The shift of female voters going from Obama to McCain once Palin got appointed as running mate for McCain basically shows that the pro-vaginas voters in the United States want a vagina in power.
Do these voters also care about having people in power who actually know something about foreign policy? I mean, a lipstick pitbull? Seriously … what the fuck? The more I find about this person, the more her no-knowledge about politics makes me cry. This is clearly a “election” running mate: a running mate to steal as much as possible pro-vagina voters away from Obama. Not a “real” running mate.
The sex organs of an individual, and if you are a real feminist you’ll even agree with this, shouldn’t matter when voting for a president and his/her running mate. No matter how pissed you are about Obama having less female-looking sex organs than Hillary.
This is just ridiculous.
Unlike the vast majority of the Hollywood movies doesn’t the real world guarantee a happy ending. I hope McCain realizes this, now that he decided to turn this election into a Soap like Beverly Hills 90210.
Bravo!
ps. Planet.gnome picks the categories it wants to syndicate from my blog. I don’t send blog items to planet.gnome myself. Instead, planet.gnome picks them. I have a category specifically dedicated to technology. This item is specifically not categorized in a technical category. Don’t blame me for political content on planet.gnome.
ps. If you want to reply that I’m anti-woman, think again. Instead of anti-woman I’m a real male feminist: I want absolute equality between genders. Both in rights AND in duties. Both in opportunities AND in competition (it must be equally hard for males and for females to win a contest – with perhaps small exceptions in sports, but for example not for soldiers -). If females want to rule the planet, they’ll have to show qualities. Being a mother is not by itself enough proof-of-quality to be a vice president. As a real feminist myself, I’m absolutely sure females can. Saying that because females have not always gotten the same rights and “therefore” must get some sort of a free bump, is positive discrimination.
Positive discrimination is discrimination too. The worst kind of discrimination: it’s harder to detect than normal discrimination.
To vote for Palin as vice president is, for me, positive discrimination. This person is clearly incompetent for that role. Especially as vice presidents have usually played a role in foreign policies in the United States. At least a little, very little bit, of knowhow of geopolitics and foreign politics is a must.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/poll-women-and-men-dont-see-eye-to-eye-on-palin/ seems to suggest that women are more aware of that than men.
s/vagina/black eumelanin/
Would you still post that?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/poll-women-and-men-dont-see-eye-to-eye-on-palin/ suggests that the problem is with men more than it is with women. Perhaps feminism has nothing to do with it?
I’m against all forms of positive discrimination, daniels. Not sure how replacing vagina with black eumelanin keeps the post relevant in any way.
Obama decided to pick a running mate who doesn’t always agrees with Obama and who’s known for his intelligence about foreign politics.
Obama could have elected Hillary as his running mate to keep the pro-vagina voters with him. He didn’t. I would have frowned such a decision too.
To admit that you are not perfect in every aspect of politics and to elect a running mate who often disagreed with you, but who is known for his cleverness in foreign politics, is rather a sign of competence. Not incompetence.
To say that “God has told the US to go to war in Iraq”, is not only incompetence. It’s also extremely dangerous mixing of religion with politics. This is an actual quote from Palin. I can even show you video footage of that.
What makes you think Obama picked Biden and it wasn’t a back room deal by the DNC to negate one of the arguments against choosing Obama for President? He was the worst possible choice in terms of his view on Copyright, his pro-war view completely conflicts with Obama’s almost anti-Iraq stance. Thankfully the Veep only touches policy if something unthinkable happens or if there is a tie on a Senate vote. (And unless he is Dick Cheney…)
Palin is an Ultra right wing partisan politician that uses wedge tactics to get what and where she wants, gender only enters into it when the media wants it to. Considering her pro-life (and essentially anti-female) stance the only people willing to choose a McCain/Palin were probably already voting for McCain/Palin.
@pvanhoof: What I’m saying is that would you dare to post an article saying ‘the pro-black lobby voting for Obama is crap and all they want is a black guy in power’, with subsequent paragraphs describing how terrible that is?
yet another reason to vote for real change: Bob Barr. and if you don’t know who bob barr is, do yourself a favor and look him up.
@bob: the fact that Dick Cheney played the role that he played might actually change the role of future vice presidents to a more active one.
I guess Russia with Vladimir Putin created a similar dual-head political system this way. Not sure if the comparison really makes sense, but in a way I think it does …
@Matthew Garrett: Note that I wrote “pro-vagina voters”, not “vagina owning voters”. A pro-vagina voter can also be a male, of course.
You’re seriously mistaken, Philip. There was movement toward McCain because the Christian right didn’t trust him until he picked one of theirs (because in 2000 he ran as a sensible moderate, and then he turned sharply to the right this time around). But opinion polls show that American women dislike Palin more than American men do (by 9 percentage points). Also, at this stage, all the public knows about her is that she gave a good (at least compared to John McCain) speech after the media had prepared the country for a complete idiot (so she looked good by not falling on her face).
If you’ve somehow gotten the idea that Palin has helped McCain with women in general, as opposed to just that subset of women with fanatical religious beliefs (and there are too many of those), you seriously need better reporting on American political issues.
Really, I can’t find it now but I swear I read a poll result showing the “soccer moms” had shifted measurably toward McCain after Palin’s speech. She ain’t going to convert any feminists, but then, who could at this point?
One of the things I hate these days (maybe it was always this way, I don’t know…) is that so much political discussion seems to be about *other political discussion*. I love that kind of post-modernism on Seinfeld (“a show about a show, how novel!”)… but not so much in the real world. It’s like all anyone wants to talk about is what everyone’s talking about. And here I am doing the same thing. Fuck!
Really, I can’t find it now but I swear I read a poll result showing the “soccer moms” had shifted measurably toward McCain after Palin’s speech. She ain’t going to convert any feminists, but then, who could at this point?
One of the things I hate these days (maybe it was always this way, I don’t know) is that so much political discussion seems to be about *other political discussion*. I love that kind of post-modernism on Seinfeld (“a show about a show, how novel!”)… but not so much in the real world. It’s like all anyone wants to talk about is what everyone’s talking about. And here I am doing the same thing. Fuck!
Yo man, I think all that crap you read in the media about Clinton supporters going to McCain is just that, crap. Aren’t you in another country or are you US citizen?
Be hopeful. We’ll get Obama! We’ll end foreign occupation! We’ll spur a new green energy economy! Anyway, here’s hoping!
your “ps” comment reveals that you realize your comment could easily be mistaken for a troll. Perhaps you could express your political opinions in a more mature, un-troll-like way.
You seem to believe the only reason anyone might support a McCain-Palin ticket is because of her vagina. That strikes me as more than a little cynical.
What do you like more, your mother’s breast or vagina?
P.S. Yeah, right, it’s not your fault, p.g.o. picks your posts, blah blah blah.
@Joe Buck : that is part of the problem. The European media do a terrible job on reporting on American politics : biased and out of touch with the American public’s feeling on the subject in general.
@Philip : you might see yourself feminist but the choice of words was not very subtle and likely to put off the casual reader. You can do better than cheap provocative tricks.
Even then, you make a big deal about women voting for a woman just because of her gender. But I don’t see you decrying all the men voting for a man just because they want ‘a MAN for the job’. That is the hidden sexism at play here : there is a double standard where we don’t feel the need to protest a male chauvinist vote as much as we protest a female chauvinist vote.
1% of women might indeed vote for Palin just because she’s a woman, because a female president would probably reduce sexism and allow more women to have positions of power, which is understandably important to many. It would be hard to blame them for that, even though Palin is an awful candidate.
That .5% of the electorate might indeed swing the election. That would be payback for all those men who have been voting so long for men just because they are men.
I hope it doesn’t happen though. It would be another tough 8 years.
@Murray: After the failures of Condoleezza Rice, and then another round of failures of Palin, wouldn’t be good for the reduction sexism. I hope that 1% realizes that … (because I would want more equality too, but by electing incompetent females into positions like vice presidency ain’t going to help with that cause).
I don’t believe in payback for things like this. Darwinistic Evolution, the same way as Richard Dawkins described the evolution of replicating memes, is the only way to ‘equalize’ gender in humanity. Any form of payback immediately puts things out of balance, which will inevitably result in yet another payback round by the other gender. Which will and would set females back even further than where they came from.
If a female would get elected for a power-position ‘because’ she was the most qualified person on the planet for this, and ‘if’ she indeed performs good at that position too, ‘then’ this will set a precedent for future such memes. If not, it’ll rather set a precedent for a meme in the opposite direction.
Concepts like good and bad don’t exist in that form of evolution. Only causality exists.
Philip, “real male feminist” is just double speak for people who want to appear to be something that they are not. “Its got feminist in the name so there is no arguing with that” type of logic. It is a strategy the far right has been using to great success. Remember the Republicans have usurped Obama’s “change” theme by calling their platform “responsible change” which as far as I could gather means no real change at all. You yourself are very close to conservative ideology and strategy and have shown yourself to be right leaning in your statements which would make you hypocritical in criticizing the Republican ticket, at least in the manner that you decided to take it.
Myself, I think you are just an opportunist who frames everything in what is best for you at the time. I challenge you to make similar ridiculous claims about the democratic ticket. You won’t since that isn’t your end goal, aka it isn’t in your interest even though the same arguments can be flipped as others have already noted. From what I have read about your politics, you have never looked at anything objectively and never found the real talking points which might bolster your case. Instead, you have preferred to throw around reactionist hyperbole with no real thought or insight.
Be sure that one of the things that could scuttle Obama’s chances of being elected is indigent Europeans (or any foreigner) such as yourself. It’s not that your opinion doesn’t matter but you don’t have a vote and no one likes to be nagged by people who don’t have a say. Think of it like KDE folks trying to effect what decisions GNOME folks make but on a much more important scale. Put it this way, by you framing your argument the way you did, you have effectively said that people in the US can’t think for themselves and won’t do the right thing come election time. You might not mean it that way but that is how condescending it came off.
Oh, but you have said in the past that you should have a say since the US election effects the whole world. Well then you are being an opportunist and hypocrite again because that goes against your whole “real male feminist”, feel good, stump speech. Lets replace women with some countries – “Saying that because some countries have not always gotten the same rights and “therefore” must get some sort of a free bump, is positive discrimination.”
Thank you for this. I completely agree, and I think you said it very well.
When Palin was first announced, I thought it was a brilliant move on McCain’s part as she’d get the Clinton vote but after listening to her and reading about it, there’s no way she’s going to get the Clinton vote.
That’s not to say she might not get some women’s votes, but it won’t be the ones that were going to vote for Clinton.
Stormy,
I concur, not gonna nab the Clinton vote.
I wish Mr. Love would be syndicated by the planet. I don’t always agree with him but at least he brings SOME alternate viewpoint.
Stormy: It’s already happened, http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html
To think that people (and especially the large proportion of image obsessed women) aren’t that shallow is a right laugh!
“Oh no, people won’t swing their vote just because she’s got a vagina!” yeah, right…
The problem here is that in the US, media attention swings the votes, people vote for who they’re told to vote for, after all the majority of America is populated by sheep, how else can you explain Bush getting elected, TWICE!
The reality is that sex doesn’t matter, colour doesn’t matter, religion doesn’t matter, pro-life/pro-death (that amuses me hehehe) doesn’t matter or at least non of these points should matter, in a society where they do, there are _MUCH_ bigger problems… Real issues need to be voted for, not icons in the media. You don’t pick your doctor because they’re good looking, you pick them based on their education and experience…
What I’m uncertain about is whether or not the _TWO_ American political parties actually publish a manifesto of actions to be taken, so that they’re accountable when they fail. This is what we do in Britain, still doesn’t work 100% but at least it provides a good indicator of what a party can do… Even Obama screaming “Change’ doesn’t endear me to him, its just a buzz word used to get the brain dead to get out and vote for him…
But hey, why not vote for Palin…
“VOTE VAGINA, for another glorious decade of total control! no need to think for yourself when there’s a vagina in charge men!” . . . After other recent confusing commentary from me, I should point out, YES I AM BEING SARCASTIC.
Oh and pvanhoof: feminism is just sexism, equality is something in between them both, I recently had a feminist tell me that in the early days of humanity women were as much avid hunters as men… Which seems contrary to the anthropology… That’s only one example of feminists not observing truth in the face of their insane belief structure…
I’m a meritocratist (if that’s the right word) anyone is suitable, IF they ARE suitable! Thatcher did great things for Britain, as much as she did bad things. She brought the country out of a rut into a powerful nation again, but she made errors, as to err is to human. Blair screwed us all up with his American style campaigning, astro-turfing and all that jazz… If we had any sense we would have picked someone who was qualified, rather than the best liar. My suggestion is, do exactly that, pick someone based on their politics and look at the opposition as a key to where they may be weak, discern the person best for you rather than picking the best looking or most hard line (or most fascist which seems to have been the way of late), politics is about improvement of society not control of the people.
peace out :)
Could you please explain in which ways Palin is unqualified?
And since this is in the context of an election, when you give said explanation, please point out how Obama is qualified in all of the areas Palin is not.
Ignoring the fact that you agree with Obama and not Palin, Palin has far more executive experience than Obama (none).
Well we are generally well informed about the US elections in Europe (if we want to be, that is). Apart from the offensive language which distracts from what your trying to convey here, I also think you are wrong.
There will be women that will vote for her because she is a woman, but I don’t really expect that to be a major factor. Her popularity at the moment seems completely based on her speech. A lot of people will soon realise that was a load of empty rethoric. She is mainly a vehicle to bind the ultra right wing voters to McCain.
It’s my personal opinion that the US would be better of with Obama as president but at the very least McCain is a major improvement over Bush. So up until now I was happy that a country so important to the world economy was getting an able leader again. Now I’m just worried what will happen if McCain/Palin win and something incapacitates McCain. I’m not sure I consider Palin a better candidate for the presidency than Bush.
ps. Agree with Stormy.
ps. I think John (J5) Palmieri is overreacting my political opinion. The argument that I’m “condescending” has been used far too often and I no longer really care about people calling my style “condescending”. You use it in the exact same way you accuse me of, J5: opportunistic. You’ll throw the word “condescending” around every time it suits you. That is, every time you slightly disagree with me, the European, the European, me, is a condescending cunt.
So what, of course. The word condescending is hollow anyway. And that way, of course, you can counter argument everything. But then again, so what, the word is hollow.
Instead of trying to wash everything away with a word like “condescending”, why not try to get to the point instead? Why not make a meme that does matter?
It’s necessary if you want to convince people like me. Just calling me “condescending” will in turn make you look condescending for me. As if you can be the only one who can have an opinion without being “condescending”. See how hollow it is? Recursive too, if you will.
The freedom of expression is obviously going to include the freedom to be condescending. Without the option to be condescending, how could anybody ever express his opinion and feelings? There’s simply no way. Everything anybody and any organization that ever says anything is going to be, one way or another, condescending for somebody else. Therefore .. is the word condescending hollow. Not a valid argument. At least not if you want to convince people of an important meme.
Unless, of course, you want the right to speak and express to be a right that only you have. That would give you, and only you, the right to detect condescending people.
And it would make your power hollow. Because your brain’s ideas wont be the ones who “in the minds of the other people”, is meaningful for mankind’s culture. Just your power to kill people when they are condescending will scare them. It wouldn’t make them “believe”. And making people believe is required to successfully replicate a meme. Although scare-tactics seem to work quite good too … for a limited amount of time.
Anyway, the word “condescending” is hollow. Therefore “meaningless” for me. You didn’t convince me, J5. Sorry.
John (J5) Palmieri: “Instead, you have preferred to throw around reactionist hyperbole with no real thought or insight.”
That’s possible. But it’s also possible that Philip just does not control his tone well – maybe he doesn’t care to or maybe he fails to. I know I’ve been in both groups. Either being too (say) irritated to care, or being unable to match the tone readers detect to the tone I hear in my head.
I prefer to think that about most people who irritate me. Even if I’m wrong, it still helps when I go to respond.
And J5: I explicitly explained what I mean with “real feminist”. It’s plain false and taking things out of context when you say that I used the term “real feminist” as double speak, when I near the first time I used it explained it in high detail (what I mean with it).
Let me, in high resolution and high detail, reiterate what *exactly* I wrote:
“I’m a real male feminist: I want absolute equality between genders.”
Everybody should use CTRL+F and search the comments for “real feminist”. Please also compare it with Google cache or whatever you want. Because that *is* exactly what I wrote.
There’s no way to get a double meaning out of it IF I explicitly gave the *exact* meaning of how I define the term “real feminist” the very first time I used it.
“I want absolute equality between genders.”
*IS* what I call “real feminism”.
Whatever regular feminism means, whatever “real feminism” means for other people, for me, within *this* context, real feminism got defined as “wanting absolute equality between genders”.
It’s exactly the same as:
#define REAL_FEMINISM “wanting absolute equality between genders”
How can a define be double-speak? Unless you #undef and redefine it, which I didn’t. You did, by calling it “double speak”. But my compiler wont compile your redefinition, J5. The redefinition also doesn’t make sense. It’s you who wrote the patch, yet it’s you who’s accusing me of writing it, yet I rejected it.
Trying to attack my definition for it by calling “the term” that I used, a “double speak” IF I defined it *precisely* and *carefully*, is just trying to rewrite what I wrote, J5. it’s also, related to your other accusation, opportunism of appearing as the last comment at full scale.
It’s not something the kind of people that I care about will fall for.
It’s rare, but I agree with Ian. And as a reuse of words, I’ll state that to call me condescending is a hyperbole of placing my opinion and words.
“I disagree with Philip, so I’ll think of him as condescending”. It’s easy to make your brain think that somebody is condescending. But as Ian in the past has accused (if there’s a lighter form of accusing in English, use that one for your interpretation of “accusing”) me of misinterpreting people, politics, opinions, media and whatever, accused me of “not listening”, so is easily thinking that I’m being condescending the same as “your brain” “not listening” to what I’m actually trying to say.
So I agree with Ian that perhaps I’m not very good at controlling my tone very well.
So what. I’m not trying to have a career as a diplomat.
AS an example: if J5 “in his mind, in HIS brains” redefines something I *explicitly* and *carefully* described as “wanting absolute equality between genders” as “double speak” instead … then I DO wonder how much more of his interpretation of what I did write got morphed into things that he will indeed consider as being “condescending”. If he at the same scale rewrites my words in his mind as he rewrote the term “real feminism”, then it’s just going to be plain impossible for me not to be “condescending”.
Adding to my reasoning that his word “condescending” is hollow and “meaningless”. Therefore “not convincing me”.
Anyway, the real point in my mind yesterday, now that Ian mentioned that I might be bad at placing my tone, was “incompetence of Palin”.
For the correlation to a shift in female voters I today agree with Stormy’s comments.
I hope that helps people with placing my style and words within their own sphere of condescending-ness (however you write that in English).
. . . Palin is a gender traitor
** Welcome to “The Handmaid’s Tale”, America **
McCain is a dupe. Now he’s just along for a ride into the abyss of fundamentalist political ideology, dominionism.
Palin comes “wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.” She is exactly the gender traitor dominionists need to create the xian Iran of their dreams, under xian imams, xian thugs, and their corporate overlords.
Have you ever read or ever viewed The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood? A one sentence synopsis: “In a dystopicly polluted right-wing religious tyranny, a young woman is put in sexual slavery on account of her now rare fertility.” IMDb.com/title/tt0099731
Atwood depicts a society in which women have been stripped of all rights in a fragment of a failed America, known as Gilead, a country controlled by christian fundamentalist terrorists.
Obama PACs should buy The Handmaid’s Tale, novel and DVD, by the box load and hand copies to every media person they know. Get TV outlets to broadcast it. If necessary buy time to show The Handmaid’s Tale in critical markets.
Palin emerges as a puritanical atavism directly from Atwood’s dystopia. She belongs to a possible future we must avert.
They’re coming out of the woodwork now.
Maybe this will scare them off….
I liked the movie better.
Hee!
FWIW, I also often find Philip condescending and I am not even American…
I have often found your political comments to be rash and unconvincing because you always preach to the choir.
“why not try to get to the point instead? […] It’s necessary if you want to convince people like me.”
People like you (those who don’t attempt to understand, but make vitriolic statements about people who disagree with you) are beyond convincing. I don’t know why anyone would bother.
@Tony: I’m still not convinced that simply calling everything condescending makes it more truth. Calling an opinion condescending is nothing more than an escape route. A “you are condescending so I’m better than you”. To which I replied: “But so what?”.
People who use this technique basically seem to believe that it *is* [condescending], because it *is*. That’s not an argument, that’s like how religion says that God exists, because … because what? Because there are turtles holding planet earth in its position? What about the one at the very bottom of the stack? Is it standing on yet another turtle?
My argument is that no men can state any opinion without being condescending for somebody else.
Therefore, so what?
ps. To say that people like me are beyond convincing, is yet another escape route. To question why anyone would bother contradicts with the fact that you seemed to have bothered replying.
Philip: “My argument is that no men can state any opinion without being condescending for somebody else. ”
That’s true, but it misses half the point. There’s a difference between trying to avoid pissing off readers, and not caring whether you piss off readers.
In both cases some people still get pissed off. But the latter will include a lot of people you didn’t mean to irritate, and they won’t be inclined to believe you when you say you weren’t being deliberately irritating.
Whereas if you take more care with your words and tone, the people who misinterpret you will be fewer, and more likely to get over it when you explain yourself further.
Of course, one down side to trying to sound fair and reasonable is it doesn’t draw nearly as many comments. If you’re the kind of guy who’s at home in a nasty argument, that can be a better path for you. Like attracts like.
I wont lie by saying that I dislike a good discussion. But you and me, Ian, we can still get a beer and be friends. There’s a difference, for me, between disagreeing and disliking.
I don’t know why I come up with this, I think it’s relevant.
But I don’t want to hide my opinion behind complex constructions that will avoid any form of being condescending. Because it’s not a fair pole position to have to start that way, in any discussion (for reasons I stated before, among them being that just calling somebody’s word condescending is hollow).
@Karl Lattimer: Your post ended up in the Akismet spam folder of my blog.
I mostly agree with what you said. Especially the things about Tatcher. She was a great woman, indeed, for the UK. Her capacity was her passion for the cause. That’s what made her competent for the job. Although that in the areas of Durham I noticed that not everybody was happy with Tatcher (closing of the mines, etc), yet it was necessary for the UK to have a good energy policy (nuclear energy). I don’t know all the details, of course, I’m not involved enough.
In a similar way I think Merkel might or is already doing a good job as a female politician. Those two mean(t) far more for womans in politics, than whatever Hillary has done. Hillary didn’t play the competence card. She played the “I’m Clinton’s woman and I have a vagina”-card. Who cares about either your Clinton or your vagina? Plenty of people, so it seems. But it’s the wrong reason for selecting/electing a candidate as your personal favourite, in my opinion.