In the past 15 minutes I have received five e-mail messages about Sarah Palin. Some negative and some positive. People are going to think whatever they want about this woman. It doesn't matter what she has done before now. You can't make her look any worse than she has already made herself look in the past: www.sarahpalinexposed.com, so stop trying. From here on out, it is smooth sailing for her. People are going to write her speeches (see the Republican National Convention speech) and set up "special" interviews on the Charles Gibson show for her. It is up to Americans to do the research to decide if they like her or not, and (AGAIN) gender should have nothing to do with this decision, right? Isn't that what Republicans said in the Spring when Hillary Clinton was "hiding behind her apron strings?"
I don't want gender or race to play a part in this election, but unfortunatley both will. I was hoping Palin's nomination would at least encourage more positive dialogue on gender, but it hasn't. Here is my take on gender and Sarah Palin: If she was a man, she would not be in the position she is in now. She would be seen as too conservative. McCain would never have picked her because she would be a man who: is against a woman making a choice about her own body, votes pro-gun on issues, puts church AHEAD of state, doesn't believe in civil liberties for all Americans and among other things wants creationism taught in public schools. What if McCain had picked a man who wanted ALL of these things? It was just a couple of years ago that Pat Buchanan wanted all of these things. Even Republicans were scared about Buchanan being nominated because of his extreme views. I know one Republican who wasn't scared: Sarah Palin. She was Pat Buchanan's 1996 Alaska State Coordinator.
As women, it seems easier to identify with other women. We all got our first period at some unexpecting moment, we have all been teased about insecurities, we have all felt sexism whether we knew it or not, we have been labeled as bitches, whores, sluts, the other woman, the weaker sex, the more sensitive sex and the list can go on and on. We are drawn together by common bonds that most men could never understand. I thought it was incredible when Hillary Clinton ran for president. I didn't vote for her, but I was proud of her and what she accomplished for women. When Condoleeza Rice became Secretary of State I was proud for what she had accomplished, but I again didn't agree with everything she had to say. When Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate, I not only didn't agree with her, I was scared by her ideologies. Now I understand how Republicans felt in 1996 when Buchanan tried for the nomination.
3 comments:
Here's more on Palin:
Time magazine article (how she dismissed ppl who didn't agree w/ her, including firing a police chief for not agreeing w/ a concealed gun law)
Anchorage News (story on her trying to ban/censor books at library & firing a librarian who refused to do so)
Here's an interesting article on the sexist argument, but based on experience (or lack thereof).
I too hope that this election speaks more to the issues than to race and gender... only time will tell.
Post a Comment