Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Sarah Palin
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
How is what I said considered absolute terms? Be specific, please, by pointing out what was "absolute" in my posting. Thanks. |
Anonymous
| What I meant is that can we just applaud the fact that a woman was selected as a running mate without necessarily "embracing her as a role model". Per the American Heritage Dictionary==absolute-perfect in quality or nature. |
Anonymous
| I'm not PP but in my view, selecting Palin was an insult to women and not something to applaud. Why should we be happy that a moron was choses just because she was a woman?? |
Anonymous
sorry, chosen. |
Anonymous
I disagree with this statement altogether. Decisions like this perpetuate sexism. Let's pick her because she's a girl. She can stay quiet in the corner and serve as our token female. How about let's pick her because she is intelligent and qualified. Are those qualities really that hard to find in professional women that the public has to capitulate and accept a pick like Sarah Palin? |
Anonymous
There are other definitions of absolute, too. And the one chosen by you is definitely not one I interpreted from your response. No woman is perfect; no person, in fact, is perfect. However, I agree with the person who posted this: "I'm not PP but in my view, selecting Palin was an insult to women and not something to applaud. Why should we be happy that a moron was chosen just because she was a woman??" As women we do not and should not expect perfection. That is truly an anti-feminist approach to take. At the other end, however, by embracing a woman such as Palin, we are also defeating the purpose of feminism by encouraging young women (all women really) to support a female who is short-sighted, condescending, simplistic in her world view, an Evangelical Christian who believes Eve came from Adam's rib, a supporter of the AIP (humorous, if you ask me), and far, far too inexperienced to lead. Furthermore, the media has made of mockery of her. Lipstick on a pitt bull is the perfect metaphor for this aspiring VP. a great role model for you daughter, eh? |
Anonymous
Bravo! There are others much more qualified (and dignified). |
Anonymous
a great role model for YOUR daughter, eh? (my mistake) |
Anonymous
Your mistake was obvious; it was really not necessary to correct it. Unfortunately, McCain's mistake is apparently still not obvious to him, and it will take millions of us to correct it. Here's hoping we succeed! |
Anonymous
Love it! Thanks! |
Anonymous
|
While I hate to post here as there has been so much banter on this thead I am a bit perplexed by some of the responses. IMO - not a big Palin supporter- but this election has shown me that we may be closer to getting over the racial divide in electing Obama, we are not over and perhaps increasing the gender discrimination.
Please tell me that you don't beleive there has not been an incompetent male in politics - even nominated to Vice President! Many of the blogs / sidebar commentary have portrayed her in ways that if translated to other realms (i.e. racial) would not and certainly should not be tolerated. Again, while I am still no fan I am infuriated every time someone mentions her family - this is virtually unheard of from male candidates. And finally, with regard to her beliefs, they are not mine BUT there are many (men and women) who have this belief structure. Are we truely at a point where only women who look a certain way, sound a certain way, dress a certain way, with only one belief structure/ideology are those to be emulated?? If so, we have not come far at all. We have merely transitioned the 'mandatory' female role from that which was once decided by males into a one size fits all mentality female. |
Anonymous
|
The unfriendly treatment of Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her gender, except in the sense that it was her gender that secured her nomination.
And I can't remember a male VP candidate who was so vastly unqualified. Incompetent, perhaps, but this unqualified? Who? I also FIRMLY believe that if Barack Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter, you better believe the GOP would vilify him much more than has been done to Sarah Palin. It's not her family that makes her a target. It's her lack of qualifications, her pride at being so unfailingly "regular" (read: mediocre/unimpressive/ignorant), her terrible interviews, and her meanspiritedness. |
Anonymous
|
"Again, while I am still no fan I am infuriated every time someone mentions her family - this is virtually unheard of from male candidates."
Personally, I could care less about her family but she has created the problem. Her main platform is vote for me because I am a "hockey mom" and she tried to appeal to woman voters because of her gender not her support on women's issues. She doesn't put forward her experience but always goes back to the narrative that I am just like all the other moms. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your family is your platform then you expose them to scrutiny. I think alot of women were offended at the idea that they could be like Palin. Its also pretty offensive to think that women will simply vote for a candidate because she is a woman, which is what the campaign did in choosing Palin to try to gain independents and moderates. |
Anonymous
| Were you equally offended when Senator Patty Murray portrayed herself as a "mom in tennis shoes" to get elected? |
Anonymous
|
To 00:31 -
1) What are 'women's issues' - is there only one way for a 'true' women to vote??? 2) I would say dems try to make a statement that she is too much like normal folks i.e. not qualified for her current and certainly not VP position but then are derisive of her for making the same statements. 3) Why would women be offended by thinking they could be like Palin? I don't think I am like her. I don't share many of her beliefs but I am not offended by that. 4) I would say the McCain team wanted to gain their right wing constituents rather than independents and moderates with the Palin pick. |