The dark side of Palin-hatred
“Dark side,” you ask? Isn’t it all pretty dark?
Perhaps. But this article by therapist Robin of Berkeley goes even deeper into the heart of darkness that is Palin-hatred.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Neo – this particular author places the ultimate blame on Liberalism.
But I think most hard core feminists – even those who feel that the attacks on Palin were and are, over the top – have no problem with their faith in secular leftism at all and feel secure as ever in that faith. They blame the attacks on their heroine Hillary (by both the “wingnuts” and by the Obamabots) AND the attacks on Palin as simply and wholly being caused by societal Misogyny.
My basis for this comes from my (very) occasional visit to a site called Reclusive Leftist. A Hillary fan and her like-minded commentators, were shocked by the Obama campaign’s relentless attacks. And felt very betrayed. And also (at least the host, if not most of her commenters) feel that the Palin attacks are a bit too much. Grudgingly.
But she/they don’t blame it on politics at all. It is all attributable to the hateful “patriarchy.” Nothing at all wrong with good ‘ol far left “progressive” politics – the only legitimate and non “batshit insane” way for a rational person to think.
As for me, I personally think that there IS some truth to the accusation that the attacks on women of all political stripes (left or right) are often disproportionately grounded in sexism – comments about their looks, etc., as compared to men. Example is the shameful commentary I read from some conservative bloggers (in comments sections, not the blogger) about what an “ugly fat pig” etc., that Dede Scalozza or whatever her name was in NY 23. Males do not get that exact same treatment.
However, I think the hard core leftist feminists are completely blind to the fact their their political movement is entirely based on seeking and getting POWER – by WHATEVER MEANS necessary. Hillary could have the best and most impeccable lefty credentials in the world — the cornerstone of course being strongly pro-choice – – but in 2008 that didn’t matter. She…stood in the way…of the lefty’s “leg tingling” Messiah. She HAD to be destroyed. If that required misogynistic tactics…..well, so be it. Whatever it takes.
Misogyny was simply a “tool” or a strategic tactic in the case of Obama’s machine’s attacks on Hillary. With Palin – I think it is also about politics, more than the fact that she has a vagina. In my opinion, if Palin was the EXACT same person….had the EXACT same life story, same husband, same kids, same foray into Alaska politics……BUT, a) had a “D” next to her name; b) took on the Republican old boy political network as a D instead of R; c) naturally was not on the McCain ticket but instead as Alaska Gov, campaigned for “the Won”, and d) was PRO PRO PRO choice…… She would be the DARLING of the national media.
southernjames, there would be Newsweek covers with Sarah as “The New Democrat,” showing how the party was breaking out of its old mold and appealing to modern women, and was the wave of the future.
That article was grim, and I sent it on to the very limited number of people here at my psych hospital who wouldn’t freak.
It’s not for no reason that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REPUBLICAN!
I read both Reclusive Leftist post/comment items on Palin.
They are so far left Lenin might find them extreme and they’re really serious feminists, which you can tell because they use the eff word a lot.
They were appalled at the attacks on Palin. Much of their outrage seemed to come from the dems’ dumping of and on Hillary. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the depths of their rage was fueled in part by losing Hillary. Much of their steam, etc.
Their position about the patriarchy is not odd. It is that the bad menz can make strong, competent, accomplished, empowered women who say “eff” a lot do whatever the bad menz want them to.
They were particularly concerned about the women who went for Obama, thinking that a particular betrayal.
Funny thing is, if they’d voted for the republican arm of the patriarchy, we wouln’t be having these arguments about mammograms.
They forgot what Tammy Bruce has said. Organized feminism exists to forward radical progressive issues, using women’s issues if useful. If women’s issues are in the way, to hell with women’s issues.
“They forgot what Tammy Bruce has said. Organized feminism exists to forward radical progressive issues, using women’s issues if useful. If women’s issues are in the way, to hell with women’s issues.”
Exactly. But they HAVE been absolutely blind to that. Now, it appears that they have finally (thanks to the Obama camp dumping on their Hillary) concluded that the true blue, pure, and holy progressive movement has been tainted and spoiled by all those mean men in control of it. Who really just want to USE their votes. Just as bad as those mean men on the right are – but really even worse, because those mean men on the right don’t fake it and PRETEND to be in favor of truly critical women’s issues, like the ERA and unfettered and fully funded abortion on demand. The right-wing “rethuglicans” (name calling is okay if it is namecalling against the politically incorrect) are at least out in front and center with their hateful misogyny and patriarchal sexism.
So…. you now see an enthusiatic brainstorming session underway on starting some sort of “womens” party, to unite all oppressed women everywhere, in order to install progressive programs in America! And the commenters are all adding to the progressive wish list of utopian goodies: “Singler payer, right now!”…”Gay marriage!”….Codifiying Roe via a constitutional amendment!! “Don’t forget global warming!”
I guess this is my counterpoint to the piece Neo posted. The Palin-hatred does not appear to ME to be a sign that all that many liberal woman will have some sort of wake-up call about over Leftism. I bet most liberal women will still simply either a) say she deserves it – if you are a flyover country pro-lifer, you DESERVE to be called a c–nt; or b) blame it on men rather than on their political movement’s tone which ALWAYS takes against someone with an opposing viewpoint
Oh, and Asst Village Idiot — Palin would be Time’s Person of the Year; lots of covers of People magazine with captions like “Sarah, Todd and the kids – at home!” Multiple guests shots with FAWNING hosts falling all over themselves – on Oprah, Letterman, etc., etc.
She would not just be the “New Democrat” she’d be canonized as the “The New Modern American Woman,” and on the cover of Newsweek instead of “how do you solve a problem like Sarah,” with a photo improperly scammed from Runners World, that would be the caption, and it would be a flattering and staged photo of her in a business suit, holding her baby in one hand while hold a phone in the other – on a power call.
… except, of course, that the baby wouldn’t exist.
If she had had all those other “liberal plusses,” but hadn’t “chosen properly” with respect to Trigg, she’d still be on the level of cat-meat.
As Robin of Berkley said, when the stuff hit the fan, the lefty guys were conspicuous by their absence.
Feminists think chivalry is a condescending archaism, designed to keep women down.
Of course, it’s us right-wing guys who still try it, and we do show up when things get nasty.
And the feminists’ response?
“Oh, look. He wants a cookie.”
Makes me think that Thomas Atkins may go on strike–Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool, you bet that Tommy sees–at least as regards one segment of the population.
To go a bit OT, but following Bruce:
You’ll recall how incandescent the feminists were wrt the Duke rape hoax. Oh, they were in sympathy and what not.
The real rape? Yawn.
Problem was, the real rape didn’t advance the favored narrative and so it had to go down the memory hole. Despite the fact that all those horrid things the fake victim was supposed to have suffered really did happen to the real victim.
If there is a better example of the hypocrisy of feminism, I can’t think of it.
But coming back from OT, it shows why feminists hate Palin.
Greetings:
I have long opposed the political push to increase the number of women in our military services both because of where the idea came from, our beloved liberal brothers and sisters, and because, as a former infantryman, I believe I understand the delicate balance of men in combat. Besides the situation where one guy is “getting some” and others are not, there is also the impact when female casualties are taken. I think that Robin’s observation about the emasculation of conservative men, which may be a bit strong for my liking, but I certainly would agree with demoralization. As for emasculation, I think that that occurred when the military draft was ended. When a society tell its menfolk that they do not have an individual responsibility to defend their society, it has started on the road to its demise.
Greetings 11B40,
“Getting some”?
You had a few buzzwords in there.
We are on to you.
We are coming to your foxhole…. to emasculate you. 😉
just playing!
Couldn’t follow your thoughts though.
“As for emasculation, I think that that occurred when the military draft was ended.”
That’s B.S. Just my opinion. A lot of factors have contributed to the overall emasculation of men in society, over the past few decades, but THAT is not one of them.
We had the draft through the 60’s, yet the societal march towards the Phil Donahue/Alan Alda sensitive metrosexual male, with reduced or minimalized testosterone, and who is so in touch with his “feelings” he can openly weep at a chick flick, as representing the feminists “idealized” male model, was well underway.
The presence or absence of the military draft had no impact one way or another on this phenomenon. IMO.
Our all-volunteer military has proven to be SO superior, in terms of performance, morale, etc., to ALL models consisting of conscripted forces, filled with a whole lot of guys who resent being there and as a result, make mediocre soldiers (including our own American Army) – it ain’t even close.
You ask any military guy who served in Viet Nam and who also carried over into the volunteer era – which he would prefer. Ask any combat guy of today, who he would prefer having surrounding him in a firefight in Afghanistan?
I do agree that it reduces the effectiveness of our armed forces, for them to be forced to become politicians’ pet p.c., multi-cultural, diversity projects.
We saw the smothering force and pressure of political correctness in all its glory, with Major Hassan, didn’t we.
Ilion – au contraire! Sure she could keep her baby and still be accepted. You need understand how the liberal mind works.
The best way to wrap your brain around it is to observe how every hard core lib you know views the subject of money. HIS money, versus everyone else’s money. Every left wing college professor is a strong advocate of socialism – with all that entails, including higher taxes, etc……for everyone else. You will observe that invariably he himself is, personally, an aggressive capitalist – he’ll find every single shelter and tax avoidance investment, write off, and tax deduction, he possibly can. California is beyond broke….but liberal big government Oprah intentionally lives in HER mansion there the minimal number of days, in order to avoid HER having to pay taxes to the state that would not begin to make a dent in her massive fortune.
And on. And on. And on. Michael Moore. Ted Turner. Jane Fonda. Al Gore. Chris Dodd.
Socialism, for Thee; Capitalism for Me.
So as long as Sarah was a good feminist Lib, the cornerstone of which is advocating the woman’s right “to total control over her own body,” with just about everything else coming in a distant second, any whispers from any far left fever swamps of “she should have aborted that Downs fetus, it didn’t deseve to live” would have been squelched. Dissent is not tolerated, and departures from the “narrative” would have not been accepted.
From Robin of Berkeley’s article: “My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.”
I think she misses another more pertinent point: Liberal guys march for abortion rights because, after casual sex, they do not want to be punished with a baby (to steal a phrase from our Commie-in-Chief) and have to pay child support, thereby reducing their disposable ‘fun’ income. That is, liberals do not want to take responsibility for the seeds they sow. Of course, that last bit is not a new revelation, but it does dovetail into their abortion rights support. Robin is right, though, liberal men’s abortion rights support is not about the women, it’s about the men themselves.
Women Issues these days are mostly about women empowerment and equal rights among men.,”,