I’ve come across quite a few people lately, mostly self-proclaimed feminists, who say that even if we don’t agree with Sarah Palin’s politics, women should be proud to see another woman running for Vice President because this is a victory for women.
Is it really, though ?
Sarah Palin has been used and exploited by the McCain campaign. She is embarrassingly unqualified for the position of VP, but we won’t let that stand in our way; let’s just dress her up like a $150,000 Barbie doll and get her to smile and wink for the camera. Oh, and make sure she keeps her mouth shut unless she’s being told exactly what to say or can divert it to hockey and mooses.
In other words, “You don’t have to know anything, Sugar, just be a good girl and smile for the camera like you’re told.”
Can someone please explain to me how that is a victory for women? Because it looks to me like the exact same kind of degrading treatment that women, and especially feminists, have been trying to overcome for generations. I would think that feminists, of all people, would be outraged by this, rather than supporting it.
If we settle for this and call it a victory, we haven’t come nearly as far as I thought we had.
Posted by Lottie — Copyright © 2008 Rambling On
Sometimes when I’m having trouble falling asleep, I lie in bed and flip through the television channels. Reading doesn’t work for me because I become engrossed in whatever I’m reading and end up staying awake much later than I should.
Since I find most television relatively boring, I usually start to doze off after about half an hour of channel surfing. During this short time period, I inevitably come across Bill O’Reilly yakking about something or another. He seems to spend a lot of time bashing Planned Parenthood, from what I’ve seen.
Last time I stumbled across his show, he was saying that PP should have its Federal funding pulled because he doesn’t like some of the ads they run on their own websites. Apparently O’Reilly is offended by discussion of genital warts. Honestly, he seems offended to the point of hostility by any discussion relating to sex, although he seems quite… sensitive about the topic of erectile dysfunction:
I just watched a movie trailer at Feministe for a film called A Father’s Rights. More disturbing than the video were the comments under it. These people seem so blinded by hatred of everything male that they seem to think there’s a misogynist behind every bush.
This appears to be a story about a man fighting to be in his daughter’s life and wanting to protect her from what seems to be an abusive mother. Only he can’t – he has no legal rights to the child because he wasn’t married to her mother when the child was born. Despite the adamant denial that this could ever happen, I know for a fact that it can and does. These kinds of cases are not all the same across the board. Insisting that one’s own experience represents every other case is not only ignorant, it’s also rather immature.
I would like to take a quick detour, just to mention for the benefit of those currently studying law, that I think they will find, as they grow up in their careers, that what they have learned in the classroom about how the legal system is supposed to work isn’t always how it actually does work. It’s more than a little irritating to have some arrogant law student telling people that their experiences aren’t real just because they don’t line up with what the textbooks and law journals have to say on the subject. I’m afraid someone is in for a very rude awakening.
Now, back to the topic at hand: