Yeah, I said it. There are so many reasons that this woman gives me agita, sometimes I just freeze when I hear her name. It’s like 10 times worse than thinking about Bratz.
My agita is not all about her (though I find her policies atrocious); it’s because her VP candidacy has once again focused this election on personality rather than the issues. Not to mention the fact that reactions to and defenses of her--from both the Left and the Right--reek of sexism.
Since my Palin-agita typically renders me incoherent, I'm going to need to use bullets. Here are just some of the many reasons I despise her candidacy:
- Her policy on the environment (This one is a must-read.)
- Her views on abortion (If you feel like laughing while being pissed off at Republican hypocrisy, see Samantha Bee's take on Bristol Palin's "choice.")
- Her policy on sex education
- Her stance on same sex marriage
- Her take on civil liberties in general
- Her lack of knowledge about issues (see Bush Doctrine, etc.)... not to mention how insulting it is that it is this woman we're discussing over intelligent, accomplished politicians like Hillary Clinton. Oh, and while we’re on the topic...
- The difference in treatment between Palin and Clinton (I hope to read more commentary on this, because I haven't seen a whole lot yet. For now, there’s Warner’s "Mirrored Ceiling" piece that gestures towards what I would call Palin’s “palatable feminism” in relation to Clinton’s. There’s also Collins’s commentary here in which she argues that in comparison to Clinton’s achievement, Palin’s nomination “feels like a step back.” Uh, yeah. More like a mile back.)
- The sexist treatment of Palin by some Obama supporters! Come on now, people! Set aside the fact that it’s offensive: there’s no way to win using that strategy now that conservatives have discovered sexism. I’ve had a hard time with NOW this year (there was, you know, the whole primary season), but I think that their recent statement on the treatment of Palin is spot-on: “...we should defeat anti-women's rights candidates like Sarah Palin based on their merits and their positions, not their gender.”
In “The Mirrored Ceiling,” Judith Warner states that “real people” find Palin
acceptably “real,” because Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.
That’s the worst thing a woman can be in this world, isn’t it? Intimidating, which appears to be synonymous with competent. It’s the kiss of death, personally and politically.
But shouldn’t a woman who is prepared to be commander in chief be intimidating? Because of the intelligence, experience, talent and drive that got her there? If she isn’t, at least on some level, off-putting, if her presence inspires national commentary on breast-pumping and babysitting rather than health care reform and social security, then something is seriously wrong. If she doesn’t elicit at least some degree of awe, then something is missing.
Yes, yes, and yes.
