Thursday, September 04, 2008


Is This Feminism?

Katie Granju wrote a post today on the media treatment of Sarah Palin and her daughter. In the comments "Paula" addressed whether Palin was a "feminist" or not. Her main point -
The difference is, if Sarah Palin were in charge, and God helps us if she ever gets there, Palin will ensure that the poor and working class women of America have even less support, less help, less economic security, and less health care.
Paula offers no factual base to support her accusations, probably because there is none. But, the more interesting thing is to look at the crux of Paula's statement.

"less support, less help, less economic security, and less health care." I thought feminism was about equal opportunity for women, for women being able to have careers and compete with men in the work force on the same level. I thought it was about women having the same liberties as men to do what they please with their lives.

Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that feminism in its present form is not about that at all. But that's for another day.

According to Paula, feminism is not about these things at all. It's about getting support, getting help, being economically secure and having health care. Maybe this is an underlying difference in men and women. Men are taught to go out and support themselves, help themselves, create their own economic security and earn a good enough living for their families that their children and themselves can receive adequate health care.

Yes, there are times when many people need assistance from others. But, I refuse to be a part of any group that defines itself by needing support, help and assistance. Rather pathetic.

Oh my Appalachian wingnut man is lecturing me about feminism? Too hilarious!!!!

And I love how you think the bubble-headed retro-June Cleaver with a predilection for moose hunting, pork barrel spending and running up huge deficits is some sort of example for women!

Seriously, don't you mouth-breathing conservatives have enough to do, what with all the wars to be fought, big oil to be coddled, tax cuts for rich people to be made, and toe-tapping in restrooms, not to mention them lynchin' parties and beatin up on the homos and Muslims and all? Now you're gonna fight feminism, one blog at a time?

Not much to do on a Thursday night in Appalachia, eh?

So, you want some facts? Here's a fact. Palin closed down programs for unwed mothers in Alaska. Go look it up.

Want some facts? Palin opposes reproductive choice, and reproductive education. It's right there in her record -- black and white.

So, as for "women having the same liberties as men to do what they please with their lives," you do realize that Palin wants to make it so that even little girls and women who are raped or victimized by incest will be forced to carry the child? And once they're forced to carry those kids? Well, who needs any programs to help those girls actually carry through with the pregnancy.

That's not the "same liberties as men to do what they please with their lives" darling, and until you grow yourself a uterus, you don't know jack freaking squat about it.

Big surprise you're divorced, bubba.
Dadvocate: "Paula" strikes me as the kind of thinker whose primary skills for rational discourse never moved passed an elementary school playground. But then again, most people don't even try to learn what logical fallacies are (Ad hominem/Circumstantial Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem Abusive, Appeal to Belief).

"Paula" provides links to neither claim she makes regarding Mrs. Palin. Moreover, she appears to be so invested in her error that she makes another claim I have never seen from anyone with a pro-life position: namely that incest and rape shouldn't be an exception.

But even a stopped clock is right twice a day: we conservatives are very busy fighting wars (something about foreign attacks on domestic soil being an act of war), coddling big oil (not so sure here since Exxonmobil will pay more in federal income tax than the bottom 50% of taxpayers combined), cutting taxes for the rich (hmm, well, if the poor aren't paying any, how can we cut theirs), toe-tapping in restrooms (because there's nothing to do at MSP and tile floors are great for tap dancing).

Of course I haven't found any lyching parties or beating up homosexuals/Muslims. But then I don't know Senator Robert Byrd.

Perhaps "Paula" should post facts and use logic, instead of bleating on about having a uteris; all that does is prove the Greeks correct. But what do I know, not having one and owning energy mineral rights?

The above post is guilty of Ad Hominem Abusive. (
Well, Paula, you're pretty good at the middle school name-calling stuff. Visit again when you reach puberty.
Maj -- facts are so very important. Let's look at them.

You may have "never seen [it] from anyone with a pro-life position" but it's time to get informed about your candidate, because you are seeing it from Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin has said, unequivocally -- and go ahead and look it up, it's easily verified, so you don't continue to be so badly misinformed -- that she opposes abortion, INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF RAPE AND INCEST.

She says it is only acceptable to save the life of the mother. Period. That's it.

Facts, Maj, facts.

Maybe you're so invested in your candidate that you haven't gotten your facts straight?

Maybe you haven't realized that if Sarah Palin had her way, if your 12 year old gets raped, Sarah Palin wants her to have the baby. If a young child is a victim of incest, she has the baby -- if Sarah Palin could legislate it.

Facts, Maj, facts.

As a gubernatorial candidate in November 2006, Sarah Palin declared that she would NOT support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.

In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire filled out during the 2006 gubernatorial race, Palin again stated that she is AGAINST abortion unless a doctor determined that a mother's life would end due to the pregnancy.

Just the facts, Maj, just the facts.

As for Dadvocate -- well, I notice no actual facts are being offered by you either, to support Sarah Palin, or to contradict the various criticisms of her lack of experience, lack of fiscal responsibility, ethics issues, judgment problems, or extreme position of reproductive rights. Nor do I hear a thing about how opposition to reproductive education and reproductive choice is somehow offering women the same "liberties" as men. (Because, of course, there isn't a defense for that.) All we get is a juvenile crack, meant to deflect from the actual issues at hand. (Actually, much like Sarah Palin's strategy -- when you don't have any real argument, just mock and snark, rather than address actual issues of importance to Americans.)

So, to both of you, please let us women know when there are actually some facts in your argument -- when you actually have some verifiable facts that will explain how and why Palin is qualified to be VP for anyone in America, much less women.
Nice of you to visit again, Paula. Not!

Apparently your reading comprehension needs improving. I wasn't promoting or asserting Sarah Palin as a feminist. I was talking about your apparent definition of what it takes to be a feminist, i.e. support welfare type programs for women.

I see you also embody the other quality so many self-proclaimed feminsit have - generalized anger, or in your case, rage.

BTW - I have a vegetable garden in which I grow tomatoes. Even though the tomatoes are not growing out of my body or within my body, I would be commonly described as "growing tomatoes." Since I have two daughters, would I be growings uteruses?
Wow, miss a day and all hell breaks loose over here.

I do know of some people who do not believe in an abortion "exemption" for rape and incest. The idea being: it's not the baby's fault how he or she was conceived. I am still pondering that one myself. I don't have stats close at hand, but it is my understanding that a very low percentage of abortions are performed due to rape and incest.

Governor Palin is an example of a woman who has accomplished a great deal without having dad or husband in high places, lots of money, affirmative action programs, etc., to get her started. She should be the perfect example for feminists, but no, because feminism seems to be all about abortion and the "right" to have consequence-free sex (with help from taxpayer money).
Marbel, I'm pretty much in the same boat with you on abortion. The question, as a matter of law, is really pretty moot. I don't foresee anything happening in the future that would outlaw abortion.

Sad how the abortion debate has gone. Originally, after Roe v. Wade it was just the first trimester. Now, it's any point before birth in some places. I don't see how anyone can question the immorality of this.
huh, guess a nerve has been touched...

Ultimately, and this is important for you to realize, Paula, you are forgetting something. The executive branch doesn't make law, they execute it. The vice president is a secondary role, only working in congress as a tie breaker. Since the Congress is Dem controlled, there prolly won't be any ties.

Even if she was to become Prez. at some point she isn't a king. People often blame presidents for everything the congress they elected does, but it isn't that simple. The most important part of that is interesting.

No matter how much I disagree with an individual, be they Prez. VP, or in Congress, their opinions and agendas are moderated by everyone else.

I don't require my elected officials to think exactly like me. Paula, you are attacking people for disagreeing with you, and that is why you are calling them names. As if that'll make a difference in their thought or something.

A lot of the things that a state or federal executive does is say no to legislation that either isn't going to pass muster from the Constitution, or to legislation that is bundled good with bad, full of poison pills. You certainly can't blame everything the Alaska legislature does on Palin signing or vetoing the legislation the present.

Some things that Palin may feel very strongly about personally, will never come close to being law, no matter what she says, and in recent days I have seen a lot of stuff that is clearly bunk, where details are omitted to make her view mean a certain thing. The sex education issue is a good one. Palin has her individaul view on SE, but what MSM and others read right over is the thing she says several times. She thinks the govt. should stay the hell out of it. Only parents have the responsibility to teach this. This is not the same as being for abstinance only education, it's just that abstinance education is the least in opposition to the idea that the parent knows what is best for their own child.

Linked from Newsweek

Paula, I hope you realize something quite important about who is elected in November. Neither candidate will be able to deliver on their promises. In fact most presidents are lucky if one or two of their big ideas ever come to fruition. Are you going to freak out and shout 'betrayer' when you don't get everything you want? You want National Healthcare by the same people that brought you the IRS? Do you want the richest 10% of people WHO ALREADY PAY 65.7%% OF ALL TAXES, TO PAY MORE? The bottom 50% of all tax payers only pay 3.5% of all taxes.

The Bush tax cuts have actually cause the taxes on the rich to increas and on the poor to go down:

"Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
Treasury Department analysts credit President Bush's tax cuts with shifting a larger share of the individual income taxes paid to higher income taxpayers. In 2005, says the Treasury, when most of the tax cut provisions are fully in effect (e.g., lower tax rates, the $1,000 child credit, marriage penalty relief), the projected tax share for lower-income taxpayers will fall, while the tax share for higher-income taxpayers will rise."

From the US Treasury dept

My ultra liberal friends in The Republic of Boulder, often talk about programs for this, that and someone else. What they never can answer is "who will pay?" I have a pretty good job, one of my friends is the artsy type who lives pretty much hand to mouth. When she talks universal healthcare I ask where the money comes from. She was very uncomfortable when I pointed out that I would be the one directly paying for her healthcare. It's always someone far away that you don't know called The Govt. except that it isn't. It is the person who busted a hump all their lives to get ahead, and support their family and pay their fair share of taxes who pay for stuff for people who don't PAY taxes.

Remember that when somebody is promising to change this, or subsidize that. What happens to your universal healthcare if I lose my job and pay a lot less in tax? Who will pay then?

er, Thanks Dadvocate for lettin' me get that all off my chest ;)
Thanks, d, for you comment. You make especially good points about taxes. Obama's "tax the corporations more" bit worries me. Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers pay taxes.

If Obama increases corporate tax burdens by, say, 10%, the corporations simply pass that added business expense on to consumers.

The income tax bit is class warfare. I earn a few thousands dollars over the national household average. I pay very little in income tax after deductions. Considering the government services I get in roads, military protection, etc. I'm getting quit a deal.
Dadvocate...Paula is a seriously angry person.

when you actually have some verifiable facts that will explain how and why Palin is qualified to be VP for anyone in America, much less women.

allow me to ask this -

when you actually have some verifiable facts that will explain how and why Obama is qualified to be President for anyone in America, please let us know.

At least Palin has been in charge of something. An entire state. Obama can't even be bothered to vote yes or no...just "Present". Glad to know he was there at least.

What is truly disturbing, is that he voted "present" as directed by his party leaders in Illinois. If he must be told what to vote on, when and how... Does this mean that Nancy Pelosi will control the White House if he is elected? I think I'll head for Antarctica if that happens.
If Obama's elected, I'm not moving to Canada. I'm moving to Alaska!
The lefties always go straight for the name-calling, don't they?
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]