« Breathing while Female: Problems that Didn't Go Away | Desidero's Blog | It's Official Now: McCain Not as Sleazy as Hillary!!! »
Sarah Palin's Basketball Diaries - Title IX is More than Fine
By now I think we all know that Sarah Palin won a beauty pageant and some even know she won a scholarship off of that. And that of course produces disdain in us liberal types: Imagine if she were some rootin', tootin', Moose-shootin' guy from Alaska, instead of the beauty queen that she is. You think all those guys would be giving him a pass? In so many ways Palin is a woman taking advantage of her "assets", so to speak. Yes, just imagine. Or imagine she was a skilled athlete, say in basketball or running 5km or 10km races?
One well known liberal politician, Bill Bradley, was a skilled basketball player. When he graduated high school in 1961, he had 75 scholarship offers. Which by a funny coincidence was the total number of women's sports scholarships in the entire country. Okay, just kidding - there weren't that many. In 1974, my female cousin had the good fortune to attend college in the 2nd year of Title IX. I say good fortune, because it allowed her to sue her university when there were no electric outlets in the female locker rooms. (It was a big football and basketball university, frequently at the top of their class, and had just made the NCAA Sweet 16 that year. But that was men's basketball, and of course the men's locker room had saunas and whirlpools and the other expected facilities). However, lawsuits don't happen quickly, so she transferred to a school that had a few amenities for women rather than spending the rest of her college career trying to find some place to plug in her hair dryer.
So how had it improved by the time Sarah graduated in 1982? Was there a line of scouts waiting to hand out basketball scholarships to women? Well, let's check out women's basketball at the University of Cincinnati almost 30 years after Cincinnati's Big O, Oscar Robertson, lit up America by leading national scoring 3 years in a row. "My first team bought their own shoes, and they were called Kangaroos," she says. "I slept in rest stops to recruit. It was just a really, really different time. I was driving the vans, and my assistant sat on the opposite side and played the music. We have come so far." Yes, in 1986. One UC women's basketball coach notes her first coaching job paid $3000 a year. Well, I won't belabor the point. These days scholarships are roughly equal, though I can't vouch for facilities. It's just worth noting that Title IX was just one area of opportunity that opened up for women over the last 30 years.
So the next time you hear or read someone tearing down women because they're not doing something the way men would, that they're taking advantage of their sex, that they got an easy ride, that they're just too cute or too ugly, how about stepping up to the plate - speak out, question yourself, question history, question the rules, question the inquisitor. Even if you're a woman yourself.
Because women in the US have only had the vote for 88 years (in Switzerland only 25 years), they weren't accepted in the work place for 25 years more (the German woman who discovered nuclear fission in the late 30's, Lise Meitner, had to work for free), college was considered for marrying until the 1960's, and there was no place for women in the corporate system up into the late 90's. With the caveat that anything women did do would have to be paid less and to be on top of raising the kids, cooking and cleaning house, and of course being hit on incessantly during the course of their professional activities and in danger every time they visited a poorly lit spot. And it will always be assumed that a woman's success derives from her husband's, and that she rides on his vote, his property, his political views and opinions.
And instead of taking 18 million cracks as the end of the road, let's take it as a mark of shame - that this is remarkable in 2008, that a woman had to be a wife of a former president to be a serious contender, while another high professional contender for VP is ridiculed for appearing in a beauty pageant as a teen. Well sorry, friends, Sarah did more than just pose in a swimsuit, and Hillary did more than just raise Chelsea, however you critique them, and our political discussion is still warped and twisted and demeaning against women long after it should be.
How else would a country bumpkin think it's appropriate to give a back rub to one of the 8 major leaders of the free world just because she's a woman? How else would it even be possible that hiring a woman as a novelty, as a sign of "change" and "being mavericky" would work in the most industrialized nation in the world? Am I odd for just feeling nausea at the thought of all this shit?
One well known liberal politician, Bill Bradley, was a skilled basketball player. When he graduated high school in 1961, he had 75 scholarship offers. Which by a funny coincidence was the total number of women's sports scholarships in the entire country. Okay, just kidding - there weren't that many. In 1974, my female cousin had the good fortune to attend college in the 2nd year of Title IX. I say good fortune, because it allowed her to sue her university when there were no electric outlets in the female locker rooms. (It was a big football and basketball university, frequently at the top of their class, and had just made the NCAA Sweet 16 that year. But that was men's basketball, and of course the men's locker room had saunas and whirlpools and the other expected facilities). However, lawsuits don't happen quickly, so she transferred to a school that had a few amenities for women rather than spending the rest of her college career trying to find some place to plug in her hair dryer.
So how had it improved by the time Sarah graduated in 1982? Was there a line of scouts waiting to hand out basketball scholarships to women? Well, let's check out women's basketball at the University of Cincinnati almost 30 years after Cincinnati's Big O, Oscar Robertson, lit up America by leading national scoring 3 years in a row. "My first team bought their own shoes, and they were called Kangaroos," she says. "I slept in rest stops to recruit. It was just a really, really different time. I was driving the vans, and my assistant sat on the opposite side and played the music. We have come so far." Yes, in 1986. One UC women's basketball coach notes her first coaching job paid $3000 a year. Well, I won't belabor the point. These days scholarships are roughly equal, though I can't vouch for facilities. It's just worth noting that Title IX was just one area of opportunity that opened up for women over the last 30 years.
So the next time you hear or read someone tearing down women because they're not doing something the way men would, that they're taking advantage of their sex, that they got an easy ride, that they're just too cute or too ugly, how about stepping up to the plate - speak out, question yourself, question history, question the rules, question the inquisitor. Even if you're a woman yourself.
Because women in the US have only had the vote for 88 years (in Switzerland only 25 years), they weren't accepted in the work place for 25 years more (the German woman who discovered nuclear fission in the late 30's, Lise Meitner, had to work for free), college was considered for marrying until the 1960's, and there was no place for women in the corporate system up into the late 90's. With the caveat that anything women did do would have to be paid less and to be on top of raising the kids, cooking and cleaning house, and of course being hit on incessantly during the course of their professional activities and in danger every time they visited a poorly lit spot. And it will always be assumed that a woman's success derives from her husband's, and that she rides on his vote, his property, his political views and opinions.
And instead of taking 18 million cracks as the end of the road, let's take it as a mark of shame - that this is remarkable in 2008, that a woman had to be a wife of a former president to be a serious contender, while another high professional contender for VP is ridiculed for appearing in a beauty pageant as a teen. Well sorry, friends, Sarah did more than just pose in a swimsuit, and Hillary did more than just raise Chelsea, however you critique them, and our political discussion is still warped and twisted and demeaning against women long after it should be.
How else would a country bumpkin think it's appropriate to give a back rub to one of the 8 major leaders of the free world just because she's a woman? How else would it even be possible that hiring a woman as a novelty, as a sign of "change" and "being mavericky" would work in the most industrialized nation in the world? Am I odd for just feeling nausea at the thought of all this shit?
Advertisement
I guess my problem with Palin, Desidero, is that she feels like a giant step backwards for women, not forward. I said so when McCain picked her, and still feel that way.
As to why, I'll have to think on that and get back to you.
At any rate, it's always good to take a look at one's own motivations and reasonings, so thanks. I will get back to you.
October 21, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It always feels backwards when we pick a woman. Now we have to figure out what to do about that.
October 21, 2008 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not always, no. It wasn't like that when Hillary was running. At all. But as others have said, Sarah is no Hillary.
I will try to figure out why that is.
October 21, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
For me, it's because there are millions of women out there who, among many other accomplishments, can put a coherent sentence together. These women happen to believe that it is by their own merit, and not the will of God, that they have garnered success in their chosen careers. These women don't get by on a wink and a smile and a cute folksy voice. They get by on smarts and hard work, many times, as Des pointed out, against severe obstacles that men in simliar careers do not face.
Sarah Palin is not a role model for women. She is, in fact, the furthest thing from a role model. I don't have children, but I have teenage nieces. And the last thing I want them learning is that applying makeup and making love the the camera are the only skills you need to be successful. It's disgusting.
October 21, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paris Hilton is rock solid brilliant. She's figured out how to game the system from where she stands, and if she didn't have the money and looks (if she even has the looks), she'd figure it out some other way. Martha Stewart built an empire, as did Oprah. But there's disdain for each of them - Paris is superficial, Stewart too kitschy cute, Oprah just for housewives, not serious, TV pablum. There's always a little spot of blood on these folks for us to peck to pieces, to dismiss. There are different rules for men and women, and for women it means there's never enough - the first question is the look in the mirror, "where's the imperfection?"
October 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That also changes the rules from the beginning - there's no clean slate to start. If you want to be an actress, you get to confront if and when you take off your clothes, and what good or damage that will do to you. No such requirement for actors. You get to decide whether you will gracefully exit at 35 when your looks aren't at their peak, or work the gym until 45 when they stop giving you parts.
Pick the field, name the preconditions.
October 21, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paris Hilton, Des? Come on. She's a horrible role model. If you have to go Hilton, at least use Nicky.
Martha's not bad, except for that minor prison blip. And Oprah is actually a great role model: she's openly honest about how her appearance has affected her, she's a great humanitarian, she overcame quite a bit and worked to get where she is.
But fame doesn't always have to be the basis for choosing a role model. Though it seems it usually is.
The majority of role models, male and female, are in the highly sexualized music and movie industries. Doesn't that all contribute more the tyranny of appearance? It's why people are examining Palin's pageant days and Hillary's pantsuits. As if that means a damn thing.October 21, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on this one, 99. I despise Paris and Martha, fully realizing their intelligence. The content of what they produce, is, IMO, culturally corrosive. The thing is, I don't rank "intelligence" that highly. I saw too many smart people go into the creation & manipulation of "innovative financial products." They were simply saying, "Life's a rat race, I'm a faster-thinking rat, so I'm gonna get the most cheese." Oprah I got a lot more time for. In my candidates, yes, I want intelligence, but judgment, compassion, flexibility, vision & imagination as well. Free sandwiches are important too, but that's just me.
October 21, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And not just in candidates, but in leaders in general, and role models. Still, they are all arguably aspects of the Mind as opposed to the Body. Fame for the sake of fame is meaningless. Fame put to good use can be a good thing. I see no evidence that Paris Hilton has done that, other than once saying she was going to stop wearing fur. Angelina Jolie, George Clooney, Bono, Michael J. Fox, PAUL NEWMAN. Using your "assets" (if we're talking about physical beauty) is good when it serves a greater cause. Using them only for the sake of gaining power means nothing to me.
If all these kids want to be famous, I want to ask them what they want to be famous for. Fame for the sake of fame? You can get 15 minutes of that off a YouTube video. Famous for ending world hunger? Famous for inventing the cure for cancer? Famous for creating art? Famous for composing music? Or famous for partying and drinking yourself into jail?
October 21, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to talk fame and fortune in a modern way without hitting on Paris. Or Madonna. Don't be too critical. People just see how the world works. Lessee, there are options 1-5 and the rest don't apply. I'll take #4. When you're a mouse in a maze is there a moral choice which gate give you your food pellet? Mice just wanna have fun.
October 21, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
and eat
October 21, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not in option #4 - they're supermodels - binge and puke. Keeps the weight off.
October 21, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fame's not a requisite for food. Can fame be sought without also working toward a greater cause? Sure. But when fame starts having negative effects, damn straight I'll be critical. People have to think about the consequences of their actions. You want to be up there on that stage, you have the responsibility to remember that people are watching you.
October 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to the producers of Saturday Night Live. Here's a show that intervened for Hillary Clinton. No one knew how this Palin thing would go. In the end, the people on the stage andwho control the stage are interested in their own celebrity and each other.
October 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, let's just say my Bony Moronie got a little carried away. On the good side, the police have identified most of the bodies. I'll be more careful next time, honest.
October 21, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, let's compare apples to apples.
Olympia Snow
Susan Collins
Kaye Bailey-Hutchinson
Geraldine Ferraro
Diane Feinstein
Anne Richards
Hillary Clinton
It's a pretty long list. Is there a double standard? You betcha. But let's not compare them to their male counterparts. Let's compare them to Sarah Palin. She doesn't stack up.
October 21, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you like dem apples?
But the problem is, only 2 were picked to play the tokens on the VP roll, while only 1 managed to fight her way into serious contention for Pres. The rest are just some respectable female politicians with no path higher, no chance on the campaign trail. A league of their own, perhaps.
October 21, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let's compare Sarah Palin to Hillary Clinton.
How do you think she stacks up?
October 21, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha ha. Slow ball, middle plate. There must be some gob of spit waiting to break, maybe a knuckler, can't be that easy....
October 21, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh! Oh! Let me! How do you think Obama stacks up?
October 21, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like airplanes over La Guardia?
October 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stacks, eh.
October 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a little flat chested for my taste.
October 21, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beavis? Is that you?
October 21, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking it's because Hillary has a voracious appetite for learning, she's clearly an intellectual heavyweight, she's idealistic and more passionate about the issues she cares about than anyone I've ever seen running for office. My 2 cents. ;)
October 21, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps when it was obvious she was going to lose people could relax and like her a little bit, "enough". She did find her groove, and I know it was hard for her to talk about herself until later, but at the same time it was all chuckles about her 35 years of experience, even though she had a higher salary than Bill when he was Gov. It's obvious that Palin has deep flaws, but then my "obvious" and other people's is a bit different. What I probably didn't state well is that there were a lot more beauty pageants open to Sarah than there were basketball scholarships. What's a girl to do? Reagan was an on-air radio announcer - does that make him laughable too?
October 21, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one should underestimate Palin's appearance on Saturday Night Live and that she had the smarts to do it and the personality to bring it off. It's not a small thing to initiate a process in which people start to laugh with you rather than at you. She's a quick learner. She ain't stupid.
October 21, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I really the only one who thought that SNL was completely unfunny? ;)
October 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought she flailed, and was too stupid to know how to stop them from running a complete mockery of her, all around her. Like she was the straight character in a Marx Brothers movie. She's younger than I am, but I kinda felt like she breaks out her Styx records when she has a party.
Ok, that's the heaviest insult I can levy on a human, so I better stop now.
October 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're fooling yourself, angry old man, but you can't believe it. But carry on my wayward dude, there'll be peace when you get food. Lay your see-through head to rest. Don't excrete no more. There's nothing that a hundred men or more could ever do. Gonna take some time to do the things we never had.
October 21, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, now shut me up - did you know the first Styx album had a George Clinton song on it? The things I learn from incessant blogging.
October 21, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kansas? Toto? Like Styx wasn't enough for you? You sick bast*rd.
Here's something just to spear the joy. Give it through the chorus. ;-)
October 21, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't supposed to be funny. It was supposed to pull in more viewers than any show in the history of SNL. Palin on SNL. McCain on Letterman. Just touching all the bases.
October 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show business all around. Ratings all around. Funny didn't matter.
Spectacle did. Political theater.
October 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
To address your comment directly, Hilary, yes, Ms. Clinton had an amazing focus on rock solid core issues as a student and afterwards, not just theoretically but in practical advocacy, policy and implementation. Unfortunately that took a back seat to what kind of pants suits she wears and whether she cackles, and there's just only so much media time to go around.
October 21, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly Des. It's the US Weekly culture. The role of appearance goes both ways, though markedly more for women. My grandma famously voted for Kennedy because after she saw him come to Johnstown she thought he was handsome. Would Kennedy have been elected if he wasn't a young, handsome and charismatic man? I don't know. Would he have even been who he was? Whether it's cultural or not, we're all defined to some extent by our appearance. Would Oprah be where she is today if she hadn't struggled openly with her weight? I don't know. How much would the 90s have been different if Bill Clinton looked completely different? Would Sarah Palin be in the VP spot right now if she were 100 pounds heavier?
This whole election season has, at the very least, been fascinating to watch insofar as seeing the various ways sexism manifests itself. Where Clinton's aptitude, understanding, and depth took a back seat to whether she should be wearing skirts, what the underside of her arms looked like; we now have a candidate whose ineptitude, complete lack of understanding or even curiosity, are being overlooked by many who are too busy getting *starbursts* out of the TV. Hillary was going to castrate men, but Palin...well. Maybe the common thread is that they've both been attacked for being bad parents. Only the sides have switched. Incredible.
By the way. It turns out misogyny is all women's fault for being so damn evil.
http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/12/22/the-misogynist/
(That site's unbelievable. Read some of the other posts if you get a chance.)
October 21, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think eight years down the road. Who runs against Palin?
October 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think eight years down the road. Who runs against Palin?
October 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think eight years down the road. Who runs against Palin?
October 21, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
software's working good
October 21, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you gotta get rid of that stutter.
October 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin has a bit of rebranding to do, or say deepening her brand. She's young, she has time. There are lots of comeback stories in American politics - Nixon, Reagan, Harry Truman, John McCain to name a few.
October 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. She's not my cup of tea but I know talent when I see it. A lot depends upon who she turns to for an alliance. She can't get it done on her own. Could be Huckabee. He ain't dumb either. Once this election is over Palin will drop McCain like a bag of old chips. She'll be on the political make again as we're finding out she was all along. She certainly marks the final bell for Hillary Clinton.
She has had already found language to mainstream her fundamentalist views. I'm guessing that she'll read a whole lot more when this is over, and as she does, those six thousand year- old dinosaurs will start getting older.
October 21, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's done, Cypher. Toast. After the election, more shit will come out on her - her competitors within the GOP will make sure of that. She's got no national base to work from, and trouble at home in Alaska. She's not that smart, and people will hear her voice over the next four years. Unless she gets a mob up, fast, and runs to the front and holds them... she's toasted.
October 21, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moose dude. I'm in your corner. But you've said the magic words.
"Unless she gets a mob up...."
October 21, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn suffers from short term memory loss - don't go throwing moose turds back at him.
October 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to agree with you Q. People might not remember the exact history of Palin. But they'll be left with a general impression of her. And right now, it's not so great.
That said, I'm not making any predictions for 8 years from now. I'm not even making predictions for 2 weeks from now. Too much can change.
October 21, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hell, anybody can have their reputation rehabilitated. Just ask Powell and Ayers.
October 21, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
But only one's coming to dinner. I knew Colin Powell would come through and that it would be important for Obama.
October 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. I don't buy it. People didn't hesitate to bring up the classic Vince Foster-esque stuff about the Clintons, and she's been a pretty solid senator for 8 years. Powell's reputation was never destroyed. Amazingly, actually. His favorables have continuously been in the 70s-80s. I can't decide if that's because he's become this mythologized figure in the American psyche or if people just happened to miss that speech of his.
October 21, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that too many people and pundits focused on Hillary's pantsuits, etc. -- but, Des, those of us who would have voted for her (even if she had been running against Bill Clinton) were aghast that a woman who has proven, over so many years, to be so smart, so motivated, so assiduous in her efforts on our behalf... fell for the primary strategy of the Mark Penn contingent. I see that as a tragedy for Hillary herself, for her supporters, as well as for the country as a whole. In my opinion, it wasn't the people who failed to see her merit who brought her down; rather, it was her own faith in her nearest and dearest. And that is sad.
Just my opinion.
October 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tragedy hasn't begun. That starts in January.
October 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of my point is that Hillary had a lot fewer choices than we would assume.
Extraneous to this thread, I think a lot of Penn's advice was correct for the candidate he had. There would have been cognizant dissonance early on if the wicked witch of the west was talking about school lunch programs along with personal struggles. This is a woman who's been battered quite publicly and mercilessly, and I'm sure there's been both a personal and professional effect - such as revealing her warm, caring internal side? Hillary said the word "kitchen" in October and was battered for playing the gender card.
She was in a box, she spent a year trying to get out of it and by the time she found the path out, it was too late. Sarah didn't have that box because she just chose one of the acceptable alternatives from the menu.
October 22, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Des. Fierce like the old you, and fiery like your avatar.
October 21, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you? You're just a puss these days.... Blew a gasket? You blew about a gram of catnip up your nose, it looks like.
October 21, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
We all felt your post was more powerful today Des, against the backdrop of that giant orange fireball sun. Gasket & I are still kinda rubbing our eyes & wondering how you arranged it?
October 21, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just testing out one of my biotechnology ideas. And then something went horribly wrong. Perhaps the recipe called for a dash of Palladium, not Plutonium. Always was a sloppy cook.
October 21, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one gets from mayor of Wassila to candidate for v.p. without having some political acumen.
October 21, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There you go, and said in 700 fewer words than I could.
October 21, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she just gives good head.
October 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Just"? Qualify yourself if you're going into the thicket.
October 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'd have to have good skills in that kind of weather.
October 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for reminding us of the opportunity we missed to elect a smart woman. We also missed an opportunity to lose.
I don't care if Palin was a Rhodes scholar, she answers questions like a pageant contestant, she is going along with divisive campaign techniques, and she gets Rush Limbaugh's ebdorsement. The last is enought to call for tossing her overboard.
October 21, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Opportunity to lose" - these are self-fulfilling prophecies. Women have trouble winning because we frame them as unwinnable from the start. Let's compare divisive personalities - McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schafly, etc. These are the fabric of our political debate. Sarah Palin just came into the arena and set up a stand, ready to serve - no preparation or cooking needed. In that sense, Republicans may be less sexist than Democrats.
October 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct. Sarah is the last piece in the neocon puzzle.
October 21, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton had too much history, admittedly mostly her husband's. It was an excess of negatives. I admire her tremendously, but wish she had not entered the primary race.
Republicans are less sexist? Show me the non-glamorous women that represent them. Where are the Bella Abzugs, Shirley Chisolms, Maxine Waters', Madeleine Albrights, or Betty Friedans? They only trot out women that are the political equivalent of trophy wives. So we get Michelle Bachman, or Ann Coulter.
They offer ugly men and slender (but stupid) women. We offer smart and accomplished women and good-looking men. And I think we have a real trophy in Michelle Obama, who rivals Barack in every field except votes won.
October 21, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the Lake Woebegone Party - women are strong, men are good-looking and the policies are all above-average.
October 21, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't mess with my cumulative impression of you. Des. This allusion to Lake Woebegone has to be a crowd-pleasing feint.
October 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, it was a joke, and oddly I'd referenced the LW quote to my kids just that day. (Of course they're above average, and just to be sure (I of course feed them basil for enhanced gender identity, but mistakes happen) they're both strong *AND* good-looking.
October 22, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The success of Title IX is easily overlooked these days because many folks don't remember the dainty cultural mold in which young women were encased before it, most notably in schools. One has only to know young woman today who have grown up post-Title IX on college campuses to realize this profound transformation. Title IX can be used in weirdly motivated ways also. The University of Oregon recently dropped its men's wrestling program to fund a cheerleader squad to compete with other programs, when adding a women's wrestling team was more in the spirit of the law. But you take what you can get. And Sarah Palin got plenty out of Title IX, which, in a democracy, is only fair.
October 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the women politicians I've known best, voters WOULD respond to them as.... people. Judge them as being intelligent or caring or hard-working or tough or mean or duplicitous or whatever. And those judgments I found to be almost always... right. Or at least, understandable. Think Maggie Thatcher. She WAS tough, was pretty smart, was determined, was mean, etc.
But ONE problem here (one of many, ok? ) is the network of images, stereotypes, mental/social models of women that we all carry around with us, swim in - and they're so appalling that the mental images or comparators that spring to mind are... appalling. My own mental storehouse of female images lets me pretty clearly tell you what Pamela Anderson looks like, acts is, talks like. Naomi Klein? Tougher to bring to mind. And that is actually an understandable thing. Our culture invests big money in drilling Pam's image in. And they're aiming to hit the lizard mind. Massive marketing for Pam, not so much for Naomi.
So that when we reach for a way to explain, being people, we DON'T simple discuss in abstract, cool, rational terms. Look at how some of the best minds at TPM dealt with the MALE candidates. Anybody remember mentally searching for a more widely-known model that our candidates were LIKE? I think we all do this. And where do many of them come from? History, yes.... but also film, cartoons, songs, tv shows, ads.
And if those characters are heavily tilted towards certain sexualized stances to begin with, how are women candidates to avoid getting connected up to that? Cultural hooks are a big BIG thing. We can all argue that Obama is or isn't a Martin Luther King. But stand back. THAT is the cultural film playing as a backdrop. They can try and make him Malcolm X or the other Panthers, but the fit just isn't there. It's King.
And that, finally, for me, explains why Thatcher made it. There would have been NO way she could have made it - as a woman - if Britain had not had a long history of... Queens. It IS just as simple as that. Yes, Maggie was mean as hell, mentally tough, determined... but there was a mental precedent sitting there, a hook shared by that entire culture, and they'd come to like/respect/defer to it. Queen Victoria.
But in American culture? A lot tougher. I'm sure lots of women have educated themselves in positive female role models, but for most of the population? Not sure it's there. Which is why Hillary WAS so important. I think she's actually burned a new image in all our minds. No woman, for many years to come, is going to be able to run without being mapped up against Hillary. She burned away a lot of dross, and there's a new set of connections there. Anyway. Just as ONE factor in play.
October 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
THAT was appallingly long. Good God. Delete that for me, willya, Des. Charlie Crist.
October 21, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eye of the beholder: I thought it was one of your shorter ones. ;)
But some really interesting points in there. Thinkin' on it.
October 21, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would hate to ask him what time it is. He'd start with the origin of time in the universe, work his way around to what time it was an hour ago when he started.
October 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but what a trip, baby. Nobody ever asks for a refund.
And lives.
October 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the best part of the trip. And no one here gets out alive.
October 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
or was alive at the start...a blog without comments, an avatar without friends, a thesis without rec's....
October 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
a lobotomy without a lobe to stand on.
October 21, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
a globe without a stand...
October 21, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
October 22, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to quibble with you Quinn. You're the smartest person around at prying out the nuances of these kinds of ideas. And I agree with your basic notion here. I'm going for a bit more nuance perhaps. Malcom X became a kind of alternate statesman to King for many people in the world, while the Panthers barely got a foot oot the door from a sense of thuggery. I could be wrong here, but I think there might be a group of Americans who remember some sense of honor in Malccom X, that honor missing from other figures, Jessie Jackson among them.
Secondly. As images go, charisma and fame can trump all others. Paris Hilton is famous. So is Serena Williams. So is Sarah Palin. And the realm they all inhabit, a personality that is welcome on Saturday Night Live and a person who is comfortable in that role--they all are a modern day kind of Queen, notoriety the new noblility.
October 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree that Malcolm X is more widely-respected than the Panthers. I'd still say a fair chunk of people respect Jesse too, but I'd guess neither of them breaks the 50.1% mark.
The "Fame" thing is interesting. Yes, it's a new way to join the Aristocracy. But it's not quite being Queen. Many people will bow to a Queen, follow orders, even go to war. I'm less inclined to do what Paris says. Same with most people, or else the Dems would have won the last two elections right?
So agreed, but with a slight shift - Celebrities more like the Aristocrats, and maybe one or two of them don the Crown & mean something more to us. (Though as our sense of what it means to be "Queen" is slowly leached of real authority, it slides into Celeb-status as well.)
October 21, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn,
Speaking from a Thomas Jefferson meets Christopher Hitchens stance, Queens, Kings and assorted Dukeries seem powerful (at least in America) mostly through a longing for the past.
Charisma beat the Royals hands down with Princess Diana. She became the real Queen of England and her attractiveness and sexuality were made that happen.
Imagine three personalities appearing on the same day in a little town in America -- Sarah Palin, (Sir) Paul McCartney and Queen Elizabeth. I'm not putting my chips on Queenie getting the largest audience.
Adding "SIr" to Paul McCartney was an interesting bit of a culture shuffle. Whatever its merits or pretentiousness, it shows a weakening of the old idea of nobility and the emergence of a more modern sense in which talent and achievement replace bloodlines. Such a change will be the end of Kings and Queens. When Queen Elizabeth knights some of these newly noble types does she curse the world that night? Or does she just hum a bit of "Yesterday?" We'll have to ask Helen Mirren.
There was a time when American newspaper editors would drop the "Sirs" and "Dames" nonsense. Those days are gone. Not because of any political sensibility, but the understanding that any kind of hype or excitement pushes up readership and ratings. That's the culture of charisma.
Charisma has replaced history.
All this to say that Sarah Palin is a kind of American working class Diana. She will never be "Her Royal Highness" --but that's the point. "Her Royal Highness" is just another bit of hype these days. Sort of like "Oscar Winner." What matters is that she's famous. And that she can bowl. And I'm not putting down bowling. Her appeal is that she does bowl and not golf.
In a world where hype has completely replaced long term memory of history, a world in which younger generations don't know or care about history, Sarah Palin may well be the Right's transformative figure down the road.
In fact, if you remove the nobility sheen, Sarah Palin shares some cultural traits the English once saw in the 16th century Elizabeth--notably the combination of sexuality and power. The Great Mother. Can The Great Mother say "you betcha?" You betcha.
She's got four years to work up an intellectual image and, in a culture where so many people don't know or care about history, that may work. You might say that she's got the Right stuff.
She wouldn't have a chance in Canada.
October 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take your point that charisma & celebrity & achievement & authority are being merged in new ways, the balance shifting. But don't walk it too far. Authority & political power - like economic power & artistic talent - still, to some degree, have their own bases, in and of themselves. Which also means, charisma hasn't totally replaced other drivers of history.
You're misreading Diana though. Diana had 3 things, and most American watchers never really "got" the 3rd. She had beauty/charisma, yes. She had the Royal link. But Diana also came to stand for - and in some cultural sense - help lead a particular cultural-historic push. It's hard to explain, but 17 years of Maggie & her ilk felt very much like living through a civil war. English-style. And Diana came to speak & act, from the heights, as the one on OUR side. The AIDS stuff and landmines, that meant more than you'd imagine. i.e. It was not JUST her attractiveness and sexuality.
When she died, I can tell you - coming so close on the heels of Blair's win - that it felt like the sidewalks were trembling. This enormous, pent-up, cultural-psychological force was erupting. I mean, it was quite unreal to see people just weeping and weeping, for days, on the streets. BRITISH people. Including myself - and I couldn't stand the Royals. It was much more than the loss of beauty or royalty alone should have triggered.
She stood for the beauty & the pain of 17 years, for a lost generation of kids, destroyed cities, a generation and a culture mocked, for the ones who cared about AIDS and the victims of war (and poverty even), all stamped down by vicious Maggie, and now.... she was dead. Going on about the expenses of her clothes or her Paris Hilton-like moments in NO way captures that 3rd aspect. And when her (drunken lout) brother Charlie Althorp spoke at her funeral, and condemned the Royals and the Media and the other powers-that-be, the whole nation clapped and cheered and stood roaring... it wasn't just about Diana versus the Queen or Diana's personality.
To close the circle, we need to understand that we're seeing the same kind of thing in Obama, ok? Almost exactly the same kinds of feelings. Yes, there's race. Yes, there's charisma. But a massive cultural thing has been tapped. A Civil War, going on for at least 40 years, that is about to swing the other way. "We" all know who "we" are. Which side. Wrap it in party colours if you wish, but this ain't just another election. It's generational, it's cultural, it's a dozen movements & tribes in behind him.
And this is one reason why Palin ain't never gonna be shit. Her negatives started plummeting long before she had that Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric interview, long before the debates. The stuff from her Alaskan world - wolves and librarians and her church and the guns - all of that started taking her down, with US. And there's a lot of us. It's why I said a while back, "Don't make the same mistake. We can and will WIN a culture war with the Republicans now. WE are the majority." And some people thought that was foolish, or provocative, but all I can say is... the Republicans have certainly done their best to re-fight it, and how's that working for them? Life's changed. We win.
As for her future, she's NOT enough part of the mainstream culture of those under 60. She can go on SNL, but she's not OF it. Never will be. So I kinda hope they go to work to try and teach her something, gloss her up. Cause they'll get their ass kicked again, and still won't know why.
And oh yeah. She's not, in any way shape or form, Lady Di. That comparison falls way short. Palin's heartless, Cypher. Heartless. Not gonna become a Great Mother, nor of great intelligence, nor a great heart. And I think you're gonna need one of the above to win in the future.
October 21, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of that Di thing was Charlie, but sure.
And I agree, Maggie was Queen. Stiff upper lip and all that. Certainly no Spice Girl. Surviving the Blitz, conserving heat, the no-frills tribute-to-the-past type. In part to pull England out of the doldrums just as Reagan did the US. You can bitch about policy, but people hate doldrums.
October 21, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes yes, the old Britain was sclerotic, and Labour broken. But Maggie was a destroyer - that's it, that's all. What she gets credit for now is the functional equivalent of having bombed dozens of British inner cities - and millions of people - to rubble, where they then grew something new from the midst. Might as well thank Allied bombers for enabling Germany's reconstruction. Her overall economic record SUCKED. People lop off the first few years and the last couple & wanna say she was a success. But the UK's overall growth rate was no better than France or Italy. PLUS she had North Sea oil - it came on under her, she wasted it utterly, and now they've got nothing. She let the pound soar, manufacturing collapsed, unemployment quadrupled, and what did they get? Give me tens of billions in oil & I'll make happy sounds too.
She led privatization way past any sane levels, in complete give-aways, tying Britain in knots for 15 years since... She ABOLISHED the big cities local government, talk about how that helped them modernize... She shifted taxation toward the poll tax, hitting the poor... She shovelled arms to Saddam, and her son raked in kickbacks, and him later arrested for attempting an African coup.... "There is no such thing society"... Ack. Must stop. But if she hadn't had North Sea oil... she'd have had nothing. The Falklands saved her once, and the Brighton bombing gave her another shot. I got two amens for her:
"Merry Christmas Margaret Thatcher. We all celebrate today, cos it's one day closer to your death." - Billy Elliott
"When they finally put you in the ground, I'll stand on your grave & tramp the dirt down." - Elvis Costello
October 21, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, 2 faces will show up to her grave at least - perhaps 2 more than mine.
October 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not read further in the thread, on purpose, because I want to say my piece about Diana versus Palin, without being influenced by the opinions of either those posters on TPM I admire, or those I deride.
IMO, for what it's worth, when Diana died, women everywhere were forced to reckon with her significance. We saw Elton John eulogize her, albeit in a 19th century Romantic way -- sentimentally, if erroneously suggesting that Diana had something fundamental in common with Norma Jean, other than dying at the age of 36. We saw her brother -- in a fit of sexist chivalry driven by his own guilt (or was it a fit of guilty chivalry driven by his own sexism?) dare the powers that be in Britain to care, appropriately, for Diana's children. We saw Everyman and Everywoman in Britain break out of their reserve to lay flowers, at the gates and on the common, of Kensington Palace to pay tribute to a woman who had been cheerfully lambasted and ruthlessly pilloried in her lifetime.
What we did not see was a global summation of Diana as a surprising, and inspiring role model -- she who was born to privilege, she who had every reason to make choices other than those she made --she who transcended her upbringing and her adult milieu of uber-privilege, at whatever price -- to make a difference, globally... at a very young age.
Diana was lion-hearted, if young enough to be easily misguided. She was a creature of positive instinct, rather than of jaded reason. She is deserving of our everlasting respect.
In comparison -- Sarah Palin????
October 21, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Lady Di was half as noble as her reputation, but better than those Monaco kids. She kind of took the First Lady route, find some good causes to latch onto. (Her husband had done this with an interest in modern architecture, and I think he was reasonably popular with punks et al., but not as trendy as AIDS and landmines). And she built on that very nicely. But like Sarah, she was picked as Charles' bride for rather unprosaic reasons - she had a bit of royal blood in her and she was a virgin (and Charles just happened to date her sister). She wasn't a prize pick, say in comparison to the Harvard educated Empress of Japan - she had nothing in the way of accomplishments or skills - she was a flunkie reduced to being a kindergarten teacher despite having a rich and well-connected if not also scandalous heritage.
If Sarah Palin had had the resources at her disposal that Lady Di had, imagine. Good and bad, just imagine.
October 22, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Americans can't tell the difference between who has heart or not. If they could, they wouldn't have elected Reagan. They were fooled by Reagan. They were fooled by Nixon. The dems took one of the biggest "nice-guy" beatings in political history when Carter couldn't get the hostages out of Iran.
Much depends on how tough it is for Obama to get the country going again. He may inherit an impossible situation, start to solve it, only to have a Huckabee/Palin ticket pick up the pieces of his good works. Hopefully we'll have health insurance. Huckabee/Palin won't roll that back, they'll just roll their eyes and count their good fortune that society is more stable and just.
Comes down to new generations of Americans knowing something about history-- even their own Constitution. They don't know crap. If it's not on uTube or if it requires more than a few minutes attention span, it slips away. Last I heard, you can't text message the Constitution. But you can cut and paste it.
Younger generations don't deal with ideas as much as with style, process and experience. The economic crisis is making a lot of people get real--but it won't last forever.
I see both the Right and the Left with younger candidates. I think the days of any candidate who CAN'T get on a Saturday Live are over.
The problem with a sense of cultural, history and politics experienced through tv skits, net links and uTube snippets is this: people think they are evaluating information, when, in fact, they are learning to not learn. Ask any college prof today. It's a cut a paste world. That is the kind of culture that is easily controlled and manipulated by either the Right of the Left. The problems facing the world are incredibly complex. Never has intelligence and the ability to weigh competing and nuanced ideas been more crucial to the very survival of the world.
I'm hoping Obama gets plenty done. I'll settle for health care. And then I'll look on with interest how much of an Abe Lincoln he really wants to be. Cause if he were really ready to fight the good fight, he'd be for Gay Marriage --clearly the next civil rights issue. Let's see how deep Obama's intellect is, and his willingness to go beyond some silly book.
I hope you're right. But I'll be dead anyway. Send me vibe in the mist, Moose.
October 21, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd argue this one, but it's the 17th tangent we've fired off of women's college basketball. Plus... gotta eat!
I'll let the Cut & Paste kids come in & cream you.
October 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the pie-a-thon begin, even if it is the war room.
October 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps my tendency to not take the Republican veep candidate seriously would be less marked if watching her did not bring to mind THIS image:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
It would be easier to take Ms Palin seriously if there was even a whiff of the gravitas brought to their positions by other women in high political office. Can you imagine Margaret Thatcher, Anglea Merkel, Golda Meir, or Indira Ghandi simpering for the camera in the smarmy way that Ms Palin has perfected? For that matter, can you imagine Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer simpering for the camera the way Ms Palin does and getting away with it? Why on earth should Ms Palin be given a pass for behaving like a giddy cheerleader being interviewed for the school paper. She's running for the position of VP for crying out loud, not prom queen.
October 21, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine Pelosi or Boxer running for President, and our iron ladies are reserved for Secretary of State or DoJ. This is not Merry Old England, the stately Queen types don't work over here. And the jury's still out on whether Hillary will be a workable archetype for us.
Name something Palin's done that's more juvenile or more deer-in-the-headlights than what W has done? And here's a man who hit 80% approval. Now think of a cocktail party, where 4 out of 5 people approve of a dyslexic pseudo-cowboy with personality disorders? It reflects on you and me.
October 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If America could elect Bush they could elect Palin--not this time but down the line. Also, posters here miss the point if they think that because one sees Palin's particular resonance with some voters in America that that means one supports her politically and doesn't see her weaknesses. There's something more afoot when the only thing people CAN talk about is Palin.
October 21, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Because women in the US have only had the vote for 88 years (in Switzerland only 25 years), they weren't accepted in the work place for 25 years more (the German woman who discovered nuclear fission in the late 30's, Lise Meitner, had to work for free), college was considered for marrying until the 1960's, and there was no place for women in the corporate system up into the late 90's."
Black women have been working "outside" their homes in this country for over 450 years and we sure as hell weren't (and aren't) attending college to catch husbands. Title IX passed because some of us were busy fighting injustice and sacrificing our lives to obtain our basic civil rights.
October 21, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Title IX passed because Patsy Mink was one tough and clever Congresswoman.
October 21, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patsy_T._Mink
October 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here's to Fabiola who got to compete with the guys because she was just too damn good:
http://www.fabioladasilva.com.br/english/index.html
(Case could almost be made for the Williams sisters as well).
October 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Williams sisters went to the Compton School of Hard Knocks. That father pulled off something brilliant and near impossible without anyone's help.
October 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Williams sisters went to the Compton School of Hard Knocks. That father pulled off something brilliant and near impossible without anyone's help.
October 21, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, unfortunately I just don't know that they can beat the guys, at least the top 10 seeded. That's where Fabiola kicked butt.
October 21, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still lacking even a cursory knowledge of American history, hmm?
October 24, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des, as always a thoughtful post...As a sexist woman I am wanting to jump into this discussion in a big way...unfortunately, I woke up sick this morning and my brain isn't going to allow it...Hope we can revisit the subject later! See you in the penalty box when I'm feeling better!
October 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try to go for unsportsmanlike behavior this time, will give us a bit longer to cool our heels.
October 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the record show that I wanted Obama to choose the best Governor in the country, Kathleen Sebelius, as his running mate, despite the fact that I am a Delawarean man. As much as I like Biden's foreign policy experience, I still think Sebelius's gubernatorial executive experience would have been great for the ticket.
And I'm already pondering McCaskill in 2016. Every interview I've seen her in shows her as confident, comfortable, witty, and in tune with America. Hmmm... McCaskill/Schweitzer? Schweitzer/McCaskill?
October 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it OK to ask if Hillary wore those pantsuits by choice, or was there no option? Because they are really wrong, it seems to me, unless it's the only thing you can wear for some physical reason or something. Honestly, I don't know. Palin was wearing a leather zippered top today, and that was wrong, for sure. You don't see Biden in something like that. Is there, at long last, just no choice for women? I'd wear serious business attire, I think, if I were running. Or jeans and a work shirt. Sorry if I'm accidentally being offensive, but we wouldn't be talking about those pantsuits if she didn't wear them. And if she has some kind of disability or something and HAS to wear them, forgive me.
October 21, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Competition's tough, but I think you just broke into my "Ten Sickest Minds On TPM" list.
Congratulations. Your autographed thong is in the mail.
October 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
All politics aside, it's something I've been wondering about. It just doesn't make sense.
October 21, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pants suits are Hillary's serious business attire. Pants are more practical to sit around in all day, and you don't end up with a Britney/Sharon Stone papparazzi moment getting out of your seat. Biden can wear either a suit or slacks & shirt - there is no questioning men's attire. And no one's going to write about whether Biden's or Richardson's ass looks fat or whether they're showing too much cleavage.
October 22, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've got me laughing. Pass me whatever you're smoking...
Seriously dude. The pantsuit is business attire. It's the female equivalent of the suit that you see Biden and Obama in all the time. We only put pant in front of it b/c womens' suits used to be skirts only.
But, I'm with you on the jeans. I ever run for president, I'm going jeans all the way. No one will question my Joe and Jane six-pack cred for a second.
October 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, I love this post. I really do!! Seriously. I think this is my fav post that you have ever written, thus far. ;)
My only point of contention is ---
Desidero, I do not believe she is a "high professional contender," and I don't know of many women who do believe that. That's not to say she should have been mocked. There are many others who fit that description more fully than she does - of being a "high professional contender," that is.
Rec'd! I wish I could rec it twice. :)
October 21, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she's governor of a state and was duly elected (which for female politicians only happens half the time - the other half they're tapped to replace someone).
So respecting the people of Alaska (a little) and the credentials of the lady, I will treat her as a professional. In terms of particular mistakes and misdeeds this professional's done in office, well, gloves off. To the misdeeds, not the person, not the gender. People attacked her for having a tanning booth in the mansion (even though she paid for it herself). Just too girlish, eh? Racquetball court, okay, but sunning? In Alaska? And it might cause melanoma? You get the idea.
October 22, 2008 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
um, I did rec it. Not sure if it did or not. The new TPM software hates me. And it's mutual. I hate it too - making me log in 3 times each time I come through. Crap. I have to do something about it tomorrow - like email someone. Shit. grrrrrr!
October 21, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down, purrrr purrrr, tomorrow's another day.
October 22, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's with all the cats? You can't throw a dead cat without hitting a cat avatar around this place.
October 22, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink