A woman's place is in the objectifying Photoshop
The slogan at the hecatedemeter blog is "Undermining the Patriarchy Every Chance I Get. And I Get a Lot of Chances."
Evidently, one such opportunity was to gratuitously post a Photoshopped picture of Sarah Palin in a bikini, holding a rifle.
Would rightwing sites also be undermining the patriarchy by posting altered pics of female Democrats in similar attire? Or is it an acceptable tribal rite (and right) just for Democrats, who really know how to treat a lady?
(h/t Arthur Silber, via e-mail)
Evidently, one such opportunity was to gratuitously post a Photoshopped picture of Sarah Palin in a bikini, holding a rifle.
Would rightwing sites also be undermining the patriarchy by posting altered pics of female Democrats in similar attire? Or is it an acceptable tribal rite (and right) just for Democrats, who really know how to treat a lady?
(h/t Arthur Silber, via e-mail)
Labels: Sarah Palin
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 8:51 AM
25 Comments:
Conservative women aren't women.
Without endorsing the link sexist photo, or any sexist photo, the homophobic Palins aren't very sympathetic to me, sorry.
Johnny, I'm unclear of your point. You lack sympathy for the Palins, therefore... what?
People from the other tribe aren't, in fact, people. Are they?
Therefore I don't think they should be presented as sympathetic on a liberal site. You would agree with that, yes? Because I'm sure you wouldn't deny they're vicious homophobes, Bristle's nasty blog post about Obama's gay marriage endorsement, the other one's use of the word "faggot" on twitter.
I'm just asking if you agree, for clarification, not implying that you have presented them sympathetically. And again, not endorsing hecatedemeter's actions.
Oh, the mental gymnastics your tribalistic brain must go through Johnny. Ever heard of just rejecting sexism wherever one may find it, regardless of party? And nice try on a runaround re:homophobia and Sarah Palin to justify your dehumanizing of a woman. Then again reality is more complex than tribalism allowed, for instance: her first act as governor is to veto a bill that would have overturned a court decision that said it was unconstitutional to deny same-sex rights to government employees? Or her open support of her lesbian friend Tilly.
Sarah supported Alaska's 1998 amendment to ban same-sex marriage. When asked what her top 3 priorities are in relationship to families, #2 was "Preserving the definition of "marriage" as defined in our constitution." Elected officials can’t defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. “I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,” Palin said.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/refudiating-does-sarah-palin-support-gay-rights/politics/2011/02/09/17322
It's fine that she did one right thing in vetoing that bill, but she's still against gay marriage. And the gay friend means nothing, practically every anti-gay politician claims to have a gay friend. Her kids are homophobic and it's a reasonable assumption they grew up in a homophobic household. Bristol's toddler said "faggot" on a recent episode of her reality show (though she claims he said "fuck it" instead.)
Regarding the tribalism charge, I twice denied that I was defending the sexist photo. I've only posted here a few times, but I imagine Vast remembers I hate Obama and see completely eye-to-eye with him about that.
Damned if I have anything good to say about Sarah Palin's politics, unless pointing out that some of the charges from Democrats have been phony or exaggerated is considered saying something positive.
I have no sympathies for her agenda, but I have sympathy for anyone who faces the kind of abuse she's received for being a woman and for being culturally unacceptable to the Democratic tribe.
The latest tribal crap is the certainty that her young grandchild said "faggot." We have no idea if that's what was bleeped.
In any case, the "left's" continued obsession with the sins of the Palins, no matter how many generations removed, is pretty bizarre, given the political matters of real import they won't say or do anything about.
The latest tribal crap is the certainty that her young grandchild said "faggot." We have no idea if that's what was bleeped."
I didn't say it was a certainty, I gave her side of the story. But we do actually have some idea that it's plausible, Bristol's homophobic post on her blog, her sister's free use of the word on twitter. I brought it up as a further indication of the likelihood that they were raised in a homophobic household.
If Palin's generationally removed spawn don't want anyone to discuss their homophobia, perhaps they shouldn't star in the own reality show while making homophobic blog posts and spewing bigoted epithets on twitter.
Johnny, actually you stated it as a fact that the kid said that f-word but that Bristol denies it:
Bristol's toddler said "faggot" on a recent episode of her reality show (though she claims he said "fuck it" instead.)
I think it's empty calories to fixate on the reality-TV foibles of the "spawn" of a former Governor / failed-VP candidate. YMMV.
From the effable conservative commentator Rich Lowry:
"Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, 'Hey, I think she just winked at me.'"
"And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it."
Live by sexism, die by sexism. Sounds fair to me.
I stated it as fact because *I* believe it's true (and explained why it's perfectly plausible.) I wouldn't have given the other explanation if it was a certainty.
"I think it's empty calories to fixate on the reality-TV foibles of the "spawn" of a former Governor"
True, but I came back to that because you had ascribed any interest in the Palin sisters' bigoted comments to persecution of their mother. That isn't true, they chose to put themselves in the spotlight and say bigoted things. They are not being persecuted.
There are plenty of good reasons to dislike the Palins, that have nothing to do with misogyny or tribalism. I've seen *other* (not you) liberal sites (PUMA to be specific) defend the Palins' homophobia and it personally offended me. Don't take my bringing up PUMA as an accusation, I doubt you'd describe your site that way but you do link to some I'd call PUMA. Anyway I like the PUMA sites aside from excessive deference to the Palins.
I have a funny habit: when referring to my belief about a circumstance that's legitimately in dispute, I say "I think," "I believe," "It's my assessment," etc., rather than "X happened, though someone involved claims Y happened."
From what I've seen, there does not seem to be a consistent view of the virtues or lack thereof of Palin among PUMAs/ex-PUMAs. There just doesn't seem to be a strong correlation one way or another, though most likely a higher % who think favorably of Palin than among habitual Democrats in general.
In any case, I continue to find it striking that calling out sexism against Palin inevitably brings out implications that one is politically sympathetic to her--fending them off is a tax on bucking the tribe about its sexist, trivial, and sometimes dishonest treatment of its favorite tribal human pinata.
"Live by sexism, die by sexism. Sounds fair to me."
Really? It doesn't to me.
calling out sexism against Palin inevitably brings out implications that one is politically sympathetic to her"
Why would anyone think that? You're clearly very liberal, 2L4O, as am I. Obviously you're not going to agree with her politics. Perhaps you might be personally sympathetic towards her, however. Such as diminishing any accusations of homophobia as a "foible", which is defined as a minor weakness. I don't think most people consider bigotry a minor weakness. Or highlighted that someone rudely referred to her daughters as "spawn." I used that rude term because I hate them, and it's not at all controversial for someone to hate homophobes, especially if they are gay themselves. Though you seem to have a different view of that, minor foibles and all.
Sorry, Johnny, but if you're fighting for gay/queer/gender based rights, you can't relativize the amount of protestation of sexist treatment that should happen for someone based off your own personal 'hatred' (I mean, really, hatred? their are people in the queer left who see gay marriage as some type of homonormativizing waste of time and I'm sure they don't instill your hatred); and that includes Palin. Their is a large segment of gay men who seem to think that calling women C*unt, B*tches, and other sexist terms, can somehow be reasoned away with some thinly veiled tribalistic excuse of, 'well, she doesn't support me!' FYI, dude, without changing the way women are treated, you may as well be spending all of your gay activism time jo into the wind
To "gratuitously post"? There are a lot of terribly sexist assumptions built into that.
A woman in a bathing suit is a sex object. A woman in a bathing suit is not in the suit of her own free will. She exists for the viewing pleasure of male patriarchs who use the image to exploit her. She did not wear the suit for comfort while swimming, spending time outdoors, or to attract the attention of other women.
Therefore, putting a woman's face on the body of a woman in a bathing suit is a sexist act.
How often an innocent alien would commit grandiose acts of "sexism" without being aware of it. But co-opted corporate "feminism" has become so popular among white western petite bourgeoisie that it comes with a number of bigoted, demeaning assumptions, stealing from women the right to express themselves in any form related to sexual identity without being pigeonholed as equivalent to the KKK.
It's part of the horrid, prudish puritan chastity mores that made up American history. It's no surprise that yet another anti-sexuality movement, this time under the guise of women's rights, found its nexus among upper-class Americans.
A picture of a hated woman's face is digitally transplanted onto the body of a scantily clad woman and held up for mockery. Yeah, it's really anti-sexuality to think that's cheap and demeaning and *shudder* gratuitous.
[Deleting troll comments]
What is cheap and demeaning about the body of a human woman?
If we start from the standpoint that the body is wicked, in a puritanical (or Mormon-underwear) way, then a woman who demonstrates only 5% coverage is indeed 95% cheap and demeaning.
But, instead, what if the body is beautiful?
What if--while accepting the habits/desires of the vast majority of post-industrial citizens who can afford it to spend most of their lives wrapped in various dead animal or synthetic assembly line clothes--we can see a body and not automatically consider it vulgar and demeaning?
(token Female Body Image post)
Kavit, again, I have never defended the linked sexist photo. You simply can't respond to anyone expressing a strong dislike of the Palins without accusing them of misogyny. Feel free to quote where I used, or defended anyone using, those sexist terms. I for one, would never have the nerve to shrug-off misogyny as a "minor weakness" by referring to it as a foible. I somehow doubt the gay kids who had to attend school with nasty bigots like the Palin sisters, thought their homophobia was a mere minor weakness.
I would also characterize any implied assumption that I'm a misogynist, because I'm a gay man (as you did in your 2nd sentence), to be homophobic. And possibly an ad hominem, although it's being used to discredit an argument that I'm not making. I haven't defended the sexist photo, or any sexism.
That picture captures the essence of Sarah Palin in one doctored photo. To me, it's art.
You don't have to feel sympathetic towards Palin or agree with any of her positions on the issues in order to reject sexist attacks her.
By the way, not all of the PUMA/ex-PUMA sites defend the Palin or her positions. Some do some don't. However, when she was running for VP, all of the PUMA sites spoke out against the rampant sexism against her. We'd just seen those same tactics used against Hillary and they weren't better the second time around. Personally, I was horrified that pundits from the left would use sexism. I know--very naive of me. I figured they would have well-reasoned arguments against her positions. It's not like there wasn't material there. The more the get-on-board left got sexist, the more sympathetic many PUMAs got towards Palin. But not all. There are still PUMA sites that won't give Palin the time of day AND don't resort to sexism to criticize her OR anyone else.
It's a given that the original motivation for this post was correct. There's no point in examining why we feel that way. Once an accusation of sexism has made, it is not anyone's place to question its accuracy. Rather, we should move immediately to the next stage, and determine how the sexism should be responded to.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home