Real Feminism vs Fake Feminism
In a recent column on Huffington Post, Amy Siskind attempted to point out that sexism isn't fair even when it is directed at conservative women. It sounds like such a reasonable idea until you actually read the piece she wrote. The two women whom she chooses to defend are Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean, and she is indignant that two of America's most notorious sexists, David Letterman and Keith Olbermann, are the ones attacking Palin and Prejean.
Siskind is one of the founders of "The New Agenda", a supposed feminist organization that is "dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls." According to their website, their organization began in 2008 "...when 30 women met in Westchester, New York, to sketch out plans for a new non-partisan women's rights organization. The attendees were community activists and leaders of women's organizations from around the country, many of whom had met during Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It was the painful lessons of that campaign that provided the raison d'être for the new group: to support women for public office, to draw a line in the sand against the sexism and misogyny so much in evidence in 2008, and to build a broad, non-partisan coalition to advance key goals for women."
Somehow, an old feminist such as myself should be moved by the plight of Sarah Palin and an empty-headed beauty queen in California. What is their plight? Oh my god! They are victims of SEXISM! Siskind feels that Letterman's stupid joke about Palin's elder daughter getting knocked up at a ballgame was tantamount to torture. Despite the fact that David Letterman has been known for his compassion, even toward the mentally disturbed woman who stalked him, Siskind is going to pick up the Palin/Fox News meme and run with it in an attempt to illustrate how rampant sexism is in America. David Letterman might be guilty of a few sins, but there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he hates women---which is more than can be said about the women who gathered outside the Ed Sullivan Theater and screamed the most vile things about his little boy and his partner, calling his son a "bastard" and his girlfriend "a slut". How nice.
Siskind also is horrified that Keith Olbermann was disparaging Carrie Prejean on his show because he mentioned her fake breasts, which were paid for with pageant money. Here we have a young woman who has made a career from her looks. She has been in several beauty pageants, and she's had plastic surgery to enhance the perkiness and size of her boobs. I doubt very seriously that Carrie Prejean participated in beauty contests and got fake breasts because she wants to enhance the lives of women, but Siskind takes up the torch for her and condemns Olbermann for mentioning the very assets that Prejean enhanced in order to impress male beauty judges. It's my assertion that if someone, be they male or female, makes a career on their appearance and their body, and then tries to set themselves up as an icon for freedom of speech---they are fair game for anyone. That isn't sexism. That's comedy.
Despite the fact that Siskind and her 'feminist' ilk have declared themselves concerned with the welfare of women and girls, they ignore the ugly sexism of Newt Gingrich, who once averred that women would make lousy soldiers because they might get vaginal infections from being in ditches. Or John McCain's lovely joke about Chelsea Clinton---the one where he said the reason Chelsea is so ugly is because Janet Reno is her father. The New Agenda also ignores Palin's own remark during the 2008 campaign when told that Barack Obama had won the Democratic Primary: "So, Sambo beat the bitch?"
The New Agenda isn't new at all. It's right-wing demagoguery disguised as 'feminism'. It's home page shows a picture of a few women, all of whom are dressed in pure and virginal white, and the articles and comments from its denizens are 75% recycled Fox News garbage.
In the 70s, when I was coming of age, I experienced sexism on all sides. Men called me a "dyke" or a "bitch" if I had the temerity to refuse their sexual advances. An employer groped me, and when I quit and told my mother why I had quit, she didn't believe me. Men, who I knew had protested the war in Vietnam and were all for civil rights, thought it was perfectly okay to make fun of women and make degrading jokes about the women's' movement. It was men who argued with me about the Equal Rights Amendment, and it was men who spat at me and the other women who marched for the ERA in Springfield, Illinois.
My feminist heroes were Maya Angelou and Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinam and Susan B. Anthony and Harriet Tubman---women who had a great deal to sacrifice and who were bucking a system so entrenched it seemed impenetrable. These were women who endured bigotry and prejudice and hatred and violence and scorn and ridicule. All throughout history, we can point to women who risked their reputations and their lives to help other women, the poor, the downtrodden, the sick. Does Amy Siskind and The New Agenda acknowledge women of today who are that brave and that dedicated? No. She and they take up the banners of two women who have gained their fame and fortunes through lying, cheating, and grinding their stiletto heels into dirt rather than admit they've ever been wrong about anything.
It's a ridiculous and insane stance to take. I got very frustrated by the responses of women on The New Agenda's comments page, and attempted to argue these points there, but was barred from continuing. Evidently, they are bi-partisan and open and tolerant---except if someone actually has some facts to back up her point.
There is nothing wrong with feminism that we need fake feminists to come around preaching a fake doctrine. I don't belong to any organization, including the National Organization of Women. I speak for myself, and for women like myself who grew up poor and afraid to speak out. If it hadn't been for women like those I mentioned above and many others, none of us would have been empowered enough to find our voices and speak out against violence, hatred, and sexism. Amy Siskind and her pals owe their very existences to those who came before and fought like hell to make it possible for women to have the opportunities they have in this age. Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She's not even a decent example of womanhood. Carrie Prejean is a spoiled brat who won't shut up and go away.
I stand with Keith Olbermann and David Letterman, who are more feminist than Amy Siskind and her heroes.
I won't go so far to say that I stand with Keith Olbermann and David Letterman, because inappropriate is inappropriate, regardless of political ideology. But the fact that Sarah Palin takes up the banner of Women's Rights when it suits her makes me barf.
June 20, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, calling a governor a "slut" is inappropriate alright. And I agree that it shouldn't matter what her politics are or for that matter whether she's good looking. (That last one really seems to bother a lot of people on the left.) This is one reason why there are disproportionately so few women in leadership positions.
And what makes me barf is when a so-called "feminist" takes up the banner of Women's Rights when it suits her.
June 20, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
They came after Palin and her daughters by attacking them on grounds any feminist should reject -- the point isn't who was attacked, but the nature of the attack.
Just because I don't like her politics is no reason to allow anyone to attack Palin on sexist grounds.
June 20, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken and I agree somewhat...
But if these so-called 'fake feminists' want t practice feminism... maybe they'll eventually get to what you recognize as feminism. You know 'fake it until you make it'.
My observation about feminism is that we do need to grow and rise to the occassion of continuing to evolve the dialogue because that works. Let the 'reactionary' and 'whiny' become a thing of the past while expressing the feminine with passionate truth and dignity. Maya Angelou indeed!
When I found sexual descrimination being expressed at the level of 'it is harder for women to become enlightened, because of their emotions' I was taken aback. How could this show up even in the realm of 'higher spiritual thought'? (Though reading the Nag Hammadi Libraries will reveal that this has long been a tradition).
I saw that there were two reasons. One, that the 'feminine' (regardless of man or woman) were perhaps 'whiny or overly attached to their emotions, and reactive' because they were at a level of development and understanding that had not helped them to trust their emotions and take responsility for them in part because the rational tends to criticize their existence altogether (repression=need for overexpression/right to exist).
Another was that the masculine seemed to have the notion that enlightenment for the feminine ought to move and look like enlightenment for the masculine. So the feminine should 'sit and contemplate and be still in nothingness' so to speak. But I learned that the feminine has a completely different and very 'in'volved way of evolving itself that relies on intuition and emotion for guidance and truth. It requires much more engagement in the world. To dance is the best form of meditation for me. To feel everything and allow those feelings to express and move and express in dancing with the music and allowing my body to move however it desires to move... that is integration of spirit, body, mind, emotion, intuition, in a vibrant expression of life. And I come away purified, more whole, present, peaceful, open.
In order to allow ourselves to move forward I think we must start recognizing that we are all at different levels of development and at different levels in different areas of life.
This is not about superiority or inferiority, not better than, less than etc. But just as children have levels of development, so do human beings. So these 'fake feminists' are perhaps being feminists in the way that they can understand it in their honest development. And I think it is healthy. But if you are at a different level of development feminism looks different.
The more we evolve our understanding of the feminine and how to express the feminine more and more skillfully... the more 'she' will be recognized as such. And perhaps continue to call forward a more evolved 'masculine' and vice versa.
June 20, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was invited to comment on this by a valued friend -- maybe not my cup of tea as a subject in general, but I am happy to oblige.
I think the idea of recognizing and respecting that people may be at different levels of development is a strong one. Not just as to feminism but across the board. In politics, I can think of the political junkie vs. the "low-information voter." Some of the latter "just kind of liked" Palin for example, at least at first. Probably a lot of those even drifted away when it became clear she couldn't e.g. name an influential newspaper.
As a process, I think that's okay. I can respect the low information voter, and respect more if he/she follows some kind of logic/sense of judgment and reaches a justifiable conclusion in the end. I think the idea of different levels of development means respecting the person even though I may be different. If someone ends up liking Palin because they have gone through some kind of process of consideration, even if its more emotional and intuitive and not very information-based, and still have a hunch she'll make a good leader, I need to respect that. Maybe try to dissuade the person, but with respect if they treat me with reasonable respect. If we've developed differently, then we have, and that's the way the world is.
It's not the same, of course, when someone is cynically hijacking something (and I don't know which one we have here BTW). If one wishes to say that no one should be called "slutty" or have jokes told about "daughter knocked up", I don't necessarily agree with the reproving view of humor, but I have no trouble respecting it. (I also don't need to hang out with people who want to lecture about what kinds of jokes are off limits -- BORING to me personally, but I can respect it even if I might avoid it.) But if one wants to say Palin gets a free pass in general and I can't dismiss her as unqualified and annoying because her gender is a get-ahead-in-politics-free card, that's not feminism -- it's either chauvinism or crass angling to shut off criticism on specious grounds. That deserves an "Overreach THIS!"
I found fascinating the idea of dancing as ultimate meditation BTW. In Eastern Europe, it is highly accepted that females dance a whole lot, often off by themselves, even if accompanied/escorted by men to whose tables they will happily later return, and even if in committed relationships with such men. There seems to be belief that girls/women dance a whole lot and this is just nature.
June 21, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
""So, Sambo beat the bitch?"
Sarah Palin actually said that?
June 20, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/sambo.asp
June 20, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I stand admonished for not finding a solid source for this. It hasn't been disproved, but I shouldn't have cited it. Thanks for pointing this out.
June 20, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be. I wasn't trying to admonish you. Just providing info.
June 20, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember Amy making headlines when she met with Carly Fiorina on the behalf on John McCain.
She felt a little "uncomfortable" having Obama as a president and saying something to the effect that if McCain could give her reasonable assurances about access to birth control and some "womens issues" that she'd deliver the PUMAs votes.
I don't see this woman as any sort of feminist, sorry. A feminist without an agenda couldn't possibly look favorably on a McCain presidency vs. an Obama one and contend that McCain would be "better" for women. The thought is utterly absurd.
I checked out her blog, and what struck me (aside from the prominent donate button) was the lack of dissent.
I was glad Letterman apologized, and felt he was out of line, but I also acknowledge the fact that Palin uses her sexuality, her children, and her family in ways that merely reinforce predjudice against women.
This isn't as black and white as many here would like to see it, IMHO.
June 20, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, bwak! I agree with it all.
June 20, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. From you that's quite the compliment.
June 20, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you meant that kindly. You skeer me sometimes, Bwak.
June 20, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, I meant it quite kindly. That is why I am following you.
I am sorry I am scary. Lack of communication skills, or a Cuban temper.
Or something.
June 20, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your communication skills are excellent. I'm just not very confident.
June 20, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should be. You are a point on my human compass.
June 20, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Jan is getting hopelessly confused between real and fake feminism on the one hand and real and fake sexism on the other.
June 20, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which means...what? Sorry. I don't speak "vague".
June 20, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read the first sentence of this, it might explain the crossover of the two.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/
"Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms"
However, I find no usefulness in the whole 'real' and 'fake' adjectives being used here. It reminds me of the disgust I feel when the term 'real' american is used.
But I feel people are grasping for language and ways to address their experience of less clear differences in development.
June 20, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not having a background in philosophy or feminist writing, I like to keep it simple:
"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler
June 20, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a background in feminist writing and have only my personal casual exposure to philosophy but I thougt I would address the connection Lalo was making about sexism and feminism because he often appears to me as someone who likes to act as a wedge.
June 20, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some things are indecent regardless of whether you like or disagree with the person they are directed at. Things that are okay to joke about Sarah Palin on: Alaska, moose, hunting, she can see Russia from her house, hypocrisy, corruption. There's no shortage of fodder she's given comedians or progressives. When progressives defend gender-based insults on her because they don't like her, we lose the moral authority to challenge attacks on Asshat Pelosi or Sonia Sotomayor or Hillary Clinton. Actually before Hillary started running these attacks on a female politician of any kind - Republican or Democratic - would not be acceptable from progressives.
If you vigorously disagree with Condi Rice, is it okay to call her the N work or make racial "jokes" about her? If you think Alberto Gonzales is an asshat, is it okay to hurl Hispanic or Mexican jokes at him? Sorry, but you are not a feminist if you only challenge sexist attacks on women you like or agree with and cheer when they are directed at people you dislike.
June 20, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Next time, read the post thoroughly and THEN make a comment. You obviously didn't read it, or if you did, you skimmed over the main points. I don't enjoy sexist comments from anyone about anyone, but for Palin to go after Letterman ONLY, and not the other comics who made much more degrading jokes about her daughter and her, does not point to her concerns about sexism or her defense of her kids, but rather a political attack on the one guy out of all those who has publicly declared his affiliation to political beliefs that she despises. Letterman's jokes was stupid, pointless, and sexist---all of which he has acknowledged and apologized for. Palin, on the other hand, has never acknowledged nor apologized for making women who have been sexually assaulted in Wasilla (While she was mayor) pay for their rapes kits. Don't even try to use her or Carrie Prejean as examples of poor women being attacked for sexist reasons. Palin's own insensitivity to women is proof that she doesn't deserve the support. If anything, I think Palin is a sexist.
June 20, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remind me which comedian implied that (in the most positive light) Bristol was going to have casual sex and get knocked up by a baseball player. Ummm no one. Letterman's joke was way over the line. There is nothing wrong with feminists calling him to task until he finally apologized fully for a way inappropriate joke. Palin accepted it and now the matter is dropped - except for asshats like you who continue to insist that she and her children deserve to be demeaned in sexist terms because you don't like her. I don't like Palin, but she is entitled to a defense when attacked in sexist terms.
I said before the feminists are going to become the Log Cabin Republicans of the democratic party, continually disrespected by progressives who demand our votes based on the issue of choice but continue to disregard feminist concerns. Seems based on your post, I was right. Siskind is the enemy. Anyone who challengs gender based attacks on Palin or her family are the enemy. Feminists should shut up, abandon their principles and only defend women you deem worthy of protection. Are we going to have a review panel? Maybe you and Deanie can start one up. Or maybe we can recognize that some principles stand regardless of what party you belong to.
June 20, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conan O'Brien's joke about Palin being a hockey mom and that her then-pregnant daughter, Bristol, obviously didn't know how to "protect the crease". Then there is Jay Leno's joke about then-pregnant Bristol and that John Edwards was somehow responsible for her being knocked up. Explain to me then, since these are very offensive remarks, why Palin didn't go after THEM? Hmmmm?
Grow the hell up. You wouldn't know or recognize feminism if it bit you on the bra.
June 20, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite simply Palin responded because her daughter Willow was at the game, not Bristol which added a whole nother level of inappropriateness. Hillary also didn't respond to sexist comments until MSNBC went after Chelsea. The simple fact is it's a Catch-22. In the midst of the campaign, who wants to get into a spat with David Letterman about a sexist joke (especially when everyone else is playing along)? She'll be accused of whining, not tough enough for the campaign, etc. Now the campaign is over those political debates about how to respond are gone. As a feminist, I objected to sexist comments against Palin and her family previously during the campaign as well. I objected to them against Nancy Pelosi whom I despise. It's not the person, it's the principle.
I take Dave at his word that he didn't know Bristol was there. I hold to my statement that it would be objectionable even if it was Bristol he was referring to. By the way, did Michelle Obama or the Obama campaign have to object publicly re: Baby Mama or did outraged people do it on her behalf? Did Obama object to the Sock Puppet Obama, or did his supporters do it for him for him. Does Obama have to challenge every watermelon patch joke or GOP racist tweet, or do people - democrat, republicans, anyone who believes that is wrong stand up and say this is unacceptable? If those jokes were told about Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas would you be defending them and telling those folks to stop whining? Why is gender an appropriate means for attack, but race is off limits?
By the way, wow. You seem so angry. I thought that the "RAGING FEMINISTS" were the ones protecting Palin. Nice the see the RAGING ANTI-FEMINISTS exposed. :)
June 20, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice you completely ignore the fact that Palin, while she was mayor of Wasilla, forced women who were victims of sexual assault to pay for their own rape kits.
If you weren't so busy pretending to be an independent thinker upholding a moral (i.e. 'feminism'), you might actually be able to see that the person you are defending against this horrible 'sexism' isn't a victim of anything but her own raging, selfish ego.
Ignoring facts is typical of neo-cons. I refute your claim to be standing up for what's right. You're merely refusing to be wrong.
June 20, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dija isn't a neo-con. You're barking up the wrong tree here. I don't see much difference really in your thought from Dija's.
It's a subtle thing, maybe.
June 20, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care if she is a neo-con or not. I'm done trying to get her to acknowledge facts in evidence.
I, on the other hand, am ready and willing to back down from any opinion I have formed if someone comes at me with facts that prove my opinion wrong. So, no...we're entirely different folks.
June 20, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think (the insurance companies of) rape victims being forced to pay for rape kits is reprehensible. I think her anti-choice positions and being anti-contraception in schools are reprehensible. Sarah Palin is not a feminist. That said, what does the hell does that have to do with thinking attacks based on her looking like a "slutty flight attendant" or her daughter getting knocked up by A-Rod is totally inappropriate?
Real feminists don't just defend feminists. They defend women - all of them - from gender based attacks, even the ones who are opposed to feminism itself. It's about the principle, not the target. ANd I asked you questions above which you obviously have no answer for. Like Clarence Tomas holds positions that are completely antithetical to most black people. Is it okay to call him the N word or demean him in racial terms? Is that the level we have sunk to that we only defend principles when the person is on our team? How pathetic.
June 21, 2009 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
That whole "pay for rape kit" meme is a lie & if you should be ashamed to repeat it. But it seems you pull facts out of you a$$ anyway.
June 21, 2009 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html
Go argue with that author. And when you're done arguing that the rape kit story is a lie, go argue with the four dozen articles I found after a cursory Google search. Asshole.
July 1, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Djamo, from my reading of the incident along a timeline, I was left with the feeling Palin, and Letterman's critics, only brought Willow into it, after they were unable to get any traction off of Letterman's top 10 list about her, going for the sexist angle on the #2 of the list: "Bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her 'slutty flight attendant' look"; implying that Dave was referring to ALL flight attendants as slutty looking (not logical-referencing some flight attendants, not all), which therefore meant she used slutty-looking make-up (Palin's abusive and overt use of bright face-paint creeps me out. The thought of going on a camping trip with her and her make-up case is personally offensive to my conception of enjoying nature. I wouldn't personally use the term "slutty" in this instance, because I do not consider the term to inherently possess a negative/OR/positive connotation, although Wasilla residents have a proper bone to pick with Letterman, as no one in that village goes to Bloomies to buy make-up, they apply it with tattoo needles. I might however, publicly wonder if Palin's aesthetician is named Bozo the Clown, though.)
A few other thoughts.
Even after I discovered that it was Willow and not Bristol who was at the Yankee game in question, I did not feel that Letterman was referring to Willow; Dave at times goes for trash humour, but it's not his style to tell statutory rape jokes. Dave was only using Palin and daughter as a vehicle to rip at Alex Rodriguez.
It's difficult to see Palin as being sincere about her desire to protect her children in all of this. She was on the East Coast in full politiking mode, looking forward to the 2012 Presidential election. If she doesn't want her kids getting media spotlit attention, why does she pander them on the political stage? What gives her the right to use her offspring as human shields? Feminism is about equality. You cannot have it both ways, and use a motherly instincts defense, while defending feminism. Gotta go toe to toe on the political stage, to win it fair and square. Glass Houses, and all that...quick, somebody hand me a rock. Here's a bit of Palin's itinerary, from the week of the Letterman show:
- June 6, 2009: Palin was in upstate Auburn, NY for an event paid for by SarahPAC
- June 7, 2009: Palin was at the Yankee game, and then rushed to Long Island to be the honored guest at the Independent Group Home Living Inc's $125/plate banquet. How much was ponied up out of that charity for Palin and her family's trip to NY? She mentioned her son, Trig's, Down's Syndrome several times when describing this event.
- June 8, 2009: Palin appears at DC GOP fundraiser that netted $14.5 million.
- June 9, 2009: Palin was the first guest on John Ziegler's new radio show on KGIL in Los Angeles. Palin endorsed Ziegler's film "Media Malpractice". This is when she first expressed her opinion about the Letterman jokes. Palin also claimed that her trip to New York was for charity, not politiking.
Bristol is 18. The age of sexual consent in Alaska is 16. Just last month, Bristol traveled to NYC for media appearances, claiming she is now a spokesperson for abstinence only contraception. What's next, Cheney becoming the USA's UN Ambassador for Human Rights? Bristol is an adult now. She freely chose to put herself out into the medial as a public person. She is fair game, by any fair rulebook.Yeah, Letterman was cheap, tawdry and low-end with his Palin routine. So What? This wasn't even near to the bottom of the comedy barrel for Dave.
June 20, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You rock. I mean that. You just rock.
June 21, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting -- I saw the post as in basic support of your post. As you state, Letterman's joke was sexist and needed to be apologized for. Regardless of Palin's politics. Doesn't mean we can't point that she made women pay for rape kits. Which means, sexist comments about sexists (whether man or woman) is still sexist comments. And having sexist comments made about oneself doesn't make one a feminist, even if one is "outraged" about said sexist comment for its sexism.
All of which points to the fact that we still have a long way to go in this country when it come to gender, sex, politics, and culture.
June 20, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you see any parallel between, say, Ensigns dilemma and Palins? I tend to.
IOW, is it OK to criticize men for their sexual conduct, but not women?
June 20, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That just about sums it up.
The issue seems to be how to approach some kind of collective understanding of what constitutes a sexist attack, as opposed to one which is par for the course if any man or woman should expect when he or she steps into the political and media arena. Is making light of Hillary's pantsuits sexist or just like making fun of Obama's ears? Is it possible to question Palin's intellectual capacity without implying women are not smart enough for politics? If Bristol steps into the limelight for a cause, is her personal life now fair game for cable and late-night comedians?
When someone calls this or that sexist (or racist, etc) when it isn't (any male politician would have been skewered for a "i can see russia from my house" comment) it lessens the impact of those claims of sexism that are on target.
June 20, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just so.
June 20, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no issues with questioning Palin's intelligence. It's pretty clear she's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. You could say the same thing about Dan Quayle or George Bush
But things like Caribou Barbie bothered me because it implies she's dumb because she's pretty. There's plenty of smart, pretty chicks who advance in their careers and hear these kinds of whispers behind her back. She only got where she is because she's pretty or she slept her way to the top. In the broader society, sexist attacks on Palin makes sexist attacks on other women more acceptable. My issue with Palin is not her looks; it's that she'd kind of dimwitted and her political beliefs going against everything I believe in.
I hate defending her, but what I hate even more is having to defend her because she's being attacked by liberals in sexist ways. Why are we allowing her to play the victim. Keeping the shots above the belt is not that hard, especially when the woman has given such ample material for ridicule. Going for sexist attacks is just lazy. We can be better than that,
June 20, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
i agree. Yet I have seen some men in politics and the media refered to as Ken dolls. When people, whether on blogs, on late-night talk shows, or just between friends, try to attack, in humorous way or not, we try to find a comparison, a metaphor or analogy that sums up our point about the person. It is hard to know when one is crossing the line, especially since we are saturated with sexism in our media we become numb to it. The dialogue needs to continue, and things like "caribou barbie" need to be pointed out with the understanding that sometimes the person saying it may just be momentarily blinded to the fact that what he or she is saying is sexist.
June 20, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I'll bet you might have even made your point if you hadn't used "Asshat" here.
(Because isn't that an "attack" on Nancy Pelosi?)
June 20, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's an attack on Nancy Pelosi because I think she's an asshat based on her actions and inactions. I don't need to demean her in gender based terms to demonstrate my disgust. See how easy that is?
June 20, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm no fan of Pelosi's, but isn't "Asshat Pelosi" an "attack"?
June 20, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question points out that very issue: is to attack Pelosi in any way sexist regardless of the point of the attack. I would hope we all can agree that one can think of her as an asshat without being called sexist, if the reasons we believe her to be an asshat would lead us to call a man exhibiting the same policies, approach, etc an asshat as well.
June 20, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're missing the point. My comment had nothing to do with sexism. It had to do with a sentence that condemned attacks on "Asshat Pelosi". Unless that's Nancy's real name, it read like an attack to me. .
June 20, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
the condemnation was for attacks that used sexism as the means to undermine the individual, not on all any kind of criticism of the individual's policies, approach, etc.
June 20, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin never said she could see Russia from her house -- Tina Fey playing Palin said that on SNL.
June 21, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and I used it as a demonstration of how you can mock Palin based on her own incoherence rather than on gender. Tina Fey made that line up after Palin used Alaska being right next door to Russia as a defense of her foreign policy experience, and it was probably one of the funniest of the campaign season. Sexist shots are just cheap and lazy, but Palin fully deserved to be mocked based on a dumb answer to a question that is asked of any VP candidate.
June 22, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, I have blogged for Huffington Post as well as here and at my own site, and this is the smartest, best-written blogpost I've seen in a long time, anywhere.
I, too, am a feminist who came of age in the 70's and raised my daughter to be strong and independent and my son to respect women and not be afraid to scrub a toilet now and then. (He's an ex-Marine Iraq combat vet who gladly cooks and cleans for his beautiful girlfriend and does not in any way consider his manhood threatened ha ha.)
I have been infuriated by the so-called "feminists" who've used the Letterman joke (bad taste, yes; mysoginistic, no) as an excuse to hail poor little victim Sarah as an abused feminist.
The FACT is that she, herself, chose to put her children front and center as part of a political campaign, chose to clean up and suit up her daughter's boyfriend as a suitable "fiancee" for political purposes, (an arrangement that quickly ended when the campaign ended), chose to make her daughter a spokesperson for a losing sex-ed program that clearly didn't work for HER (her daughter is now under contract for a company as an abstinence spokesperson, which explains the People cover story--$$$$)--so she should not be so fake-outraged when they are the subject of any kind of public scrutiny.
And Carrie Prejean???? Puh-leeeeeze. She's trying to manipulate her so-called victimhood into a career as the next Ann Coulter and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
I love the brash new feministing feminists out there who blog and write; they're tough; they're young and fiesty, and they are NOBODY'S victim.
June 20, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, sistah! You made my day and gave me a warm feeling that I'll carry for a long time. Bless you.
June 20, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's an ex-Marine Iraq combat vet who gladly cooks and cleans for his beautiful girlfriend . . . .
But will he do it for his wife?
June 20, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, my son cooks because he enjoys it. He cleans because he's always liked things tidy and did so before he joined the Marines, after he got out, and now.
I don't expect him to change. He and his girlfriend have been together for five years now and will no doubt marry one day. And he'll be the same person then that he is now.
June 20, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. We don't have to like or dislike Palin in order to see that Letterman's joke was out of line. I think Sarah is stupid, mean, deceptive, corrupt and dangerous as hell. Can't stand her.
2. We don't have to think Letterman's joke was the worst example of sexism we've ever seen. We don't even have to think it was worse than what Palin does herself. It wasn't.
3. We don't have to like Siskind in any way. We don't have to visit her site.
4. We don't have to agree with those who used the joke as an "excuse to hail poor little victim Sarah as an abused feminist." I don't. Nor do many people here.
All we have to do is say, the joke was out of line. It was sexist. And well done to Dave for apologizing.
And then we say, "And now can we talk about other things?" And proceed to do so.
And to do so doesn't make people "fake" feminists.
June 20, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, Quinn. We girls have sat through a lot of guy talk. Give us our own space for just a bit.
June 20, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I despise the term "feminist" and wish it would go away...
I also grew up in late 60's, early 70's. Women back then had few career choices. I wasn't interested...I wanted to do the things boys did. So, instead I got married at 19 and became a stay at home mom. Eventually I succumbed to the notion that women were incomplete if they didn't have careers, and ended up opening my own business, which I ran for 20 years. Once I figured out that, for me, true happiness was to be found in supporting my family, I sold my business and am now a stay-at-home-grandma. I call it my 20 year brain fart.
I'm glad women now have choices. Not all are cut out to be stay at home moms, and not all are cut out to be career women.
I have real issues with NOW, best left for another discussion.
I will be glad when a person's gender is no longer an issue. Men and women bring different things to the table. All those things are valuable and bring balance to most situations.
I do not like women who use their good looks and sexuality to lure men. Nor do I like men who allow themselves to be lured. I have a great deal of respect for women who "make it" in man's world, without having to resort to "feminine wiles." I have a great deal of respect for men who see past the "looks" and evaluate women for their competencies.
June 20, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Still. I think what I may be seeing here is perhaps a bit of a generational difference.
Maybe?
June 20, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Chicken...It almost seems that the pendulum has swung to the opposite side...women are back to NOT having a choice - in many cases they HAVE to work outside the home, whether they want to or not, either because they are single moms, or just LIVING is so dang expensive it takes 2 incomes.
That put aside, women have made a lot of progress in the public arena, but women who trade with looks and sex are the enemy of complete equality. As long as some continue to do it, the stereotype of empty-headed playthings is going to persist. On the other hand, strong women are considered bitches, so until being a bitch is considered a good thing, ?
June 20, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Exactly.
I wonder at the uproar over Letterman. It seems to me that he went over the line, but that the walking, breathing, hypocrisy which is Palin deserves to be called out. Not because she is a woman, but because her hypocrisy is astounding.
Maybe the canine thing is a clue. Men, the ones that ooze their sexuality and wink constantly and act all coquettishly in the manner that Palin does, are called dogs. Women are called bitches for pointing it out.
And we're all denounced as not newish-enough feminists for feeling dismay at the double standard.
June 20, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor women never had a choice, stilli. Now that the middle class is shrinking, more women need to work outside the home because the single-income middle class household is a thing of the past. That's not feminism's fault. That's the fault of economic and social policies of the last 30 years.
June 20, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's so true, O. Poor women don't get to have careers, either...they just have to work.
June 20, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
People have to work.
Let's not be sexist.
June 20, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, SOMEBODY in the family has to work. It would be nice if ONE of a couple had to, not both. For single parent homes there is no choice.
June 20, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes. And some families have women as the sole source.
I know about these things.
What bothers me is the assumption that it is only the poor that have to work. We all have to work regardless of whether we are housewives or househusbands, male or female, black, white, porcelain or brown.
To completely dismiss any responsibility of the feminist movement as having enabled in their part, the economic policies of the last 30 years, isn't entirely honest.
It's not black and white.
June 20, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stilli, that reminds me of something a good friend said to me years ago:
"It took me 40 years to learn how to be a bitch, and I LIKE IT!!!"
;-D
June 20, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! I don't know why it is that there seems to be so few women who fall into that middle ground of strong, yet gentle. Claire McCaskill seems to fit in there.
June 20, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kinda wish you hadn't shared this one, Deanie.
A woman can be smart, confident, and strong without being a bitch. I think bitchy people are unpleasant and I try to avoid them whenever I can, but people who LIKE to be bitches? I gather my children and run in the opposite direction. Bitches are not feminists; they are just angry and don't know how to act in a positive way.
June 20, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, lighten up, CVille Dem. My friend is a funny, lovely person who has many friends and is beloved by her family. She doesn't think of herself as a feminist and she is most certainly not "angry."
All she meant was that, we girls who were raised in the South, especially, were brought up to be pleasers all the time, to be pretty and pleasant, especially around men. This tends to hold true even now, most of the time.
Most of us had to be self-taught in the art of standing up for ourselves, speaking out, and not being walked on.
She just used the term "bitch" because she was being funny.
Don't take it so seriously.
June 20, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. And I get what you mean. Sorry.
June 20, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amusing to me Deanie, as a former owner of two female Staffordshire Bull Terriers, who because of their breeding instincts and nurture through puppyhood, were irreconcilably female alpha of their pack, making them both a challenge and responsibility to control in public; I tend to use the word, 'bitch", literally. In fact, I believe that overuse of this term has severely diluted its real meaning. I loved both dogs very much, although raised neither of them from puppies, instead acquiring them as a adults. (one kept digging under a block wall and making a dangerous many mile journey across a high-density/heavy-traffic urban terrain to show up on my porch after a relationship break-up - - rough custody battle that...the other a pound rescue, after the first had died) Both required strong harnesses and leashes for walks, because they were tricky around assertive dogs, and would turn in an eye's blink from an all tail-wagging goof to your worst nightmare mouth from a Jaws movie at the hint of a human threat towards me, and both thought getting yanked on a choke chain was playtime. This did make for unconcerned wee wee hours walks in an as yet to be redeveloped downtown residential neighborhood about a mile from Las Vegas' casino center though. No crack-head ever tried to mug me for the price of a rock...
So I kind of doubt whether I'd ever consider your friend to be a bitch, but if I did end up thinking so, and called her one, hopefully, she wouldn't call me sexist for it.
June 20, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As my friend told me, BITCH stands for Boys I'm Takin' Charge Here :)
June 20, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I read the tough talk (by which I mean the sublimely confident, uncompromising language) of smart women in their twenties and thirties, I feel a jolt of pleasurable memory. As, when I am recalled to the present, I then feel a jab of altruistic regret for the disillusionment they may eventually face, if our cultural mores stay fixed where they are, not evolving and moving forward to a better world, all round.
There is, in my opinion, no power high like that of the thirty-something woman -- one who is in her physical, sexually-attractive prime, particularly when that primal power is recognized, not only by oneself, but also by others, as being balanced by native intelligence, education and worldly exposure.
The world, for a while, is this woman's oyster; her future is not only bright but without limitation....until.
And so how can we judge her, or blame her, for that strong, optimistic perspective when she is still years away from encountering the blind eye, the deaf ear, the wariness, the unconscious dismissal and diminishment that may be the lot of that same young woman, years hence, when the only thing that has changed is that she is older, and therefore perceived as one to be overlooked, relegated and possibly fitted for an ice floe?
Those of us who had the great privilege to enjoy the intoxicating, empowering feminism of the 70's would do well to remember that the backlash of the past twenty-five years has poisoned the well for these magnificent daughters who may walk a more difficult road than we did. So let's give them their moment, without demur, as we were given ours. Because the issues and facts will sort themselves out, one way or another, but only if we stand together, as women, whether young and bold, or old and grey. We are one.
June 20, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but anyone who stands with Keith Olbermann is no better than an empty-headed beauty queen in California.
(Cliffs Notes for those who won't get my drift: That's because the man is just as much of an empty-headed beauty queen as Carrie Prejean is.)
June 20, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hum.
It's not the message or the incredulity factor? KO is at best a geek. Maybe Arnie in CA would make a better comparison?
June 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the equation doesn't make much sense, Bwak, blame the original poster. I don't see much sense in a post that elevates Keith Olbermann to feminist, for crap's sake, or that comments on Carrie Prejean's intellectual powers.
I was going to go on a rant about how I go away for a few days and when I return, bloggers are still going on about Sarah Palin and David Letterman! I can't believe it! But I erased it.
I've learned this much from the whole episode, however: Thanks to liberals, Palin certainly gets her money's worth out of her news cycles.
June 20, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah.
Pity about the missed rant.
I hadn't really weighed in on Letterman, and I felt this post was more about Siskind then Palin, and more in general about feminism as the fragmented, confused, self-defeating afterthought it appears to have become. I am grateful to guys like you and Des that seem to get it.
Feminism is the "new" 'F' word, sadly.
June 20, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that he has a childish, doltish side and I wince when he does his O'Reilly schticks. I also hate it when he shows footage of, and laughs hysterically when animals are injured in "amusing" ways.
But he has done some outstanding essays, and has contributed to the conversation in many positive ways. He has a thoughtful and intelligent side, and I'm sorry you can only see him in one way.
But Carrie Prejean? She is just about like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
and not in the league of Olberman at all.
June 20, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille, you could do Olbermann's job. Your rants are smarter and funnier.
By the end of the Bush years, we were all simply starved for someone like Olbermann to come along and rant until the spittle flew. And because Olbermann was trained in sportscasting, he had perfect pitch for sustaining a bellow that can be heard above the crowd. He has contributed something positive to the conversation, but it's been during the least intellectual period in all of American history. I don't know if that's an accomplishment worth praising.
June 20, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw, shucks! Would you let MSNBC know? I'm available (but not particularly photogenic, unfortunately).
You have made some legitimate points and I agree with many of them. I think when we start comparing people as who is as dumb as who, it's hard to find real agreement.
I would love to declare TPM a Palin-Free-Zone. Are you with me?
June 20, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd vote for that! I mentioned on another thread that it suddenly occurred to me that because of our ages, she will probably be in my life until the day I die...not a pleasant thought!
June 20, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And you're a nuclear warhead.
June 20, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sense a kind of opportunism coming from Siskind, which one might call cynical. It makes me wonder what her ultimate motives might be. I'm not talking about the Letterman incident particularly. She just seems ready to jump on the latest divisive issue and milk it for what... the movement? Or for her self-promotion? Perhaps I'm wrong because I certainly know next to nothing about her or her organization. Just a thought.
June 20, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sense the same sort of thing. My bunkshooter radar is red and screaming. A former wall streeter, from a very wealthy enclave, simpering, for lack of a better word.
A quick google only amplified the alarm.
June 20, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Re - Prejean: She is a beauty queen. Of and by her lonesome, she has painted herself into a gender stereotyping sexist corner. Prejean hasn't even been advancing the issue of sexism, so it seems it isn't even a concept that rates cognition within the vacuous space between her ears. Prejean claims she is being religiously persecuted; a transparent falsehood, which is her M.O.
Prejean lied on her Miss California application about having modeled for nude/semi-nude photo shoots in the past. After the first set was published, she claimed to have been just an innocent 17 year old who was exploited, and it was a one-time only folly of youth. Then the 2nd shoot was published, proving her to be one who will lie to cover lies. I couldn't care less about the photo's content, although I am not a fan of artificially enhanced breasts. In the multiple choice quiz about personal female anatomical preferences, I am strongly biased towards A or B on that question. What is relevant is that she lied.
Prejean was also guilty of egregious. willful and substantive violations of her contractual agreement with the Miss California Pageant. They literally own all PR rights to every Miss California for the duration of their reigns. The pageant choses what, when, where, and for how much. The current Miss California's percentage is already locked into binding contract clauses before she was officially crowned. Prejean instead decided she was not bound by the contract, she had freely signed as an adult, and could make her own appearance scheduling decisions.
In published transcripts of email exchanges between Prejean and Miss California Pageant Director, Keith Lewis, Prejean showed herself to be overly vain, arrogant, combative, and unwilling to work with a polite Lewis over contract resolution. She is also unable to compose messages at even a 10th grade competency level.
Prejean lost her Miss California title, not because of religious-based political views or homophobia, but instead for just cause. She is someone who seems to believe that all there is to being successful in life is sleeping with a hanger in her mouth, so she can wake-up with a faux-smile, and keep it going all day long. Prejean is the sexist here.
June 20, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"two women who have gained their fame and fortunes through lying,cheating..."
Carrie Prejean is "an empty-headed beauty queen"
Sarah Palin is"not even a decent example of womanhood"
WOW, is this real feminism?
June 21, 2009 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
June 21, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong ... but isn't the only reason Bristol Palin is newsworthy is because, as the daughter of a provincial governor who prattled on aout family values, she got pregnant prior to marriage and then started to make a career out of teaching abstinence? Letterman did apologize. Prejean's only newsworthy because of breast augmentation, comments again gays having equal rights and appearing nude and violating beauty pageant rules.
Let's not grieve too deeply that women who are talking about equal rights, pay, opportunity, freedom to chose and other key issues don't take these two women's opportunistic protestations as seriously.
June 21, 2009 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Tessier fails to grasp is that mocking members of oppressed classes simply because they exhibit the characteristics of their oppression is pretty f*cking vulgar. Why did Prejean get her despised b00b-job in the first place, Jan Tessier? For her health? No, Jan Tessier. The poor deluded kid enb00bified herself in order to appease her oppressor, and absorbed homophobic messages for the same reason. The whole f*cking system is homophobic and loves huge tits. What’s the big surprise? Mocking women for getting b00b jobs is juvenile and unsophisticated. What needs mocking is the system that requires the b00b jobs.
h/t Aunt Twisty
June 21, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink