Monday, September 1, 2008

Just as I thought...

So, dear readers, 

Did anyone see Bill Maher on his Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night? Bill Maher did an entire tirade on vice presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin. I knew he would. When I wrote that letter/blog Friday morning, I did so because I knew he would do exactly what he did 12 hours later. Every stereotype about women he could parade out and exploit, he did. Even George Bush, the murdering evil retard, has not ever earned an entire 5 minute opening act of his disdain. Why do you think that is, people? Because she is a woman. Bill Maher, with all his talk of being progressive, is really just as sexist as the Republicans he criticizes. Difference is, Republicans do not want women to have sexual freedom, Bill Maher believes women are ONLY useful for their sexual freedom.

His panel included the very smart, astute Michelle Martin, who held him to task and he blew her off. She said, "you do not make this any better or easier with your comments about Palin being a stewardess." Chuckles ensued. Then, Michelle pointed out that Palin has the same experience as Kaine, Governor of Virginia, who was on Obama's short list and interviewed by Maher only moments before Martin's comment. Did Maher address the counterargument? Nope. That would not be "funny" enough. As Maher kept degrading Palin as a "hockey mom," and sneered about her children, Michelle pointed out that out of all the candidates, Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden, only Palin has actually fucking governed. Maher simply kept making jokes about how she had once been a mayor of a small town. Scoffing and shoulder wiggling continued.

And finally, when Ms. Martin pointed out that this election is going to become more and more about identity politics and how we have to be very careful about where that goes and how far we exploit it, did anyone listen to her? No, the conversation floated away from such important topics. 

The panel that night, guided by Maher, should have taken the opportunity to show why Palin is wrong for office. It is NOT because she does not have experience. It is not because she is a mom. And it is certainly not because she has a vagina. It is because her stance on the issues that should matter most are too extreme and not good for our country or her citizens.

During cookouts, all I heard from any family member or acquaintance was "what was he thinking? She has no experience."  "You knowwwwww why he picked her, right? Right?" And then there were jokes about how stupid women are to follow any woman into office.

Today, watching last week's Daily Show, Jon Stewart took the opportunity to joke about how Palin looks like Tina Fey (which she does), but his joke did not stop there. He also said she looked like a sexy librarian from late night Cinemax. Nice. As Pamela Paul points out in her book, Pornified, and as I have discussed in previous blogs, men are able to reduce women to fuck objects any time they want to dominate over them. Someone is not your candidate, debate them on the issues. What kind of democrats are we, if we demean women and degrade them in order to make our point? Oh, but it was just a joke, right? The show went on, and Samantha Bee went on to poke fun at/exploit the concept of women only following Palin due to their vaginas. She went on to coin about 3 derogatory terms for a woman's vagina, but that was all in good fun, right?

As if all of the above was not disheartening enough, after watching said Daily Show, I was told by my very liberal, usually very sensitive husband that I am taking it "a bit extreme." He added that Palin is NOT experienced and she was a stupid choice. We began fighting about the lack of experience concept. When Obama (who I support) was brought up, he turns into a mouthpeice: "he has the same experience as Lincoln did." When I bring up that Palin has the same experience as Kaine, I am greeted with, "but Obama was smart enough not to choose him." When I remind him that Kaine was only notified a short bit before Biden, and that he was on the very short list, he brushed me off and said I was, "irrational" and "crazy." My husband insinuated I "take a joke."

Well, Jason... and all the other men who read this and think I cannot take a joke. When we see a male candidate be reduced and attacked on the basis of his body parts, on his role as a father, or on his job of being a governor, when that has been plenty for past presidents, then, I will take a joke.

Our fighting escalated and instead of debating me anymore, the fight became, "go ahead and vote for her, then" devaluing my point and dismissing my position. 

All of us need to realize that if we continue to use stereotypes and exploit gendered constructions, it may bite us in the ass during this election, and we might lose what we so desperately need. But there is also, far more at stake. The role and perceptions of women in this society and the value placed upon them could be placed in serious peril, even more than they already are.  



15 comments:

Bob Keller said...

K. - You are 1,000% correct! Every word. Every sentence! Every concept! Every Observation!

And I want to tell you that your surprises over these issues are just beginning! Hold tight to your principles and keep an open mind. More is coming and you will find strong allies where you least expect them.

What you are saying and what you are doing is extremely important.

If the Bill Maher's win... if they are allowed to completely sacrifice every cherished principle we liberals and Democrats are supposed to share, we will all lose.

The fact is, as I wrote over on my blog, Palin is more experienced and, indeed more qualified, than Obama himself.

That doesn't mean Obama isn't qualified. It certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't vote for Obama.

But it sure as hell means we WILL ABSOLUTELY NEVER WIN.... AND I MEAN NEVER... WHEN WE NO LONGER BELIEVE OUR PRINCIPLES MATTER.

And, frankly, we don't even deserve to win.

K McKiernan said...

Thanks for the words...

The sad thing is, where women are concerned, whether they are politicians or our loved ones, we are so easily dismissed when disagreed with.

And, what I really want to point out is NOT that I personally support Palin but that if you dismiss, devalue, and ridicule women, you will drive them further away.

Our notions of womanhood are deep. Even liberals and progressives do not realize how firm a grip stereotypes and constructions of gender have on even them.

Anonymous said...

Bill isn't as sexist as the Republicans. Republicans aren't that vile. No, you pretty much have to be dyed in the wool, ever-lovin', head-to-toe, full blown, nihilist, "social progressive", mysoginist to say and act like Bill Mahar

jlibson said...

(McCain/Palin supporter here, just for context)

My first thought was that you were being overly sensitive. But on further reflection I believe you are correct.

We *do* need to be able to ridicule our candidates and our "ruling" class. And we must be able to do so even crudely and in a tasteless manner.

But what you highlight is the lack of balance in the derision. Yes, McCain is mocked for being "old" (see an hilarious SnL skit on it). But the general "vibe" is that he is still a respectable old warrior. Same for Obama, he is mocked as "aloof" but the undercurrent is that he is a smart guy.

I agree with you that it is often the case that if a woman brings an opposing viewpoint that she will get unduly mocked and ignored.

Hillary was (is) sufficiently "badass" that I don't think that she was ever dismissed. But the same is not true for less powerful female politicos.

However, as a staunch opponent of PC speech, I end up getting the sense that feminists never see *any* jokes as funny or acceptable. Maybe it wasn't the case 20-30 years ago, but women are "badass" enough now that they can take some mockery.

K McKiernan said...

Newbies to my site,

When its all one ever gets... its hard to find it all "funny."

Would you find it funny if the jokes were how Obama will be "too lazy" in office, so he should not be elected? I doubt it.

You are right, women are bad ass, and they are bad ass enough to have courage to say what is fair and not fair without be derided as not knowing what is funny or not. That comment has built in entitlement. Who gets to decide what is funny?

I am a feminist and I find plenty funny. Its all about how mean spirited or slanted the information or "jokes" are. Tina Fey is a perfect example. On 30 Rock, they skewer everyone, but you never feel like they hate the people they skewer. Get me?

Glad to see and hear new voices here. What an honor to be read.

EnigmatiCore said...

"If the Bill Maher's win... if they are allowed to completely sacrifice every cherished principle we liberals and Democrats are supposed to share, we will all lose."

How do you plan on beating them? The Mahers, the Olbermanns, the DailyKos, Andrew Sullivan?

When Obama wins, if he wins as expected, they will be empowered further. They bring the frenzy of the masses, without cost, because honorable progressives will vote for progressives despite the emerging face of progressivism that is DailyKos, Olbermann, Maher, et al.

I don't envy you in figuring out what to do.

jlibson said...

Welll...if you said Obama was "too lazy" to be in office I would snicker. But I would disagree. I would say he is "too weak" to be in office. Hence my support for McCain/Palin.

Funny: we all get to decide what is funny. And it is context sensitive. Basically we vote. You've seen it happen in parties. When only one guy is laughing it probably wasn't funny.

This link has further commentary on your original subject.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-hillary-clinton-men-are-suddenly-bystanders-in-political-drama/

I would strongly recommend reading it.

One thought: if in a decade or so broad based equality for women becomes the status quo, then would it be sensible for feminists to align themselves with conservatives? One core component of conservativism is "our society is fairly well put together and we should preserve it's core values".

K McKiernan said...

Thanks... I read the link.

I need to be clear, I support Obama because of the issues, and I have no problem smacking down Palin, on the issues. My problem is exactly what the link hits at as well...

The group of people who are suppose to be for women's equality, boy, they are showing their colors right now. They have such animosity for any woman who does not fit the "box" society wants them to be in. So,they fall back on old stereotypes and "cracks" instead of highlighting to people why a candidate does not do what is in our best interest.

Use brains, not fear.

K McKiernan said...

"Figuring out what to do"... I have to say enigmaticore, I have no idea either.

Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed by issues I hold dear, feel so alone in my stance and my passion, that I feel I could explode.

All I know how to do is to share them... find out if somewhere, out there, somebody gets me.

Isn't that all any of can do, really?

Boy, I sound like doomsday...
however, its true. When you consider how ingrained ideas of gender, how firmly rooted, how deeply tied to other issues, its no wonder it seems insurmountable to eradicate such constructions.

Vigilante said...

I have a history with McKiernan, which ties my hands a little. McKiernan doesn't want anyone in as President or Vice-President who is an 'elite' candidate - meaning 'of high merit'. So the more I praise Obama, his gifts and talents, the more he seems (to her) unfit for the white house.

I would pay good money to see an elite MLB player like Manny Ramirez play left field. When I needed to go in to have double knee replacements, I selected an elite surgeon who practiced two hours away. I cannot be persuaded that when I want - for a change - my national government headed by an elite political figure, that I should be satisfied by a self-described pitbull wearing lipstick (PWL).

What is this crap that
only Palin has actually fucking governed?
That line could have been used in 2000, as between Gore and Bush:
only Bush has actually fucking governed.

What is this crap? Gore and Obama had both published books by the time they ran for president. What has this PWL published? This PWL has so little sense of American political traditions that she thought our Founders put the words "under God" in the pledge of Allegiance. She has less experience/sense as Bush did in 2000. No law degree: which would have - one hopes - restrained her from her capricious book-banning and wilful purging of state employees. As a presidential/vice-presidential candidate, she offers her voters yet another under-qualified GOP applicant for on-the-job-training in the White House.

So when Wizard says Palin is more qualified for the Presidency than Obama, I have to say (respectfully) Wizard is so full of crap, he must have to wear a funnel when he goes to relieve himself.

K McKiernan said...

Please don't get into this "elite" stuff with me again. I teach rhetoric. I get it. I get that if you meant he literal definition, that we would WANT an elite president.

However, the word has changed in our lexicon and you have to "respect" the connotations now given to the word. So, we do not want to call Obama "elite" because that word is now used as a wrecking ball.

Get it, dude?

We are on the same page.

Obama is the cream of the crop... the best of the best. I love him. I want him to be President, period.

J McKiernan said...

I have history with that whole "elite" discussion, too...boy, do I--we really went at it all those months ago (what a testament to our maturity and our desire to change this country that here we are, sticking together months later...even if Vig is still as grumbly and snide as ever...gotta love Grumpy Old Vig... ;) )

And with the knowledge of that old debate about "elite" versus "elitist," I have to say that I finally understand in crystal clear terms exactly what Vigilante was talking about way back when. I get it--and I agree.

K gets it, too, when she said, "I get that if you meant the literal definition, that we would WANT an elite president."

Exactly...so let's stick to the literal definition, and let's elect an ELITE president! Barack Obama is not 'elitist,' as the nasty Republican speakers at the RNC would want us to believe. In point of fact, those same Republicans exposed themselves for being fucking elitists when they started sligning mud at Obama for getting a grassroots start and working in communities. They shit all over him, and by extension all of the working people in this country--yes, even the ones in SMALL TOWN AMERICA with SMALL TOWN VALUES...especially those people, actually--who organize, volunteer, and strive every day to make a difference. It's also why when they weren't unjustly berating Obama and middle class America, they were chanting "drill, baby, drill" like cultists at a worship session. They don't care about PEOPLE...they are ELITISTS!

Barack Obama is elite.

I get it now. A lot of people don't and won't--that's what scares me.

But that's just reason enough to keep fighting harder. We need--finally--a president who is among the smartest, wisest, most understanding and discerning people in our nation and our world. That is elite, that is what we need...that is Barack Obama.

Vigilante said...

I know you know I know you know all that history between us about elites vs. elitism, J & K. I was just protecting my flanks against Wizard, who has a sportscaster's and handicapper's view of politics. Old media is what he is.

K McKiernan said...

Cool. Just had to be sure, Vig, buddy.

Thanks, K

Kentucky Rain said...

I was "inspired" by the selection of this person. I was inspired to find out as much about her as possible and publish what I found. I am doing that. It is true you won't find anything good, because I can't find anything good, politically, that she has done. If there is anything the Republicans have already blown it way out of proportion. If you listen to their spin you would believe that she is the second coming. In reality she is a person who shoots wolves from airplanes and wants to delist the polar bears so as to favor big oil. How very Republican.

As to their ludicrous argument that The Palin is more qualified to run than the experienced candidates because she has "executive" experience is pure Karl Rove. My friend Vigilante is the first to point out that Bush was a governor and as such had more executive experience than his opponent. Although they didn't raise that it would have been as silly then as it is now. As to Bush, someone should note that with all of that "executive" experience he turned out to be the worst president in the history of our young nation.

Finally I don't care if she is a woman, a man, or a clone from the colony of Krypton. The fact is she is responsible for who she is and what she does and has done. The Republicans have sent armies of lawyers and propagandists to Alaska to try and cover up, obscure and obfuscate that very suspicious record. I intend to do my part, however small, to thwart them in their efforts.

In closing the legions of the Right are circling around The Palin not because she is qualified for the job and certainly not for the BIG JOB. They are clinging to her because she is an Evangelical Creationist, anti-environment, anti-choice- anti-gay, and anti-evolution as well as stem cell research and all other things "science." Did I mention she doesn't believe in global warming? They care nothing about the real issues of the day as does Obama/Biden and the Democrats. They are self serving haters of science, secularism, environmental protections, choice and etc. Of course she is their candidate and they will fight for her. Make no mistake they will fight for her hard.