I've wondered for some time why those on the far Left are so phobic about Sarah Palin, the former Vice-Presidential candidate and soon-to-be former governor of Alaska. Their vitriolic attacks on her, their continued spreading of long-ago-disproved lies about her, and their refusal to admit anything good about her, are all signs of an irrational phobia rather than any real beef with her.
Mark J. e-mailed me a link to a blog, 'Reclusive Leftist', with a particularly good analysis of the situation. I particularly enjoyed it because the author is a self-confessed Leftist, but nevertheless does a very good job of deconstructing her fellow-travelers' obsession with Ms. Palin. Here's an excerpt:
Of course, the first answer you’ll get if you ask feminists why they hate Sarah Palin is that “it’s because she ____” — and then fill in the blank with the lie of choice: made rape victims pay for their own kits, is against contraception or sex ed, believes in abstinence-only, thinks the dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, doesn’t believe in global warming, doesn’t believe in evolution, is stupid and can’t read, etc., etc., etc., etc.
But none of those things is true. None of them.
Which brings me to my first puzzlement: why don’t people bother to find out what Sarah Palin really believes? I don’t mean people as in the usual sexist freaks; I mean feminists.
. . .
But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.
But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.
. . .
Speaking of slander, that brings me to my next big puzzlement: what is it with the feminists who just freely make shit up about Palin? The lies had to start somewhere, and they didn’t all hatch in the bowels of the Obama campaign (though a bunch of them did). Some of them were incubated by feminists, particularly the ones about Palin being an anti-sex “purity queen,” the kind of batshit Christian who believes in Purity Balls and abstinence pledges and is opposed to sex ed. None of that is true.
When I first started investigating Palin, I was very relieved to discover that she’s not nearly as nutty as she might be, given that she’s a Christian. I was pleased to learn that she’s not one of those fundies who thinks wives have to submit or that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs. She’s not into that whacked-out purity or abstinence-only stuff. That’s good. It’s good that she’s not a nutjob. So…why aren’t other feminists also happy that she’s not a nutjob? Why do they, in fact, spread lies to make her seem worse than she is?
. . .
Besides, I know for a fact that the feminists spreading the lies about Palin knew they were spreading lies. Not to tell tales out of school, but: they knew. They were supplied with the correct information, and they chose to lie anyway. Why?
Was it just about electing Obama? Were feminists simply willing to commit any slander necessary to elect the Chosen One? That’s a likely explanation, but here again: we’re talking about feminists. Feminists doing this — slandering a woman, and doing so in unmistakably sexist terms. After all, caricaturing Palin as a purity queen (Bible Spice, Sexy Puritan) is just the flip side of caricaturing her as a porn queen. As I’ve said before, it’s like the NAACP sponsoring a lynching. The mind boggles.
Even more mind-boggling are the attacks that don’t even bother with false claims about policy or beliefs, but just go straight for free-floating misogynistic rage. Ridiculing her hair, clothes, makeup, voice, body, womb. “Sarah Palin is a c***” — good one! Calling her a bimbo — good one! Calling her a f***ing whore — good one! Fantasizing about her being gang-raped — good one! And all this from feminists. Forget the NAACP sponsoring a lynching; this is like the NAACP ripping off their masks to reveal that they’ve been replaced by white supremacist pod people.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
Peter
5 comments:
She's a self-righteous hypocritical parasite(but then, so are most politicians, perhaps she was just more obvious about it), that's good enough reason for me.
But what really pushed it over the top was quoting an old dead fascist in her speeches. When your rhetoric is literally the same as that of a fascist bigot, don't be surprised when people are put off. Who you quote counts, it shows your influences, who you respect... and in this case, it's Westbrook Pegler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westbrook_Pegler
I don’t mean people as in the usual sexist freaks; I mean feminists.
In other words, the other usual sexist freaks.
Thank you for the link. I had despaired of ever finding common sense in political discussion of any sort any more. Seems it's all about a scorched-earth policy of just destroying the competition these days (as other commenters illustrate) and not about finding our way to sensible conclusions through the tangle of emotionally charged rhetoric.
I know far too many folks these days who simply stay out of political discussions because of this. If we're only going to throw out talking points and personal jabs, we're not going to get anywhere. And if we're going to practice this kind of personal scorched-earth infighting, then only the strongest, most cunning, most vicious ones will survive. Are those really the ones we want leading the government -- or anything else?
Thanks,
Goatroper
People tend to have self-images that reflect not just who they are, but who they wish to be. Wise people are honest with themselves, and work toward becoming the person they want to be as a never-ending process, using their morals as their compass. Foolish people declare themselves to be who and what they want to be, using images and major displays as their compass.
The fools then set to convincing us and themselves that they are their image, or attacking anyone who points out that the emperor is naked. Thus, "feminists" have invested serious amounts of emotional and intellectual capital in their idea that to be strong, one must renounce male oppression, embrace abortion and the rest of the liberal platform, and walk in near-lockstep with socialism while belittling children and husbands.
When Sarah Palin stepped onto the national stage, she said to the country that she was a strong woman who could climb to the highest heights of power without tearing others down - that she can embrace work, and children, and supporting her husband, as well as her religious beliefs. Her success came not despite these things, but as an extension of them.
And that is a contradiction of all the images and beliefs that modern feminists hold as true. She showed the empress was not only naked, but nothing more than a sour, aging, botoxed bitter hag - and that moment of reality, that fundamental damage to self-image and self-esteem, cannot be merely denied - it must be destroyed utterly, before it can infect their minds and cause them agony in the long dark teatime of the soul.
I recommend you read more of Violet Socks' blogging; for obvious reasons I found plenty to disagree with her about, but she's *smart*, self-aware and aware of her own movement's foibles, and has written a few things I wish I had, mostly in the Ev-Psych category.
I find I now hopefully hit her blog daily, though this habit may fade. Finally, someone I can thoroughly enjoy disagreeing with.
Post a Comment