Feminism and Sarah Palin

D

dreama

New Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,016
Reaction score
0
This is an interesting read.

Feminist eruptions about Sarah Palin have been stunning. Eve Ensler went ballistic. NOW endorsed an all-male ticket and disavowed Palin. Gloria Steinem contradicted her January op-ed argument. Naomi Wolf spun off into a paranoid fantasy. Feminists urgently circulated petitions full of false claims about Palin. When I sent friends information and links correcting these claims—shouldn’t that reduce fear and allow a saner conversation?—two who wrote back were outraged. Friends who normally speak in dulcet tones were suddenly pitched an octave and decibels higher, unable to converse in the normal rhythm of give and take.

I began asking myself, what is going on with feminists as they rationalize lining up with their misogynist Party/candidate while engaging with this new rorschach named Sarah Palin? How is it that feminists—the Americans most caricatured, distorted, misunderstood, and demonized by the Right and by the Left—are themselves caricaturing, misrepresenting, and demonizing a woman whose policies and beliefs offend them? Is it too much to ask that they at least get their facts straight, and not push rumors and unexamined claims as if they were gospel? How is it that Hillary supporters who have aligned with the DNC’s selectee are exhibiting some of the behaviors they formally excoriated in Obama devotees (e.g., self-righteous judgmentalism, and the rejection, denial, or trivializing of information unfavorable to their guy)? Is it just too uncomfortable for them to bear the cognitive dissonance entailed by their second choice?

As to those pesky facts: Palin favors contraception. Despite Ms. Gandy’s claim that NOW would not endorse Palin because of her anti-abortion position, as governor and mayor, she never attempted to promote legislation that would weaken or alter abortion laws. Palin tripled (not cut) special needs funding, did not try to ban library books, and has not pushed creationism in schools, only opined that students be allowed to discuss it along with evolutionary theory. Contrary to Charlie Gibson’s inquisition and ABC’s egregious, libelous cropping and editing of not only his interview with Palin but also of the video clip he referenced, she does not see the Iraq war as a mission from God. She asked Alaskans to pray that what our troops, our leaders, and our country are doing there is part of God’s plan. Or, as Lincoln said, to pray that we are on God’s side. Many of our past presidents have expressed similar sentiments, and the world didn’t end.
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin: a Rorschach for Feminists | www.partizane.com
 
Feminists aren't spreading lies about Palin. They're simply telling the truth. After all, every time Palin opens up her mouth, she proves that there's a good reason not to support her.

As for the false claim that Palin said the Iraq war was a mission from G*d, here's the video to prove otherwise:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us3sI95L6O0[/ame]
 
You believe what you want to.

There are a LOT of misinformation out there about Sarah Palin. It's not my fault you are taken in by it. I won't change my views on Sarah Palin just as you won't change yours about Obama. There is so much nasty stuff out there about Sarah Palin because of her Anti abortion leanings. I wouldn't know where to begin. I just don't believe it that's all. This has been a really dirty campaign with lots of mud being thrown on both sides yet here Republicans seem to be a minority so I'm making it my buisness to inform people of the other side of the story. I'm sorry it offends you so much but I'm not going to stop doing this until after the 4th of november. After that you can see for yourself.
 
dreama,

I think it's pretty sad that someone from Europe has to speak on behalf of AD Republicans. Obviously, they (AD Republicans) must not have enough faith in their candidate to defend them against comments made by AD Democrats.

You're delusional if you think McCain/Palin are going to win the election.

Keep posting all you want about Palin. After all, it's not going to change anyone's mind.

If you think I'm offended by what you post, think again. I actually enjoy these debates more than you know. :D

By the way, 99% of the mudslinging going on in this election is courtesy of the McCain campaign, so you can blame them for the "dirty" politics taking place this year.
 
I stopped reading at:
dreama said:
Feminists urgently circulated petitions full of false claims about Palin.
Click to expand...

What smut you want to sling out again? Obama is a terrorist? (Heard that one.) McCain not born in the U.S., technically? (Heard that one, too!) Wanna vote based upon the real issues? (I'm shocked you've not heard that one!)
 
Last edited:
For your information I don't believe all the mud that is thrown at Obama any more then I believe everything said about Sarah Palin. Some of the things that have concerned me most about Obama have come from Obama himself. As quoted by Obama supporters themselves.
 
dreama said:
For your information I don't believe all the mud that is thrown at Obama any more then I believe everything said about Sarah Palin. Some of the things that have concerned me most about Obama have come from Obama himself. As quoted by Obama supporters themselves.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Care to share some examples?
 
Here's a question...

Why does she care? You have to be an American citizen to vote in our country.

Granted, I think we should care how our leaders look to the rest of the world, but I find it baffling that a foreigner would care this much.

Just goes to show how freaking insane this election has gotten. I've already voted. I'm just waiting to see how this all shakes out then I'm done with this nonsense.

I'm so over all this bs now.
 
Oceanbreeze said:
Here's a question...

Why does she care? You have to be an American citizen to vote in our country.

Granted, I think we should care how our leaders look to the rest of the world, but I find it baffling that a foreigner would care this much.

Just goes to show how freaking insane this election has gotten. I've already voted. I'm just waiting to see how this all shakes out then I'm done with this nonsense.

I'm so over all this bs now.
Click to expand...

I hear you, Oceanbreeze. I hear you.

I happen to be a "political junkie," but this year's election has been a little too much for me to take. I'll be glad when it's over and done with.
 
Hear Again said:
Oh, really? Care to share some examples?
Click to expand...

Ok. You did ask. This isn't Obama quoted word for word because I wouldn't keep any quotes of his and his speaches are just what I remember. So here goes:

Obama: I'm against abortion. Abortion is a difficult decision for a woman to make.

Now to me this reads like: "I'm against burgulary. Burgulary is a difficult decision for a burgular to make..."

"I didn't want to support the born alive bill because it would mean giving the baby rights"

Which makes me see red. Of course a baby who is born alive is a baby deserving rights. Just because the mother wanted them dead doesnt really change matters.

Obama: "We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes."

I found this on a disabled website. He also said something about reasearch as part of his plan to 'help' the disabled. Biomedical reserach' translates into animal based research.
Which to me interprets as We aren't already torturing enough animals in laboritories.

I also interprete it to mean that 'disabled people are so useless in our society that they all need a cure wether they want one or not' Which compaires most unfavorably with Sarah Palin saying we all have something to contribute.

Please note that Their are other types of research that I approve of. I donated 300 pounds to an organisation that is committed to non animal based research and I regularly donate to another one called Dr Hadwen trust and humane reserach fund.
 
dreama said:
Ok. You did ask. This isn't Obama quoted word for word because I wouldn't keep any quotes of his and his speaches are just what I remember. So here goes:

Obama: I'm against abortion. Abortion is a difficult decision for a woman to make.

Now to me this reads like: "I'm against burgulary. Burgulary is a difficult decision for a burgular to make..."

"I didn't want to support the born alive bill because it would mean giving the baby rights"

Which makes me see red. Of course a baby who is born alive is a baby deserving rights. Just because the mother wanted them dead doesnt really change matters.

Obama: "We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes."

I found this on a disabled website. He also said something about reasearch as part of his plan to 'help' the disabled. Biomedical reserach' translates into animal based research.
Which to me interprets as We aren't already torturing enough animals in laboritories.

I also interprete it to mean that 'disabled people are so useless in our society that they all need a cure wether they want one or not' Which compaires most unfavorably with Sarah Palin saying we all have something to contribute.

Please note that Their are other types of research that I approve of. I donated 300 pounds to an organisation that is committed to non animal based research and I regularly donate to another one called Dr Hadwen trust and humane reserach fund.
Click to expand...

dreama,

I'm confused. You said you had examples of Obama supporters who had negative things to say against Obama. I don't see any examples of this in your post.

What's wrong with Obama supporting biomedical research and wanting a cure for certain disabilities and life-threatening illnesses? Wouldn't you have wanted that for your own mother who passed away from womb cancer? I know I would have. I'd give anything for my mother not to have died from pancreatic cancer.
Besides, just because a cure is offered doesn't mean a disabled or terminally ill person has to accept medical treatment to eradicate their disability or terminal illness.
 
Creationism shouldn't be allowed to be taught in schools. Besides it being against the separation between church and state, it's also crazy talk. We can't tell kids fairy tales are real. It's irresponsible. It's wrong. It's backwards. Let's move forward into the future. Sound good to everyone?
 
Hear Again said:
dreama,

I'm confused. You said you had examples of Obama supporters who had negative things to say against Obama. I don't see any examples of this in your post.
Click to expand...

Some of the things that have concerned me most about Obama have come from Obama himself. As quoted by Obama supporters themselves.
Click to expand...

The examples I gave you DO concern me. They might not seem negative to you because you are taken in by Obama but I read between the lines.

When a child that is born living is not given human rights that is a great concern to me.

What's wrong with Obama supporting biomedical research and wanting a cure for certain disabilities and life-threatening illnesses? Wouldn't you have wanted that for your own mother who passed away from womb cancer? I know I would have. I'd give anything for my mother not to have died from pancreatic cancer.
Besides, just because a cure is offered doesn't mean a disabled or terminally ill person has to accept medical treatment to eradicate their disability or terminal illness.
Click to expand...

I was concernted because I associated biomedical research with animal testing. Someone on another site explained that biomedical research covered everything? So I don't know really.

Yes, I do want cures for things like cancer but there already was one available if mum had had a histeractomy when her cancer was first diagnosed she would not have died but because of our crappy NHS she was put on a long waiting list. I donate to charity that research into genuine research that does not involve animal testing. I always do on the aneversery of her death.

The reason I do not support animal based research is because I've heard it isn't advancing science. It's holding things back. They always talk about a cure just round the corner. She was supposed to have been cured twice. I was really happy for her the first time she was announced to be cured. Then the next thing Iknow it's come back and she has to have an operation. So next time she's supposed to be cured I take it with a pinch of salt. Then her cancer starts spreading. Do the doctors see her straight away? Not likely! She gets put on another waiting long list. Only she needs to go into hospital before her apointment. She needs to be put on a ventilater and she's in a lot of pain.

After she died I read an article that said the major cancer charities don't even want to cure cancer. They just use people like my mum to make lots of money for themselves. It made me feel very very angry towards these big animal testing cancer charities.

But I do support genuine efforts to cure cancer, aids, heart conditon, cronic pain, and strokes. Efforts using more up to date methods such as computer modeling and aldult stem cells.

I think these things hould be considered a entirely seperate from disabilities. Disabled people are ok. They don't need to be cured.
 
dreama said:
The examples I gave you DO concern me. They might not seem negative to you because you are taken in by Obama but I read between the lines.

When a child that is born living is not given human rights that is a great concern to me.



I was concernted because I associated biomedical research with animal testing. Someone on another site explained that biomedical research covered everything? So I don't know really.

Yes, I do want cures for things like cancer but there already was one available if mum had had a histeractomy when her cancer was first diagnosed she would not have died but because of our crappy NHS she was put on a long waiting list. I donate to charity that research into genuine research that does not involve animal testing. I always do on the aneversery of her death.

The reason I do not support animal based research is because I've heard it isn't advancing science. It's holding things back. They always talk about a cure just round the corner. She was supposed to have been cured twice. I was really happy for her the first time she was announced to be cured. Then the next thing Iknow it's come back and she has to have an operation. So next time she's supposed to be cured I take it with a pinch of salt. Then her cancer starts spreading. Do the doctors see her straight away? Not likely! She gets put on another waiting long list. Only she needs to go into hospital before her apointment. She needs to be put on a ventilater and she's in a lot of pain.

After she died I read an article that said the major cancer charities don't even want to cure cancer. They just use people like my mum to make lots of money for themselves. It made me feel very very angry towards these big animal testing cancer charities.

But I do support genuine efforts to cure cancer, aids, heart conditon, cronic pain, and strokes. Efforts using more up to date methods such as computer modeling and aldult stem cells.

I think these things hould be considered a entirely seperate from disabilities. Disabled people are ok. They don't need to be cured.
Click to expand...

If you think I'm being taken in by Obama and his ideas, so be it.

Personally, I think you're being sucked in by McCain/Palin's false and fake promises, but since you don't live in America and can't vote for them, it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

Furthermore, if Obama is elected, that won't affect you either.

Can you prove that there aren't any advancements being made in regards to animal research? Cures for terminal illnesses, diseases and disabilities don't happen overnight. It also takes alot of money to conduct this research -- money that has to be raised somehow, someway.

I think the American Cancer Society has done alot of wonderful things for people affected by cancer.

If you check out their website at:

American Cancer Society :: Information and Resources for Cancer: Breast, Colon, Prostate, Lung and Other Forms

you'll see the many ways they strive to help the fight against cancer and help those currently affected by the illness.

If someone has an opportunity for themselves or their child to live a better life (i.e. by accepting medical research/treatment that would prevent or eradicate disabilities or terminal illness) it only seems natural that they would accept that care.

Like I said before, just because you're happy living as a person with a disability, that doesn't give you the right to speak on behalf of others who may want a different life for themselves or their loved ones.
 
Last edited:
dreama said:
Ok. You did ask. This isn't Obama quoted word for word because I wouldn't keep any quotes of his and his speaches are just what I remember. So here goes:

Obama: I'm against abortion. Abortion is a difficult decision for a woman to make.

Now to me this reads like: "I'm against burgulary. Burgulary is a difficult decision for a burgular to make..."

"I didn't want to support the born alive bill because it would mean giving the baby rights"

Which makes me see red. Of course a baby who is born alive is a baby deserving rights. Just because the mother wanted them dead doesnt really change matters.

Obama: "We need to invest in biomedical research and stem cell research, so that we are at the leading edge of prevention and treatment. This includes adequate funding for research into diseases such as heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, diabetes, autism and other common and rare diseases, and disorders. We will increase funding to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the National Cancer Institutes."

I found this on a disabled website. He also said something about reasearch as part of his plan to 'help' the disabled. Biomedical reserach' translates into animal based research.
Which to me interprets as We aren't already torturing enough animals in laboritories.

I also interprete it to mean that 'disabled people are so useless in our society that they all need a cure wether they want one or not' Which compaires most unfavorably with Sarah Palin saying we all have something to contribute.

Please note that Their are other types of research that I approve of. I donated 300 pounds to an organisation that is committed to non animal based research and I regularly donate to another one called Dr Hadwen trust and humane reserach fund.
Click to expand...

Ah, the problem has finally come to light. Rather than paying attention to what the man is actually saying, you are inserting your own interpretation of what he is saying. Additionally, you fully admit that you cannot quote him properly. What you are remembering is not what Obama has said, but what you have mistakenly interpreted him to say.

The problem lies not with Obama's position, but with your mistaken interpretation of his position.

What about those people living with disabilities that result in early death? Do we not need to be searching for treatment that will end pain and extend life, and lead to a more productive, higher quality of life for those individuals, dreama? How do you plan to develop those treatments and medications that are conceived of for effectiveness and safety if they are not tested. Would you prefer that we test them on the disabled?
 
Hear Again said:
dreama,

I think it's pretty sad that someone from Europe has to speak on behalf of AD Republicans. Obviously, they (AD Republicans) must not have enough faith in their candidate to defend them against comments made by AD Democrats.
Click to expand...
Then we could say, "I think it's pretty sad that someone from Europe has to speak on behalf of AD Democrats. Obviously, they (AD Democrats) must not have enough faith in their candidate to defend them against comments made by AD Republicans."

Let's be "fair and balanced." :lol:
 
Reba said:
Then we could say, "I think it's pretty sad that someone from Europe has to speak on behalf of AD Democrats. Obviously, they (AD Democrats) must not have enough faith in their candidate to defend them against comments made by AD Republicans."

Let's be "fair and balanced." :lol:
Click to expand...

The difference being, one is discussing actual political issues, and the other is not.
 
jillio said:
The difference being, one is discussing actual political issues, and the other is not.
Click to expand...
A candidate's stance on abortion, euthanasia, etc., is a political issue, especially when it comes time for the future President to select new Supreme Court justices.
 
Reba said:
A candidate's stance on abortion, euthanasia, etc., is a political issue, especially when it comes time for the future President to select new Supreme Court justices.
Click to expand...

True, but there is a difference between arguing against abortion, euthanasia, etc. and interpreting quotes to mean something that it's not.

For example, dreama said that she is against vivisection. She does not believe in using animals and causing suffering for benefit of mankind. That is a perfectly reasonable belief.

BUT, she has also said that because Obama is for biomedical research, somehow this means he wants to wipe out the disabled and thinks they are useless. This does not hold water.
 
Back
Top