Palin: wrong woman, wrong message by Gloria Steinem

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I'm sure most of you know of Gloria Steinem. She is a legendary women's rights advocate. You can get her bio here: wikipedia

She just penned an article for the Los Angeles Times.



Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."


I love this article because it goes to the cynical truth of why McCain and the GOP chose Gov Palin, placing the full brunt of the responsibility on them and not her. She after all was absent from this arena until a week ago.

Edit to add: I really suggest reading the full article. It's not much longer than the excerpt and you get full context from one of the top feminist voices in history.


Edited to accomodate jsobecky's attempt to change the subject.


[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]




posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Looks like her biggest complaint is that Palin is not Clinton. And "Thank God!" for that.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CO Vet
 


I don't see where she says that.



So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

latimes


Perhaps you can point me to it?

Edit to add: By the way, the intention of the OP is not to initiate another back and forth thread about the two parties. I'm just trying to discuss the election from a "feminist" if you will, perspective.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Good article, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Elections are kind of like war where everyone on the team is supposed to rally around the Chief, in this case the Presidential ticket. Those still locked into the two party mindset cannot bring themselves to be critical of their candidates for fear of their party losing. Olympia Snowe would have been a very compelling choice that would have drawn quite a few from the independants and Democrats as well. I like Gloria's point that McCain chose a right winger when he could have broken away from the stranglehold they have had on the party for decades and could have made some real-ish changes in Washington such as cleaning up the corruption fed by the oil industry for instance.

The Democrats are not perfect by any stretch, but atleast they didn't try to foist a less than two year governor with small town mayorial and city council experience on us.

Palin has her charms I suppose, but we will see how long that charm lasts. My feeling is that it will wear thin by election day. God forbid we have Palin as President following eight years of Bush Administration blunders. Flying spagetti monster help us!



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by CO Vet
 


Yes that very quote is included in the OP, which by the way also recommends reading the full article. What it is referring to is the inherent insult of cynically "planting" one woman as a substitute for another, ANY other. If you wish to read it differently be my guest but it's all in the article for everyone to interpret for themselves.







[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 



Originally posted by schrodingers dog
I love this article because it goes to the cynical truth of why McCain and the GOP chose Gov Palin, placing the full brunt of the responsibility on them and not her. She after all was minding her own business up until a week ago.


Wow! What a sexist, intolerant remark! Exactly what is Sarah Palin's "business" that she should so dutifully mind? Should she be pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter??


And many people would agree that Steinem's comments are even more reason to vote for McCain/Palin. Similar to what Sarah said about Harry Reid's "I can't stand John McCain" remark - no better accolade could be bestowed.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   




Really, that's what you're going to hang your hat on? That I am sexist?
Let me accommodate you semantically and use other words, though I suspect that's not really what you're after.


Edit to add: I edited the OP to attend to your sensibilities. Alright pumpkin?


[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I don't need anything to "hang my hat on". You give yourself much too much credit.

*SNIP*

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Please refrain from personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand.

[edit on 9/4/2008 by maria_stardust]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
McCain could have picked Kay Bailey and it would have been the same thing. Unless you have views like Gloria she isn't going to be singing praises on you.

What I find ironic is how quick she is willing to defend women like Palin in lawsuits when it comes to stuffing her pocket with hard back cash.

If Gloria had wanted a feminist then she should have lobbied her group against Obama. I am sure she could have pressured him into getting Hillary.

Her being a Hillary supporter speaks for itself.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Appease the gender gap? I thought he was trying to appease the conservative gap. If you or anyone is stupid enough to vote for matching genitalia then you deserve what you get. It's funny that the great Ms. Steinem can't even see past Palins genitals.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yours is a transparent attempt to turn the issue on it's head.
Consider yourself unsuccessful in this regard.

The article is clear, and it lays out that what you are accusing Gloria Steinem of, is precicely what the GOP and Sen McCain have implemented. A political ploy based on archaic, chauvinistic, and insulting principles and total lack of understanding of women in general. For that, as the following weeks will show, the GOP will pay a heavy price in the elections.



When it became apparent during the closing weeks of the presidential primaries that Barack Obama and not Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination, media newscasters looked for exciting commentary in an increasingly meaningless contest. They pounced on quotations from "Hillary's Women" indicating they would vote for John McCain rather than support their own party's nominee if Obama was the winner or they would simply not vote.

If Republican strategists persuaded McCain to accept Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to capture those votes, they erred immensely. Clinton's 18 million supporters aren't about to jump ship.

Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson, far right Republican diehards, once said they wouldn't vote for McCain but flip-flopped and now have become loyal supporters. Because of the Palin selection, "Hillary's Women" will also make a turnabout and cast their votes for Obama.

Evidently, McCain really expected that putting the energetic young governor of Alaska on the ticket would draw a significant number of those "Hillary Women" to his support. Why else would he choose a veep candidate whose experience in administering anything has been limited to being mayor of a city of 9,000 people and 18 months governing one of the least populated states in the union?

source




[edit on 9/4/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Uhmmm when did Whoria Steinem become relevant again?

Schrodie, it's a party-line article from Steinem. Put any Dem. (doesn't have to be Hillary) and Steinem would have penned something very different. I'm surprised your apparent intellect has been overshadowed by your partisanship. I expected more from you.

Becker



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


That's some magic newspeak you've got there.

GS says the RP picked SP because they are so condescending and insulting to women that they believe women will vote for SP because she has a vagina. GS goes on to say that wont work.

That's fine, but from this point on we have assume that the RP does indeed think women are so fickle they will dump their suspected beliefs and ideals that HC and BO apparently represent and vote for SP only because of her vagina even though she, according to GS, represents the opposite of what women want. We have no proof of this. The only proof we have is that GS said that's what's going which really only proves GS is suspicious of the RP and thinks very little of the women who had supported HC. We can all assume anything we want. We can assume the RP really thinks women are so stupid and shallow they will vote the vag for vag sake but there is no proof outside of peoples opinions. There is however real proof and statements that state she was picked to attract the conservative base who until recently refused to support McCain. There are even figures measuring the support of this group as increasing since the Palin announcement.

Now, if you can show me figures that prove that former HC supporters are now supporting SP than that still would not prove she was picked to draw in them in but it would prove that a certain number of women are in fact so fickle that they would just vote the vag regardless of policy or ideal which would negate much of what GS has said.

So, please, prove HC supporters are so simple that they are voting genitalia and not issues. By doing so you make GS look like an idiot along with a whole bunch of really shallow voters.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


If I understand you correctly I'm actually not disagreeing with you.
I nor anyone else that I am aware have figures to suggest that ANY or ALL HC supporters would vote for SP. Thus the folly of the GOP strategy, according to GS. It is based on a simplistic and insulting view of women based on nothing BUT assumptions. Hence, according to GS and indeed myself, one that will backfire.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Actually this article and its intended idea touches me as a woman that have lived through almost 5 decades seen how we woman has gone one step forward and 10 backward.

I agree If what McCain was doing was to bring palin to support its own party ideologies and forgot that is a big rest of female population that do not subscribe to those ideologies, then is not going to work.

This is not about been sexiest but about the real agenda behind palin as VP.

But then again honesty is not a trait that we look to find on our political candidates anymore.

LiKe I said I don't like Biden as VP and I dislike Palin more for allowing herself to be use by the GOP.





 
7

log in

join