Pinterest is sexist….against women. Seriously, that’s the position of Victoria Pynchon who says:
Pinterest Frames Women’s Interests within Tight Gender Boundaries
Go on over to Pinterest and try to find a category for business, marketing, management, entrepreneurism, politics, activism, reproductive choices, negotiation, finance, investing, law, consulting, journalism, or pretty much anything having to do with women working for a living.
This is, in a word, ridiculous.
Go to Barnes-N-Noble and what do you see? Racks of home improvement, cooking, house and garden, and fashion porn. That’s right, porn. It’s fantasy for the average woman, who comes home to her crappy couch and Hamburger Helper.
Where does she come home from? Work. What does she read because the last thing she wants to do is watch the news and/or think about business? Traditional Home, Better Homes & Garden, or in my bigwig President of a division at a Fortune 500 corporation sister: Rolling Stone (I know, I don’t get it either) and Conde Nast Travel or something.
What’s in these magazines? Beautiful pictures, mostly. Some human interest stories. Tips for living.
Why, just like Pinterest!
Yesterday, President Obama’s Pinterest team pinned some garbage about how awesome he is and so I trolled the pins. I linked to the truth. I disputed on a factual basis. No one disputed the facts, mind you. They disputed whether I should be talking about politics.
“Pinterest is a happy place,” one pinner said.
I’m figuring that Pinterest has done tons of market research and knows exactly what women want. Just as random porn sites know exactly what men want.
Is this a gross overgeneralization? Of course.
I noticed the constrained categories on Pinterest, too. Eh. I’ve worked around them. I have a Best Practices business page. I have a Tech Talk page. I have an America the Beautiful page. And then there’s the Politics of Freedom page.
They have lots of followers. My recipes page has more. Yes, I’ve used some of them–even women who own a couple business have to eat, and horrors! might like to cook.
What seems sexist to me is that a woman would consider a site dedicated to what most women consider interesting discriminatory.
After years of attempted gender reconstruction, and after years of women working (and nearly 80% of women do), women are still wired as women. That is, what stimulates them visually is, say, different than men. And that’s okay.
Being a girly girl is okay. I say that as a woman who has always liked “guy stuff” more–Google search metrics pegged me as a 50 to 60 year old man interested in technology and politics.
What bothers me is that to be a feminist, one cannot have traditionally feminine interests without being perceived as “less than”. Who is discriminating again?
If the majority of women like gardening, cooking, home improvement, kids crafts, and fashion, what do I care? Really? Why in the world should the difference bother any other woman?
I suggest the tomboys among us embrace Pinterest. It’s finally a female-dominated social media platform. It’s beautiful in form. It’s aspirational in substance.
Pinterest has the men joining in droves, too. As the demographics even out, categories will probably be added. Why? Because the market demands it.
It’s not discrimination. It’s Marketing 101 in practice.
But really, if men have to submit their boards to categories of the Matriachy’s standards, is that so bad?
My friend Adrienne Royer says this:
There’s so much stupid here, I don’t know where to begin.
1. Pinterest is still in beta. You MUST ASK FOR AN INVITATION. The women who are there are there because they want to be. Pink, lace and pretty houses aren’t being forced down their throats.
2. You’d think a writer at Forbes could do some research. Pinterest was started by a group of guys. Unless these men miraculously understand women better than any XY chromosome in history, the adoption of the site by women was purely accidental.
In fact, Pinterest was started to be an idea board for creative thought leaders. The main founder has a degree in architecture and worked at Facebook. He was into design, typography and photography. He thought the site would take off in the creative class.
The way women have taken to it has shocked everyone, including Silicon Valley.
3. The real story isn’t that Pinterest isn’t forcing the patriarchy down our throats. The real story is that women love social networks, the ability to share information that is vetted by trusted people and the ability to research. The real story is how Silicon Valley is still a boy’s world and women are pretty much shut out. Right now, there are all kinds of venture capitalists scratching their heads and wondering how Pinterest became some popular because none of them ever thought about designing a social network that would draw women.
Why aren’t they harping on that?
I’m sure this video is meant to be somehow affirming:
Used to be, that a woman was reduced to her bits and pieces by the creepy old guy in the office who didn’t know better. You know, he was from the older generation, like Bill Clinton.
This nonsense is being foisted on women by Reebok. It’s supposed to be an encouragement to what? Wear more revealing tops so guys don’t stare at a girl’s fabulous butt?
The video is so stupid, condescending and sexist that it makes me completely disinterested in ever buying anything Reebok again. The thing is, I’m not prudish. I also get the notion that “sex sells”. But the flaw in this video is the substance as much as the form. Reebok indulges in the worst of stereotypes–competitive petty women angling to get the most male attention–and turns a woman against herself. She competes with herself. That is, her boobs want to best her butt. What the hell?
Via @Ziggy_Susan on Twitter
Maybe there should just be a regular post highlighting the Leftist sexist, racist, whatever is not p.c.-ist of the day here. Goodness knows the list would be filled. Today, it’s David Letterman.
David Letterman made news for spewing sexist tripe about Sarah Palin, but more than that, making jokes about Palin’s 14 year old daughter–because, you know, it’s okay to talk about statutory rape if she’s a conservative women. They’re not people!
John at Powerline says:
Malia Obama will turn fourteen during her father’s term in office. What do you think the chances are that Letterman (or anyone else) will make obscene jokes about her on network television?
Tommy Christopher says a few interesting things and I’m quoting him extensively here. He says:
Now, I need you all to stay with me here while I make a small distinction. There are some who would try to hang Letterman’s attack on “the Left.” I’ll get to “the Left” in a minute, but Letterman is no more a liberal, in the political “team sports” sense of the word, than Guy Cimbalo is. They are not conservatives, but they are also basically apolitical. Their words are owned by a popular culture that is hostile to conservatism, but also to liberal ideals (of feminism as well as others). They are a third column.
Bill Maher is a guy who straddles the line between the Left and pop culture. As a liberal, I don’t claim ownership for what he says, but there is a clear argument to be made in favor of this. When he makes “retard” jokes about Sarah Palin, which I’ve heard him do frequently, he deserves nothing but scorn from all sides.
I include them with the Left, Tommy, and for one simple reason: how they vote. They vote Democrat. Every. Single. Time. They are on the Left. Like the major media organizations, they like to pretend at “being above” or “transcending” party affiliation. Bull crap. They are Democrats. They vote Democrat. They’re the Left. And as their worship of President Obama (and in the comedians cases avoid poking fun of him altogether) demonstrates, their politics most definitely influences how they report.
On to the Left, Tommy says:
This is where the Left comes in. While they might not own what these entertainers say, they do have a duty to dis-own, a duty born of their desire to condemn Mel “Sugar-tits” Gibson et al, a duty that I’ve found them shirking for the most part. Instead, the tendency is to engage in “Yeahbut.” You know, “Yeah, but x conservative said y horrible thing…” (a curious exercise that essentially lets people you view as scumbags set your boundaries for you), to excuse it, or to ignore it altogether. It is here that the Left takes ownership.
When Keith Olbermann launched a sexist attack on Carrie Prejean, unless I missed it, there was silence from the Left, or agreement. On the Playboy article, with the exception of HuffPo, the Left’s reaction was to excuse Playboy and smear me. Even the National Organization for Women had to be prodded into a statement, but one which they didn’t feel compelled to put anywhere on their website.
The entire world is hostile toward women, but you don’t get to lay claim to being the good guys if you don’t believe in protecting all women, especially when it’s this obvious.
Feminism is not about equality for women, it is about promoting abortion and creating a special class for Leftist women. Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.
Remember, rape is used to shame and silence. There was little to no outrage for Playboy’s cyber-rape, and there won’t be about David Letterman by the left either because these people want Sarah Palin shamed and quiet. They want the conservative women on that list shamed and quieted.
Brace yourselves, readers, because it’s not over yet. This year has been Misogyny Mania for liberals who claim to be “pro-woman.”
No it ain’t over. It never was over. The Left uses their “isms” as a hammer to silence their opposition and employs the methods they deem offensive because their used to silence the “right” people. Hypocrites.
By the way, please note that it’s MEN who are outraged. And well they should be. Double standards are really about silencing them, too.
So some female Canadian journalist Heather Mallick waxes elephant about the plebe Sarah Palin. I read this at Rachel Lucas first. Her response is full of “picque”. You might have to be French Canadian to understand that word.
Rachel also goes after the idjits who feel that a random judge has more sense than the constitution. Jeff Goldstein delves even deeper into the constitution-Obama follower-stupid triangulation, that and the Sarah Palin equals a Muslim terrorist equivalence. Rachel writes about that too. [These are two of the greatest minds on the internets, by the way. I’ve mentioned this before but you should be reading their work every day.]
Still my favorite screed of the day is by James Lileks who goes after the Canadian tarte who manages to shove every stereotype about the right into one verbose article. This is a long quote, but I promise you, there is so much more goodness in his writing you have to read it all. Ditto Rachel. Ditto Jeff. Why would anyone want to be a liberal? The true literary artists are on the right. Says Mr. Lileks:
It’s possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman.
Consider the joy that would reign if someone wrote that “Democrats, racial guilt-mongers that they are, really believe that African-Americans will vote for an African-American just because he’s an African-American.” Of course Republican men don’t believe that women will vote for her just because she’s a woman. It’s surely a factor, but there’s the possibility that they will vote for her because she is not a woman like Heather Mallick.
You have to love the “Sexual inadequates that they are” line as well; if there’s one thing that’s amused me in the last two weeks, it’s the screechy distaste of Ms. Palin coming from men who embodied the Modern Alda Paradigm of masculinity, which is to say they are nervous around cars, think guns are icky, had their own Snugli, have wives in corporate jobs who make more money than they do, and still get dissed behind their backs because they can’t figure out how to make the bed. The Lost Boys, if you will. Now, some women can’t stand Sarah Palin for their own reasons, personal or ideological; same with men. Some men, however, are made deeply uneasy by her, because she’s the one who ignored the sensitive poet-guys in high school for the jocks, and didn’t seem to grasp the essential high-school truth that it’s cool to be a loser. But that’s rank psychoanalysis, and we won’t stoop to that.
She continues on the women-voting-for-women thing:
They’re unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously.
It’s funny, because it’s true! Bronze that paragraph; if nothing else, it’s the death of PC, and license for guys to say anything. At least she’s honest about the idea of female solidarity – it matters only if the ideological stars have aligned – no, if the ideological cycles have synced, to use terms she’d probably employ. Or has already. It’s not about whether Sarah Palin is a woman, it’s whether she’s the right kind. She’s supposed to restrict snow machines, not ride them or for God’s sake get knocked up by some slopey-brow dullard who rides them. (Competitively! Gawd) Nationalize oil companies, don’t make deals. Have one or two children, not five – Good Gaia, woman, are you trying to make overstuffed congested Alaska top the one-million-citizen mark all by yourself?
It gets better. It occurs to me that elitism isn’t a college degree. It isn’t a zipcode. It isn’t a gender. It isn’t a profession. It’s an attitude.
There are plenty of loaded people who live humbly and wouldn’t presume to condescend and try to tell some dude how to live his life. One of my favorite liberal friends not only refused to shower with soap but also had never paid taxes in his 32 years on the planet. He felt more than entitled to tell other people how to live when it was clear he had trouble taking care of himself.
This impulse to control other people, the lessers, the plebes, the stupid ones, the other, is why average people bristle at being “helped”. It’s not charity. It’s not kindness. The government is one big bludgeon to control everyone’s life. A helping hand? Right. More like a smack across the face.
Here’s the text:
You know, you can put lipstick on a pig,” Obama said, “but it’s still a pig.” The crowd rose and applauded, some of them no doubt thinking he may have been alluding to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s ad lib during her vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last week, “What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.” “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change,’” Obama continued, “it’s still gonna stink after eight years. “We’ve had enough of the same old thing! It’s time to bring about real change to Washington. And that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.” Obama added that “it is not going to be easy … John McCain has a compelling biography, you know Sarah Palin is an interesting story.” The crowd booed. “No, she’s new!” Obama said. “She hasn’t been on the scene, you know, she’s got five kids and my hat goes off to anybody who’s looking after five. I’ve got two and they tire Michelle and me out!”
Since Palin owns the word ‘lipstick” this season due to the punchline to her oft-repeated hockey mom joke, will the ever-sensitive Dems recognize the three glaring references to:
1) Sarah Palin is the pig in lipstick
2)”Old” is a dig at McCain
3) Fish” is a derogatory slang for women (ask Andrew Sullivan)
If Obama meant to imply all of that, he is unfit to be President.
If Obama did not mean to imply any of that, he is an idiot for not knowing what words are “code” words.
“Civility, hope, change and new politics”, indeed.
Readers, and conservatives generally, have been full of respect for Obama’s intelligence. His gift is rhetorical and oratory. Isn’t it?
I wrote this to a blog friend:
There seems to be something inherent in the progressive (I hate the misuse of the word liberal) mindset that there is no governor, no stop when they attack. They strangely view attacks against their policies as personal and feel that they are then liberated to go personal. But I think the underlying issue is narcissism. Ideas are an extension of the self. To dispute them is to disparage the self.
Further, I feel Obama’s personal slurs act as a confirmation that his campaign has been seeding Kos and Andrew Sullivan with false stories. Interestingly, when Obama was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, he made the equivalence between Fox commentators and Kos kids. And he called the Kos writers “commentators”. O’Reilly jumped on that statement, but what was fascinating is that to Obama’s mind, someone criticizing his ideas falls in the same category as Kos kids slandering the Palin family, their children and them personally.
Obama is a smart guy. He said what he meant to say. That anyone is even attempting to defend him, boggles the mind. There is no defense for this kind of talk.
Oprah! Paging Oprah! Is this the kind of talk about women you support? Women=Pigs. That should get votes.
And also this: I believe that this effectively ended Obama’s chances. But it wasn’t just his words. It was the crowd’s reaction. The crowd laughed at this shameful display. Obama’s words speak to what is base and low in people. Watching the whole interchange makes one wonder, “Is this the America of hope and change?”
They might demand an apology. Meh. Poke fun. it works better.
Hmmmm…considering that, I am more inclined to think the “lipstick on a pig” remark, and the “old fish” references were planned. Once is a slip. Twice? Now, that sounds calculated.
See Allah for an update. The Obama Camp is sounding frazzled. Either they’re sincere, or they’re upset about being caught and called out for playing the very game they are denouncing.
I do find this b.s. tiring. But P.C. rules are rules. Don’t make the rest of us go through stupid ass diversity training and speak of inclusion and racist and sexist “code words” and then prattle on in this demeaning vein yourself.
Rachel Lucas has more.
Sarah Palin: All Palin All The Time, It’s Her Day, Bitches (I’m Reclaiming The Word), Deal With It!–UPDATEDWednesday, September 3rd, 2008
UPDATED: Since Barack Obama is letting his band of merry men and the press run roughshod over another female candidate, and since the press is just an extension of Obama’s candidacy, I thought I’d honor Obama’s contribution to forwarding women in America:
I shall start with The Anchoress because she rocks. Church ladies are cool and if you haven’t figured that out already, you need to hang out with more church ladies. She calls the Democrats drama queens, heh:
4:44 Fun thing to consider: Palin is the same youthful age as Obama and she HAS NOT written two biographies. What’s up with that? Couldn’t she manage a book? A book is a good thing; TWO books make you more qualified to be president than almost anyone! Of course, one could argue that Gov. Palin had no time to write about her life because she was out LIVING it, and actually changing things, rather than just writing about it. Not that there is anything wrong with writing! Living a life, though…living an AUTHENTIC life? It takes both audacity and hope. And I think Sen. Obama knows that, too.
You know, I remember the McGovern campaign. I was a big supporter of McGovern’s, and I hated Nixon, as did all of my friends. And the scenario then was completely different from what you are seeing now. We were never excited about Eagleton in the first place. We just wanted McGovern to win. Eagleton didn’t infuse new energy into the McGovern campaign or jazz up am important subset of voters. He was just some boring Senator that got slotted in. And then he brought nothing but trouble and distraction as the news came out that he’d been hospitalized for depression 3 times and had receive electroshock treatments. It wasn’t just that there were a couple of old political controversies or a family member was less than perfect. We were getting significant new information about his brain, the brain that we might need to rely on to make presidential decisions. It was simply not acceptable, especially since he’d also withheld this information from McGovern, which showed some really poor character.
Peggy Noonan is a Republican, has ovaries and worked for Ronald Reagan. It’s a trifecta of evil. She says:
Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing — who is really one of them and who is not — and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.
She could become a transformative political presence.
So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.
And it’s going to be brutal. It’s already getting there.
Lorie Byrd (who I had the pleasure of being on the RWN Radio show with last night–she has a great voice) wonders if the backlash against the Palin hate begins tonight:
6. Maybe after the viewers realize the Obama camp has been misleading them about her experience and that the caricature many Democrats have painted of her over the past week has been far from reality, they will question whether or not they can trust team Obama. Maybe they will even wonder why the media didn’t seem to know any of this either. If the stars are aligned right they might even decide the media intentionally misled them.
Michelle Malkin dissects the anatomy of Conservative Female Abuse:
The second stage of CFA is sexualization. A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant, and Jeff Danziger caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot, and Bush “House Nigga” armed with “hair straightener.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former GOP Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris for applying “her makeup with a trowel.”
Michelle also quotes Tom DeLay who says this:
The media has done more for John McCain in the last two days than he’s done for himself in the last year and a half,” [Tom] DeLay said. “Trashing her is waking up the sleeping giant, and the sleeping giant is Republican women.”
Buy the shirt, “I am Sarah Palin. Her story is my story” at CafePress, here.
A movement is born: “I am Sarah Palin.” I’m going to say this nicely: Feminists, Democrats and the press, You have fucked up royally.
More coming. I’m a mom, you see. I need to get my kids off the bus, give them a snack, help with homework, clean up and that’s after working today talking to my office manager, returning emails, touching base with patients, and blogging. You know, that whole working-mother thing.
Cassy Fiano on the media claiming that McCain is playing the “sexism” card:
There’s a good reason the media and the left have been attacking Sarah Palin so viciously: they’re terrified. They’ve resorted to lying, to demonizing and attacking her seventeen-year-old daughter, making stories up about her four-month-old son… anything they can do to scare and intimidate her. Too bad for the media that Sarah Palin doesn’t seem like the type to be easily intimidated. But, they’re outraged because there’s this conservative woman who is brilliant, tough and principled, all the while raising a big family and sticking to her values, that they never approved. If Sarah Palin was “Steve” Palin, these attacks wouldn’t be happening. But, Sarah Palin lit the country on fire, and no one had permission to do that except Barack Obama. So, the media is outraged. They see themselves as the real gatekeepers to the White House. They’re the ones who get to decide elections. And they didn’t give their permission to John McCain to choose Sarah Palin. The only solution for them is to attack Sarah Palin in some of the lowest and most despicable ways.
Irony, thy name is Media.
Neo-Neocon has a suggestion for women considering accomplishing, well, anything, become a Vestal Virgin (vaginas we can believe in!):
Through the clever installation of a modern variant of the Vestal Virgin institution, candidates would become immune to cries of abandoning or neglecting their children by having had the temerity to run for high office, with its attendant demands on their time (since it is obvious, of course, to any thinking person—especially feminists on the Left—that husbands cannot possibly take up the childrearing slack).
Furthermore, if these female candidates have no children, it follows that they cannot possibly be embarrassed by having a child with flaws—for example, one whose life decisions at the age of seventeen are anything short of perfect. And if the candidates are sacred virgins, they would obviously be free to fly about the country on airplanes without the need to ever field criticism for so doing. Another advantage is that, without a spouse, they could never be embarrassed by anything their husbands might have done in their own youths.
But, seriously, just look at the negatives: she’s a popular first-term governor, she’s a woman, she’s happily married, she has five kids, one of them with Down’s syndrome, she’s a maverick, she’s from way beyond the Beltway, she’s taken on both the Republican Party and Big Oil, she shoots automatic weapons, she can kill a moose with a butter knife and fillet a sea lion with a smile, her husband’s a roustabout Eskimo snowmobile champ, she’s a hockey mom, she was Miss Wasilla, she looks like she should be playing Cecily, the saucy librarian, in Tom Stoppard’s Travesties, and she doesn’t wear pantsuits. Heck, she hasn’t even appeared yet on Meet the Press! I mean, who in his right mind would vote for her?
Sure, if she were one of ours, not only would we have nominated her by acclamation, since she fulfills every trope of feminism except for her unfortunate and inexplicable opposition to murdering unborn children, we would also have made at least two TV movies about her life, celebrating her choice to have her fifth child and the announcement yesterday that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant and is going to marry the teenage father of her child. That’s the kind of heartwarming, inclusive, empowering story we love — she’s like Juno come to life as Juneau, set in Mystery, Alaska.
Today, we’re going to look at magazine covers and contemplate whether there is really media bias. First, let’s look at the Obama covers. How do you feel looking at them?
Now, for the McCain covers. Notice any differences?
Notice the difference, not only in sheer volume, but in the feel of the covers. A photographer is capturing his or her interpretation of a person in a portrait. There is a certain aspect of his character or personality he wants to catch.
The Obama covers are invariably adoring. The photograher wants him to look approachable, human, funny, interesting, youthful, yet “ready”. The McCain covers, contrastingly, either blare negative headlines, portray him as serious, distant, maybe arrogant or in the Time cover, a little crazy. There is a method to this visual madness. The editorial staff knows exactly what they’re doing.
Nice! I have more for you, though. When I was grocery shopping the other day. I counted four magazine covers doing glossy family photos of Barack Obama. How many magazines had the fashionable and stylish Cindy McCain or the McCain family? Exactly zero. Don’t tell me there isn’t media bias.
Now, let’s talk about Sarah Palin. She hasn’t made any magazine covers yet, but they’re coming. Michelle Malkin reports the latest disgusting media display of sexism and really, just plain hate:
A source forwards the following e-mail from former Clinton operative and Us weekly flack, Mark Neschis, that went out to all media in St. Paul:
Thought I would send over our Us Weekly/Sarah Palin cover story, on stands Friday, if helpful in your coverage. Might be useful as an illustration of how the news is playing out.(Us Weekly has 12 million, mostly female readers)
Corporate Communications Director
Us Weekly | Rolling Stone | Men’s Journal
Steve Hayes notes that Us publisher Jann Wenner is a prominent Obama donor.
Wenner also publishes Rolling Stone, which deified Obama in March.
Go look at the pictures at Michelle’s.
For so long, the answer to the skewed coverage was that McCain has been around forever and Obama is a fresh face. But what of Sarah Palin’s disgusting coverage? She’s new. She’s beautiful. She’s a fresh face. She’s a smart woman. It’s not just sexism. It’s that she is a threat to the Obamessiah.
And they know what they’re doing here, too:
Let’s analyze this for a minute. Notice the lighting. It is harsh and bright. Contrast that with the Obama US cover where the Obamas are in soft focus. Sarah Palin’s face looks over-exposed making her nose appear bigger than it is. Her eyes also look a little wide making her seem too excited and inauthentic.
This is all purposeful. Every last bit of the vicious biased coverage has a point: and that is to get favored son Barack Obama elected. Ace calls this the “Tabloidization of Sarah“. No kidding.
Over at Sundries Shack:
I wonder if the real reason the left is attacking Bristol Palin is because she’s the only one they could find to attack with less real-world experience than Barack Obama. I mean, give her a few years and even she’ll have a resume with more heft than the Obamessiah. Unless, of course, she decided to make her living begging for tax money and sucking up to rich criminals and bigots. Given her Mom, though, I see that as pretty unlikely.
Susan Estrich called the actions of “my friends” …”the sexist, vicious, hateful attacks on Sarah Palin.”
Newsbusters has more about the US cover:
The Us magazine cover story is filed under the URL slug “sarah-palin-very-difficult-to-work-with”. This particular smear job on Sarah Palin was literally spoon fed to the magazine and bloggers on the left by the Huffington Post that featured a hacked up YouTube version of the interview that was edited to take Governor Palin out of context and make the incident sound worse than it really was. (Full interview here)
Oh yes, let’s trot that one out. Any strong woman with an opinion, Martha Stewart, Michelle Malkin, needs to learn to sit down and shut up otherwise she’s branded as “difficult.”
This is how it’s going to go. The politics of personal destruction, indeed.
Just for balance: Sarah Palin has not been given a hummer by an intern in the Governor’s Office. Sarah Palin is not accused of rape. Sarah Palin did not lose $60 million dollars of service organization’s money with a former terrorist Bill Ayers. Sarah Palin did not buy her house with the help of a sleazy criminal with terrorist ties. Sarah Palin did not fuck a guy she picked up at a bar, hire him to her campaign, get pregnant by him and pay him off for the last year. More importantly Bristol Palin did none of these things.
And The Anchoress wonders something I’ve been wondering. Where’s Hillary Clinton? Well, she won’t cry to many tears if Sarah Palin goes down. If there’s one thing that unites Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton right now, it’s that Sarah Palin must be stopped. She is a threat to all they hold dear. Still, The Anchoress hopes for these people (I’m not a former Democrat so I don’t feel especially desolate over their craven actions because I never believed them to begin with, but man, what a come down if you believed that they actually stood for the rights of all women):
You’d think Hillary – a “lifelong advocate for women and children” – would be stepping up, mildly, even, to ask her Angry Left friends to at least pretend – give a little lip service – to the long-standing idea that women and their choices, and their children were sort of, you know…to be respected, a little? Where is Hillary? We don’t know.
Nope, this is the way it’s going to be until the election. And no, Fox pundits, this is not going to die down. This is war. Until election day, expect to see Sarah Palin used and abused like the cheap Republican slut the press views her as being. She’ll get the treatment afforded all whores because that’s how they view her.
I’ve had it. There is no question Sarah Palin will be able to handle this disgusting desperate display, but that doesn’t mean other people can’t fight it. So, I need your help. I’m going to start this myself. And you can add your own in the comments and I’ll post the good ones.
Here is what I just heard on the radio. KTRH, where Rush finds his home in Houston, put up a poll. The question on the website:
Many women, citing their own difficulties, say it’s impossible for Sarah Palin to succeed both at motherhood and as vice president of the country. Do you agree or disagree?
Okay, so here’s the game. Substitute Barack Obama’s name every time you see Sarah Palin and change the pronouns. This is the new question:
Many men, citing their own difficulties, say it’s impossible for Barack Obama to succeed both at fatherhood and as President of the country. Do you agree or disagree?
There’s the first example. This is fertile ground, people. As I come up with them, I’ll post them.
On CNN, Campbell Brown interviews a McCain guy about Governor Palin, but it’s the ticker at the bottom of the screen that I love, considering that the talk is about foreign policy experience. It says:
“Palin’s Teen Daughter Pregnant: AIDE: McCain Knew Before VP Pick”
“Obama’s Teen Daughter Pregnant: AIDE: He Knew Before He Accepted The Nomination”
And here’s what Brown said:
BROWN: Tucker, though, this obviously putting this young woman, Bristol Palin smack in the media spotlight at what’s already got to be a very challenging time in her life. I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her mother would have subjected her to this scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?
Let’s change the money quote:
Tucker, though, this obviously putting this young woman, Malia Obama smack in the media spotlight at what’s already got to be a very challenging time in her life. I mean, how do you respond to people who wonder why her father would have subjected her to this scrutiny by accepting this high-profile position?
Rush had a good answer for this, of course. Should Sarah Palin burden her daughter with the knowledge that her pregnancy derailed her mom’s potential for being the Vice President of the United States? Why is Campbell Brown working considering she has a child?
More to come, no doubt. This is easy. Michelle Malkin notes the left’s selective sympathy for working mothers:
If a Democrat mom chooses public office, she’s a patriot Wonder Woman imbued with Absolute Moral Authority on children’s, health, and social welfare issues.
If a Republican mom chooses public office, she’s the child-neglecting spawn of Satan who has no business debating any domestic public policy because of alleged hypocrisy.
Ain’t feminism grand?
Redstate has a related item. Anderson Cooper interviews Barack Obama who skips Sarah Palin’s experience as Governor and points out his (and it’s hard not to snicker) campaign budget being three times as much as her mayoral budget. Wait just a little minute, here. How about the Alaskan budget which is many times the campaign (snicker) budget. Leon Wolf says:
So, from my perspective, there are basically two reasons that Barack Obama and his supporters refuse to even acknowledge Sarah Palin’s current job (in favor of focusing on the job she held two jobs before her current job): the first is that it makes Obama’s claim that running his campaign counts as “experience” clownish. The second is that they simply have some sort of problem acknowledging that a person like Palin could be in a position of that much authority. I’m not here to take sides on that particular debate; I report, you decide.
Or, maybe Barack Obama and his media enablers are sexist pigs. How about that? Instead of going after her policies, they diminish her experience. Every time that word is said…..
More from Jeff Goldstein. Holy cow! I knew this would be easy, but it’s so easy it’s sickening. Liberal talk show host Ed Schultz:
SCHULTZ: The facts are this. What kind of mother is she? Is she prepared to be the vice president? Is she going to be totally focused on the issues.
Now as Obama:
SCHULTZ: The facts are this. What kind of father is he? Is he prepared to be the president? Is he going to be totally focused on the issues.
This kind of argument — which, let’s face it, Schultz would never be making were the candidate a man (must be part of the new feminism, incidentally: working women, for all their professional accomplishments, are to be judged by the mistakes of their children — not how they react to those mistakes, which, in Obama’s case, we know would be to get rid of the “punishment”) — suggests that Sarah Palin is a bad mother, not because of a mistake made by her teenage daughter, but because she wasn’t there to stop it.
Or, to put it another way, what was this Palin woman thinking taking a job while she should have been home, in the kitchen, fastening a chastity belt around her daughter’s honeypot each morning?
I mean, it’s one thing to want to work and act like a man when you haven’t the burden of children, or will at least pony up for a strict Catholic nanny from South America. But, c’mon, honey: playtime is over. Tend your garden, like a good little woman. Then you might now have a knocked up daughter.
Jesus. Can you imaging a “liberal” radio host making this same argument were Palin and her daughter Democrats and black? Of course not. Instead, we’d be treated to a nonstop narrative of sacrifice and the difficulties of growing up black in America — of cultural pressures, the differences between black and white, etc.