Is Chasing The Palin Birth Hoax Story Sexist?
against women, on the basis of sex. ~ Oxford English Dictionary
A fellow TMV contributor and a frequent commenter tried to take me to the woodshed last week — picture if you will the contributor grabbing one arm of a 6-foot-2 guy with broad shoulders and big biceps and the commenter my other arm — because of their pique over my latest whack at the Sarah Palin birth hoax conspiracy story.
Both made it clear that while they find Palin reprehensible as a politician, they believed my interest in the story is simply because I am sexist.
I understand that sexism, like racism and some other isms, can be in the eye’s of the beholder, and some other commenters came to my defense, but I was puzzled as these two people poured on the invective.
I happen to be someone who had a salutatory record for hiring women for what traditionally had been men’s jobs in the newspaper business, who received awards from women’s organizations for my initiatives to bring gender balance to newsrooms and for investigative projects on issues of concern to women, especially poor single mothers, who mentored two women who went on to win Pulitzer Prizes, who had a mother who was a feminist before that term was widely used, who raised a daughter and has more close woman friends than men. Oh, and contributes to Planned Parenthood.
So I was puzzled to read their comments:
“This little crusade you’ve got going on seems like sexism qua sexism, and nothing else.”
“[You use] an age-old sexist tactic: acting like legitimate criticism of long-used sexist memes is just thin skin.”
“Saying that a woman is unfit for power because of what she does or does not do with her genitalia is one of the oldest forms sexism, Shaun, and it’s not changed in thousands of years.”
“[Your comment] is pretty undeniably and blatantly sexist.”
“This sort of reproductive womb policing has been used to shame women in deeply hurtful, fundamentally unfair ways for the length of recorded history. It’s been sexist for literally as long as there has been human society, so, um, it’s still sexist now.”
An aside: If I were a woman, would my pursuit of the Palin story still be considered sexist?
And another aside: Does going after a prominent male politician for refusing to answer questions about an aspect of his personal life that calls into question his honesty or fitness for higher office constitute misandry when the journalist is a woman? If not, isn’t that a double standard?
Speaking of double standards, I was remiss in not noting in my post last week that Palin’s own record when it comes to demanding that her opponents and enemies produce certain documents makes her . . . well, I don’t want to get into any more trouble with the woodshed police.
Anyhow, Palin’s surrogates demanded that John Stein, her opponent in her first race, produce a marriage license to prove he was married because his wife had retained her maiden name. When he produced it, the surrogates claimed it was forged.
Palin also got on the Obama birther bandwagon early, and up until the day that the president produced his long-form birth certificate repeatedly called on Donald Trump to keep digging about the “true” circumstances of his birth.
26 Responses to “Is Chasing The Palin Birth Hoax Story Sexist?”
“Puzzled”? You were “puzzled”? Again, as I said in the earlier thread, if any of my criticism is unclear, by all means, ask about what you don’t understand. I thought it was pretty damn clear, so you’re little innocent game of “I don’t get it, I mean, I won awards for being good to women” is pretty disingenuous.
If you really care about what hurts women — in the workplace and otherwise — try to understand that it is really sexist to stick your nose into the reproductive choices of women you don’t know, even if those women happen to be ones who are trying to get a job in the public eye.
An aside: If I were a woman, would my pursuit of the Palin story still be considered sexist?
Yes.
And another aside: Does going after a prominent male politician for refusing to answer questions about an aspect of his personal life that calls into question his honesty or fitness for higher office constitute misandry when the journalist is a woman? If not, isn’t that a double standard?
This is much like the question about whether it’s racist if black people don’t like white people in the same way as reverse. There has been no millenia-long history of women taking away the rights and bodily autonomy of men, so even if an exactly analogous system existed, which it can’t due to simple biology, it *still* would not be exactly the same. Misandry just doesn’t exist like sexism does, Shaun. Sorry, you menfolk get all the money, power, rights, and bodily autonomy that women wish we had; you don’t also “get” to be the victim of institutional and individual bigotry. Big sad face for you?
On the other hand, I am quite pleased with the mental imagery of Kathy and I grabbing so-called progressive men who nevertheless seem to enjoy throwing women under the bus whenever it’s convenient by either arm and showing them what-for. In a non-violent way, of course.
I think it makes you more clueless than sexist but there is clearly a sexist part to your rants.
I don’t remember that. I do recall them saying that the interest is sexist. There is a difference.
Liberal misogyny (as with, e.g., liberal racism) is simply another example of That Liberal Hypocrisy, Again.
Loathing of “traitors” to liberalism and the Democratic Party would be a separate specific explanation here, along with possible mental illness, neurotic rather than psychotic.
(the Trig Palin birth obsession, not just standard Palin-bashing)
Yes, DLS, I can agree with calling it hypocrisy, at least for some. It’s not hypocritical for conservatives to be sexist, though. Let’s just say I wouldn’t be so quick to point it out if I were a conservative man like you, DLS.
SM,
Three thoughts:
1. Do you want some cheese with this whine?
2. I think this post is actually a violation of TMV’s current guidelines for contributing writers, but I will let the Higher Authorities take that up with you, if necessary.
3. I’m actually more amused than angry. Actually, I’m not angry at all. I take the apparent fact that you are so stung by the comments Roro and I made regarding the sexism in your previous post (and comments) as a compliment. Maybe a perverse compliment, but a compliment none the less.
Kathy
Kathy:
I am not “stung.” I am trying to foster a discussion about why some people believe that going after Palin regarding the alleged pregnancy can only be sexist even, in roro80′s eyes, if the pursuer is a woman herself.
Why you would want to stifle this discussion is beyond my understanding.
And if there has been a violation of that TMV policy, what you did in the comments thread to my post last week was grand larceny. And now you’ve returned to the scene of the crime.
If you’d like to foster that discussion, you could just ask those who think that it is sexist. You have yet to do so. You repeated many of the (very good, correct) points made the other day, yet failed in your piece to address any of them. My only guess is that you meant to show them here to make fun of them, but unfortunately for your argument, you’ve written a bunch of comments by Kathy and me that are, in fact, true. And obviously so. In any case, if you’re trying to “foster discussion” instead of complaining that the mean ladies called you a name (which you deserved), then let’s have a discussion, Shaun. Most discussions don’t start with butthurt retaliatory posts, but I am quite forgiving. If you’d like to have a discussion, let’s have one. I’d *love* to have a discussion.
I’d like to point out that you actually are using the argument that “some of my best friends are women” in your post. C’mon Shaun.
Does the mere fact of questioning the veracity of Palin’s story automatically make the questioner a misogynist? Is it just possible the sole purpose is a quest for the truth? Is the truth important? Who decides when it is and when it isn’t?
“This sort of reproductive womb policing has been used to shame women in deeply hurtful, fundamentally unfair ways for the length of recorded history. It’s been sexist for literally as long as there has been human society, so, um, it’s still sexist now.”
Discussion point number 1: do you agree or disagree that womb policing has been harmful for women for essentially all of recorded history?
Discussion point number 2: you seem to be very surprised that a woman who uses other women’s reproductive choices to belittle them and keep them out of positions of power could not possibly be sexist. In other words, you seem not to believe in the idea of interalized bigotry. Would you like me to go look for some good sources on interalized misogyny? I’d be happy to do so.
If you’d like to discuss, let’s discuss. As I said, even though you wrote this piece to make fun of the silly ladybrainz of the feminists who want you to get your nose out of other people’s girlybits, I am forgiving. I am iminently willing to have a conversation about the subject.
Is the truth important?
No. It’s not. Why would it be? Why do you care?
roro80:
Point 1: Of course womb policing has been harmful and you have made it clear that you believe me to be doing that. And so we have a fundamental disconnect because it never occurred to me that chasing the hoax story was womb policing.
So I suppose we will have to agree to disagree insofar as you are giving me a motive that I never assigned to myself.
Point 2: I do not know what Palin’s reproductive choice was and that is precisely why this story will not go away.
And while we are discussing, you undercut your own arguments by saying that the truth is not important and belittling a commenter whose own view is that the truth is important.
He is entitled to his view, you yours and me mine.
So I suppose we will have to agree to disagree insofar as you are giving me a motive that I never assigned to myself.
Shaun, you don’t have to be trying to do harm to do harm. I am not assigning you a motive. You say it never occurred to you that you were policing a womb, but now that the idea has been presented, can you see how that is, in fact, what’s going on? Can you see how when you police the wombs of women you don’t like, you also hurt the women you do like, or that you don’t even know — even if you don’t sit down and think to yourself “I want to oppress women because I am a man and am better”? You don’t have to set out to be oppressive to have the effect of being oppressive. When someone points out that you are doing harm, however, and then you continue to do that harm, it’s a whole new game. That’s when ignorance turns to intended harm.
I do not know what Palin’s reproductive choice was and that is precisely why this story will not go away.
But Shaun, why do you care? Really, why do you care? You say you are looking for “truth”, but the truth about this is no more your business than whether or not Madeline Albright has herpes or whether Hillary Clinton had sex before she met Bill. These things do not affect the performance of these women in their public positions.
As I said earlier, Palin has lied about everything that actually *does* affect her ability to lead. Why not go after the provable lies that are definitely the business of the voting public?
And while we are discussing, you undercut your own arguments by saying that the truth is not important and belittling a commenter whose own view is that the truth is important.
I did not belittle him, first, and second my position on whether what she says about the baby is the truth has been absolutely and totally consistent. The point is that it does not matter, and it is not our business. You are not “entitled” (to use your word) to it, any more than I am entitled to know how many people you’ve slept with.
I have an unambiguous record of being pro-woman on gender related issues – including reproductive rights, but I also have concerns about truth and character in aspiring presidential candidates that I wouldn’t have about anyone else. That said, I’m a little surprised (in the wake of the John Edwards lie) that it isn’t the Palin fans who are concerned. In any case, I’m not about to lose any sleep over it one way or the other. If the electorate is brain-dead enough to make Palin our next president, a lie about motherhood will be the least of my concerns.
I also have concerns about truth and character in aspiring presidential candidates that I wouldn’t have about anyone else.
This is understandable, but do you really have unanswered questions about whether or not hers is a character you want in national leadership? If it were proven without a doubt that she did or did not push little Trip through the birth canal after 6 hours of labor, would that actually change your mind on whether or not to vote for her? As I’ve said before, the woman cannot open her mouth without something untrue popping out of it, 99% of which would actually make a difference to the population if she were in office. There’s a ton of room for proving she’s a lying liar who has no business near leading anything let alone the country, without getting into panty sniffing. Again, the womb policing hurts us all.
Let the record show I think it was all pure chick- baiting from day one.
JSpencer, just one further point. If you found out that one of your favorite woman politicians or figures or even neighbors — someone you’d respected for a very long time — had opened up her home to a special-needs child that was physically carried by an adult daughter, would you really decide that that ruined her character or her ability to do a good job? Or might you think that maybe that woman, her family, and the baby all deserve their privacy? Would you think that it is your business?
Roro, you raise good questions and of course you’re right about there already being plenty of reason to reject Palin based on truth and character. And I also agree that Palin’s intentions in this regard may well have been honorable and protective. My concern is pretty specific though and is about principle – meaning when and why we are willing to bend it. Is this my business? I’d have to say no, but it is a classic case of end justifying means and we are talking about a prez contender. So Shaun, do you think the legs are falling off this story?
dear all, if anyone thinks assigning what others are thinking characterologically or otherwise, is thoughtful ‘dispassionate’ discussion, that would be in error unless you have a long blue wrinkled robe and a certified crystal ball.
The article questions if there is a double standard depending on which gender questions whichever gender about whether they have been truthful.
archangel/ dr.e
Thanks, dr.e……………………
I could not agree more. One hopes that, going forward, a person who claims to be requesting dispassionate discussion will request it in a dispassionate, rather than an accusatory, manner.
Kathy
I’m fine with passionate discussion, personally, as long as it is entered into in good faith. It think it’s pretty fair to say that this particular discussion — the point of which was to call out two individual members of this community — was not entered into in good faith by the OP. I’m not a mod or a contributor here, of course, and I will do my best to follow the rules here.
I would like to point out, though, that the entire point of this post was to point at me as some sort of ball-buster who couldn’t possibly have a legitimate reason for being loudly grossed out by the behavior of the author. This, even though I have given my reasons, which have been ignored. Over and over and over. This post was not about double standards, it was about the wounded paw of someone with a platform.
I’m surprised at how many people seem to be waking up in the morning worried more about their sex (whether they are male or female) than they worry about the issues of the day… so pre-pubescent. [AKA 'childish' ht to DLS]
Guess that part of what makes me an old ‘person.’
How lucky for you to be so evolved, Steve.
It certainly is roro, I’m ever so pleased that you noticed.
With a blog with a professor that ‘profess’ corporate motivational meetings and a Dr that works for the Health Care Industry maybe you and I should preface our screen names with ‘Humble Genesis’
So I guess that’s it, Shaun? You write an entire post about how Kathy and I “took you to the woodshed”, quote me extensively without addressing the content of a single one of those quotes, feign puzzlement over said woodshed-taking, become insensed when Kathy calls it whining, insisting you just want to foster discussion, and then refuse to discuss? Really?
Look, I am more than willing to have a conversation with you on this, but you do not seem willing. YOU wrote a post about ME here, Shaun. YOU called ME out. You raised points, each of which I have repectfully answered — even after you have repeatedly called me out in craven and disrespectful ways, in bad faith ways.