Tuesday, November 11, 2008
On Nailin' Palin
Here's the thing, the thing that seems to be missed by almost everybody when we discuss the treatment of Sarah Palin and whether feminists should rise up in arms and defend her or whether she's so horrible that it's OK to bash her even with sexist weapons (cunt, twat, Caribou Barbie) or whether feminism should die if it dares to defend someone like her (when there are so many valuable causes for feminism) and welcome to the post-feminist era (because feminism is no longer needed):
The question has zero to do with Sarah Palin as a person. The question has everything to do with Sarah Palin as a spoonful of that amorphous mass called womanhood. When sexist commentary is acceptably used with Palin it allows sexist commentary to be used on all other uppity women, then on all women who are not-so uppity, then on the women who have been made into doormats.
I'm not sure why this point isn't clearer. When I wrote about the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton I wasn't writing on her behalf. She's powerful, she's rich, she will be OK. But seeing how a woman who is powerful and rich is reduced to the status of the bitch from hell, the monster with AMBITION!!!, what does that tell us about how other women might be treated in politics, in the media in general and in this society? Hm?
No, I'm not defending the Sarah Palins or Hillary Clintons of this world when I write on topics like these. However tangential they may be, all of my feminist writings are ultimately intended to defend the little girls who were born today on this planet.