CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman...

Any respect I had for Palin, McCain's token female running mate in the US election, is waning after reading that she is pushing to have evolution and creationism both taught in schools as one of her election statements. I have to ask: Haven't we gotten past this to more important issues of state in election time?
The US has a lot more problems at the moment than a science/church pissing contest over the origin of the species. Let's hold up the whole separation of church and state and move on with governing a country in a humane and fair way. Unless we're going to acknowledge all religions in the US and let them all have equal say, leave it alone. Teach taxonomy and leave the rest out until people go to University and let them figure out what they think from there...

Maybe focus on *real* issues in the election. Like, oh, I don't know...the economic collapse of a nation? Feeding and clothing all of your people and allowing them to live a decent life? Removing corporate greed from your White House and allowing the country to look after itself and the environment with prudent dignity?

I would like to speak for the entire female gender in saying: A hearty boo to Palin, and state that really, although she *is* technically one of us, please don't judge us all by her actions. Can we assign her some "other" category? Give her some sort of tattoo, saying "warning contents are not representative and may have settled during shipping"?

I had such hopes that the first female politician let anywhere near the White House would be anything other than this...Hillary I could handle. But this?

*sigh*

And here I was so pleased last night, gloating about how a woman would be better in office, after reading our local Conservative MP's mailout to us that was his usual rantish, bigoted, female insulting and pretty much inane self...with comments like how he wants to "stop women being forced into abortions" and "halt the restrictive and hurtful human rights commissions and committees" from getting in the way of "good people" doing the "right" things. In the past he's ranted about the terrible natives who abuse our social programs and are taking advantage of our handouts, and how women are not being allowed to be traditional (??) and that liberals and NDPs are attacking family values. I keep wondering why he gets reelected over and over...but then I know I live in a predominantly religious right wing riding, where lots of small town people will vote conservative just to vote conservative regardless of who is on the ticket. I cannot, on good conscience, support this guy. A pigs bladder on a stick would be better some days, I think. He is a racist illspoken man who has not done anything helpful for the greater good in my riding other than to support the status quo.

And again...I am baffled why people vote conservative for such a leader. I understand wanting family values...wanting someone who isn't scary and won't challenge your way of life or thinking. Someone who looks after "what's right"? But how is that concept uniquely conservative? And why is liberalism so bad? Why are people so afraid of new thoughts, cultures and ideas? To me, if the person in the running in your area was a good person with a lot of well spoken ideas then pick him/her, regardless of his political party. Pick someone who will stand up for their principles, whatever they are, and make sure your riding's needs and opinions are held up in government. Isn't that the whole point of voting?
Do I want Maurice Vellacott to be king asshat of Meewasin Saskatoon riding again? Hells no.
I am not exaggerating when I say that altho I am certain he is a nice, decent man, he has also proven himself in the past to be overly biased in christian religious issues and a racist by his actions and statements.
We have to move forward...

And so now I can't be proud of men or a women in politics...
Perhaps I shall use my lab to create a new 3rd gender...or (shudder) go into politics.
OR (I'm liking this 3rd option more and more the more I think about it) create a new race of political undead to run in the next election...hell why not? I can see it now: an undead Trudeau for Prime Minister in 2012! Bring back the great leaders of the past to Canada!

Um...yeah.
Lunch break's over.
Bye.

17 comments:

Missicat said...

OMG. I am...speechless. To repeat what you said...please don't judge us all by her!
*sigh*
On the plus side, I know some diehard Republicans who are now leaning towards Obama - yay!

the Bag Lady said...

Hear, hear!!
Terrific post. I read a little bit about Palin and her policies as Gov. of Alaska, and I gotta tell you, she scares the crap outta me! She will set women back 200 years if she gets elected.....

And McCain? I watched part of the debate the other night and couldn't believe his smirking and making faces while Obama was speaking. WTF? How old IS that man, anyway?

(Good thing I post under a pseudonym, eh? The bastards'll never find me.....*evil laugh*)

MaCanuck said...

Magnus: Stop hacking Geo's account and ranting, pretending to be her.

Peter T Chattaway said...

If it's any consolation, Palin isn't the first woman to run on a national ticket in the U.S.; Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice-president under Walter Mondale in 1984.

But is she really "pushing" to have creationism taught in schools? What little I have heard about her time as governor in Alaska suggests that that has not been a priority for her.

Fortunately, I have also heard that, while Barack Obama is technically a bi-racial man, he does not speak for all bi-racial men, either. That's a relief!

grapecat said...

Hmmm -

Well a more accurate comparison would be if Obama was expected to speak for all men, not all bi-racial men. There's quite an important distinction there.

Pacian said...

I think a lot of people outside the US are hoping for McCain to win, otherwise we'll have to switch all our jokes back to being about the French again.

Peter T Chattaway said...

grapecat wrote:
Well a more accurate comparison would be if Obama was expected to speak for all men, not all bi-racial men. There's quite an important distinction there.

Except that much of the hoopla around Obama has been about race, not gender, just as much of the hoopla around Palin has been about gender, not race. So, yes, that's quite an important distinction.

Each candidate has been framed by the one "history-making" thing that sets him or her apart from most other candidates. For Obama, it's the fact that he is bi-racial and therefore, as he puts it, racial reconciliation is "in my DNA." For Palin, it's the fact that she's a woman and she can therefore help to "break the glass ceiling". Their policies and their experience, in both cases, are of less significance than the fact that they represent symbolic breakthroughs.

The scary part is that both of them, being inexperienced and somewhat awkward when they don't have a teleprompter and they have to think on their feet, have enormous potential to set back their respective causes.

There are black thinkers on the left and on the right, from Al Sharpton to Shelby Steele, who worry that racial reconciliation will take a huge hit if Obama becomes president and turns out to be lousy at the job.

And as we can see right here in this thread, there are plenty of women who think Palin has set back the cause of feminism a fair bit, too.

grapecat said...

The 'hoopla' around Obama may be about race, but that still doesn't make an equivalent comparison between 'woman' and 'bi-racial man'.

Linguistically.

Apples for apples and all that. The equivalent would be Obama as 'man' and Palin as 'woman'. Or bi-racial v caucasion. Or whatever.

Another difference is, Palin is not running as a feminist, nor does she believe in (or vote for) feminism. Whereas, it does seem Obama does actually believe in racial reconciliation (where do they get these euphanisms?) Palin's 'respective cause' appears to be an ill-informed religious fundamentalist free-market anti-environmental nightmare, and I hope she does discredit it.

And I'm in the UK so I'm potentially not getting good info, but isn't Obama noted for his rhetoric skills?

Geosomin said...

OH...it's amusing how political posts get such responses. Muaha !

From what I have heard of him speaking, Obama is rather well spoken actually...and I agree with Grapecat. Obama *is* "different" than Palin. His being a man is not his driving selling point. Also, I don't see Obama setting back anything by being illspoken or lacking experience...he is young, but I do believe he has experience in politics. And if he fails he will simply fail as president...NOT as a MAN.
Whereas Palin? She does not have the leadership ability or experience to be Vice President. Period. Yes she has dealt with a lot in life, but she was chosen, rather transparently, for her gender and has done nothing to endear herself to me or prove my distrust or disdain for her. She does not reperesent me as a WOMAN. If you claimed Obama does not represent you as a MAN then that would be comparable.

Pete I know you lean to the conservative right...this post is not an attack on conservativism per se, it is more of the focusing on religious issues and gender issuesin politics that honestly, do not have a place (in my opinion) in the government halls of a nation when there are serious political issues to deal with. It is leadership ability and accountability that matters.
Someone's belief (or their gender for that matter) should not enter into their ability to lead the nation. And sadly, I just have not seen Palin say anything to convince me that I should give her the respect she is so desperately vying for.

Geosomin said...

disprove I should say not prove...

Geosomin said...

Pete - it is intersting about Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. I didn't know that had previously happened. Did Mondale have any chance of gtting in or was he a sidliner?? Was she an experienced politician or a "woman" like Palin?

Corey said...

To paraphrase Chuang Tzu,"Those who strive to be your leaders, are the last that should be your leaders."


If Palin wasn't so dangerous I would almost feel sorry for her being clearly in over her head.

Peter T Chattaway said...

grapecat wrote:
The 'hoopla' around Obama may be about race, but that still doesn't make an equivalent comparison between 'woman' and 'bi-racial man'. Linguistically.

Well, I'm talking about the actual election campaigns, not mere linguistics.

Palin is not running as a feminist, nor does she believe in (or vote for) feminism.

You apparently missed her speech when John McCain first introduced her on the national stage, and you apparently aren't aware of her membership in Feminists for Life, etc. You should also check out Camille Paglia's essay on Palin's "frontier feminism". Paglia's an Obama supporter, but she does appreciate certain aspects of Palin's persona.

Whereas, it does seem Obama does actually believe in racial reconciliation . . .

Possibly. Though his 20-year membership in Jeremiah Wright's church, and his race-based efforts in the Illinois state senate, do suggest that racial reconciliation has not always been his top priority, so to speak.

And I'm in the UK so I'm potentially not getting good info, but isn't Obama noted for his rhetoric skills?

When he has a teleprompter, yes. And even there, I'm not so sure it's his "rhetoric", i.e. his words, that he is known for, as it is his "oratory", or his speaking style. Obama's "rhetoric" can be pretty gaseous at times.

Geosomin wrote:
Did Mondale have any chance of gtting in . . .

Not really, no. Ronald Reagan was up for re-election, and he went into the election with a very high approval rating, and he won with, I think, the largest majority in American history at that time. So Mondale, by picking a woman for his VP, was pretty much just doing it to get into the history books -- kind of like how the Tories here in Canada made Kim Campbell the prime minister after Brian Mulroney resigned. She didn't have a chance of actually winning an election on her own, and her party was doomed, doomed, doomed, so hey, why not put a woman in charge and claim the history-making bragging rights?

Yeah, if I were a woman, I'd be offended, too, that the only female politicians who seem to get anywhere on this continent are the ones aligned with hopeless cases.

Was she an experienced politician or a "woman" like Palin?

I don't believe Ferraro had a whole lot of experience, no. In fact, when the New York Times started going after Palin for her lack of experience, some conservatives began pointing to a 1984 editorial in the Times which said that Ferraro's lack of experience should not be held against her. Oh, the irony.

Someone's belief (or their gender for that matter) should not enter into their ability to lead the nation.

I'm not quite sure I follow you there. Leadership at the presidential or prime ministerial level means having a vision for the country, and having a vision means having some sort of belief system. You can believe in the free market, you can believe in socialism, but either way, you're going to believe in something.

But if you mean that certain beliefs should have less influence on public affairs than others -- if, say, beliefs about the economy should influence how the prime minister does things, but beliefs about the origins of life on earth should not influence how the prime minister does things -- then yeah, I can agree with that.

And sadly, I just have not seen Palin say anything to convince me that I should give her the respect she is so desperately vying for.

Trust me, as a right-leaning person myself, I find Palin very, very disappointing right now.

grapecat said...

The whole concept of women getting jobs only because the jobs are doomed to fail is referred to as the glass cliff syndrome and is horrifyingly prevalent, at least out here. I know a few friends who have been ensnared on those types of jobs. It;s a double whammy - companies can say, look - we're equal opportunities - we give women top jobs, they just can't handle it."

Kim Campbell is a great example of that.

Ack.

the Bag Lady said...

Palin has a membership in "Feminists for Life" - what is that? Some sort of anti-abortion group for women? (must Google that one)
She still scares the crap outta me - especially the part where she wants to drill for oil in the nature preserves in Alaska, then build a pipeline in my backyard to send it to Chicago (or wherever) Hasn't anyone been paying attention to what oil production DOES to an area? Sheesh.

Magnus said...

1, 2, Cha, cha, cha...
3, 4, Cha, cha, cha...

Magnus said...

Never trust Alaska, seriously, I mean it.