Well .... They DID nominate a woman to be Vice President. No matter WHAT you think of the actual woman, that IS a step forward.
And, at first, I really liked Sarah Palin, before her stupidity reared its ugly head. She was the total opposite of Hilary Clinton, whom I really do not like. Hilary Clinton rejects all things feminine and goes to the extreme of butchness to throw off the "woman" stigma; I don't really mean in the way she dresses or anything, though it's mostly true there, but I mean in how she runs her politics. She bathes herself in the traditions of old politics and insinuates herself into the scene by acting more ruthlessly than a man would have to in order to achieve the same results. She HAS to go over the top or she would have been steamrolled, so that's not really her fault, but I can and do fault her for her policies, corruptness, and way of conducting herself.
Sarah Palin, though, didn't do this. She took the things about women that everyone (including other women) criticise and made them positive things. For example, she is a mother in a traditional family. She's feminine. She's emotional. She used these things to further her own agenda rather than repressing them and hiding them as if they were shameful.
I really, honestly loved this about her. It's truly unfortunate that she didn't have the goods to back it up. Because she didn't, she ended up damaging the image of women in politics even further rather than being the huge milestone she was meant to be, that she should have been.
But as much as I personally dislike Hilary Clinton, she paved the way for Sarah Palin. If the first huge woman's name in politics had been as "soft" and feminine as Palin, she would never have gotten as far as Hilary did. And Hilary, more than anyone else, set the precedent. I'm hoping that even though Palin herself was a failure, she will similarly pave the way for the next big woman's name in politics -- and that this time, the woman will meet success.
RANDOM THOUGHTS. Don't know if this is what you were looking for -- but probably not!
And, at first, I really liked Sarah Palin, before her stupidity reared its ugly head. She was the total opposite of Hilary Clinton, whom I really do not like. Hilary Clinton rejects all things feminine and goes to the extreme of butchness to throw off the "woman" stigma; I don't really mean in the way she dresses or anything, though it's mostly true there, but I mean in how she runs her politics. She bathes herself in the traditions of old politics and insinuates herself into the scene by acting more ruthlessly than a man would have to in order to achieve the same results. She HAS to go over the top or she would have been steamrolled, so that's not really her fault, but I can and do fault her for her policies, corruptness, and way of conducting herself.
Sarah Palin, though, didn't do this. She took the things about women that everyone (including other women) criticise and made them positive things. For example, she is a mother in a traditional family. She's feminine. She's emotional. She used these things to further her own agenda rather than repressing them and hiding them as if they were shameful.
I really, honestly loved this about her. It's truly unfortunate that she didn't have the goods to back it up. Because she didn't, she ended up damaging the image of women in politics even further rather than being the huge milestone she was meant to be, that she should have been.
But as much as I personally dislike Hilary Clinton, she paved the way for Sarah Palin. If the first huge woman's name in politics had been as "soft" and feminine as Palin, she would never have gotten as far as Hilary did. And Hilary, more than anyone else, set the precedent. I'm hoping that even though Palin herself was a failure, she will similarly pave the way for the next big woman's name in politics -- and that this time, the woman will meet success.
RANDOM THOUGHTS. Don't know if this is what you were looking for -- but probably not!
Reply
Leave a comment