Sarah Palin

[Huckleman2000]

I'd like to amplify Dr. M's & Selena's astute points about Palin As New-Feminist Archetype, and Rob's point about the Authoritarian mindset and Conservatism or Submissiveness. Also to amplify the whole BDSM overtone, since I would really get off getting tied up and teased for awhile by Sarah. Yes, I would love to fuck Sarah Palin; but then, I've had a vasectomy.

When Sarah Palin was introduced, the first thing she did was make a joke at her husband's expense. "I told my husband he was getting a surprise for our Anniversary, and I certainly think this qualifies."

First Dude Todd smiled and nodded, probably thinking, "Really, honey, I'd rather have gotten the blowjob."

And every man watching realized, in his reptile mind, "That guy's never going to have sex again. Sheesh, as if the Down's Baby wouldn't put him off enough!"

In that innocuous interplay, Sarah Palin declared to the world that her reproductive sexuality is her power, and she will use it most ruthlessly within her own family. This was only reinforced by the way she dealt with her daughter's surprise pregnancy - a shotgun wedding.

For someone who trots out her family at every opportunity to demonstrate her uber-Mom cred, she gives no credit to the ones who actually seem to be putting in the parenting hours, i.e., Todd and Bristol.

Yes, this is a new Feminine Archetype; moreover, it's a fictional Superwoman. It takes the Patriarchal structure and reverses its gender, with no acknowledgment or apology for using the very same reproductive power to enslave the opposite sex; in this case the male. This Superwoman appropriates the 'traditional' male behavioral role without ceding the respect for her own 'traditional' role to the persons who have stepped in to fill the gap. She wants to bake her cake and eat it herself.

 

[Pure]

New archetype?

Paglia's been quoted, asserting that SP is a muscular feminist, in the archeypal annie oakley mode.

I'm not convinced. I think a better comparison is with Elle Woods, she of "legally blonde".

picture: http://www.fileshack.com/images/finclude/images/041703_blonde.jpg

comments, blogs on the topic
http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/granju/2008/09/sarah-palin-as-elle-woods.html

http://mhollick.typepad.com/homodox_a_blog/2008/08/sarah-palin-as-elle-woods.html


This totally feminine figure with some real intelligence and skills on exhibit, but not in macho or even machisma way. However, in interviews she doesn't sound so competent as Elle. Maybe she's on a short leash, out of her element.


======
PAGLIA'S PIECE
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/print.html

[start excerpts]
Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist.

In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making.

Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation -- a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.


As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, [...]

[...]
It is certainly premature to predict how the Palin saga will go. I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut and at the Republican convention, where she astonishingly dealt with multiple technical malfunctions without missing a beat. A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit.

Perhaps Palin seemed perfectly normal to me because she resembles so many women I grew up around in the snow belt of upstate New York. For example, there were the robust and hearty farm women of Oxford, a charming village where my father taught high school when I was a child.

We first lived in an apartment on the top floor of a farmhouse on a working dairy farm. Our landlady, who was as physically imposing as her husband, was an all-American version of the Italian immigrant women of my grandmother's generation -- agrarian powerhouses who could do anything and whose trumpetlike voices could pierce stone walls.

Here's one episode. My father and his visiting brother, a dapper barber by trade, were standing outside having a smoke when a great noise came from the nearby barn. A calf had escaped. Our landlady yelled, "Stop her!" as the calf came careening at full speed toward my father and uncle, who both instinctively stepped back as the calf galloped through the mud between them.

Irate, our landlady trudged past them to the upper pasture, cornered the calf, and carried that massive animal back to the barn in her arms. As she walked by my father and uncle, she exclaimed in amused disgust, "Men!" [end excerpts]

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Paglia's been quoted, asserting that SP is a muscular feminist, in the archeypal annie oakley mode.

I'm not convinced. I think a better comparison is with Elle Woods, she of "legally blonde".

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/granju/2008/09/sarah-palin-as-elle-woods.html

http://mhollick.typepad.com/homodox_a_blog/2008/08/sarah-palin-as-elle-woods.html


This totally feminine figure with some real intelligence and skills on exhibit, but not in macho or even machisma way. However, in interviews she doesn't sound so competent as Elle. Maybe she's on a short leash, out of her element.

*laugh*

That's a great comparison.

 

[Pure]

palin [fey] interview

palin [tina fey] interview

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/27/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-k_n_129956.html

 

[jeninflorida]

please hillary has a bigger penis than bill so sure, hillary is jealous. she wants to do Sarah

On the face of it , a brilliant choice but she better not drop the ball. Makes Biden look very old hat, but we shall see

I wonder what Hillary thinks?

Is she as funny as Michael?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think huckleman's right. She's really nothing new. She's preserves the old power structure of the family, just reverses the gender roles. She's not lipstick on a pig; she's lipstick on a penis.

She's a femme-male.

 

[jeninflorida]

well if you can look past her party, have we ever had a milf in office?

which is so wrong on so many levels (what I said).

I think huckleman's right. She's really nothing new. She's preserves the old power structure of the family, just reverses the gender roles. She's not lipstick on a pig; she's lipstick on a penis.

She's a femme-male.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

By the "between your legs" comment, I didn't mean that there were no differences -- I meant that it wasn't something that anyone could take away from you.




What I want is for there not to BE a power differential -- not man on top, not woman on top. I think the problem is that many, many men equate their not being on top with women being on top. They've been on top for so long that equality looks like one-down to them.

A lot of men view the numerical advantage of women as evidence that it's either/or. They see equality as a myth. I think that they are wrong, but only as long as the individual triumphs over the collective ideal. Collectivism is a threat to men and women alike, and both patriarchy and matriarchy are collective systems, fundamentally. Even the dominant sex is enslaved, because slavery is, as Jefferson put it, "Like holding a wolf by the ears. You don't much like it, but you don't dare let go."

True equality requires a victory of the right of individuals over the collective to be authentic and lasting. That is, we can only be truly equal when we are free first. Then we have, male and female alike, the means and the opportunity to achieve our personal dreams, regardless of our sex.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, I would characterize Cantdog as a leftist and a civil libertarian, but I won't declare that he is that, since it's extremely rude if not uncivil to declare what someone is or is not in discussions of this sort.

Libertarians beleive the government should stay out of both the bedroom and the boardroom. There are two flavors: Anarchists and limited government libertarians all seek to guide to be informed by reason in the views of governement and human action and tend to believe in the "classical" view of human nature, that man is not bascically good or all evil but is a mixed bag. For limited government types like myself, those things means that we don't automatically reject any and all government measures related to defence and security. Civil libertarians tend to hold the Rousseauian view of human nature, which says that man is basically good.

Limited government libertarians accept that part of the Constitution which says one purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. We also accept (by definition) the parts that limit goverment power. One will note that there can be a contradiction between those two provisions, which means balance and reason are needed. Limited government libertarians are inclined to follow the lead of civil libertarians on relevent issues, but believe that their Rousseauan view of human nature skews their perception of reality, and also mistrust their ability and willingness to apply balance and reason to particular questions.

Libertarians oppose the welfare state and the regulatory state ("big government"); civil libertarians in the present era tend to support it and even want to expand it.

~~~~

Incidentally, "fascists" of the variety that JBJ claims to be, and perhaps authoritarians in general, believe in the Macchiavellian/Hobbesian view of human nature - man is basically evil.

Well, as a "limited government" libertarian, which I am, I have a hard time accepting a Bush Administration that has expanded the scope, power, and role of the Federal Government, ballooned the deficit and the national debt, and surrender civil liberties to the whims of the religious right. Smaller government to me means precisely that, not exceptions to keep gay men or lesbians from getting married, for instance.

As for the national security issues, there's national defense and then there is the security state. The balance has gone too far in the direction of the latter of late.

But the main issue for me is that the GOP is not the party of limited government by any means. This isn't the Goldwater Republican Party. It's certainly not the Taft or Dirksen GOP. It's the party of Bush, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and their ilk. Palin's nomination is a nod to these types. And if their women are scary, it's only because they're all scary, men and women alike. The men just exude enough good ol' boy charm, because they're used to politics and the need for a proper image. Beneath that, Tom DeLay is every bit as scary as Sarah Palin, I'm sure.

 

[Pure]

rox Limited government libertarians accept that part of the Constitution which says one purpose of government is to provide for the common defense. We also accept (by definition) the parts that limit goverment power. One will note that there can be a contradiction between those two provisions, which means balance and reason are needed. Limited government libertarians are inclined to follow the lead of civil libertarians on relevent issues, but believe that their Rousseauan view of human nature skews their perception of reality, and also mistrust their ability and willingness to apply balance and reason to particular questions

the lady doth twist and turn. some translation is required. then one sees why the obfuscation.

i love it: "limited government libertarians" {LGLs} support the patriot act, arbitrary arrest, detention without trial, and torture.

unlike even McCain, they have no problem with Guantanamo Bay. to give a guy a *trial* is thought to be naive, contrary to the Bill of Rights. German and Russian spies caught in the US got trials; i guess they were small potatoes.

to tell a fellow "here's what you're charged with" and tell a judge, 'here's the evidence' is rousseauan naivete.

"limited government" persons are extremely rare. severus is the only example i know, at AH. TALKERS about limited government are usually found to be wildly inconsistent, as in "gov shouldn't tell churches what to do," but "governments must fight propaganda for the gay lifestyle and forbid recognition of gay marriage in order to defend the family." (e.g. Dobson).

rox's and ami's ilk, might better be called liberty-talking authoritarians, or liberty-talking theocrats. rox is a "libertarian except in the present continuing emergency." as defined by the Commander.

i love rox's slogan, "liberty for all unless the Commander declares you a terrorist."

 

[Corylea]

When Sarah Palin was introduced, the first thing she did was make a joke at her husband's expense. "I told my husband he was getting a surprise for our Anniversary, and I certainly think this qualifies."

Huh? I don't see how this is at her husband's expense.

In that innocuous interplay, Sarah Palin declared to the world that her reproductive sexuality is her power, and she will use it most ruthlessly within her own family.

WTF? What bad thing did she do to her husband by acknowledging that her being nominated for VP is a big deal for both of them?

I can imagine a man's making the exact same joke and having it pass by with no comment whatsoever. What's the big deal that it's the wife and not the husband?


Stella? Help! Our men have all gone apeshit.

 

[Pure]

to doc

Seeing her strutting around in her skirt and heels with Todd, her captive male (ever notice how he always keeps a few respectful paces behind her, holding a child? The only thing he's missing is a collar) is a new vision in American politics and I think it works on a subconscious level for a lot of people. She's like the weekend Domme-Mom. The Right, who always swoons for strong, authoritarian figures, male or female (see Anne Coulter), just eats it up and gets off on the crypto-femdom buzz. (How much does it take to see Palin in boots and leather corset, carrying a whip?) while the Left is incensed for the same reasons.

i see the appearance, but don't regard her as that strong. closer to elle woods than maggie thatcher. there is minor evidence of ability to be cunning and scheme, but she's untested in deep waters; she's gotten a free ride because of alaska's oil money and the federal earmarks.

she is fronting for a number of males, just as anita bryant did in her work against gay rights. look her youtube talk about her preacher and how he baptized her.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

 

[neonlyte]

Just wondering

Is Dick showing Sarah the ropes?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

i see the appearance, but don't regard her as that strong. closer to elle woods than maggie thatcher. there is minor evidence of ability to be cunning and scheme, but she's untested in deep waters; she's gotten a free ride because of alaska's oil money and the federal earmarks.

she is fronting for a number of males, just as anita bryant did in her work against gay rights. look her youtube talk about her preacher and how he baptized her.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

Well, TV is all about appearance, not substance. I don't think she's a real domme, or even a real domme symbol. I don't think American politics would ever accept a real Dom personality, either M or F. I think Huckleman's nailed it, and what he's saying (and Paglia too, though Paglia's apparently unaware of of it), is that Palin is a male character. She's a male-female, hence my term femme-male, a hunter in skirts, a Diana-figure, just one-of-the-guys with a womb. In this sense she's totally different from any other woman we've ever seen in American politics.

This makes her uniquely acceptable to the right: radically different and reassuringlyfamiliar. I think she must also in some way satisfy the right's strange but stubborn cypto-homosexual urges...

 

[impressive]

I don't think she's a real domme, or even a real domme symbol.

True. The image just doesn't fit:

 

[Safe_Bet]

I don't think she's a real domme, or even a real domme symbol.

It's all in the spelling. Try it again using D-U-M-B!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Huh? I don't see how this is at her husband's expense.
WTF? What bad thing did she do to her husband by acknowledging that her being nominated for VP is a big deal for both of them?

I can imagine a man's making the exact same joke and having it pass by with no comment whatsoever. What's the big deal that it's the wife and not the husband?

Stella? Help! Our men have all gone apeshit.

Maybe I'm more atypical than I thought, but I think when a man says "surprise for our Anniversary", women think of jewelry or perfume or something else sort of expensive but frivolous, a luxury. When a woman says "surprise for our Anniversary", men think of something special in the bedroom.

Go ahead and imagine what your impression would be if Joe Biden (or any other male politician) made the same joke. "I promised my wife a surprise for our Anniversary..." Wouldn't you think, "What a self-centered dick...", unless he pulled a little velvet box out of his pocket immediately after making the joke?

 

[Huckleman2000]

True. The image just doesn't fit:

I beg to differ.
Or maybe I just beg her to take off those glasses and let her hair down.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Well, TV is all about appearance, not substance. I don't think she's a real domme, or even a real domme symbol. I don't think American politics would ever accept a real Dom personality, either M or F. I think Huckleman's nailed it, and what he's saying (and Paglia too, though Paglia's apparently unaware of of it), is that Palin is a male character. She's a male-female, hence my term femme-male, a hunter in skirts, a Diana-figure, just one-of-the-guys with a womb. In this sense she's totally different from any other woman we've ever seen in American politics.

She just puts lipstick on it - which is why I said she was feminized... not feminine.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Maybe I'm more atypical than I thought, but I think when a man says "surprise for our Anniversary", women think of jewelry or perfume or something else sort of expensive but frivolous, a luxury. When a woman says "surprise for our Anniversary", men think of something special in the bedroom.

Go ahead and imagine what your impression would be if Joe Biden (or any other male politician) made the same joke. "I promised my wife a surprise for our Anniversary..." Wouldn't you think, "What a self-centered dick...", unless he pulled a little velvet box out of his pocket immediately after making the joke?

Yes, this was the implication I heard in the statement, too.

 

[Belegon]

Question:

Who thinks the implications of recent talking points are to pave the road for lower expectations in the debate?

Are certain elements deliberately trying to lower the bar for Sarah Palin so that she looks better when her performance beats those expectations?

Look, I've made it abundantly clear how I feel about her. But she didn't get given the Governer's office because she batted her eyes and made a kissy face.

She has won elections. That's how she got here, to the public eye and the nomination.

 

[sr71plt]

Frankly, I can wait until Thursday night to hear from/about her again.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Well, TV is all about appearance, not substance. I don't think she's a real domme, or even a real domme symbol. I don't think American politics would ever accept a real Dom personality, either M or F. I think Huckleman's nailed it, and what he's saying (and Paglia too, though Paglia's apparently unaware of of it), is that Palin is a male character. She's a male-female, hence my term femme-male, a hunter in skirts, a Diana-figure, just one-of-the-guys with a womb. In this sense she's totally different from any other woman we've ever seen in American politics.

This makes her uniquely acceptable to the right: radically different and reassuringlyfamiliar. I think she must also in some way satisfy the right's strange but stubborn cypto-homosexual urges...

Yes, I agree. Palin's is 'role-reversal' feminism, more 'tit-for-tat' rather than forming some new type of post-gender way of relating. I think that's one reason why women have such mixed feelings about her, especially older and rural women who still live their lives in a 'traditional' societal structure. They have bought into the 'women are oppressed' side of feminism, but they have no experience to imagine new roles other than the traditional male/female. Like the O.J. jury, they can't get their subconscious mind past the chance to rub their oppressor's nose in his own shit.

Those of us who've been around a bit in the corporate world should recognize "Sarah Barracuda's" immediately. They are quick to decry sexism, while wearing red stripper pumps and short jackets to show off their fine asses. They flirt with male senior execs, mock their male peers, and tease and manipulate their subordinates. It's as if feminism, for them, means that they can now 'sleep their way to the top' without ever having to actually put out. Or worse, they are already the Owner's Wife.

What I don't get about Paglia's point of view, is that she says "My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism." And yet, despite this identification of procreative sex as a root cause of patriarchal oppression she identifies Bill Clinton as a serial abuser, so: "Bill Clinton's support for abortion rights gave him a free pass among leading feminists for his serial exploitation of women -- an abusive pattern that would scream misogyny to any neutral observer." Just how do consensual blowjobs and handjobs count as "exploitation" of women? He was not risking a pregnancy; he wasn't forcing Monica to remain his personal fellatrix when her internship was up. On the contrary, he was trying to help her get a good job! Bill Clinton may be a perv, but he's no abuser unless you want to slap that label on every man who's made an awkward or inappropriate pass.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I gotta tell you, I'm not feeling at all good about the debate on Thursday. Here's why:

• She is not VP / Prez material, but she is going to be mega prepped by her handlers. They know what questions will be asked and she is going to be ready to answer them - at least well enough to fool the majority of the peeps.
  
• She IS a good "actress". She will come across as Ms. Wholesome Mom, to Biden's "Career Politician". This is what scares me. Ol' Joe has a LOT of baggage. He's one of the "Good ol' Boys" that everyone in the US is pissed at. He might be a great wheeler-dealer, but (especially with that hair" he LOOKS like a cheesy crook.) She is going to make him look like crap without opening her mouth.
  
• She is going to go right after Biden and he has to be a "gentleman" or he will lose the older demographic that still believe that you "treat women like Ladies - no matter what".
  
• She is going to pull an Obama "I'm change and your not" reversal on Biden. As I said, he's got a lot of old crap that can be brought up that makes him look like the sleaze he actually is.

I might be wrong, but if she does just okay, her "Down Home, I'm one a you guys” performance is going to play so well that she is going to capture the South and the Midwest for the Republicans.

 

[Belegon]

I might be wrong, but if she does just okay, her "Down Home, I'm one a you guys” performance is going to play so well that she is going to capture the South and the Midwest for the Republicans.

This is why downplaying her expectations is a Republican strategy right now. They want the bar set low so she can claim victory by overcoming expectations.