Thanks for weighing in Judy, I had hoped you would. I'm finding my way with these ideas and your post helps me sort them out.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > The paradigmatic response to this approach is the > famous poem that begins "First they came for the > Jews..." Obviously sexist attacks on Palin are > vanishingly trivial compared to the Holocaust, > but the larger point may not be. > > Another version of the point is Cain's > question from the Bible, "Am I my brother's > keeper?" > > Is it ethically OK to refrain from defending > someone who is being unfairly attacked when > one doesn't have a personal investment in the > quality or characteristic on which the attack > focuses? Is one absolved of responsibility in > such a case? Of course I agree, and I guess people like yourself who have this ball in your sights will do that for society. In non election situations I am much more sympathetic to this cause. The fact that the problem with the holocaust was killing Jews not calling them names is important. Name calling does not always lead to killing. Humans have prejudices of all kinds. We can make it less visible and give some legal protections from it in the workplace. But I don't think we are going to shame it out of existence. It is usually based on people's experience with other groups. If you had a controlling mother and married a controlling woman, you may become misogynistic. My brother lives in an area with no middle class black people. He is usually in danger when he interacts with then. The exact opposite is true in my world, I am very rarely in danger from black people even though I have 50 times more interactions with them. So it is easy for me to see them as equal and very hard for my brother. We can legislate only so far, then we hit this wall of personal experiences. Most of the world leaders who are the biggest pains in the US's ass are major sexists so I don't know how much we should protect politicians from it. But in the cause itself, I can't disagree with what you are saying. Politics is a boys club. And boys play rough and are often personally unfair to each other. Women who enter this unfair alpha chimp world will find out what total pricks most power hungry guys are. I'm sure that is no surprise to you. But as the fur flies, the outcome is more important than the process IMO because the process is not going to change quickly enough. (not in two months) > > Do we consider all the white people who > participated in civil rights activities in the > South in the '60s and '70s to have been > *inappropriately* distracted by the racism they > were opposing, because they themselves had never > experienced it? The cause was civil rights, so it was the right focus in that context. But the biggest problem with the Cold War of that era was not racism so we needed to pick leaders without that as the main theme. > > <snip> > > So my advise to the press and the Democratic party is to ignore > > all the word shields being used to keep you from sandblasting > > Sara Palin from head to toe. I want you so far up her ass I > > only see the heels of your shoes. I will forgive you if you > > need to apologize afterwards for being a little rough on her. > > We don't have the time to play nice and she can take it if she > > is the real deal. But I will never forgive you if let he slip > > by with little scrutiny and she turns out to be another George > > Bush disaster. > > Another way of looking at this is to ask whether > obsessing over Sarah Palin may have the > unintended consequence of allowing John McCain to > slip by with little scrutiny--not only because > there's a great deal to be scrutinized about him, > but also because a significant portion of the > electorate may *not* be willing to graciously > forgive us for being "rough" on her, and their > outrage may inspire them to vote for the McCain- > Palin ticket in protest (which was Michael Moore's > point). I couldn't agree more. This distraction does take the heat off of McCain. The blow back problem is tricky because it seems that the right will cry foul no matter what is said. Sara can parade her pregnant daughter and baby daddy in front of us along with her "family values" and if we comment on it, we are called sexist. I know a few mothers who are appalled at this example that is being thrown in our face. This is a teen tragedy, not another example of what a great person she is. > > And of course these two points are related. If > we spend all our energy deconstructing Sarah while > neglecting to do the same for McCain, those who are > moved to protest our treatment of her by voting for > the Republican ticket won't have been given any > reason *not* to. Again agreed. It is a tough balance but if it helps I want the same treatment of McCain and Obama. But we have had more time with them so we know a little more. > > Finally, objections from the left to the sexist > attacks on Palin are not "word shields" designed > to protect her from scrutiny. They're objections > to sexism, period; the notion that we simply > cannot do a proper job on her without some sexism > creeping in is just a rationalization for indulging > in misogyny. I want people to speak up for sexism, I just don't want it to dominate the coverage of her. It is not the most important thing about her, that she is a woman. The most important thing is the role she is aspiring to. And I hope we will notice and pick apart everything about her just as we do with all the other candidates. > > And as an aside, frankly, I find it difficult to > imagine that if she were a man with the same (lack > of) experience and the same personal characteristics, > she would exercise quite the same fascination over > the supporters of the opposition. Probably not. But Putin will not care if she has to stand in front of him and let him know where some boundary is that he must not cross. > > > Oh yeah, and the fact that she did not try to shove her wacky > > beliefs about creationism being taught alongside intelligent > > design down the throats of her independently oriented fellow > > Alaskans doesn't help the fact that she equates these two > > completely different positions as having equal scientific merit. > > Actually, she's never said she thinks they have > equal scientific merit. Taught as an alternative POV means that. She doesn't have to use those words. For that matter, she's > never said she thinks the two are mutually > exclusive. I would love to know more about her position. There are scientists and religionists > who understand the two views as compatible. Not as many in the brand of religion she is wearing but you bring up a good point. Most people seem to be religious. That doesn't bother me. It is the version of religion that uses scripture in the way she has. Her position on no abortion even in incest and rape cases makes her relationship to scripture more obvious. I would like to know her nuances but I know something about this POV. She is right of Bush and that is not cool with me. We > don't know enough about her religious and > scientific views to say whether she might be one > of them. Yes I am coming in with some bias. I am suspicious of her views because of what we know already. I don't feel this way about any other candidate's religious views or even their pro-life position. > > > Houston we have a big F'n problem here. > > What you're saying, in essence, is that we need to > have a religious litmus test for the presidency. The > real F'n problem is that this cuts both ways: The > folks who like Sarah Palin could just as well demand > (and some have) that only committed fundamentalist/ > evangelical Christians be entitled to the presidency. Agreed. That is my personal litmus test and it is also there's. Right now, with the judges that will be appointed in the next 8 years on the Supreme Court, this issue will have more long lasting effects on our future than almost anything else. This is a culture war and I know what side I am on. Nice rap, any thoughts are welcome. You are keeping your eye on an important issue for our society and I welcome being reminded of its importance even in the midst of the shit storm of a candidate revealed this close to election. >
