http://www.feministing.com/archives/011077.html#

Tony, you wrote:

“Political incorrectness is a wonderful tool when used facetiously.”

I’m wondering if you think political incorrectness is a wonderful tool, when used facetiously, against African Americans? Do you tend to use racial “political incorrectness” with such ease?

Or should I call you “Mr. on comments to this Post”?

=+)

Ha ha! See what I mean… It would help to have a thick line between each comment: it’s real easy to assume that the comment is attributed to the name underneath, as opposed to the name above!

t

Is anyone else having trouble with the comments?

Wow, my posting inspired so much more comment here than it did on my own site. Paul, you appear to have no shortage of people willing to debate politics. Good for you!

My initial point, Michael and others, was not to “discount the Palin issue entirely” but to get my feminist friends out of the hole they’d dug themselves into, whereby winning back a PBS push-button online poll was suddenly more important than winning the election. I have to thank those same feminist friends though, for so quickly and thoroughly getting the word out about Palin’s policies and her past. Fortunately, it appears that Palin has dug her own grave. Further kudos to the Obama campaign for not panicking when she gave McCain a post-RNC bump in the polls.

From my own perspective, being a woman no more makes you a feminist than being a man makes you sexist. As for my MILF comment, Michael, I’m glad it got to you. Political incorrectness is a wonderful tool when used facetiously. But seriously, if you don’t think that there aren’t (or at least weren’t) white male middle-aged voters out there (initially) deciding to support Palin because they considered her a MILF, then you clearly over-estimate the American voting public. And yes, I do believe those voters would be using that word. It’s the most in-vogue expression I know right now. The media had to settle for the word “hot.” But then I know plenty women who consider Obama to be “hot.” Image is important in politics as it is in pop music.

Anyway, thanks for debating the points. (Paul, your comments section is a little confusing as to who is actually making the comment. Maybe people should sign off to make it more clear.)

Tony Fletcher

You are not a “jerk” even if you completely missed my point;)

My point was much simpler – my repulsion to the sexist language, much of which has come from the left, during this election (and prior). I never said that people shouldn’t grill Palin, Hillary, Ann Coulture, Mother Theresa or whomever. But does my well-educated, American Studies major, very liberal B-I-L really need to make a rape joke about Michelle Malkins to prove his point? Same goes for Hillary and Palin regarding the blatant sexism they have been subject to (and I am not talking about any reasonable discussion regarding their qualifications!). This sexism is important enough to discuss on it’s own without getting into a big political discussion about… is Palin qualified? Who is more qualified, Palin or Obama? That’s a different conversation.

I know sexism doesn’t inspire the same rage as racism anymore. But I would think it might inspire a bit more than “yeah, but…”

Well, I for one am done talking about the “S” word except with like-minded people. The condescension (I’m not talking about you) is exhausting. BTW, I’m not really into puppies, I’m more of a cat person. So I will leave it in your court to link an adorable puppy photo if you like;)

=+)

I know what you meant, and I’m not that kind of argumentative jerk (I’m a completely different kind of jerk). I guess what I am wondering is this:

Is addressing the subject of Palin’s qualifications sexist in itself?

She’s gotten a lot . . . a LOT of press (she’s probably the only one grateful for the current financial crisis, since it got her off the front page for a bit). Like Microsoft with Viruses, when you have a bigger footprint, you’re going to get targeted a lot more, and it’s simple mathmatics that the level of sexism will rise accordingly. And I am ashamed of people of both genders throwing out the sexist comments left and right, but in some ways it’s beneficial in that it makes us all do a gut check about how enlighted we all really are. That doesn’t excuse it, of course.

But is it that simple? Is she under more scrutiny and cynicism because of her gender? Perhaps. But I believe that the sexism here is just the signal noise. She’s being hounded because she’s different, yes, but also because we need strong, prepared leaders right now, and she has never completed a term in office except for Wasalia.

I re-iterate from an earlier post — McCain COULD HAVE PICKED OTHER, BETTER-QUALIFIED, CONSERVATIVE WOMEN. I don’t believe we’d have had anywhere near this furor with, say, Elizabeth Dole or even Condaleeza Rice (her Bush ties would’ve been a casualty in some ways, but then again, McCain doesn’t seem to want to get out of Iraq anytime soon). Palin’s “impressive” resume in Alaska is a matter of opinion — first time governors that have to worry about a “-gate” -type scandal and must equivocate so many decisions could hardly be called unique, but it’s still not necessarily impressive:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080907/FEATURES05/809070306/1014/FEATURES05

I guess what this boils down for to me (and all these posts have really helped me think and refine my thinking and understand other points of view — Thanks CJ and Ali and Paul), is that it IS all about McCain, and that’s a real shame, since the first Republican woman on the ticket should have had it be about her.

McCain has gambled that her “just-plain-folks”, sassy, creationist-conservative, and, yes, FEMALE qualities will address different parts of the ticket he was having troubles with. The only problem with this, and it’s why I have no problem still arguing about this, is that she is a shill — a straw (wo)man not picked because of her qualifications but her gender, beliefs, and attitude. Even that’s not the worst part, the worst part (and what got me posting so furiously on the video thread) is that they’re not being upfront about this, but pretending she DOES have qualifications that she is so plainly missing. I really hate to say it, but this is totally a Bush way of thinking . . . oh, there ARE no weapons of mass destruction? Then let’s hint that Iraq was involved in 9/11 until everyone forgets that! This is the kind of President I never used to think McCain could be, but it’s very clear he’s comfortable with this way of thinking.

Now let’s all talk about puppies until Paul takes more cool photos and posts them.