In 1920, after a long battle dating to before the Civil War, American women won the right to vote. Women have become an important part of the electorate, with a majority of women choosing the winner in the majority of recent US presidential elections.
Despite assertions that women care about the "SHE" issues - social security, health care, and education - there is evidence that a majority women have succumbed to the tempting blandishments of gender politics. White women seem to be abandoning the candidate who espouses positions in support of the "SHE" issues in favor of a slate which is vocal in their stance to radically eliminate public access to all three. The British satire blog The Spoof crudely puts it thusly:
But now that Obama has [slammed the] door on Hill's hopes and Johnny McC has come to their [rescue] with another vagined candidate, American dames can't get enough of forced crisis pregnancies, guns galore, Iraq till the cows come home and to hell with the poor, the immigrant and the unemployed!
I want to think that women aren't that shallow and that they can't be swayed so easily. Don't most of the American product commercials show women as knowing the right thing to do when there's a problem, rescuing their doltish men from using the wrong product? But considering that women are more like men than not, I have to surrender to the reality that women can be - and are - as shallow as men.
Far too many Good Orange County (CA) Republican men I know are in violation of their religious morality and good taste, sending me Photoshopped pictures of Gov. Palin's head atop the nude body of a comely lass. Some have expressed support for Palin generated only by gleeful, reptillian-brained lust from viewing such "art".
While not pornographic in nature, the appeal to women regarding Palin is definitely sex-based. I for one find it very ironic that women would fall for such a pitch to support a female candidate who opposes everything they value, especially representing a party which to this day continues to express support for the very values orated to oppose passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. But then, men usually ran the anti-suffrage organizations behind the scenes, secure in their ability to keep their women in their places. Palin is just a pretty woman who plays into this scenario because she loves the attention it brings her.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Wow, classic realist. If I read this correctly, your current argument is that to save women from being sucked in by a genuinely liberated woman like Sarah Palin, we should all cast meaningless write-in votes for old, white and fundamentalist conservative Ron Paul?
You're clearly not paying much attention to the campaign. Do you understand that although she's a Christian, Sarah Palin believes in things like separation of church and state, a principle which Ron Paul has advocated doing away with for years?
Dave
2 - bliffle
Really? Sarah Palin favors separation of church and state?
Coulda fooled me.
3 - Daniel Miller
Realist,
But in my house, my three women voters have no use for Palin or the Republicans (emphasis added). Gracious me.
Dan(Miller)
4 - Lee Richards
Re #1:
Iraq war is "God's will" for America but she believes in separation of church and state?
Creationism is science to her and should be taught in schools but she believes in separation of church and state?
Does she favor a wall of separation, or does she prefer prayer in schools and 10 commandments on every public wall?
Does she advocate freedom from religion for those so inclined? How about freedom of conscience?
Does her fundamentalist base love her so much because she's four-square behind separation of church and state?
You can put lipstick on a true-believer, but she's still gonna be a true-believer.
5 - Lisa Solod Warren
As a Vagina-American (as Samantha Bee so wonderfully puts it) I am voting for Barack Obama because I can vote for whomever I wish and don't have to vote for another Vagina-American just because she is one, too:)
6 - Clavos
So there...
7 - Baritone
I do believe that a number of women are switching their allegience from Obama to McCain simply because of Palin. And in many of these cases, it is simply because she is a woman. There is no ideology involved. That is unfortunate, but they are certainly free to do so.
If any of these women believe strongly in the freedom of choice and much of the feminist agenda, to turn and cast their vote for Palin/McCain is not in their best interest. If they are ambivalent in that regard - more middle of the road, as it were, then if they find the Republican ticket more in keeping with their beliefs, then so be it. But, the former scenario is disappointing at best. One can only hope that time will work in favor of giving these women time to think and reconsider their knee jerk reaction.
B
8 - bliffle
Baritone, are you suggesting that Palin is a Judas-woman? Shame on you!
"If any of these women believe strongly in the freedom of choice and much of the feminist agenda, to turn and cast their vote for Palin/McCain is not in their best interest."
9 - Zedd
Baritone,
I haven't heard about women switching to Palin in droves. There have been a few, very few. Many women are offended by her. She is no Ferraro and certainly no Hillary, just as Clarance Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall. The Reps just seem to get it wrong. Perhaps its because they just don't get it, or don't care to get it. "They want a Black in the Supreme Court, okay, we'll give'm one". "They want a woman, we'll give'm one". sheesh!
10 - Baritone
Blif,
It has less to do with her than with the women who are stampeding to Palin in their mindless glee thrilled to cast their "lipstick" vote.
B
11 - bliffle
But do you think McCain selected her to serve as a Judas-vagina?
12 - Clavos
I haven't heard about women switching to Palin in droves.
Well, now you have:
"Reports ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer: "From 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences."
Among white women, 67 percent view Palin favorably; 58 percent say her selection makes them more confident in McCain’s decision-making.
Among those with children, Palin does even better than that."
But, of course, being Black, you can't know how White women think...
13 - Dave Nalle
Iraq war is "God's will" for America but she believes in separation of church and state?
Check the quote, Lee. That's not actually what she said. She said that she hopes that if we're at war it's God's will. Not the same thing.
Creationism is science to her and should be taught in schools but she believes in separation of church and state?
Again, stop believing the BS being handed out by the left. She doesn't say that creationism should be taught in schools. She thinks there ought to be a free exchange of ideas and debate on the subject, without changing the curriculum. She's been very specific that evolution should still be taught.
Does she favor a wall of separation, or does she prefer prayer in schools and 10 commandments on every public wall?
She has never endorsed either.
Does she advocate freedom from religion for those so inclined? How about freedom of conscience?
She's never endorsed state religion, that's about all one can hope for, really.
Does her fundamentalist base love her so much because she's four-square behind separation of church and state?
I question that her base is fundamentalist. I think that they find her appealing, but so do a lot of other people for equally valid reasons.
Dave
14 - bliffle
"She's been very specific that evolution should still be taught."
How generous of her!
15 - Ruvy
I want to think that women aren't that shallow and that they can't be swayed so easily. Don't most of the American product commercials show women as knowing the right thing to do when there's a problem, rescuing their doltish men from using the wrong product? But considering that women are more like men than not, I have to surrender to the reality that women can be - and are - as shallow as men.
Go to a bar in St. Paul on Friday night (or a Conservative or Reform synagague on singles' nights) and you'll discover just how shallow women can be, Realist, if you don't already know. I was single for a while in Minnesota and boy, did I have to learn fast! You gotta be awful lucky - or guided by G-d - to find Ms. Right....
16 - Lisa Solod Warren
Yeah, Clavos... All White Women are not Sheep!:) With out without lipstick. God, this thing has gotten so damned stupid.
17 - Andy Marsh
Comment 9 says - "They want a Black in the Supreme Court, okay, we'll give'm one". "They want a woman, we'll give'm one". sheesh!
I love this...I guess Clarence Thomas isn't black ENOUGH for you...he doesn't follow your liberal line so somehow, that means he's not black. Same thing with Palin, she doesn't follow your LIBERAL line, so you find her offensive.
sheesh is right!
I can't wait until November so I can see you type here at BC that we're all racists because your candidate, who IS apparently black enough for you, even though he's half white, doesn't make it to the white house.
Talk about not getting it!
18 - Doug Hunter
"I love this...I guess Clarence Thomas isn't black ENOUGH for you...he doesn't follow your liberal line so somehow, that means he's not black. Same thing with Palin, she doesn't follow your LIBERAL line, so you find her offensive."
Indeed. The liberal line of thinking requires people to view themselves as victims so they don't feel guilty for getting special government handouts and treatment. Women, blacks, or gays that don't mope around about how bad they have it and further the liberal cause are bashed as Judas's, Uncle Tom's, etc.
The one point lib's have is about the "best interest" they offer, it is in everyone's best interest that THEY get special treatment and handouts. However, it is bad policy for the country. It's much harder to get people to vote republican for some idealist notion of fairness than it is to get someone to vote based on the promise of free handouts and pandering to their victimhood.
19 - Deano
By equating creationism and evolution as equivalent (i.e. teaching both in a biology class), are you not embedding religious instruction in science?
I'm all for teaching creationism in the education system - in religious studies classes, mythology classes, possibly even in antropology and social studies as social phenonomea but granting creationism and intelligent design equal footing to evolution in SCIENCE?
Give it a rest.
Rather then repeat the over-quoted lipstick-pig metaphore, I'll use one I've used here before - please stop trying to put a fresh coat of paint on horseshit.
20 - Dave Nalle
Look. I'm the last person to advocate teaching creationism anywhere. But my point is that Palin isn't trying to christianize the schools. As in most of these things, her position is moderate. It's even relatively moderate on abortion, though you'll never hear it from the left. Unlike REAL religious right extremists she supports not just abstinence education, but also contraceptive education. She also believes that contraception is desirable AND she doesn't oppose abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Compared to the real hardcore lifers that's pretty advanced.
Dave
21 - Clavos
All White Women are not Sheep!
You didn't get the reference, because you're new here...but Zedd (to whom the point was directed), did; however much she might deny it.
22 - Joanne Huspek
The question that comes to my mind: Who are these "pollsters" and why haven't they contacted ME? I'm itching to give someone a piece of my mind.
"write-in vote for Ron Paul this November!"
I just might write in somebody all right. The current political circus is getting to be a bit much. It might not be Ron Paul, but it's looking more and more like being SOMEONE else.
23 - Lee Richards
Dave,
Follow me now:
Creationism is religion, based on the belief in and actions of a Creator--obviously to christians, their God. She wants it taught as science in schools, as a competitor with real science. That is not moderate nor compatible with separation of church and state, as you claim.
Her actual quote about Iraq is: "Our national leaders are sending them out[troops]on a task that is from God." That's separation of religion and policy to you, maybe;to me, it's more than a hint of militant theism.
24 - Dave Nalle
Lee, that's not exactly what she said. She said she wants open debate in the schools, which doesn't necessarily mean teaching it as science.
And that's not the complete quote on the troops. The quote is from part of a prayer said in church, and here it is in more complete form:
So as you can see, she's not saying that the war is god's plan, she's praying that our leaders are not being foolish and that what they are doing is good and part of "god's plan". So she's not declaring that it IS god's plan, but she's praying that it's god's plan and not a mistake. An enormously significant difference.
Plus, she made this comment in church. In church you talk about things like war in terms of god. If she was talking this way outside of church it would be a lot more worrying.
Dave
25 - Jordan Richardson
Dave, your tap-dancing is amusing.
When asked about creationism being taught in schools, she said (in 2006):
"Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
She does not provide the caveat that you associate with her point of view. She is not specific about how it would be taught in schools, of course.
Here is what the Republican Party of Alaska website said about the issue in 2006:
"We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."
Source: Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 27, 2006
So regardless of how you want to spin her stance, there is more here than a simple personal preference. She does say that it wouldn't be mandatory, but never gets into the specifics that you ascribe to her position.
So as you can see, she's not saying that the war is god's plan
That all depends on how you read the statement, Dave. It's hardly black and white:
Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God
It is hardly unreasonable to suggest that she believes the leaders are sending troops out on a task "that is from God." In fact, being that the President believes that the war is a task from God, it's not altogether unreasonable that she would support such a position as well. The background and context certainly does more to suggest that she meant what she said rather than what you so clearly wish she meant.
In church you talk about things like war in terms of god.
You do? So when Jeremiah Wright says the following (in church, remember):
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
He's talking about this "in terms of god," correct? Or is there a difference in how you perceive the two situations?