September 3, 2008

Palin Derangement Syndrome

I challenge anyone from any part of the political spectrum to knock down any of the arguments made by Michelle Malkin in this post.

There’s something about outspoken conservative women that drives the Left mad. It’s a peculiar pathology I’ve reported on for more than 15 years, both as a witness and a target. Thus, the onset of Palin Derangement Syndrome in the media, Democrat circles, and the cesspools of the blogosphere came as no surprise. They just can’t help themselves.

Liberals hold a special animus for constituencies they deem traitors. Minorities who identify as social and economic conservatives have left the plantation and sold out their people. Women who put an “R” by their name have abandoned their ovaries and betrayed their gender. As Republican officeholders and conservative public figures who are women have grown in number and visibility, the progression of Conservative Female Abuse has worsened. The astonishing vitriol and virulent hatred directed at GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the most severe manifestation to date.

The first stage of Conservative Female Abuse by the Left is infantilization. Right-wing women can’t possibly believe what they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets, or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far Left (is there any other kind of Left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of First Lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as “docile doormats” with no brains of their own. True to form, no sooner had John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his veep pick than jeers of “Palin = neocon puppet” sprouted across the Internet.

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.”

True to form, Dowd was first out of the box to snicker at Gov. Palin’s beauty pageant past, ridicule her “beehive and sexy shoes,” and compare her path to the vice presidential nomination as a “hokey chick flick.” Joe Biden backhandedly praised her as “good looking.” And left-wing bloggers worked overtime on lurid photoshops of Palin as a bikini model and porn star. At the Democratic Underground, a highly trafficked liberal website raising money for Barack Obama, members held a contest to come up with nicknames and posters to slime GOP Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and then to “spread [them] all over the ‘net.” Among the “nicer” entries: “Cruella,” “Gidget,” “Governor Jesus Camp,” “VPILF,” “Fertilla the Huntress,” “Iditabroad,” and “KILLER PYSCHO FUNDIE BITCH FROM HELL!!”

The third stage of CFA is demonization. When the Left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush “Hitler’s dog.” George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as “the Silver douchebag.” A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: “Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.” Another added: “I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband’s political beliefs.”
True to form, rumors of Palin being a crypto-Nazi surfaced on the Internet and the fringe media. And liberal critics used her gun-rights record to smear her as bloodthirsty.

And the final stage of CFA is dehumanization. Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator?” Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body?”

Echoing the bottom-feeders in the liberal blogosphere, mainstream journalists and Obama water-carriers now question Palin’s commitment to motherhood and even challenged her pre-natal care decisions in an effort to destroy her. Forget about questioning their patriotism. I question their sanity.


The following was a post made by Michelle Malkin, a Republican pundit in the United States

Labels:

11 Commentaires:

Blogger bigcitylib a dit...

How does Michelle account for the fact that Rush Limbaugh said something to the effect that "We'll do fine now that we've got a babe on the ticket!"?

9/03/2008 1:28 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

I dont think anyone ever said the Republicans dont do this too.

At least I never did.

Many people are just surprised to see this kind of stuff coming from the left

9/03/2008 2:32 PM  
Blogger KC a dit...

Right because the left has to take any lecture from the right (least of which Michelle Malkin) about demonizing folks and calling them traitors. Have you forgot already about the swiftboating of John Kerry?

While I won't deny that there is a certain degree of sexism out there towards female politicians; most of the attacks on Palin are just the normal rough and tumble that goes on all the time. In politics people very often resort to the same type of tactics that Malkin alludes to. The gender of the adjectives and nouns might change but the vitrol remains the same. The way some have tried to portay Obama as unpatriotic, unamerican, unchristian is equally vile.

Antonio if you are still working at de-biasing yourself you are failing miserably. When you have your mind made up about a cause (federalism), or a person (Barack Obama or Stephane Dion) the whole world seems to have a way of tilting in that direction. Thats not necessarily a bad thing per se but if you want to be a reporter (as opposed to a columnist) you have work to do before anyone will take you seriously.

Sarah Palin is a verifiable right wing wingnut whose social values are diametrically opposed to what I understand to be your own; yet you jump to her defense because of some visceral hatred of Barack Obama.

9/03/2008 2:47 PM  
Blogger Chet Scoville a dit...

I challenge anyone from any part of the political spectrum to knock down any of the arguments

OK.

First, look at Malkin's linked Google search for "Palin=neocon puppet." You will not find that phrase from any liberals. What you will find is a few suggestions that she would be good for the neocon project (including from some Ron Paul supporters) as well as a reference in a blog belonging to "neoneocon."

Next, her linked Google search to "left-wing bloggers" calling Palin a porn star reveals ... no left-wing bloggers making any such claim.

Third, she claims that Bill Maher called Laura Bush "Hitler's dog." The link reveals that he did not say that.

Fourth, her linked Google search to Palin as a "crypto-Nazi" reveals no such phrase; the top three hits are from two right-wing sites countering that alleged charge, and the third is one of BCL's posts documenting the fact that Stormfront seems to be happy with Palin.

Fifth, anyone who calls Maureen Dowd a "liberal," as Malkin does, is dreaming.

9/03/2008 3:03 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

See Kyle,

My personal opinion aside

I have argued that Palin is a game-changer because she is in fact, someone who turned this entire race on its head.

I never said I would support either ticket.

The reason I put up Malkin's post is because I am trying to offer a perspective that is rarely seen (especially here)

The Republicans arguing the Democrats are playing dirty is ironic, considering their record on dirty politics.

My point is that when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats have reacted in the same dirty fashion as the Republicans, which in my opinion, means that this race is just more of the same.

I have said Barack Obama is an empty shell, which I still believe him to be.

Palin is as empty a shell as Obama. But in terms of the impact her presence is having on the presidential race, the evidence is undeniable.

With regards to me being unbiased, I am stating my opinion here, which will become more difficult if I choose to do political reporting, which, for all intents and purposes, I will likely avoid.

Anything I submit in a journalistic capacity to a newspaper or a magazine will be fair.

You say I dislike Stephane Dion yet for the previous six months, I have said he can win an election.

It is only tricky for ebcause people know my past, which I am far from ashamed of. As long as my final product is fair, and my opinion is not in the piece, I dont think what I think really matters.

9/03/2008 3:07 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

chet you make some valid points.

While not all of Malkin's sources are 100% verifiable, the general charges she makes are, in my opinion, valid.

Laura Bush was called a doormat.

Joe Biden, did use traditional comments about a female candidate's looks. Remember, if the roles were reversed, Democrats would be up in arms.

Like I said in my response to Kyle, Democrats are behaving the same way that they decried for the last eight years.

They are giving up the high ground (which can be a good idea) which in the end, is not really about change after all.

9/03/2008 3:18 PM  
Blogger Chet Scoville a dit...

If her evidence for the charges is nonexistent, how can the charges themselves be accurate?

9/03/2008 3:21 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

The four charges Malkin makes are backed up by the reaction to Palin's candidacy. Some of Malkin's examples arent even relevant to her argument. I will concede that as well.

But can you argue against the 4 main points of the article.

1) infantilization

(charges that she wasnt intelligent)

2) sexualization

(Biden calling her good-looking)

3) demonization

(remember the "its not her baby argument"?)

4) desexualization

(no woman who is against abortion is a woman anyway)

Women aren't only fed up of men telling them what to think.

I think women in general are fed up of anybody telling what to think...

9/03/2008 3:37 PM  
Blogger KC a dit...

The reason I put up Malkin's post is because I am trying to offer a perspective that is rarely seen (especially here)

Well maybe you should actually find a GOOD article rather than a rant.

My point is that when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats have reacted in the same dirty fashion as the Republicans

I fail to see where Democrats have resorted to the same level of distortion, obfuscation, and flat out lying that the Republicans resort to.

1) infantilization

(charges that she wasnt intelligent)


Who said that? And if they did who says it has to do with the fact that shes a woman? If you ask me people who believe the creation story literally and believe in abstinence-only education AREN'T particularly intelligenct--man or woman.

2) sexualization

(Biden calling her good-looking)


Wow congrats. One comment. Thesis validated. My wife tells me which male politicians she thinks are hot all the time.

3) demonization

(remember the "its not her baby argument"?)


How is that "demonization"?

Perhaps you need to look that word up. And besides there are some prima facie valid questions about whether or not she lied to the public. Where are the birth records?

4) desexualization

(no woman who is against abortion is a woman anyway)


Wait. Now its "DEsexualization"? I thought it was "sexualization" a minute ago.

I havent heard many credible folks make the assertion that a woman who is against abortion is not a woman.

9/03/2008 3:49 PM  
Blogger Antonio a dit...

politicians comment on the appearance of female politicians in the attempt to attack their qualifications.

Negatively, the way Rush Limbaugh described Hillary Clinton aging

Positively, in the sense that Biden did when he called her good-looking.

with regards to your first point saying you went below the belt more than me isnt really an argument Kyle.

Demonization is creating a demon out of someone's character, like suggesting she had her daughter Bristol's baby, which since she is 5 months pregnant now, is scientifically impossible. They attack her for being a bad mother and try to make her sound like some horrible person. It is stupid when it is done on either side.

and you can sexualize someone to demean their intelligence just as well as you can desexualize someone to make them less appealing to women.

As for my choice of whose rant, I chose it based on the 4 main points of her argument. I do not disqualify an argument based on who it is coming from. That would be quite biased of me :P

9/03/2008 4:39 PM  
Blogger KC a dit...

politicians comment on the appearance of female politicians in the attempt to attack their qualifications.

Or maybe they sometimes comment on appearance because they find them attractive? I know people who can't encounter another person without commenting one way or another on their appearance.

with regards to your first point saying you went below the belt more than me isnt really an argument Kyle.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Demonization is creating a demon out of someone's character, like suggesting she had her daughter Bristol's baby, which since she is 5 months pregnant now, is scientifically impossible.

Its been four and a half months since Trig's birth and there is a margin of error in determining development. There are odd facts surrounding the birth that cause people to raise an eyebrow.

I doubt it'll turn out to be true but there is a heck of a lot more there than there is in many of the other "scandals" that go on.

They attack her for being a bad mother and try to make her sound like some horrible person. It is stupid when it is done on either side.

People do horrible things. Just because something sounds too horrible to be true doesnt mean a person didnt do it.

and you can sexualize someone to demean their intelligence just as well as you can desexualize someone to make them less appealing to women.

Yes you can do either but not both.

9/03/2008 4:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home