Comments | xtremeroswellia: Yep, another political post.

xtremeroswellia

Yep, another political post.

Sep 12, 2008 09:48

Why Sarah Palin is bad news for women.

Just because someone is a woman doesn't mean they care about things like rape victims, teen mothers, etc.

issue: politics and government

Comments 8

Don't hate me but... chiri_chan September 12 2008, 16:58:32 UTC

She actually is pro-contraceptives which that article gets wrong; it also gets wrong her stance on creationism & the library debate and leaves out some pretty vital information about the Trooper's own suspension record.

Though I agree her stance on rape victims is more than a little bizarre, that's at least three factual inaccuracies in this article which is a bit unnerving for me. Granted I think there are plenty of reasons to dislike (and don't read the above as an endorsement) Sarah Palin on the issues themselves but I am amazed at the lack of citation on this article.

Re: Don't hate me but... tiggrrl September 12 2008, 20:06:02 UTC

Actually, that article doesn't mention contraceptives at all, so it hardly misrepresents her on it. She is very clearly against comprehensive sex ed, there really can't be any debate over that.

If you take a look at the site you cited, it also states that she is for teacher-led prayer in public schools, and for teaching creationism in public schools. Not teaching *only* creationism, mind you, but still for teaching it alongside actual science as equally valid. The fact that she hasn't pushed to force this does not change her actual views.

The CA NOW article also never says that Palin tried to ban actual books (the supposed lists of books going around are false), but that she asked about censoring books, and that after the librarian said she wouldn't censor, Palin tried to have her fired. This is completely accurate. While one can debate the reasons behind the firing, the fact is Palin asked her about book banning three times, she said she would refuse every time, and the firing was said by Palin to be because she did not have ( ... )

Re: Don't hate me but... chiri_chan September 12 2008, 20:59:11 UTC

there really can't be any debate over that.

I actually don't know what level she's apposed to. "Explicit means explicit"?

If you take a look at the site you cited

I know what I cited. :) My point is that she is not a sole creationist - which for a Republican candidate is better than some. In the last election 66 percent wanted creationism taught in schools along with evolution. [Which of course makes me think that 66% of Americans are stupid, but there you go.]

but that she asked about censoring books, and that after the librarian said she wouldn't censor, Palin tried to have her fired

The librarian also didn't support her in the election which I would think would be a factor ( ... )

Re: Don't hate me but... tiggrrl September 14 2008, 20:15:36 UTC

The New York Times now has more confirmation of the book banning issue.

cheapevilgirl September 12 2008, 22:17:56 UTC

One of the first things I heard about Sarah Palin after she got the nomination was her stand of abortion even in the case of rape. Being Pro-life is fine but you can't sit there and tell me a women who did nothing wrong should have to carry her rapist baby.

BTW love your icon.

xtremeroswellia September 13 2008, 00:31:33 UTC

Thanks :D

mshaffer September 12 2008, 23:28:41 UTC

National Organization for Women? What a joke. They only promote the advancement of liberal women. Oh, but if you tell the truth about being sexually abused or raped by a Democrat President, you are trailer trash. There are a few items that are true in the article that you cite, but most of it is lies or at least major distortions. Sarah Palin is an exemplary example of what a feminist role model should be.

xtremeroswellia September 13 2008, 00:32:12 UTC

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion :)