Sarah Who?

[kitsunealyc]

Like many people, I've been wondering who the heck this Sarah Palin woman is. It seems obvious from first glance that she's been picked to snabble up some special interest votes -- like woman (cue rabid screaching about women being a "special interest" category here). I... can't even begin to go into how wrong this whole mentality is. It pushes

Comments

[ombriel]

I agree that the choice of Palin is at least in part an attempt to get some votes from Hillary supporters or women generally. But I think there's more going on, and I'd say it has less to do with female voters on the left.

For one thing, she reassures any way-right-wingers who might have been skittish about McSame's "maverick" status that their crazy interests will be looked after.

But Palin also has appeal for folks in the middle who could be persuaded by the popular narrative of the 'hot chick' &/or buy into normative gender roles: she's a former beauty pangeant winner, and she likes guns and sports. She doesn't mess with male entitlement by demanding reproductive freedom--in fact she 'walks the walk' as I've heard it said, as demonstrated by her having her down syndrome child. The Repubs are going to paint her as morally astute (in contrast to those feminazi sluts who can't take responsibility for their actions), while maintaining her appeal as the "wildly successful" 'hot chick/mom of five' (see! those feminazis are just lazy--here's a woman who has five kids and is governor AND a milf).

They will use all this to appeal to people in the middle who might have been on the fence about McSame. She's about as normative as you can get family- and interest-wise. Unlike Obama, who for people who haven't been paying attention, could still be an unknown quantity. So the choice of Palin both assuages racial anxiety and comforts with its gender normativity, I think.

And I predict Repubs will call out Dems and the media for sexism any chance they get. Let's hope the Dems and the media know better than go there.

So yeah. I think this is as much about undecided people in the middle as it is women as a group. Hopefully everyone will see right through it and know it for the desperate move it is.

Sorry for the long diatribe--this has been on my mind.

[angel932]

I have to wonder how it will really play with the 'non-working mom with infant' crowd.

I'm horrified to discover this about myself, since I am a feminist from waaaay back, but the whole idea of her having such a young (not to mention special needs) child and running for such a time-intensive, travel-intensive position somehow doesn't sit well with me.

Now, I never thought those words would come out of my mouth and I keep kicking myself for being all judgey about it, and perhaps the father will be the primary care-giver and yay for him if that is the case, but I just keep thinking "You have a tiny baby! You could have said no."

Two of my very close friends also have Downs children and it takes incredible time, patience and energy from both parents (as does any infant!) Most of my good friends are teachers who can only take 6 month sabbaticals at the most (this is only if they plan well and have this baby in June). I have no problem with professional and political women having children; working moms are a fact of life and more power to them for having more energy that I. Didn't the governor of Michigan had twins while in office? But this whole thing just smacks of opportunism and poor judgment (from both Palin and McClain).

I've never had children, so I usually stay out of the war of words, and of course, I think all women should be free to make any choice they want about anything in their lives (including reproduction)so I'm a bit embarrassed to even type this because I didn't know I would think it. Hmmmmm.