It’s been a long, long time since I warmed to a female politician just because she was a woman. I think blokes more likely to do that – they may be more likely to award extra points for a decent pair of tits, etc…?

Anyway – I read the lovely Sarah’s bio, noted that she was an anti-abortionist and a gun lover, ran my eyes over her fearsome ‘Even though I’m 40, I’m still a babe – look at my amazing babe hairdo’ hairdo, and promptly filed the whole Palin development under ‘business as usual on the political Right.’

No woman in reasonable mental health is going to go for this overblown, pro-life, supremicist tart. Do me a favour. A neocon is a neocon – who cares that this one happens to be in drag?

Etc.

From her speech:

“it was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.””

Ben

More vapid, tedious shit from the hack Iain Dale.

“The left hate it when a woman succeeds on the right. They cannot stand it when a black person becomes famous as a Conservative – remember Ray Lewis?”

Not going to give any evidence for this, eh?

The f***** has got no self-respect whatsoever…

Ben – even though she’d said earlier Hillary Clinton was “whining”. I wonder how the Clinton supporters will take that.

Anyway, the pro-Clinton, anti-Obama contingent is vastly exaggerated. Obama has higher support among Democrats, as a percentage, than both Kerry and Gore had at this point.

“Peter Hitchens is shocked, shocked I say, that feminists aren’t falling over themselves to support John McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin… Dale and Hitchens want to know why women aren’t automatically supporting Palin, just on the basis of her sex, even though hey’re apparently against identity politics.”

Here is what Hitchens actually wrote in full:

“Watch as the ultra-feminist sisterhood back away in horror from Sarah Palin, John McCain’s new running mate.

“Mrs Palin is technically female, but she’s enthusiastically married, hates abortion and thinks criminals should not be the only people allowed to own guns. She’s everything Hillary Clinton isn’t. In short, she’s the wrong kind of woman.

“Which just goes to show that ultra-feminists are not actually interested in promoting women because they’re women. They pretend they are, but really their agenda is a campaign against marriage, in favour of abortion and for every other disastrous liberal and socialist cause that ever existed. In which case, they really can’t go on pretending that their opponents are women-hating bigots.”

Why do you go on and on about how shocked Hitchens is when his words give no hint of surprise? Where does he call for women specifically to back her on grounds of her sex? What he does is note that ultra-feminists care more about a woman’s politics than her sex – they’re about advancing a political agenda rather than advancing women per se. How you can try to refute this by quoting a feminist saying “I think the politics of the person matter, not just their identity, however symbolic” boggles the mind. This *supports* Hitchens’ point.

“No woman in reasonable mental health is going to go for this overblown, pro-life, supremicist tart”

Very unpleasant echoes of the way Russian dissidents used to be sent to mental institutions under socialism. Are men insane if they disagree with your politics, or is it only women who must fall into line politically if they don’t want their mental health questioned? Why is she a tart? Because she’s attractive? Do you say that about attractive male politicians?

Peter – judging by your comment, I smell troll. However, I’ll aim to give you a response nonetheless.

P.Hitchens gives no evidence whatsoever of these ‘ultra feminists’. Who are they? Where are they? I can’t help thinking that if you construct everything you’re saying around mere assertions, no-one has to take you seriously even for a minute.

The feminists Sunny has mentioned, who probably fall within his bizarre category (‘ultra’) simply by being openly feminist, merely said that they don’t need to agree with all that Palin believes in, just because she’s a woman. Much like Hitchens himself wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything Gordon Brown says, just because GB’s a man.

@ Kate: I have to say too that ‘tart’ was really not the best choice of word. I think that Palin is a somewhat deluded have-her-cake-and-eat-it type (feminist AND pro-life, anti-corruption while being investigated over accusations of political interference herself…) and her hair scares me a little with its somewhat unnatural height at times (Hillary had ‘power hair’ too ;-P). However, calling her a ‘tart’, ‘bimbo’ or otherwise plays into the hands of Hitchens and his ilk!

Peter @ 5,

Please don’t say you are quoting someone, in this case Hitchins, in full when you leave off the final para, which says:

Not least because they are the bigots – merciless when it comes to a choice between their own convenience and the life of an unborn baby.

That is all.

Douglas, mea culpa, you’re right. Obviously I did intend to quote the last paragraph too, and nothing it implies the shock or the call for women to back ANY woman that the post suggests.

Amrit, again, I don’t understand how what you say is supposed to contradict Hitchens. He is saying precisely that one can disagree legitimately with a woman’s politics as much as one can disagree with Brown’s.

Peter, no worries, it’s an easy thing to do. Sorry if I sounded a bit short there. This is a debate where I haven’t made my mind up on the candidate one way or the other. Which is an interesting place to be, given that almost every commentator seems to be be treating Sarah Palin as a tabula rasa, if you see what I mean. And the conspiraloons seem to be out in force too. Not, I hasten to add, on this site.

Not sure what all this ‘cracks in the glass ceiling’ stuff is about. Geraldine Ferraro 24 years ago, anyone?

You don’t have to be an ultra-feminist to be pro-choice, Hitchens!

QuestionThat.

You don’t have to be an ultra-feminist to be pro-choice, Hitchens!

Agreed.

I think one of the best debates that there ever was on here was over abortion. And the consensus – here – got it right. I was swayed, if you like.

Christopher seems to have other ideas. Perhaps he should try to persuade us we were wrong?

I am a fairly socially conservative male. I don’t like the incidence of abortion, or any of that stuff. But I accept that it is the lesser of two evils.

Peter, you say:
Where does he call for women specifically to back her on grounds of her sex?

Hitchens says:
Which just goes to show that ultra-feminists are not actually interested in promoting women because they’re women. They pretend they are, but really their agenda

If he agrees with the feminist stance, then what is he going on about? Of course feminists are not going to promote women just because they’re women.

Feminists are interested in issues that advance female choice and equality. What’s there to cry about? Why in the world should feminists support a woman who is anti-abortion full stop… not even counting her support for creationism teachings?

I don’t like the incidence of abortion, or any of that stuff. But I accept that it is the lesser of two evils.

douglasclarke, I absolutely agree with you. And I never thought I’d write that sentence…

DK

Doubtless much of the criticism aimed at Palin is sincere.

One can’t help but think that at least part of it must be mixed with concern, though – if the reactionary parties have taken to ascending women to such high positions then does what this say about the beloved “Patriarchy” that feminists are entirely ideologically dependent upon?

Well, in reality, it displays its shattered and ended state. The Republicans use women as a means to win an election, thus displaying the power which women in contemporary society possess. This was a victory, incidentally, of the very First Wave of feminism. Let us not speak out against that, or minimise what was a feminist achievement of a feminist goal. But to pretend that the model of male dominance remains in power after this development is nothing short of laughable.

DK,

Well, you won’t agree with a word I have to say about you on the other place. Consider this a football match in no mans land during the first World War.

Difficult isn’t it. Such a shame we can’t have a candidate that is both pro-choice AND anti-rape: http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/twoways_s.jpg

Colleagues may be interested in my challenge to Dale, Hitchens et al, here:
http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2008/09/palins-paleo-con-backed-by-tories-in.html

It’s going to be fun watching the US work through its ‘Margaret Thatcher’ moment re. Sarah Palin. It seems that all she brings to the table is that she’s (a) right-wing, and (b) female, so it”s hard to see how the choice helps McCain with anyone outside the hardcore Xian Republicans. It also puts all the pro-Clinton ‘PUMA’ types on the spot: do they want a female president so badly they’re prepared to vote for McCain and then hope he snuffs it (maybe they’ve been watching Commander in Chief instead of The West Wing)? As for feminists, I agree with Zohra’s comment – but so much ‘pop feminism’ and lazy writing about gender (not just by men) regard women/feminist as interchangeable that it makes such right-wing opportunism inevitable. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s campaign: It’s the ideology, stupid.

Does anyone apart from the likes of Iain Dale take Peter Hitchens seriously?

Palin has big problems. She has an un married daughter who is pregnant, despite Palin’s belief in abstinence only teaching. Maybe if she had taught the basics of the facts of life and contraceptives, her daughter may not be up the duff.

She is now having to lawyer herself up against accusations that she had a state trooper fired because of a family dispute. She also does not know the basis of the pledge of allegiance. She claims that ‘Under God’ was put in by the founding fathers. It was actually put in in the 1950s.

She is a typical, simpleton religious fundie nut, so it is no wonder Hitchens and Dale like her.

“Palin has big problems. She has an un married daughter who is pregnant, despite Palin’s belief in abstinence only teaching. Maybe if she had taught the basics of the facts of life and contraceptives, her daughter may not be up the duff.”

So because her daughter “made a mistake”, or perhaps wasn’t in the 100% authoritarian grip of her mother…Palin is suddenly incapable of being a politician and is also a hypocrite? Get real already, the actions of someone else, and the subsequent fall out and managing of the situation are COMPLETELY independent of her beliefs on abstinence. If she’d had got her daughter to abort the baby and covered that up maybe you’d have a shred of a point. For once.

The ‘pledge’ story and the ‘trooper’ story are true though.

And while some might think that persuading a 17-year-old to go through with a pregnancy for the sake of morality Jeebus her mum’s career is a respectable and worthy thing, they’re wrong.

(blimmin’ HTML purging. Imagine “morality” and “Jeebus” are strike-out-ed…)

Re John Blads post above, is this a new form of devowelling?

“And while some might think that persuading a 17-year-old to go through with a pregnancy for the sake of morality Jeebus her mum’s career is a respectable and worthy thing, they’re wrong.”

If you can argue it was for her career, which I have no opinion on. My point is much as Aaron’s has been…politically it’s a non-starter that will divide opinion more than provide ammunition against the republicans. I find it laughable that it keeps getting brought up as any kind of serious point, because it isn’t.

So because her daughter “made a mistake”, or perhaps wasn’t in the 100% authoritarian grip of her mother…Palin is suddenly incapable of being a politician and is also a hypocrite?

No you get real Lee. This is another typical Republican hypocrite who preaches abstinence only teaching . This policy has been backed by the Republicans, and has failed badly in places like Texas, where huge amounts of tax $ have been spent. Now we have a Republican Governor who also backs this policy ,but it does not even work in her own family. Seeing as people like her also oppose abortion, it is a very stupid and dangerous policy.

She’s the worst type of Christian fundamentalist hypocrite.

I think Lee you are a pit of a concern troll.

I think the more worthy of attention part of the daughter’s pregnancy story is the fact that she’s going to marry the father. Now, whether she was intending to or not is obviously unprovable, but I don’t think there’s anything that debases the “sanctity” of marriage more than a shotgun wedding because someone’s fell pregnant, especially when Palin so vigorously opposes gay marriage for just that reason.

“…especially when Palin so vigorously opposes gay marriage for just that reason.”

Uhhh… maybe she just has a different concept of what sanctity means than you, one that isn’t based on personal autonomy but on the assumption that a child is a blessing (whatever the circumstances of the conception) and that the right thing to do in those circumstances is to ensure they have a family life. I don’t agree with it myself, but it makes more sense to me than the left’s apparent position on the family: don’t make any demands on parents and let the state fill in the gaps (poorly).

The root of feminism is about equality, not if your are liberal or conervative, not if you are for god or against god, not if you are for abortion or against abortion.

If you think feminism should be about abortion, political affiliation, and religion…then it is not a civil right fight, but basically an ideaology your are pushing…nothing different than radical islam and fundemtalist christianity.

I want to teach my daughter that you can be a feminist of any race, with different views, and that the real calling of a feminist is to believe that they have been created equalt to a men.