-Value-System” community had any bearing on Barack’s worldview.
Update I (September 10): INDIVIDUALISM VS. FEMINISM. our long-time, valued reader, young Alex (see his comments below), seems quite confused lately, inundating the blog with dogmatic comments asserting Sarah Palin’s feminist bona fides.
Sarah Palin is an individualist, not a feminist. Fulfilling one’s potential doesn’t make one a feminist. Sarah Palin is not a woman’s issues liberationist; but an individualist; a doer. She sees a problem in her community and she sets about solving it. She’s an individual doing her best, as she sees it, to improve herself and the community she lives in. That seems to be her calling. She is not doing this qua woman, but as an individual. Since when is fulfilling one’s potential always a manifestation of a feminist mindset when a woman is concerned?
I suspect that the conservative prattle about sexism, which Alex has correctly derided, has confused our friend. Alex is right about the stupidity of conservatives adopting feminism rather than articulating Palin’s achievements in the language of individualism.
Does the fact that I wish to fulfill my potential as a writer make me a feminist? No; I’m an individualist through and through.
As to the gender roles in the Palin household: In the early years of their marriage, the very manly first Dude supported his wife and their children. Sarah Palin then got involved with the school—an involvement that led to a career. As her career evolved, the family organization changed. Is this feminism at work? Hardly! These are individuals interacting and completing one another at different stages of their lives.
I’d like one day to retire my brilliant husband and see him cook for me and play guitar all day. Does that make me a feminist? Au Contraire; that’s the give and take between mature, loving individuals.
Update II (Sep. 11): The Silly Sex continues to sound off over Sarah Palin. This time a Salon.com feminist evinces what in our household is known as the “V” Factor. “V” stands not for victory, but for the inability of a woman to transcend her genitals. Quite common among distaff America. Here are the histrionics of a uterus named Rebecca Traister:
“Palin’s femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She’s the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who, as Jessica Grose at Jezebel has eloquently noted, achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms. …”
“The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin’s candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.”
McCain’s choosing of Sister Sarah sucked all the wind out of Obama’s acceptance of the Messianic mantle in the Grecian Temple of Denver – and the poll numbers have moved 10 points. Obama probably has to strip naked to stop the focus on Sarah. But the Democrats are committing suicide if they think it is a good idea to attack someone’s religion: “that religion has some people concerned and it’s getting a closer look” – CNN. Fine, focus on what’s-silly-about-fundamentalists while the Republicans raised spending faster than LBJ, racked up 9 trillion of new debt in 8 years (5 trillion from the Housing Bubble), and want to liberate ever 2-bit country in the world including maybe starting a war with Russia. We can read books over the next 4 years about “what went wrong (for the Democrats) in 2008” and the clever “Republican attack machine” and the need to “connect” with middle-class values voters while President McCain leads us towards financial and possibly military Armageddon. Obama must know that his campaign in hemorrhaging but he probably cannot control the vitriolic leftists who want to win a secular jihad against the evil Christians!
This strikes me as a big misstep, and the reason is as you suggest–it will re-open the whole church affiliation question again. You wonder whether Barack will have to call the dogs off again, as he had to do with the Bristol pregnancy. It’s surreal to watch this guy berating the press and scolding them when they investigate matters that he’d rather were left alone–“No, no, guys, that’s not helping! Trust me on this, we don’t want to go there!”
I think it’s terribly funny, and appropriate, for any and every political candidate to be called to task for their religion. We need to know where they get their moral code of values from, and more importantly, their amalgamation of metaphysics and epistemology (usually an unsavory stew).
The funny part is, you won’t be considered a viable candidate unless you pretend to be pious (and Christian?), yet whatever church you go to is bound to be a fount of palpable absurdities. The politicians are a little irritated by this, I guess — after putting in all that time to keep up appearances, and now they are expected to use their own judgement about what gets preached there. Where the basic tenet is that it is not your place to judge the truth of what you are hearing! It’s funny to watch them squirm, especially as when Obama had to denounce his own preacher.
The only scary thing would be if we had a true believer in power, making nuclear war decisions with an end-times or race-hating faith telling them that they are an “instrument of god’s will”!
–John Danforth–
Think that’s bad? This morning the Washington Post carried a front-page story exposing Palin’s supposed “abuse” of her expense account. It was not until paragraph 24, buried deep inside the paper that we learn that “Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski.” Or that she always flies coach.
Nor is it mentioned that Juneau, the state capital of Alaska, is a small town 600 miles by air from Alaska’s population center, and that most state officials get reimbursed for the “commute”.
Last night, while you were watching Campbell Brown, I was watching Keith Olbermann smear Gov. Palin. He called her a “liar” — yes, that was the word he used — because she said she put the state jet on eBay, when it was actually sold through a broker. Then, as an aside, he mentioned it had been put on eBay three times, but did not sell.
“Not working with much” – seems a congenital condition among those in the news as entertainment industry. Explains why so many become newsreaders. Why they are allowed to speak/comment extemporaneously is both a puzzle and an entertainment.
This is the multi-cultural 21st century. Everyone knows that means bashing Western culture and beliefs is fine. But bashing any other culture or beliefs, no matter how backwards and anti-social, is taboo. That’s the new and intellectually sound way of the world don’t you know?
I guess I’m one of those people ‘smearing Sarah’.
(Ilana, if you publish this comment, annoying as it may be to you, I promise I will no longer post on your blog. I know I am wearing out my welcome, but I would like to say this.)
Pat Buchanan is right when he says that Sarah is ‘one of us’; she is a feminist down to her association with Feminists for Life.
The only thing I will say about Palin and her religious supporters is that they are being hypocrits. Her husband stays home and takes care of their kids. This is manly? or Christianic? or motherly?
We are getting into wierd territory when Christians begin to see themselves in a working class politico who’s husband stays home and tends to the kids more than half the time while she helps run the country.
Politics are all about appearances, false or not, and this great appearance has duped a lot of Christians into believing that feminism is actually Christianic – just so long as you belong to a church, you aren’t a feminist.
I’m not saying that it is wrong for women to get positions of power. I am saying it is wrong to be a hypocrit.
Alex,
From my perspective as a reader of this blog, there is no reason I see for you to cease posting. [I second that; thanks, B., for saying what I forgot to say. We enjoy and need Alex’s input.–IM]
It seems that you have a perspective based on your life experiences that is perhaps different from my own. As a Christian I am in no way offended by your mention of “hypocrisy”: I have to examine my life and actions on a daily basis to make sure I am not walking in it! Remembering, of course, that Jesus reserved His harshest words not for sinners (who can be forgiven by admitting their sins and asking for forgiveness) but for hypocrites.
I, too, wonder why an exceptionally talented woman (as Sarah Palin certainly is)appears to place her primary emphasis on her career and not on her young children, including a newborn who will really need care. I don’t think this makes her unqualified to serve as McCain’s running mate, but I admit I have some questions about her priorities, in light of her responsibilities to her young children.
“I don’t think this makes her unqualified to serve as McCain’s running mate, but I admit I have some questions about her priorities, in light of her responsibilities to her young children.”
Perhaps Palin feels the best thing she can do for her children is to get in a position of power to influence her state and country’s future? A rising tide lifts all ships…
Wow. I am very surprised at this. Not what I expected…
After posting my comment, I figured my time on BaB was almost up. Ilana had enough of me; it was time for the boot. I could feel a tingling sensation in my nose; when this happens, bad things usually follow.
Instead I found a post that cleared up my thoughts and gave my explanation to BaB posters, in addition to thanking me for posting. I am grateful for this, Ilana, and Mrs. Grant – I didn’t know that people might enjoy my posts or thoughts.
Thank you Ilana. I had no idea that people appreciated me. It feels pretty good.
A far cry from college, BaB should be a model for how things are done in academics.
Again, thanks Ilana. I am loyal to you, and this blog..
~Alex
I’m surprised that feminists are against Palin. Well, at least some of them.
The thing that irks me so much about feminists is that they are so self-serving in their political nature.
They never take the idea of equality to its logical extent. They say that women are equals to men in all realms physical (something that the Hollywood movies starring the wafer-thin Jolie seem to be all about lately). But then they support legislation such as Violence Against Women Act, and consistently talk about the plight that their gender faces in living with these horrible, beastly men. Don’t they know that talking about this is a form of admission of weakness to their gender? How is that ’empowering’?
I won’t even get into the double standards that pervade the military and the workplace that they support.
In the end, though, after all is said and done, is there really anything women today can’t do?
Women are not struggling politically or economically in America. To talk about emancipating the ‘fairer’ sex in today’s America is to live a delusional life.
Also, a lot of people have misunderstood feminism. Ask ten people what exactly feminism is and you will get exactly ten different answers.
In general, the angrier people become, the more vocal they tend to be about their beliefs. The same effect has been observed with drunkards, though many women might be drunk on a different kind of juice…
Perhaps we should go to the source:
“..when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations…”
Here we have the basic core of feminism; it has nothing to do with equality, fairness, or morality. It is merely a will to power.
As the anger and isolation increases, I would expect to see more of this kind of verbal drooling. People who lust power more than any other goal in politics often become delusional.
I am not surprised that she forcasts a very bleak future for female politics. If they can’t win their arguments, they try to convince others how bad things are or will be.
Misery loves company.
Assuming the veracity of: “The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for…. “, then perhaps what feminism has stood for is not all that worthwhile when you boil it down to self-pitying, victimization, groupthink, and hating men. Presumably, Paglia, Rand, Thatcher and others are not “real” feminists just as Clarence Thomas is not a “real” black. {Mind you, I don’t wish to defend Palin’s opinions on the War in Iraq – but she has every right to be a warmonger just like McCain or Biden or any man.}