-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What NOW? Women in Politics
- Thread starter Watchmen
- Start date
texan1
Active Member
While there is some truth to this article, it doesn't change the fact that Palin was an embarrassing choice for VP. And as far as the media abuse - she was announced only 6 weeks prior to the election and so of course the media was all over her- they wanted to figure out who she was and why this stranger was chosen over any other senator, governor or US leader to fill the spot. She had a lot of trouble answering questions and when she was criticized there seemed to be this feeling of "Oh come on, stop picking on her and just let her be the VP". The writer of this article actually gives the excuse that Palin just had a baby and was experiencing post baby exhaustion. Do you think a man would get the same excuses made for him?
And though its not fair, I think anytime you have someone breaking a barrier for the first time, high standards are placed on them because there is a sense that they represent an entire group - in this case - women. I think most women would want to see the first female candidate obtain the position because she is extraordinary. Not because she is a woman. Palin is less than average in my opinion. I think a lot of women were disappointed that a woman of more substance was not chosen. It felt like affirmative action gone wrong.
And though its not fair, I think anytime you have someone breaking a barrier for the first time, high standards are placed on them because there is a sense that they represent an entire group - in this case - women. I think most women would want to see the first female candidate obtain the position because she is extraordinary. Not because she is a woman. Palin is less than average in my opinion. I think a lot of women were disappointed that a woman of more substance was not chosen. It felt like affirmative action gone wrong.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Oh, is that what the article was about? That she was a woman? Sure, it couldn't have been because of her appalling track record, her horrid stance on the issues or her total lack of character and integrity, now could it?
madcap
Eternal Optimist
Is the NOW supposed to endorse any ticket that includes a woman? They endorsed Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin because the former will be much better for women than the latter. It's that simple.
Sarah Palin seems like an intelligent woman, but McCain did her a tremendous disservice in selecting her as his running mate. She was out of her depth -- not because she's a woman, but because she was unqualified. The presidency (and by extension vice presidency) are too important to hand out as tokens of identity politics. Obama won because he convinced voters he was the better choice. If Palin runs in 2012, she will have to do the same.
But the notion that there's some double standard because women didn't support Palin is ludicrous. Yes, both Clinton and Palin were treated badly by some people who don't like the idea of a woman holding office -- neither were mocked as harshly as Obama, by the way. But the clear distinction between the two is that Clinton deserved to be taken seriously, and was. Palin wasn't taken seriously because her lack of credibility the alternative impossible.
Sarah Palin seems like an intelligent woman, but McCain did her a tremendous disservice in selecting her as his running mate. She was out of her depth -- not because she's a woman, but because she was unqualified. The presidency (and by extension vice presidency) are too important to hand out as tokens of identity politics. Obama won because he convinced voters he was the better choice. If Palin runs in 2012, she will have to do the same.
But the notion that there's some double standard because women didn't support Palin is ludicrous. Yes, both Clinton and Palin were treated badly by some people who don't like the idea of a woman holding office -- neither were mocked as harshly as Obama, by the way. But the clear distinction between the two is that Clinton deserved to be taken seriously, and was. Palin wasn't taken seriously because her lack of credibility the alternative impossible.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Um, duh? They're politicians! Of course there is going to be some partisanship. Besides, my criticisms are completely valid and accurate. Are you suggesting I lower my standards of what I expect from a leader just because she's a woman? Don't you think you're being a little sexist? Palin is horrible, and her gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
While there may be some truth that NOW is partisan the article writer provides no evidence of it. Which shouldn't be terribly difficult given the Republican marriage to religious fundamentalists over the last three decades.
The fact that Palin was pretty much picked to garner support of religious fundamentalists as well as women you would think Mama Sapien would understand that NOW was most likely going for candidates who were in line with their philosophy rather than being sexist and supporting a candidate just because that candidate is a woman.
There are many cases of sexism in our nation. This article doesn't highlight any.
The fact that Palin was pretty much picked to garner support of religious fundamentalists as well as women you would think Mama Sapien would understand that NOW was most likely going for candidates who were in line with their philosophy rather than being sexist and supporting a candidate just because that candidate is a woman.
There are many cases of sexism in our nation. This article doesn't highlight any.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Yeah, it does kind of make sense that a women's group would favor the party that actually supports women's rights and interests, doesn't it? I mean Palin actually wanted rape victims to pay for their own rape kit (for one of many examples), so I don't really understand how any self respecting woman could support Palin.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
It would appear that "great articles" aren't what they used to be.
The piece in question is nothing more than a person lamenting the fact that the voters did not blindly support an unqualified candidate because of her gender. She then goes on to complain that NOW doesn't share her simplistic, myopic view of women's issues.
Great article? Well, it did have slightly more depth than most of the "Penthouse Forum" letters.
Last edited:
texan1
Active Member
Do you honestly think the only reason people criticized Palin was the fact that she was a woman? And I don't think you can compare the two women in this way - it's not apples to apples. Hillary, unlike Palin imo, is intelligent and presidential. In my view she actually came across better in some of the debates than Obama. She ran her own impressive campaign. She also earned the votes of millions of Americans. There are still many democrats who feel she was at a disadvantage because of sexism and are upset that she conceded to Obama. So if someone wants to talk about sexism in her campaign, there might be something to talk about. But Palin is a different story. She simply did not have the depth of intelligence required to be second in command, woman or not.
This article is off base. It suggests that women have an obligation to support a female candidate, no matter who she is. That's sexist.
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
As I said in a different thread, as a feminist I think Palin calling herself anything of the sort is ridiculous. Feminism is not about just having the right to vote, or to serve in public positions. Does she believe women (and men) have a right to decide what goes in and out of their body? Does she believe women can serve over men in the church, whatever the Bible may say? Does she believe birth control is acceptable?
A backwards woman from the Phelps family could run for office, but I'm not voting for her sex. That's anti-feminist.
Feminism is also an acknowledgment that sexism hurts both genders. "Feminine" acting men are constantly trashed in culture, and rape of men by other men and by women remains taboo.
A backwards woman from the Phelps family could run for office, but I'm not voting for her sex. That's anti-feminist.
Feminism is also an acknowledgment that sexism hurts both genders. "Feminine" acting men are constantly trashed in culture, and rape of men by other men and by women remains taboo.
Last edited:
texan1
Active Member
Actually, some of it was. For example, paragraph 3.
Yes, but I don't think it makes the point very well when it chooses one of the most incapable female candidates as it's primary subject matter.
I don't, but thanks for the offer!
gnomon
Well-Known Member
gnomon said:
Politics does not equal sexism.
Considering Palin's staunch position on abortion that alone is enough to recognize how NOW would not back her. That's one example.
Bush Administration Scurries to Finalize Harmful Regulations
Just a sampling of the position NOW takes on reproductive rights. As an organization of feminists, if they stand on a liberal view or reproductive rights to call their failure to back Palin as sexism misses the mark.
California NOW: Sexism Against Sarah Palin: Mock Hanging, Look-alike Strippers, Porn Movie - What's Next?
California NOW: FYI: This is What Sexism Looks Like
Not Every Woman Supports Women's Rights: Statement on Sarah Palin
NOW Read This... - The Sarah Palin Pity Party
The link to salon from that link has a great write-up regarding the pity and sexism shown towards Palin.
This requirement that NOW show as much support for Palin as they did for Hillary is hilarious.
Below The Belt: Don't Take His Word For It
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
What is it with you?
Can you not grasp that when adults don't agree with you, it doesn't mean that they don't understand the written words? The article you linked does, indeed, contain apologetics for Palin.
If we read it again, do we get extra credit? If we re-read it, and don't change our minds, do we get a lower grade in this class?
Come to think of it, when is the last day for Drop/Add?
Poisoning the well.