Sarah Palin Inspires Feminist Hate

I predicted that Sarah Palin’s most fevered foes would be the modern single urban childless feminist:

But Sarah Palin’s worst enemy is not the mincing liberal betaboy, oh no. It’s the childless, career-tracked, urban slut machine, government-as-daddy-and-husband-substitute, spinsterette. Palin shits grizzly-sized dung all over that lifestyle with her outdoorsiness, large brood, and prole tastes. The thing about her they really can’t swallow are her FIVE kids. There’s no better way to remind a hip clubgoing single chick in the city who loves to travel and sip pinot noir of her impending infertility and genetic obsolescence than with the image of a woman who’s chosen not to ignore her biological imperative in favor of playing the field indefinitely.

Palin makes blue state SWPLs nervous because she is the chill up their spines that they are being outbred into insignificance.

Commenter Sebastian Flyte forwarded a NY Sun article to me confirming my prediction:

“All of my women friends [editor’s note: Samantha, Carrie, Miranda, and the fat friend Rosie O’Donnell], a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows,” an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. “People were flipping out. … Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president.”

Ms. Kricorian allowed that she was among those driven to distraction, upon occasion, by Mrs. Palin’s nomination. “My Facebook status last Monday was, ‘Nancy is freaking out about Sarah Palin yet again,'” the writer said.

Facebook! Fuck her fiercely with a ferret. Here’s a Facebook status update for these freaked out feminists: “My life is a joke. A triviality. A nothing. A barren womb of emptiness. Politics is my religion substitute and gives me a belief to cling to when my life is a meaningless, mindless void of handbag shopping and mimosas.”

There. Much better.

“What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage,” an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull.”

“I am shocked by the depths of my hatred for this woman,” another commenter, CJWeimar, wrote.

This is an endless font of humor. Recall what Devlin said about women who delay childbirth:

“Motherhood has always been the best remedy for female narcissism.”

When you have your own children to raise, the sight of a mother on stage at a political convention won’t fry your neural network with murderous impulses. This kind of acute self-absorption naturally places great emphasis on fighting those whose lifestyle choices mock your own.

“It is impossible for me not to read about her in the newspaper in the subway every morning on my way to work and not come into the office angry and wanting to kick things,” a commenter using the name ChampagneofBeers wrote. “My boxing class definitely helps.”

Oh christ, the stereotypical absurdity never ends. I can picture this broad in the latest trendy gymwear, huge oversized boxing gloves, grunting ridiculously while swinging like a tankgrrl at a punching bag and cursing red state women who rub her face in her failure with their large broods. I bet the next time she storms out of class fired up with righteous anger and belief in her jujitsu boxing skills, she makes the mistake of giving some homeless bum lip and winds up knocked out when he takes a swing at her.

Even some prominent figures admitted to being overcome by anti-Palin feelings. “I am having Sarah Palin nightmares,” an acclaimed playwright and writer, Eve Ensler, wrote on the Huffington Post.

Eve Ensler: divorced, ugly, 0 biological children.
She’ll need to call her next play “The Nobody Wants My Vagina Monologues”.

“I think a lot of women felt insulted by the idea you could just take any woman,” a longtime editor of women’s magazines, Bonnie Fuller, told The New York Sun. “A lot of women feel it was a very cynical decision. … What got some women’s backs up was the idea she didn’t earn her stripes. It’s been so hard for so many women to get ahead both in business and in the political worlds and she just seemingly slips in.”

Oh, Palin earned her stripes. The problem is that she didn’t earn the *right* stripes as dictated by the Loony Kommissars of the Crusty Cunt Revolution. Send her to the reeducation camps!

Ms. Fuller also said she and other women were troubled by Mrs. Palin’s decision to have her daughter, Bristol, 17, on stage at the Republican convention, despite news reports about her pregnancy.

Cute, young, pregnant teenagers drive these ugly shrikes right over the edge. How dare they not delay childbirth and devote a decade of their most fertile years to climbing the corporate ladder alongside the boys?

Ms. Grose posited that some of the anger was because Mrs. Palin, a former beauty pageant winner, resembled a high school homecoming queen. “She has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype, playing by the boys’ game with her big guns and moose murdering, and that she keeps being rewarded for it,” Ms. Grose wrote.

Jealous much? High school never ends. Adults just dress up their status jockeying with social niceties.

“Their entire image of themselves is based on the fact that they are paving the way for women. What do they see? Women getting ahead, women being empowered who don’t agree with them,” Dr. Santy said.

Fear and ego are being disinterred for public scrutiny. The id monster emerges from the depths of its subconscious lair. And what do they fear most of all?

Judgment.

Palin’s attractivness, femininity, fertility, and “wrong” politics are the perfect storm to batter the psyches of the SWPL modern feminist. I have loved every minute of this national Rorschach test. It has paid truth to everything I’ve written about the blue state vaginacentric culture in which I swim and exploit for my own uses and pleasures. I hope it never ends.

To fathers everywhere I say: Continue sending your daughters to the big city in droves. I, and those like me, will be waiting.





Comments


  1. I always thought of Ensler as a dyke. I guess she’s not, just another one of those pathetic women who simply cannot understand men and who end up perusing and playing with their own vaginae in order to get some action–any action at all!–happening down there.

    Their vaginas are radically underemployed in the innies direction…and now Palin and Bristol are showing them up as underemployed in the outies way too.

    Palin-hate is a rorschach test of female sterility.

    Like


  2. Agreed on the whole anti-feminist sentiment. That’s awesome and easy to do. You dont mention though that most of the outrage comes from her being anti-choice. That’s why ‘feminists’ dont like her.

    What’s hard is defending Palin as fit to be president. Nevermind her grating as fuck accent, just listen to her in-too-deep, only-got-the-interview-because-of-her-looks sounding answers to questions. definitely a gamble by the GOP, one which i dont think will pay off.

    Like


  3. A lot of my college friends are livid about Sarah Palin.

    One of my brothers, on the other hand, sent me a text message saying he wanted to be Palin’s Lewinsky. 😀

    Me, I think it’s cool that a pretty woman in her forties, with five children, is the governor of a state. The hatred of Palin is unreasonable — there are plenty of male politicians, much more right-wing, who are not so hated — but it’s kind of funny, too.

    Like


  4. Equally as strong as the phenomenon you describe is the complete opposite reaction that Palin draws from men.

    Half-Sigma linked to an interview with Charles Murray last week, and when asked his opinion on Palin, he replied, “I’m absolutely in love with her.”

    Also, check out the proliferation of “Sarah Palin VPILF” facebook groups. Even my fashionably liberal friends are joining up.

    Like


  5. on September 22, 2008 at 5:30 pm Usually Lurking

    One thing I love about all this is the Pail-haters going looking for things to hate her about, after they have decided that they hate her.

    For instance, the whole hoax that she was banning books like Harry Potter at the local library where she was mayor.

    I love everything about, because her mere existence has re-ignited the Culture War.

    Like


  6. It’s just that she isn’t qualified to win the Iraq and Afganistan Wars, or solve the current edge of Depression mountain of economic problems. Plus she lies a lot.

    Like


  7. 5 Usually Lurking

    For instance, the whole hoax that she was banning books like Harry Potter at the local library where she was mayor.

    Yeah. I had a liberal friend — a Harry Potter fan, incidentally — who was ranting to me about that, and I’m like, “Please tell me how she managed to ban Harry Potter before it was even published. I’d be deeply interested to know.”

    Like


  8. on September 22, 2008 at 5:41 pm Usually Lurking

    It’s just that she isn’t qualified to win the Iraq and Afganistan Wars…

    Miik, the same people that love the inexperienced Obama absolutely hate Sarah Palin…and she is only running for VP.

    A biographer of Obama was just on NPR talking with Terry Gross (and he was obviously a fan of Obama) but one of the things that he said was that Obama spent such little time at any office that the only thing he could focus on was getting to the next level, and not much else.

    I am not hatin’ on Obama, but they guy is pretty inexperienced. No more reason to hate Palin for running for a lesser office.

    Like


  9. on September 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm Usually Lurking

    “Please tell me how she managed to ban Harry Potter before it was even published. I’d be deeply interested to know.”

    Yeah, I pointed that out to my Sister-in-Law who fucking hates Palin, and she was not happy to find out that she was full of shit.

    Like


  10. You missed the real moneyshot, Sandra Bernhard’s quote. Google her name and “Palin.”

    Because of the words she used, I don’t want to paste it into my comments box.

    Like


  11. Palin’s attractivness, femininity, fertility, and “wrong” politics are the perfect storm to batter the psyches of the SWPL modern feminist.

    Someone else (I think it was Whiskey on his blog) named anotehr factor: that Palin married a masculine working class guy with whom she was able to raise a family.

    Nancy Pelosi also has five children, but she married into money.

    Like


  12. Pupu read from the People Magazine that the brand of glass frames Palin wears is selling like there is no tomorrow, especially in the middle states. Her secretary hairdo is also being copied by women all over the country. Pupu wonders how people would react to Hilary if she’s got Palin’s looks and personalities.

    All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

    Like


  13. Western civilization is desperately in need of more women like Palin. One of her kind for every Maureen Dowd’s kind would keep white people’s total fertility rate of at a healthy 2.25.

    Like


  14. Aargh, typo. At a healty 2.5, of course.

    Like


  15. As a conservative I am intrigued by Palin’s effect on feminists but all that aside, sometimes I wonder if you suffer from a bipolar disorder.

    Like


  16. Why care about what these Ms. fits think? They’ve opted out of the future. They are genetic dead ends.

    Like


  17. on September 22, 2008 at 6:05 pm SeaFighter HSV (as VK)

    “I predicted that Sarah Palin’s most fevered foes would be the modern single urban childless feminist”

    You also predicted Biden would step down from the VP nom.

    “the whole hoax that she was banning books like Harry Potter at the local library where she was mayor”

    That did happen, though it wasn’t Harry Potter.

    Like


  18. on September 22, 2008 at 6:20 pm Usually Lurking

    So, what books did she ban?

    Like


  19. Usually Lurking 8–

    Miik, the same people that love the inexperienced Obama absolutely hate Sarah Palin…and she is only running for VP.

    Dead on accurate observation.

    Like


  20. None, of course. List here. Odd how the “nuances” are escaping people these days. Of course, the same folk have amazing cases of projection that are probably messing with the details of reality. Also note who these days are prone to violence, civil rights violations, damaging personal property, invasion of privacy, and so on. Same group as are publicly spewing the vilest hate, of course. Big surprise.

    “…with a ferret? Why a ferret?”
    “Because it’ll hurt more!”

    Like


  21. Sarah Palin’s most fevered foes are anyone with a brain.

    The good thing for her is if she loses she can always go into Milf porn.

    – MPM

    Like


  22. on September 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm Usually Lurking

    “Why with a spoon, brother?”

    Because it will hurt more!

    Like


  23. Yeah, that was me — the single urban women HATE Todd Palin. They feel Sarah Palin betrayed women with her choice of a blue collar, non-College educated man.

    Despite his rather high income, which supported the family, and his sharing child care duties to the point of quitting a job he had for 17 years, to care for the kids for the first year of Governorship, and generally supportive attitude.

    Todd Palin is a hugely threatening figure to single women.

    As is Palin’s extended nuclear family. Todd Palin plus her parents being young enough, her sisters and brother still around, meant Sarah Palin could have it “all” — family and a career, at a fraction of the wealth of Nancy Pelosi. It required sacrifices (hunting is for supplementing the family’s food budget — Alaska has horrifically high food prices). But marrying young, while your siblings are around, parents can help with child-care, and you have a supportive not “Alpha” Todd Spitzer / John Edwards type guy as your husband, allows women lots of emotional and financial advantages.

    No, Palin never banned any books. She asked the Librarian what the process would be to make “Daddy’s Roomate” request only because her constituents were complaining about it. That’s all she did.

    Do parents in a local community have the right to make certain children’s books request only? Control what their kids read? Liberals say no, they can’t. Liberals of course don’t have kids, and want to control how others, mostly Red State parents, raise their kids to account for the fertility gap. By turning Red State kids into Blue State Liberals.

    That is the basis for the Culture Wars.

    Like


  24. on September 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm Usually Lurking

    Sarah Palin’s most fevered foes are anyone with a brain.

    Yes, unlike Biden who has

    “a persistent tendency to say silly, offensive, and off-putting things”;[Time Magazine] The New York Times writes that Biden’s “weak filters make him capable of blurting out pretty much anything”.

    Like


  25. on September 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm Usually Lurking

    No, Palin never banned any books. She asked the Librarian what the process would be to make “Daddy’s Roomate” request only because her constituents were complaining about it. That’s all she did.

    I got curious about the hoax and read a little and I read the very same thing. People were complaining, so she asked the librarian a question. That was it.

    Like


  26. Biden is a hyper feminist.

    Like


  27. Pupu 12–

    Pupu read from the People Magazine that the brand of glass frames Palin wears is selling like there is no tomorrow, especially in the middle states. Her secretary hairdo is also being copied by women all over the country. *** All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

    *kiss kiss* Pupu.

    Like


  28. Sorry for the typos, and all.

    No financial support for a child, is in some ways, a forced hand for many women. Many men did choose to *abort* their financial obligation to their children, that is why child support became so strictly enforced.

    Like


  29. “Todd Palin is a hugely threatening figure to single women.”

    This is statement is almost entirely incorrect; women care far less about education, income and other credentialist status indicators than you seem to believe. Of course, prior to the 1970’s and the mass inclusion of females into the workforce that certainly wasn’t the case, however today with the ability to provide for themselves this is almost a non-issue for most women.

    Like


  30. Grace 31–

    @29 Fair is not fair, at least not how you stated it. To sum it up, men should not get the right to *force* women to have a surgery, to invade my personal space. You want to make sure you don’t have an un-wanted pregnancy? Be celibate.

    Thanks so much for your thoughtful fair minded feminist consideration and all, I’ve come to expect no less, but I’m afraid I’ll pass on your suggestion.

    Instead I’ll demand male financial abortion rights as the quid pro quo for female surgical ones.

    Thanks anyway though.

    Like


  31. on September 22, 2008 at 6:58 pm Usually Lurking

    …you of all people should be concerned about a VP candidate that is for restricting birth control for pretty much, uh, I don’t know, un-married women.

    I wasn’t aware that she was restricting anything from anyone.

    Please inform.

    Like


  32. When someone who is making faith-based sex education as part of her platform, and can’t even keep her own daughter from becoming pregnant, if you owned womanly parts you would be concerned as well.

    This is such utter bullshit. Another insincere rationalization. Big city feminists have been advocating sex ed for decades while being unable to keep their daughters from getting pregnant out of wedlock. Abstinence-only supporters are hardly the only women whose methods have failed. So you mean to tell me that if Palin was a big city liberal feminist Democrat who preached sex ed and whose teen daughter got pregnant liberal women would have a problem with her and with sex ed?

    Like


  33. a VP candidate that is for restricting birth control

    Proof, please. I keep hearing it, usually in fevered tones; I have yet to see it from an actual source.

    Like


  34. Funny. I just witnessed – at my nephew’s 11th birthday party, no less – a rather heated exchange between my father-in-law, who has a seething resentment of Obama, and his three daughters, all of whom are quite attractive, have graduate degrees (two doctorates), and are married, and two of whom have children and have been part- or full-time stay-at-home moms. (The third is on the way to having children and being a part-time stay-at-home mom, and I have this from a credible source.)

    All three detest Palin because they view her as a female Dubya, for the most part – an unprincipled, cunning yet dumb, shrill, pandering, unmitigated moron, who believes in curtailing women’s ability to choose their own lives.

    Like


  35. Sure put in McCain and Palin – that’s all we need. Then kill everybody before they die.

    Like


  36. And yes, I’m aware of the (in)validity of anecdotal evidence, but isn’t it all anecdotal evidence? For what it’s worth, most men I know put Palin down for her apparent lack of intellect, too.

    Like


  37. 39 Gordan

    All three detest Palin because they view her as a female Dubya, for the most part – an unprincipled, cunning yet dumb, shrill, pandering, unmitigated moron

    True

    Isn’t evolutionary imprinting great? I wouldn’t vote for her but I’d do her doggie style. I would let her sell mattresses in a department store but not control the nuclear “football”

    Like


  38. on September 22, 2008 at 7:12 pm Usually Lurking

    That’s what fuels the Palin hatred: her pro-life politics, and nothing else.

    I thought that you were right on except for that one sentence. They hate her Pro-Life politics and her Red-Stating life that led her to those politics.

    Like


  39. Actually… to T.

    No. I don’t like, am not comfortable with, the idea of someone who is on a presidential ticket with a platform that supports ideals involving restricting access and information regarding reproduction and sexual health, hailing that these things work to prevent pregancy, and yet is unable to make them work in her own house. Your rationalization was a bit off base. I didn’t say that sex-ed kept women baby-free, and your “big city feminist” comment didn’t have an actual point based on the arguments that you stated in your response.

    to Doug: That is fair minded. Sex is not consequence-free.

    to Gordan: Whew. Better stated than my angry post. The whole, “big city urban whores all hate Sarah Palin b/c they’re childless” is so sad, and not just for the men who post here.

    Like


  40. on September 22, 2008 at 7:17 pm Usually Lurking

    So, Grace, when did she actually Birth Control?

    Like


  41. I thought that you were right on except for that one sentence. They hate her Pro-Life politics and her Red-Stating life that led her to those politics.

    Agreed.

    Like


  42. on September 22, 2008 at 7:18 pm Usually Lurking

    [my bad]

    So, Grace, when did she actually restrict Birth Control?

    [much better]

    Like


  43. your “big city feminist” comment didn’t have an actual point based on the arguments that you stated in your response.

    Yes it did have a point. The point is that if Palin’s lifestyle matched the values of most of her liberal female critics (big city, feminist) and she supported sex education, they would suddenly have much zero problem with her daughter getting pregnant and be much more understanding.

    Like


  44. Funny thing Grace, I heard a clip of Palin speaking on a radio show and Palin felt high school kids should be taught about abstinence AND contraception.

    What primary source did you use to determine she was against contraceptive education?

    And why are you so upset about Bristol having a baby and getting married? What is so wrong about it?

    Like


  45. 42 Clio

    That’s what fuels the Palin hatred: her pro-life politics, and nothing else.

    I don’t think that’s all there is to it. There are male politicians who are pro-life, some who are even more ardently pro-life than Palin, who do not attract the hatred that Palin does. Just like there are male politicians who are far more left-wing than Hillary, but don’t attract the hatred that Hillary does.

    And the fact that she wears them on her sleeve by carrying her unaborted Down-syndrome baby around with her in public.

    This might explain some of it. But I think the real reason behind a lot of the Palin-hatred is that there is a certain kind of person who just cannot abide the thought of a woman in power. The funny thing is, I think more women feel that way than men. I saw a survey a few years ago asking people if they would be willing to vote for a female candidate for president if the woman was qualified. 80% of the men surveyed said yes, compared to 71% of the women. Women are often their own worst enemies.

    When the woman is someone like Nancy Pelosi, she inspires less vitriol because, well, no one gets very excited about Nancy Pelosi. But Palin is charismatic and has a lot of people excited, and that makes the people already inclined to hate her hate her even more. Certain people just can’t stand another person’s popularity. I saw that a lot in high school, where girls who were pretty and popular were fiercely resented by a certain segment of the girls in school, not because the popular girls were mean to them (some were, but not all), but because the popular girls had something they wanted. In fact, the girl they hated most of all was quiet, smart, shy, and bone-sweet. But she was gorgeous, and she was dating one of the most sought-after guys in school, and certain girls hated her for it.

    Palin’s pretty much hit the Holy Grail. She’s beautiful, she’s powerful, she’s popular, she has a husband who evidently adores her, and she has a beautiful family. There are certainly legitimate reasons why people might dislike Palin as a candidate, but I don’t think the people who really, really despise her are driven much by politics. I think they’re driven a lot more by envy.

    Like


  46. Republicans are backing a bill stating that health providers can opt out of any procedures, prescriptions, etc.. that they don’t feel comfortable with. A vote-swaying portion of that bill has to do with birth control and access to it. Throw in pro-life politics, and the general platform that is being displayed on the national campaign and you have the very real potential to restrict birth control and family planning.

    I don’t have an issue with the fact that she’s a beautiful woman. Lots of women in powerful positions are beautiful, it helps when men are doing the hiring/promoting. I do have an issue with her beauty being held up as an accomplishment worthy of swaying votes. Or that a large part of the clamor is simply because she is beautiful. If she was not as good looking, I don’t think the fevor for her support would be quite as loud. And that is sincerely annoying. The burning up is simply frustration that at the end of the day, looks seem to be the most important factor for a woman. While this works for men, it is not so great for women b/c at some point in time, women do get old.

    Like


  47. Grace 33 —

    No financial support for a child, is in some ways, a forced hand for many women.

    What the hell does that mean? Could you be any less clear? When I guess, I’m inclinded to say “good, as it should be, once again”.

    Many men did choose to *abort* their financial obligation to their children, that is why child support became so strictly enforced.

    Quite terrible and actionable a la the current system, WHEN the woman wishes to continue as not only a mother but also his wife, and all that that means, including regular best efforts sex. That is the popular media stereotype of divorce– the alpha male leaving his older loyal wife in favor of a younger hotter and often less intelligent model. The stereotype is very much the small minority case however. Women initiate 70-75% of all divorces today, and women’s desire to leave the marriage and be with someone else not just in a short term tryst but permanently, stands behind more of them than that.

    When women leave marriages with infants or young children and then complain bitterly that men have to be forced to continue to support “their” children that were yanked from them by the entitled American wife who has left for another man or in search of a more thrilling one (perhaps often mostly because he’s a new one), then no I don’t think men should be obligated by law to pay child support, or at most, more than bare minimum welfare levels of it if that’s what the woman would otherwise have to resort to. Myself if the kids were older and I’d formed a real live parenting bond of some duration with them, I’d want to support them, regardless of her. But i’d want to in a joint custody way. If they were infants when she took them (and most men only pretend to like infants much and then only if they’re beta enough to think they have to pretend) thanks anyway, they’ve become hers, I’ll start over with a new wife that might actually remain my wife as well as a mother.

    Like


  48. on September 22, 2008 at 7:37 pm Usually Lurking

    Republicans are backing a bill stating that health providers can opt out of any procedures, prescriptions, etc.. that they don’t feel comfortable with. A vote-swaying portion of that bill has to do with birth control and access to it. Throw in pro-life politics, and the general platform that is being displayed on the national campaign and you have the very real potential to restrict birth control and family planning.

    I am assuming it was Palin who proposed this bill?

    Like


  49. “…Loony Kommissars of the Crusty Cunt Revolution”

    That alone is truly genius. I have been wondering myself why she’s so hated, but you really have diagrammed it beautifully.

    (Snark aside: Consider changing “revolution” for “cluster” or even “circle” and it could be even catchier.)

    Like


  50. Clio —

    And the fact that she wears them on her sleeve by carrying her unaborted Down-syndrome baby around with her in public.

    Ah. That one’s a bullseye for me.

    That is precisely where I find the greatest commonality with the feminist left liberal hatred of Palin. In my case it’s definitely unease rather than any kind of hatred over that very issue. That real life choice. That’s where I imagine being married to Palin and having a very hard time with her choices and moral determinations. I would not have wanted her to keep that child AT ALL. I would have a very hard time hiding that fact. I couldn’t. I could problably live with it though, if she could. That is, if she could forgive me from having wanted to abort, if I am willing to love the resultant severely limited child. Which I think I would be.

    Like


  51. T nailed it with comment 50.

    But the question remains: if these feminists are pro-choice WHY are they so vehemently against Bristol’s choice? And why does it bother them to know end that Palin chose not to abort Trig?

    Like


  52. Clio —

    Oh dearest Clio. (I typed “darling Clio” and then chickened out. No, not chickened out, rather thought better of it … for now.)

    Is there any chance, you Apollonian vision you, that you could fill in “Clio” or “Alias Clio” in the little box thing at the bottom where comments go, and then check “remember”?

    It would make seeing it’s you that’s commenting so much easier, in all your Clio glory and wisdom, instead of that loathsome and generally not worth the time to read mishmash of personages “anonymous”, and thereby casting pearls before us. Pearls we might otherwise sometimes skip over.

    Pretty please?

    Like


  53. Elizabeth 52 —

    Palin’s pretty much hit the Holy Grail. She’s beautiful, she’s powerful, she’s popular, she has a husband who evidently adores her, and she has a beautiful family. There are certainly legitimate reasons why people might dislike Palin as a candidate, but I don’t think the people who really, really despise her are driven much by politics. I think they’re driven a lot more by envy.

    Bingo babe!

    Like


  54. 53 Grace

    I’m not saying that you in particular feel that way; I just think that some of the people who really, really hate Palin hate her for more than her politics, because they don’t seem to have that same burning hatred for other Republican politicians who agree with her, including her running mate.

    I do have an issue with her beauty being held up as an accomplishment worthy of swaying votes.

    Who’s said this? Yes, a lot of people think it’s cool that she’s pretty, but I don’t think anyone has said that being pretty qualifies someone to be the vice-president. People simply get excited about charismatic politicians, and physical beauty is often a part of charisma.

    Or that a large part of the clamor is simply because she is beautiful. If she was not as good looking, I don’t think the fevor for her support would be quite as loud. And that is sincerely annoying.

    No, people probably would not be as excited if she looked like a hag. Thing is, the same is also true of male politicians, like John Kennedy and, yes, Barack Obama. I doubt people would be as excited about Obama if he weren’t so youthful and attractive. People are simply wired to respond to physical attractiveness. Especially when that attractiveness is combined with presence, eloquence, confidence, and other qualities that make up the package we call “charisma.”

    The burning up is simply frustration that at the end of the day, looks seem to be the most important factor for a woman.

    Even if that’s true, it’s not fair to hold that against Palin individually. She’s simply using what she’s been given. No one in her place could be expected to do otherwise; it would be like refusing to use your head because other people don’t have the fortune to be as smart as you.

    Like


  55. Ok now the discussion has gotten on the right track.

    Again, I can see the ‘rationalization’ argument, and I think that ads some fuel to the fire.

    Really though, her being anti-choice is simply unacceptable to many people, especially women who understandably find that issue to be of particular importance. Throw in her support of abstinence only and its even more ridiculous (made hilariously more ironic by her daughter getting knocked up).

    This is just a starting point. Even if you ignore her wrong policies, that any liberal – not just women – would be against, just listen to her in any interview (only 2 so far???). CLEARLY not fit to be VP, ESPECIALLY when McCain probably wont live past ’09. Seriously, why do you think the campaign is so afraid of her giving interviews? Cry ‘left-wing media’ all you want, the people deserve to know what a VP candidate has to say about many things, especially when most people have what, 3 months, before deciding if she is fit to hold that office? Potential president? Watch that Chuck Gibson interview and tell me you want that person running the country. Weak.

    Like


  56. on September 22, 2008 at 7:57 pm Usually Lurking

    re:Palin and Beauty

    Remember, it is women who go overboard for looks, not men.

    JFK had a much larger percentage of the female vote than I think any politician before him.

    Also, just think about Margaret Thatcher and Princess Di – who love Thatcher more, the men or the women?

    Princess Di, who loved her more, the men or the women?

    Like


  57. Republicans are backing a bill stating that health providers can opt out of any procedures, prescriptions, etc.. that they don’t feel comfortable with. A vote-swaying portion of that bill has to do with birth control and access to it. Throw in pro-life politics, and the general platform that is being displayed on the national campaign and you have the very real potential to restrict birth control and family planning.

    Woah, hang on there a moment! What you’re saying is that she hasn’t come out with any such position, but her “pro-life politics” (when did living become political, I wonder? odd…) means that she plans to somehow restrict birth control? Are you really saying that? If not, please clarify, because that’s the only way I can make the leap between the two.

    Or, you could point to some place where a statement of intent to restrict birth control is recorded. That would work.

    And as an extra flourish of bizarre implication, does the existence of any pro-life VP candidate signal the end of The Pill and condoms? Or just a woman?

    Like


  58. on September 22, 2008 at 7:59 pm Usually Lurking

    Really though, her being anti-choice …

    “Anti-Choice”, that is one of my favorites. Right up there with “Pro-Abortion”.

    Like


  59. Elizabeth, I’m sure you have a point there regarding women’s envy of Palin, but I honestly don’t think it’s anything more than a minor factor – that is, it would be irrelevant, like all the other issues I named in my own comment, if it were not for her pro-life stance.

    You speak of men who have pro-life views not attracting the kind of hatred that Palin does. I think you’re mistaken there. It’s true that Palin’s attracted an unusual amount of vitriol (even for a pro-lifer); but that’s because she’s highly visible and, yes, because she’s female, which makes her position seem like that much more of a betrayal to pro-choice women; from a Republican man, it’s only what they’d expect. But aside from that aspect of the situation, I really think her pro-life position is key.

    Perhaps you have to have been a pro-life woman (like me) living among pro-choice feminists to understand just how furious women can get if you “betray” them WRT the abortion issue.

    Like


  60. on September 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm Usually Lurking

    Seriously, why do you think the campaign is so afraid of her giving interviews?

    Yes, she has given a grand total of two interviews and people are looking for everything and anything to HATE HER.

    Might as well just hang back and let the Leftys foam at the mouth.

    They hate her for what she is, not for what she has said.

    Like


  61. on September 22, 2008 at 8:06 pm Usually Lurking

    @ Clio 69 –

    Actually, I think that the reason she would be hated more than some Republican man is that as a woman, and with the choices that she has made, she can do more harm to the Pro-Choice movement than almost any other.

    Whereas, someone like McCain would be just one more old White Conservative looking to impose a patriarchy on the powerless women.

    Like


  62. Grace 46–

    to Doug: That is fair minded. Sex is not consequence-free.

    No, you have not been remotely fair minded on the abortion rights for men issue, as even the smallest amount of honest reflection would reveal to you — or has.

    Instead you wish to preserve maximum female choice and power advantage, at the cost of taking away male choice. What male choice? The choice which women have to turn an accidental (or an “oops”) pregnancy into a matter of little or only some consequence (there is female trauma involved in abortion, though it’s often fetishized and maximized for dramatic effect in the media, etc. these days). Women can doe that by choosing either an abortion or and adoption. In both cases women with lots of male support have campaigned to make those choices as painless and inconsequential as possible. Anonymous abortions without parental knowledge. Anonymous adoptions, even lockbox or doorstep leavings of children for adoption, so minimize any pain.

    Yet allowing men to abort their financial responsibility for children they didn’t ask for and don’t want, and which the woman is fully free to avoid either giving birth to, or raising by giving the child up for adoption, is something you and feminists generally refuse to entertain.

    Instead you muth platitudes about “sex has consequences” while you are outraged that it should have any unchosen ones for women.

    This is an utterly one sided feminist sense of fairness. As usual.

    Like


  63. Mu’min 72 —

    Though I am Pro-Life and abhor Abortion on principle, I’m willing to swallow all of it if men have the same right to choose if they want to become a parent or not. In light of the many advances women have made in the modern Western world, there is simply no rational reason as to why this fundamental human right should be witheld to one group, and extended and *protected by force of law* to another.

    Props bro. For sure.

    We approach the central fairness issue from opposite directions, but arrive at the same place.

    Seems to me that’s indicative of something. Where fairness actually lies, perhaps?

    Like


  64. Ack, I navigated away, comment lost.

    I haven’t talked to anyone that is upset about Bristol keeping the baby; upset about the future of sex-ed in schools? Plenty. No one has said anything about her having Trig either.

    to UL: I never stated that she proposed the bill, I said she is on a platform that supports those types of ideals.

    Doug: I don’t know if I’ve ever known anyone who’s had a divorce with children and was capricious about it (however, I’m still young). Why would a man not want to support his own children? What would drive a man to not care about his own kids? From my understanding, the walking away from financial responsibility is why child support has become so strictly enforced. Do you have any children? (Just asking, not attacking)

    And the lack of financial support/men walking out/ being a “forced hand”, there are women who would keep the baby, if they thought the man would have stayed, but opted for abortion b/c they didn’t see a commitment from him, and didn’t want to be a single mom when they weren’t financially secure. I brought that sentiment to this arugument.

    To Elizabeth: Yes, I know there is a lot of “beauty queen” hate amongst some women, but there is something that is just, so sad about the craziness over her. I mean, duh. Beauty counts for a woman. You’d have to be delusional to think otherwise. But so much of the praise for her by regular people (that I’ve talked to out and about) is, “that woman at least knows how to put on a skirt”, implying more praise for her knowing her place as a woman (and a beautiful woman at that), than fashion choice. A lot of the fear has to do with the fact that she is relatable, and therefore, in a position to sway more public opinion.

    Like


  65. Has anyone considered that one of the major causes for resentment (as opposed to merely thinking she’s a poor choice) is not Palin’s policies or credentials, but the way in which she’s being sold (and selling herself) to the voting public? As someone who is far more hostile to subterfuge than to honest opposition, I can appreciate why people who place value on the advancement of women in the society would be angered by something that they perceive as a cynical ploy to slip a cuckoo’s egg into gender debate. They may additionally be galled by the spectacle of someone climbing to a position of power that is only possible to her because of the very societal advancements that she appears intent on undoing.

    I’m just putting this forth as a possible alternative perspective, not vouching for its substance.

    Like


  66. on September 22, 2008 at 8:25 pm Usually Lurking

    Earlier: a VP candidate that is for restricting birth control

    Later: I never stated that she proposed the bill, I said she is on a platform that supports those types of ideals.

    You said that she is for restricting Birth Control, even though, AFAIK, she has never said such a thing. Keep up the good work.

    Like


  67. It would be a real tragedy if the neocons got their hooks into Palin and get her to sing the “invite the world / invade the world” song.

    Like


  68. on September 22, 2008 at 8:28 pm Usually Lurking

    They may additionally be galled by the spectacle of someone climbing to a position of power that is only possible because of Identity Politics.

    This is why the Left hates her. Democrats would never use Identity Politics for a Vice Presidential candidate.

    Like


  69. to Doug:
    For the most part, most men have made a choice when they chose to sleep with said woman. Most women made a choice when they chose to sleep with said man. Biologically, women do have the upper hand in deciding to keep the child, since it will be growing within her. While the child is the product of both parties, this baby doesn’t develop in a shared space between both parties. The pregnancy occurs within her, why should she not get to make the decision to keep the baby? Male choice occured the second you slept with her. She became the potential mother to your children, and as such, you have a responsibility to those children. As a man, if you don’t want to be responsible for a child, espcially with certain women, don’t sleep with them. You want to make sure the baby won’t stick around, then you should sleep with women who will abort, or put the child up for adoption. And even that is up for chance, because from what I’ve seen and heard, knowing you’re pregnant significantly changes you as a woman.

    Women who have abortions or undergo adoption are not having consequence-free sex. They are having surgical procedures ending a life, and giving up their children. Those sound like some pretty serious consequences to me. A bit more than wanting to just, walk away and not have to acknowledge a child that was a mistake.

    Like


  70. Oh no Zarathustra, single urban women HATE Todd Palin with a passion. It’s why SNL suggested he molested his daughters.

    Todd Palin is everything single urban women loathe in men: blue collar, low status, supportive, etc. Single Urban Women would much rather have a John Edwards (he’s upper class, high powered lawyer, his affair and bastard child mean nothing) or Bill Clinton. High powered, high status, Alpha men who can boss other men around and generate fawning, obsequious behavior in men and women. Power is everything for single urban women.

    In fact, women having their own incomes allow them to pursue endlessly the Alpha, powerful male, with kids by IVF or sperm banks or whatever. The richer and more independent the woman, the more she demands a powerful and high-status man to marry, otherwise she’ll play Sex and the City.

    Palin is not abstinence only. Her record in the Governor’s debates was to support contraception information but not “explicit” sex-ed, which usually amounts to soft-core porn. Not rolling condoms onto a banana but fairly graphic depictions of various acts. Alaska is a conservative state, socially. No surprise that position was popular.

    Again, women HATE Palin because of her blue collar husband and family. It’s a huge threat to their way of life, just by example.

    Like


  71. Well to be honest UL: she hasn’t said much at all. One of the main selling points of the Republican party of late has been faith-based sex education, and a reduction in the use of birth-control and abortion access amongst women. Last time I checked, you can be criticized for certain party stances, esp. when you’re running in leadership positions of those parties, particularly if you haven’t spoken out against certain practices and stances of said party. If you’re leading the charge, or being put at the front of the line to lead the charge, you bear some of the responsibilty of the group you’re being asked to lead.

    Therefore, I stand by my comment. What does AFAIK stand for?

    Like


  72. @76 Yes. This is also part of the “Palin situation”

    Like


  73. It means “as far as I’m concerned.” Yeah, a misspelling.

    See also #67.

    Like


  74. Grace 80 —

    For the most part, most men have made a choice when they chose to sleep with said woman.

    A choice to have a child, and further one they will willingly support? Absolute fantasy horseshiit.

    Biologically, women do have the upper hand in deciding to keep the child, since it will be growing within her.

    Biologically men have the upper hand in deciding whether they want to support that child growing within her, or instead say “bye bye you slut. It was fun though. Don’t pretend you didn’t think so too.”

    Men are stronger, way stronger. Men form the spear points of all armies known to man now and throughout all history in all times and places, and usually the totality of them. See how long your mythological amazon kingdoms actually remain free and independent if you can ever get one going at all (which is highly doubtful), rather than slaves to nearby male warrior societies. The feminist search has turned up remarkably little verifiable amazon fruit.

    Biologically, men only give women a political voice by sufferance when they want to. You could consult history, when they, ah, didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor. Just not in favor of current feminist extremes.

    So don’t biologically me my dearest. It is not a winning argument for feminists, who instead depend upon marxist and blank slate, “gender is a social construct” ones. Mindless equality arguments, that is.

    Oh and guilt tripping about male desires for casual sex, that women share esp. these days a lot more than they know it’s wise to publically let on.

    Like


  75. Is there an underlying wish here on part of some of the men that white collar women mary blue collar men?

    If so, why?

    Like


  76. Gaah. AFAIK is not a misspelling. It’s “as far as I know”. My apologies. Crossed wires in me brain. Apologies.

    Like


  77. 85: But the bye bye slut, is why child-support became so strictly enforced right?

    Like


  78. mary=marry

    Like


  79. But the question remains: if these feminists are pro-choice WHY are they so vehemently against Bristol’s choice? And why does it bother them to know end that Palin chose not to abort Trig?

    I’m not against either of their choices; they don’t affect me in any way. But the fact that Palin would restrict my alternatives, or my daughter’s, were we in the same circumstances, really is a dealbreaker.

    I’m not against Palin’s personal choices; I’m against her imposing her personal choices on the rest of us.

    Gordan said it best: …because they view her as a female Dubya, for the most part – an unprincipled, cunning yet dumb, shrill, pandering, unmitigated moron, who believes in curtailing women’s ability to choose their own lives.

    That’s it in a nutshell: she’s scary for all the same reasons W has been scary. The prospect of another four to eight years of the status quo is downright terrifying.

    Like


  80. Grace 75–

    Doug: I don’t know if I’ve ever known anyone who’s had a divorce with children and was capricious about it (however, I’m still young).

    Then I’m sorry, you know nothing. Your attested youth is only a partial excuse. Now I’ll grant you all women know it’s ppor form and terrible PR to sound capricious about it. She must sound at least deeply troubled and oh so thoughful. Phrases like “long and hard” must be used with gf’s frequently, to ensure the customary total support.

    Ever heard of “needing to grow” or “we’ve just grown appart”. Or “I just don’t feel it any more”. Note, those same sentiments expressed by a man are generally greated with moral distain and scorn. “Grow up.” “Will you ever stop being a dog?” And so on. Women are encouraged to follow their feelings and their sexual attractions; it’s demanded of married men that they suck it up, work as hard as possible to love more and more, and that they bend over backwards in every way to make their wife happy. Never the reverse any more. Just watch American tv. Any reverse behavior by wives is saintly and way beyond any call of duty, and yet STILL that dog of a man doesn’t entirely realize how good he’s got it. Ugggg.

    Why would a man not want to support his own children? What would drive a man to not care about his own kids?

    Men want families as opposed to sex or sex partners way less than women do, and later. But most men do want them. But what they want is a FAMILY. That means including a wife, not the kids alone. Esp. not infants or very young kids alone. It’s a bio differnece, and like all of them it’s on an overlapping bell curve, where SOME men really do love infants, but not many. Once kids become older it’s different. Men may well want pre tens and teenagers more than women do — or would and did in times when they were less completely and totally entitiled and cowed down to as a social imperative than they are in current American society. So yeah it’s different when they get older.

    The vast majority of people can only afford to support a couple or maybe three kids, if they’re going to do so in any kind of high investment way, that’s rightfully favored by our Western and esp. American culture (but we go overboard in teen entitlement). So if a woman leaves for another man when a guy’s bio kids are 1 and 3 they are never going to be all that much his kids, despite enormously greater efforts required to even have a shot at it as a non custodial parent. Yet if he does support them financially and time wise, he’ll never be able to have kids that are really his own. He’ll be money and time tapped out. Most guys will.

    Meanwhile those kids will be big time and more so the deserting American wife’s. Further she can have two men supporting them. One who is legally bound to under our feminist oppressive system even though he can spend ilittle time and has little influence, all of which she can easily sabotoge, and a second man she lives with and/or marries, who is gonna end up supporting them in large part because they’re there, and she’s there, and that’s what she wants and she has pussy power right in front of him.

    Clear now? Does that answer your question?

    Like


  81. @67
    I thought that when you became a politician, your life and how you live it is part of the political process. No sarcasm was meant in that statement. Being part of a pro-life group, and having access to a new level of political power leads me to believe that she would bring that stance to DC, not leave it behind in Alaska.

    By being part of a national party platform that does call for restrictions on women’s health options, bills that would allow for optional practice of healthcare and prescriptions filled that are being championed by the party in Congress, the possibility of a Supreme Court seat opening up that, with a conservative white house could mean the overturning of Roe v. Wade, serves up a compelling reason on my end, to see her as a threat. Especially when she is being portrayed as someone who just energized that party.

    I don’t see just any pro-life VP as signaling the end of the Pill, I’m seeing the current political climate and the new Chief Justice. She is part of a party that has segments within it looking to restrict access to birth control and abortions.

    Like


  82. @ Doug -92
    You’re right, I know nothing about divorces made on a whim, or a rough year, or the ability to walk away from a child that was my own easily. I don’t think my age has anything to do with that.

    Like


  83. @Doug
    That wasn’t meant to be an insult, I’ve just never been in that situation, and I’m not a man. I just didn’t understand knowing that you have a child out there, but not wanting it.

    Like


  84. 96 Grace:

    I just didn’t understand knowing that you have a child out there, but not wanting it.

    Sometimes after a drunken night of hoggin’, one wants to remove the memory from one’s mind as quickly as humanly possible.

    That “memory-eraser” in Men In Black would be a great invention.

    Like


  85. No dodging. You referred to (and it’s all up there in the comments if anyone wants the full text for context) “a VP candidate that is for restricting birth control.” Either you’re confusing abortion with birth control or you’re dodging the question from #67. Or the whole thread has gotten too confusing.

    Here are the goalposts, which are immobile:
    Has she or has she not taken an anti-birth control stance?
    What makes her different from other Republicans, as potential VP candidate, regarding the issue?
    Do you honestly think the Republican party will attempt to restrict currently ubiquitous birth control measures as condoms or the pill?

    Like


  86. Grace 80 —

    Women who have abortions or undergo adoption are not having consequence-free sex. They are having surgical procedures ending a life, and giving up their children. Those sound like some pretty serious consequences to me.

    That’s utterly inconsequential compared to 18 years or sometimes even more of intentrued servitude. The courts can and do even prevent men from chaniing to a more emotionally rewarding, but less remunerative career,. so as to keep the prime directive, highest level child support=alimony at it’s maximum level. No joke. Happens all the time in many states including California.

    Indentured servitude? What would you call 30% of your after tax income for a child you didn’t want, not raised by you, and which society currently morally shames you into pretending you do want, despite men virtually never having wanted kids under those circumstances in the past (unloess for some reason therir other options in having bio kids were totally foreclosed).

    It’s extreme and repulsive. The only reason most men don’t go nuts about it is they think it is never going to happen to them. That, and they have NO IDEA what “child support” really means, particularly if their a professional or similar upper middle class earner.

    (And no, I’ve never had to pay child support, and no I don’t have kids.)

    Like


  87. *****
    Agreed on the whole anti-feminist sentiment. That’s awesome and easy to do. You dont mention though that most of the outrage comes from her being anti-choice. That’s why ‘feminists’ dont like her.

    What’s hard is defending Palin as fit to be president. Nevermind her grating as fuck accent, just listen to her in-too-deep, only-got-the-interview-because-of-her-looks sounding answers to questions. definitely a gamble by the GOP, one which i dont think will pay off.
    *****
    She is no less experienced than “The One”, which is pretty obvious.

    A better question is how did Obama, who has no personal wealth, no PUBLIC connections, no experience, nothing, manage to get to be the Democrats Presidential Canidate?

    Hillary obviously had Bill Clinton’s help.
    Bush II obviously had Bush I, and the enormous Bush family fortune and power to draw on.
    McCain has been around forever, and has huge amounts of favors and connection to call on.
    Palin was deliberately picked to court the Hillary PUMAs.

    Blacks were going to vote Democrat anyway, no need to court them at all.

    Who exactly, did The One sell his soul to, to get this nomination? Oh, and the Hillary supporters have documented throughly that the Democrat shadow leaders broke every rule imaginable to get The One the nomination.
    WHY. Who, in the massive plural, is Obama beholden to?

    Like


  88. I think it worth pointing out that those who believe the women who are having a visceral, hateful reaction to Palin because of “the issues” are mistaken. Palin is A) pretty, B) a happy mom, C) happily married and D) confident, while the reams of single, childless, bitter feminist urban professional women who hate here are E) None of the above.

    Like


  89. “She’s beautiful, she’s powerful, she’s popular, she has a husband who evidently adores her, and she has a beautiful family. ”

    She is not that beautiful. Maybe kind of attractive in a cheap porn way. But maybe its just me. After all, I typically only date models.

    Powerful- Sure Governor of Alaska is more big time than Mayor of some hick town, but lets not get overly excited.

    she’s popular – and very unpopular too. Just because people love you at the fairgrounds at the annual chilli cook off, doesn’t make you popular.

    he has a husband who evidently adores her – That guy is probably just happy he has a wife. Its not like Alaska is some endless pool of beautiful women. Although, I am speculating, I have never been.

    beautiful family – Maybe in some in-bred redneck kind of way. But I can’t really relate.

    – MPM

    Like


  90. 91: words mean things, and when you use them sloppily like this people like myself — smart people who know a thing or two — stop taking you seriously.

    I said “terrifying” because I meant “terrifying”. That you don’t agree with it is immaterial.

    And if we’re going to be so picky about the sloppy use of language, perhaps some folks here would like to keep in mind that not endorsing a presidential candidate is not the same as “hating” him or her.

    Like


  91. Nancy Pelosi also has five children, but she married into money.

    Nancy Pelosi’s father was the former mayor of Baltimore.

    At a healty 2.5, of course.

    The problem is that raising kids takes up time and energy that some people just aren’t willing to deal with anymore. Imagine trying to find and pay for a six or seven bedroom home or the logistics dealing with five kids around without a nanny? Most people can barely maintain two kids without going deep into debt, it’s going to be impossible to raise four or five without going into poverty on a single-income salary. For all intents and purposes, Palin is a fluke who lucked out. We’re lucky that she didn’t end up WIC with welfare and Section 8 checks. There’s no way that in the lower 48, she would have even risen to governor as quickly…

    It is very frustrating to read in the media the stereotypes about stay at home moms: If you have chosen to raise your own children you must be stupid, uneducated, unambitious, etc. This attitude is reflected in the media’s assault on Palin.

    I grew up with a mom who stayed at home, and from my vantage point, it only created a depressing boring world where her intelligence wilted and her emotional isolation increased. I’m thankful that she stayed at home, but quite frankly, I feel guilty for destroying her as a person.

    the single urban women HATE Todd Palin.

    One could argue that the hate is because Palin is a prole blue collar male. He isn’t the high-ranking alpha male with power that they desire. For all intents and purposes, while Todd Palin has high wages, he just isn’t the kind of man that one brags about as a husband if one grows up in blue-state locales. One brags about their lawyer/doctor/upper management husband, and it such a choice wins the approval of the parents who subsidized the grad/law/med school needed to attract such men for long-term relationships.

    By turning Red State kids into Blue State Liberals.

    I prefer the phrase, “making them into *white* people”.

    Abstinence-only supporters are hardly the only women whose methods have failed.

    The issue here is that a sizable number of the abstinence only supporters were fully wedded to their solutions as 100% foolproof. Those of us on the sex-ed side understand that teenagers will have sex, but the goal is to reduce the incidences of teenage pregnancy as much as possible.

    She is not that beautiful. Maybe kind of attractive in a cheap porn way.

    There’s nothing wrong with being attractive in a cheap porn way. 🙂

    Like


  92. I think leftist women hate Palin because they hate everybody they don’t agree with. Females substitute emotions for reason. Women just have no use for logic.

    They know they can’t win most of their fights by democratic means or by reasoned argument. Thus, their hateful response to challenges to their positions or views.

    And, all those women with self imposed childlessness, since they are depending on the govt and Wall St. to support them after they are done working, must be feeling very uneasy right now.

    I would.

    Like


  93. Who’s Who–

    WHY. Who, in the massive plural, is Obama beholden to?

    The answer you’re looking for is women.

    That’s certainly who he needs in larger numbers than he can now be sure of, particularly older married women, to get elected.

    The “who in the massive plural” that O’Bama most relied upon in his rise to power was university educated single or recently married young people, who’ve been massively and thoroughly propaganzied in politically correct guild and status competition. The purest form of that status competition is their willingness to elect a smart and elite educated black man who makes at least noises in the “lets all get along” version of multiculturalism.

    Note that looking to hard at just how leftist his actual voting record is, is not part of this mindset.

    Support for O’bama, particularly his core support, is overwhelming about wearing an O’bama badge oh so proudly. It’s overwhelming about what supporting O’bama early and loudly SAYS ABOUT YOU. It’s a moral and religious statement, rather than a practical decision.

    It’s most emphatically not about what O’bama can do for you (for his core of young white liberal supporters), or for white America. It’s rather how about those petty considerations his core supporters are signaling that they feel.

    Actually being in a deep recession would probably erode a lot of this kind of basis for support, in favor of a lot more nuts and bolts evaluation.

    Like


  94. Correction:

    It’s rather how about how above,those petty considerations his core supporters are signaling that they feel.

    Like


  95. Yours Truly —

    Given the college disparities, either College educated women marry blue collar men, or they end up sharing a few college educated men. Given that more women than men attend college.

    Anon — women loved Bill Clinton’s power. That he cheated on his wife was bonus for them. It confirmed his power. It’s what young single urban women want, largely.

    David Alexander — Palin afforded five kids on the fraction of the money Pelosi required with the help of “free” childcare by still-young parents, siblings still around, not separated by time and space, and a supportive husband with good money if not high-prestige career. Moreover, Alaska despite high costs allows hunting to supplement the food budget, and has low real estate costs. Palin’s buddies helped him build his house — something that shows the power of blue collar social networking.

    Like


  96. Whiskey 110–

    Given that more women than men attend college.

    That’s true but not in just the way you probably envision.

    It’s a lot closer to the truth to say that more women than men graduate from not so great colleges, but the numbers are pretty equal at the elites.

    Actually what the numbers are at the elites is gonna depend very heavily on the exact admissions criteria used. There’s a big tendency to favor women, or probably more accurately to view benignly those criteria which do end up favoring women, but with great suspicion any that favor men.

    If you’re gonna favor near perfect grade averages in HS, you’re gonna favor women. They’re way more obedient to authority; men are way more rebellious against it, and find the turmoil of their particular sex hormone bath far more distracting (if ironically and cruely in the average high IQ case, less likely to result in payoff than the far lower turmoil female interest in the other sex). If you’re gonna favor single most stellar or creative achievement to date, you’ll often favor men. SAT’s will come in even at the averages, but higest SAT’s that elites favor will favor men.

    At the elite college level, a consistent record of community contributions will favor women, but extracurricular leadership or creativity is likely to favor men.

    Do you want good reliable high level beauracrats or do you want a good percentage of our highest achievers and future leaders to be among your alumni?

    Oh and another thing. Dollar for dollar in income earned after graduation, women make lousy alumni. It’s not close. It’s not remotely close. THey don’t give squat, even when they make big. Look it up.

    Like


  97. on September 23, 2008 at 1:02 am Usually Lurking

    I’m not against Palin’s personal choices; I’m against her imposing her personal choices on the rest of us.

    Yeah, having the Federal Government involved in your life is a bitch, isn’t it? Luckily, the Left made Activist Judges and a large centralized Gov’t possible.

    …he took a conservative position on nearly all these issues…

    Clio, he had no intention of taking any of those positions. But, being elected with the smallest percentage of voters since the Civil War he simply “triangulated” his positions and what was popular to make sure that he could stay relevant. Fuck, Bush could have learned something from him.

    He talked the talk that the Left wanted to hear. He feels your pain and your intern.

    They saw that he wanted to do things like impose Gun Control and (further) centralize/socialize Health Care and failed to do so, so, he triangulated and talked the talk. It was good enough for them.

    Like


  98. 101 Look at who donates to his campaign and you’ll know.

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac donated more money to him then any other legistator bar one.

    Ayres got him on boards in Chicago. As did Rezko. It’s all being written about online. All the dots are connected. You just won’t read about it in MSM.

    Like


  99. #105 – David Alexander

    “I grew up with a mom who stayed at home, and from my vantage point, it only created a depressing boring world where her intelligence wilted and her emotional isolation increased. I’m thankful that she stayed at home, but quite frankly, I feel guilty for destroying her as a person.”

    You know what – intellectual stimulation and social connections her own responsibility. If she didn’t make the effort, that’s on her, not you.

    Like


  100. Hmmm. I don’t hate her. I just don’t think she is very intelligent.

    Sorry, I don’t want to run into the future leader of my country, man or woman, at the fucking grocery store buying formula or have a beer with them at the local tavern. Don’t they have more important shit to be attending to?

    Like


  101. Well to be fair to the “femi-nazis”, everyone hates Sarah Palin except Bible thumping evangelicals (i.e., the Republican party powerbase).

    And the idea that McCain could die in office and leave this chick as President IS pretty scary, you have to admit.

    Like


  102. BTW, “moose murdering”? LOL!

    Like


  103. Palin afforded five kids on the fraction of the money Pelosi required with the help of “free” childcare by still-young parents, siblings still around

    Some of those stuff young parents would prefer to enjoy their post-children years, but her selfishness and stupidity destroyed that. The same goes for the siblings who have to aid their sister who was too stupid to figure out how condoms, birth control, and abortions work.

    hunting to supplement the food budget

    How many Americans can hunt for food within 5 miles of their home? Unless I’m shooting down seagulls or fishing for whatever sea creatures I can find in the polluted waters in the bay or ocean, I’m stuck with whatever I can get from the supermarket.

    Besides, I would imagine most people with a decent IQ would avoid having children if it meant having to hunt and eat “alternative” meats like moose.

    Palin’s buddies helped him build his house — something that shows the power of blue collar social networking.

    Why the fuck would I want to rely on my friends to build my house? They’re not professionals, and hell, it’s a miracle such a house would stand up to housing codes…

    You know what – intellectual stimulation and social connections her own responsibility. If she didn’t make the effort, that’s on her, not you.

    All of the smart women were at work while she was at home, and if you didn’t work, you didn’t have the money to associate with them and their activities.

    Like


  104. “side understand that teenagers will have sex,”
    You have learned Gannon’s lessons well.

    Like


  105. I believe many elitist males are also perturbed by the choice of Palin because she lacks the credentials and background they associate with legitimate success. In short, her career and life success spits in the face of their lifestyle choices as well. Do others share these sentiments?

    Like


  106. Also, to the people who suggest the Palin haters are fueled by her abortion stance–I would add politics isn’t about policy. These elections are about which social faction will have higher social status. Real politics seems to be more about who will be our leaders, and what coalitions will rise or fall in status as a result. Election media coverage focuses on characterizing the candidates themselves – their personalities, styles, friends, beliefs, etc. We mainly care about how policies will effect which kinds of people, and who will be respected….
    -big ups to Robin Hanson

    Like


  107. David Alexander #118:

    “All of the smart women were at work while she was at home, and if you didn’t work, you didn’t have the money to associate with them and their activities.”

    Why couldn’t she read a book? Did she have any friends before getting married? Before having children? Could your father or your relatives have watched you while she went out every once in awhile?

    Machines don’t have free will. Your mother is a person, so she’s able to make her own choices.

    Like


  108. T said:Yes, but based on the backlash there’s also an underlying sense that were she not so good-looking, the hate would be a LOT less vehement among radical feminists

    I agree with you but two of the most popular American feminists were very attractive in their day. Both Naomi Wolf and

    Like


  109. QT
    Hmmm. I don’t hate her. I just don’t think she is very intelligent.

    Sorry, I don’t want to run into the future leader of my country, man or woman, at the fucking grocery store buying formula or have a beer with them at the local tavern. Don’t they have more important shit to be attending to?

    *Agrees with QT*

    I need my president to have polish.

    Like


  110. It is my opinion Palin could be a very good president with some luck. However, other than luck, I believe the second most important factor is decision-making ability which is often correlated with intellect, but not always.

    Like


  111. Joel got it right:
    “I think leftist women hate Palin because they hate everybody they don’t agree with. Females substitute emotions for reason. Women just have no use for logic.”

    Anyone who knows Northeastern liberal young females knows that they hate anyone who disagrees with them and they are very closed-minded. Mostly, they just don’t think at all – they copy what they see. Men just pretend to like Obama to fuck these worthless cunts.

    Sarah Palin has her problems. She hires and fires based on pettiness and personal vendettas. Her record is meager. We have no idea how she believes on the most important issues, such as immigration and judges. She is no hero. And she’s not THAT good-looking, seriously.

    But if feminists hate her so much, she has to be good. Remember, young feminist bitches are not pro-“choice” as they are pro-abortion. They actively want more babies killed. Check out a law student message board. If they were pro-“choice”, they’d support Sarah and Bristol’s decisions.

    Like


  112. Dougjnn — The number of elite colleges grads of say Harvard, vs. the aggregated grads of Cal State system? Not even close. The elite are the elite, yes equal in gender, but not below them. Some places like UC Riverside have 60% women enrolled and graduating.

    My point is that, ala the “Why Boys Fail” website, most women educated in College, such as say, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who came out of UConn, will unless they become rich and famous, have to “settle” for a husband without a degree. Or no husband at all, which growning numbers of women are choosing: single motherhood through sperm donors.

    David Alexander — you miss the point, which is that a close knit family and having kids young made Palin nearly as rich as Pelosi. Family counts. Having four siblings herself and two still young parents and a husband left by my counting: EIGHT adults to spread child-care duties over, as opposed to the nanny and housekeeper for Pelosi. Young singletons with no kids leave no genetic legacy — they simply disappear and the future belongs to either/both Palin and Pelosi. Those “rich” enough to afford the future.

    Alaska has high food costs due to poor agriculture and bad transport. You don’t hunt a few miles from your home, but you also don’t pay $12 for a jar of Skippy Peanut butter. Palin’s buddies were contractors. So they likely knew more about what they were doing than the cheap immigrant labor that built the McMansions. Probably better built.

    Kelonymous — elite males who are big time Liberal players hate Palin, if nothing else for social positioning. However elite males who are “beta” and stand around watching other guys make time with girls love her — she’s like a Lara Croft videogame come to life.

    A lot of our politics goes to who has sex and who does not.

    Like


  113. on September 23, 2008 at 5:29 am Comment_Reality_Check

    ****
    The “who in the massive plural” that O’Bama most relied upon in his rise to power was university educated single or recently married young people, who’ve been massively and thoroughly propaganzied in politically correct guild and status competition. The purest form of that status competition is their willingness to elect a smart and elite educated black man who makes at least noises in the “lets all get along” version of multiculturalism.
    ****
    Comment 107.

    And then someone says something that lets you know that you exist in entirely different universes.

    People should know the difference between useful idiot foot-soldiers and somebody who can reschedule the Iowa primary so Obama can get some wins in before Super-Tuesday

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprimaries/

    Now, I know. The Iowa primary DID benefit Obama, it WAS rescheduled, other states rescheduling were penalized with vote loss but Idaho wasn’t, but this just all magically happened, you know. It just fell to earth.

    College kids also prevented the national news services from airing Reverend White until after Obama had the primaries locked. They did this from their college dorm computers while in their underwear.

    Like


  114. Doug,
    Somethin’s not right here. We’re beginning to agree too much!

    Excellent points, sir. Oh, and if Grace is reading along, I’ve given the Roe For Men issue a full treatment in a paper I wrote on the matter, I think it was earlier this year. Google my name and the term “Roe For Men” and you’ll see it. All of your arguments have been thorougly examined therein.

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  115. Some places like UC Riverside have 60% women enrolled and graduating.

    Well, men can still enter traditionally blue collar trade work or construction and receive some decent wages. In contrast, women don’t really have any alternatives that pay nearly as well.

    Palin nearly as rich as Pelosi

    There is no way that Palin could be as wealthy as Pelosi.

    EIGHT adults to spread child-care duties over

    Yes, but that’s eight adults who are using up their time and resources to take care of a child. Palin stole their resources to subsidize her family, and IMHO, that’s wrong as those resources could have been utilized for the maximal benefit and enjoyment of others.

    Young singletons with no kids leave no genetic legacy — they simply disappear

    Why is it so important to leave a genetic legacy? Is the bar for human success so low to a point where simply reproducing means that you’re winner over a childless millionaire who leaves money behind for a charity to operate? Hell, by your logic, a poor woman who gives birth to 10 underfed, undernourished children is a winner over Bill Gates.

    Palin’s buddies were contractors. So they likely knew more about what they were doing than the cheap immigrant labor that built the McMansions. Probably better built.

    Actually, judging from what I’ve seen from house hunting, the immigrant labour seems to do a decent job of building stuff…

    Palin lucked out because he and his friends had the time, energy, and ability to construct a home. I don’t have any friends who would be willing to do that, and I wouldn’t be willing to risk myself on such an activity either. I would suspect that many other Americans are in a similar predicament as well.

    Like


  116. on September 23, 2008 at 6:09 am Comment_Reality_Check

    ****
    The “who in the massive plural” that O’Bama most relied upon in his rise to power was university educated single or recently married young people, who’ve been massively and thoroughly propaganzied in politically correct guild and status competition. The purest form of that status competition is their willingness to elect a smart and elite educated black man who makes at least noises in the “lets all get along” version of multiculturalism.
    ****
    Single people and blacks didn’t reschedule the Nevada and South Carolina primary, so that Obama could have some wins coming into Super-Tueday. Wow! That Obama sure tore up those primaries specifically picked and then moved forward in time so they would be first. How did he do that?
    Apparently a link to the New York Times just got ate, so here is a another one:
    http://www.scdp.org/news/scdemsnews/83/
    In another link, we discover the powerful tactic of outright lying, where the Nevada and South Carolina advancement are not the result of Committee voting, but rather just a result of “the rules”.
    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RETN981&show_article=1&catnum=0

    I didn’t know the conscious decision of the DNC to support Obama by forwarding South Carolina, where almost all democrats are black, as “the rules”.

    Needless to say, the college kids in their underwear, used their dorm computers to suppress Reverend White until after the primaries were locked up.

    What awesome power they possess.

    Like


  117. Chic,
    Thanks for the ho to’s of posting my mugshot here. I may eventually get around to it, but in the meantime if you or anyone else wants to know what I look like, my pic is on my blog. Btw, I’ve added yours to my reading list. Nice pics, especially the ones of the gal with the car over her head.;)

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  118. It’s a lot closer to the truth to say that more women than men graduate from not so great colleges, but the numbers are pretty equal at the elites.

    Is it not true that a large portion of the not so great colleges in the US are basically just schools with a fancy name and not a real university?

    You are right about the numbers, men’s bell curve, on pretty much eveything, is flatter than that of women. While there are more women of reasonable intelligence (say, IQ100-120), you will find men outnumbering women at the high levels. Another thing as that men, being more interested in competing and taking risks because of testosterone, will achieve more with the same amount of education.

    Educated women largely seek an intelligent, cultured man who can support her and does not stick out like a sore thumb. The boy who dropped out of college and has a succesful business can easily marry a girl who got her degrees. He fits the bill and she also meets guys like him because he could be the brother of one of her friends.

    You may also see a blue collar cop with a white collar admin girl, again because they tend to come from the same families.

    What you won’t see often is a female lawyer marrying a male garbageman. These people basically live in different worlds, rarely meet socially and are not that compatible. You also see very few male lawyers marrying a toilet lady by the way, especially among those under 30. Most lawyers come from parents who have been to college and go to highschool and university with people from similar families. Most garbagemen come from working class parents who mainly have working class friends. It is very rare to see one child become a lawyer and the other a garbageman on toilet lady inside one family. The different classes are a lot like different cultures in one country. Trying to get them to intermarry at high rates sound like a pretty fruitless pursuit to me.

    The other thing is that some of the men who took high testosterone induced risks, will simply lose. A failed business, being fired or another unlucky event can render a man a lot less marriageable if he fails to pick himself up afterwards. There is also a higher incidence of mental illness and substance abuse among men than among women. Finally some men will have accidents. These men will naturally have trouble finding a wife, and some of them do come from middle class families, creating a deficit of men among the middle classes. Finally some very intelligent men are just pretty eccentric. I think for the most part, women are wise in avoiding these men when it comes to starting families.

    I think men who are firmly blue collar will have better luck finding themselves wives among women from blue collar families and not worrying too much about what female lawyers do. The lower to middle end of the bell curve also has a larger proportion of women than men, and only the prettiest of them can marry up, so I suspect blue collar men who are gainfully employed and upstanding citizens to have little trouble finding a wife. If they do, then either the working class women are marrying underclass men, or they are choosing singlehood in large numbers. I guess among the subproles you will also find an excessive amount of men, most unfit for parenthood. Underclass women tend to prefer the government as a provider since the men in their circle are lack steady employment or are druggies and criminals that are dangerous to have around.

    Abstinence-only supporters are hardly the only women whose methods have failed.

    Countries where condoms and the pill are used fervently have the lowest rates of both abortions and unwanted births. And I say this as a person who feels BCP are bad for the health of women, men and the environment at large; they are most effective at preventing surprise pregnancies among the sexually active. On a personal level, I would not ruin my health with BCP but rather just keep my legs closed until there is enough commitment to use methods that are healthier. But I am also realistic enough to see that it takes backbone to do this and that people with no backbone getting pregnant at high levels is undesirable in a society.

    Like


  119. Camile Paglia — lesbian, men-lovin’, Democrat-yet-irreverent — sees Sarah Palin as an exciting new feminist:

    “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.”

    More here:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index1.html

    Like


  120. — She is not that beautiful. Maybe kind of attractive in a cheap porn way.

    Whoever said that is an idiot. Pamela Anderson, Courtney Love, yes, cheap porn-looking.

    Palin is one of those rare women who looks very attractive well into her fourties. It’s probably the good skin and the baby fat she still has that gives her the youthful appearance. I also heard somewhere that having a first child before she’s thirty gives a woman the right hormonal mix for a longer youthfullness.

    Contrast Palin with other women her age who keep in shape, and you’ll see a major difference. Someone like Nancy Pelosi a decade ago, or Donna Perrino (Bush’s spokeswoman) have preserved the beauty of their youth through gym workouts, hair styling, skin creams, makeup, and possibly a bit of nip & tuck.

    “Miracles in Taxidermy” is what I call them.

    Palin, she’s a natural. If you were to toussle a well-preserved 45-year old woman’s hair, she’d turn into a scarecrow. Palin, she’d just give you a naughty look, throw her head back, and look awesome.

    — Will the White birthrate in the USA continue to fall like a stone?

    A minor quibble but I believe White birthrates in the U.S. are at or just below replacement, though unevenly distributed across regions and social classes. Also, if you lump White-Asian births and light-skinned Hispanic-White births into the mix, U.S. Whites are probably doing OK.

    Also, if my informal reading and anecdotal onservation are correct, it looks like having children is going back in style among middle class women.

    — I’m not against Palin’s personal choices; I’m against her imposing her personal choices on the rest of us.

    Seconding UL’s response @112. It’s hypocricy to the nth degree to see a Leftist bitch about the Government’s intrusion into the private sphere.

    — And the idea that McCain could die in office and leave this chick as President IS pretty scary, you have to admit.

    No, you have to admit. I think that if she were to surround herself with sensible advisors she’d be a good, conservative president, to the extent that presidents are more than ceremonial figureheads. And to the extend that the Left and the media weren’t hellbound on destroying her.

    That was GW Bush’s big mistake. Other than his open borders obsession, on which he’s always been a True Believer, he had many sensible instincts prior to 9/11. The problem is that he surrounded himself with Neocons, who ruined his presidency.

    Like


  121. That is an interesting thought. I do think most black Americans’ parents and grandparents were working class because of segregation. That makes them follow more similar patterns to educated whites from blue collar families. I wonder if black women whose parents and perhaps grandparents have been to college are also more willing to date blue collar guys seriously…

    I was largely talking about my own country, by the way, but class works similarly throughout the western world.

    Thing is, what’s happening in Black America, is beginning to happen in White America-fewer and fewer White males are choosing to go on to higher ed.

    So, why are fewer and fewer boys going to college?

    Why is not this problem voiced rather than too many girls going?

    Problem w/that is, that often a child or two, or three, results, and…well, I think you can figure it out from there.

    This is stupidity. If a man is unfit, in your eyes, to marry, then he is also unfit to sire children.

    Like


  122. I grew up with a mom who stayed at home, and from my vantage point, it only created a depressing boring world where her intelligence wilted and her emotional isolation increased. I’m thankful that she stayed at home, but quite frankly, I feel guilty for destroying her as a person.

    Holy shit, Mr. Alexander. You’re really going hard for that liberal “authenticity” that can only come from victimhood. What kind of rediculous self-flagellation is this? You, as a child, should have sorted your mother’s life out for her?

    Like


  123. @PA
    Palin is one of those rare women who looks very attractive well into her fourties. It’s probably the good skin and the baby fat she still has that gives her the youthful appearance. I also heard somewhere that having a first child before she’s thirty gives a woman the right hormonal mix for a longer youthfullness.

    If you think having babies early helps a woman stay attractive, head on over to the midwest and see what some of our early to mid 40’s women look like. Yikes.

    Good looks into the later years is strictly genetics. Like a previous poster said – all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

    Also, being a college-educated woman and having dated blue-collar men (something about that toolbelt….) the biggest risk is actually that your husband will suffer some injury (ie, neck or back) that makes it impossible for him to work, leaving you to foot the bill solo. If he is adept at childcare, great! But for some reason, nurturing children and laying concrete don’t seem to go hand in hand too often.

    Like


  124. If you think having babies early helps a woman stay attractive, head on over to the midwest and see what some of our early to mid 40’s women look like. Yikes.

    It’s just somethign I’ve heard. Intuitively, it strikes me as plausible, on the use-it-ir-lose-it principle. In the sense that having a child early lets the body know to stay fertile.

    There are probably other factors involved with the Midwest women you’re talking about, such as slovenliness and obesity. Other than that, you’re right in that genes determine much with regards to ageing.

    Like


  125. There are probably other factors involved with the Midwest women you’re talking about, such as slovenliness and obesity.

    Absolutely. It is disgusting.

    Another thing I have noticed among middle-aged women trying to stay attractive is that they emphasize weight loss above all else, leaving some of them with what I call the tell-tale “skin stretch”. A young woman, unless she is an elite athlete, does not have skin stretched so thin over her muscles that you can do a vein count. There is always a thin, pleasant layer of “fat” or suppleness, for lack of a better biological word on my part. I think that might be what you mean with your “Miracles in Taxidermy” description.

    I don’t know if you know what I am talking about, but it is a sure-fire indicator of age if you know what to look for.

    Like


  126. Another thing I have noticed among middle-aged women trying to stay attractive is that they emphasize weight loss above all else,

    Oh, I know exactly what you mean. Courtney Cox and Jennifer Anniston in the latter seasons of “Friends,” with those wiry man-arms.

    Like


  127. on September 23, 2008 at 1:04 pm Usually Lurking

    Another thing I have noticed among middle-aged women trying to stay attractive is that they emphasize weight loss above all else, leaving some of them with what I call the tell-tale “skin stretch”

    Holy Shit, preach!

    Yes, many obese people need to lose weight, but way too many girls take the ….oh, I just saw that PA gave my exact example.

    Like


  128. Actresses tend to be especially vulnerable to over-thinness and “skin-stretch” because they try to fight the tendency of the camera to add weight to their appearance on film. You’ll notice that they tend to look better on TV or in films than they do in candid shots.

    As for pregnancy, I think there’s some confusion about it in the above comments. It’s true that if a woman’s first priority is preserving her looks/figure, she’s better off having her children in her 20s or early 30s at the latest. Any later than that, her pregnancy weight will be harder to lose, and her skin won’t “shrink” back to normal as easily after delivery, leaving her vulnerable to loose skin, stretch marks, and cellulite.

    Clio

    Like


  129. “Dear Diary: Heather told me she teaches people “real life.” She said, real life sucks losers dry. You want to fuck with the eagles, you have to learn to fly. I said, so, you teach people how to spread their wings and fly? She said, yes. I said, you’re beautiful.”

    Like


  130. on September 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm Usually Lurking

    One thing that I always found interesting during the Calista Flockhart/Courtney Cox/Jennifer Aniston get-as-thin-as-possible craze was that Tiffany Amber Thiessen was completely bucking the trend by adding on a few pounds (a few, not a ton) and the grand majority of guys found her WAY better looking than the previously mentioned girls.

    Like


  131. 137 Yours Truly

    So, why are fewer and fewer boys going to college?

    It’s not that fewer boys are going to college — more people, boys and girls, are going to college now than they ever have before. It’s just that the percentage of women going to college is higher than the percentage of men going to college.

    As for why more men aren’t going to college — it’s prohibitively expensive, and the current college environment (very ideological professors teaching their subjects in very ideological ways) isn’t really welcoming for men.

    The truth is that college isn’t for most people, men or women. Higher education should be exactly that — very intense, specialized education for people who want to be scholars or who want to learn for learning’s sake. College shouldn’t be what it’s basically become: general education, the new high school, only very expensive instead of free.

    Like


  132. on September 23, 2008 at 2:31 pm Usually Lurking

    Elizabeth, right on.

    Yours Truly, previously you asked if Universities in America offered the same rigorous education that is found in Europe. I can’t speak for the Humanities and Liberal Arts, but most students who graduate with a degree in a hard science do just fine by their future employers. This goes for almost any University in America.

    Our biggest problem is that our Physics students are not allowed to concentrate on Physics…they are forced to take “History of Islam” and “World Literature” and a bunch of other courses to complete their “General Education Requirements”.

    Like


  133. on September 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm Usually Lurking

    Elizabeth, right on.

    Yours Truly, previously you asked if Universities in America offered the same rigorous education that is found in Europe. I can’t speak for the Humanities and Liberal Arts, but most students who graduate with a degree in a hard science do just fine by their future employers. This goes for almost any University in America.

    Our biggest problem is that our Physics students are not allowed to concentrate on Physics…they are forced to take “History of Islam” and “World Literature” and a bunch of other courses to complete their “General Education Requirements”.

    Like


  134. on September 23, 2008 at 2:32 pm Usually Lurking

    woops

    Like


  135. 136 PA

    No, you have to admit. I think that if she were to surround herself with sensible advisors she’d be a good, conservative president, to the extent that presidents are more than ceremonial figureheads. And to the extend that the Left and the media weren’t hellbound on destroying her.

    That was GW Bush’s big mistake. Other than his open borders obsession, on which he’s always been a True Believer, he had many sensible instincts prior to 9/11. The problem is that he surrounded himself with Neocons, who ruined his presidency.

    The problem is that you have to be motivated and knowledgeable to (i) have a good chance of selecting suitable advisors in the first place, and (ii) prevent their advice from becoming too corrupt. A better president than GWB probably wouldn’t have surrounded himself with such extreme neocon advisors in the first place; and even if he/she was unlucky enough to do so, he/she’d still be able to call them on their worst bullshit.

    I fear that Palin is not capable of this, though I don’t have enough information to be confident about this assessment.

    Like


  136. All reasonable points, DoJ, but they apply to Obama even more than they apply to Palin. Just look at some of his former associates.

    Like


  137. 152 PA

    All reasonable points, DoJ, but they apply to Obama even more than they apply to Palin. Just look at some of his former associates.

    Agreed. Franklin Raines, in particular, is fucking scary if he is one of those associates. I have an acquaintance who reports that he once had lunch with Raines in 1998, when he was a bond trader at D.E. Shaw and Raines was CEO of Fannie Mae. (Full disclosure: I’m not entirely confident in the reported details here… Wikipedia tells me that Raines did not become CEO until 1999.) His impression?

    “Yes, I’ve met him, talked with him, and I got a good sense of just how much he understands about economics. It’s enough to fleece America. Yes, that much. I wish I had my first blog back, because I wrote about the experience there. I’ve never…ever…EVER in my life felt so much like here is a guy who would sell the world to hell for a million bucks. Except it was more like tens of millions of bucks.

    And yes, he’s been at the top of Obama’s team. What does that tell you? Do you still trust Obama?”

    Now, the “he’s been at the top of Obama’s team” claim is false, as far as I can tell. So, yeah, combined with the whole 1998 thing, it’s clear that this is not a noiseless source of information. Both Raines and the Obama campaign are now claiming that they have nothing to do with each other, and for all I know, they aren’t lying.

    Nevertheless, given his background, I recognize the possibility that men with this level of corruption are behind Obama, even if Raines isn’t one of them. I’d say it’s at least 20% likely, actually. So, as far as I’m concerned, McCain has a very low bar to clear. Really, all he has to do is properly acknowledge GWB’s worst mistakes and make it clear how he’s going to avoid repeating them.

    But, despite his “maverick” reputation, he hasn’t done this. McCain might have awful puppeteers too. So right now I’m undecided, and disgusted by both tickets.

    Like


  138. on September 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm Comment_Corrections

    I made a few mistakes in my Reality Check posts:

    Iowa was rescheduled, but it’s supposed to be early, so I shouldn’t have put it in front.

    Specifically, the rescheduling of Nevada and South Carolina are the key ‘the fix is in’ for Obama. They WERE NOT supposed to be early at all.
    “The Democratic National Committee allowed Nevada and South Carolina to move their contests to January to provide regional and ethnic balance.”

    Meanwhile, Florida, whose primary was rescheduled by Republicans, loses it’s votes. Cause the Democrats should have stopped the Republicans from doing it!

    And it’s Reverend Wright not Reverend White.

    On the side, I find it surreal that people keep repeating the Obama talking points over and over again.

    I need more sleep.

    Like


  139. 136: Seconding UL’s response @112. It’s hypocricy to the nth degree to see a Leftist bitch about the Government’s intrusion into the private sphere.

    Neither a Leftist nor a hypocrite. And not talking about Government intrustion, but rather the significant blurring of church & state in the form of people like Palin & McCain. Religious zealotry doesn’t belong in the White House. If you think it does, then fine — vote for them!

    Like


  140. Religious zealotry doesn’t belong in the White House.

    That depends on the religion, and also how you define “zealotry.” Christianity is the faith of most Americans and virtually the exclusive religion of our historic population. Attempts to diminish Christianity’s role in our public life are thus un-American.

    FDR led seven-minute prayer sessions on the radio during WW2. Was he a religioius zealot?

    Like


  141. “Hmmm. I don’t hate her. I just don’t think she is very intelligent.

    Sorry, I don’t want to run into the future leader of my country, man or woman, at the fucking grocery store buying formula or have a beer with them at the local tavern. Don’t they have more important shit to be attending to?”

    There is NO connection between education and virtue. There is no connection between education and wisdom. There is no connection between education and judgement. Far too many people have fallen for the idea that there is. People must remember, an elected president has an entire administration of hundreds of people under him/her, carrying out the daily duties of the office. These people are usually the Ph.D.s. But, as the final decision maker, a president has to be well grounded, well principled, have good judgement, be consistent, and be politically savvy. Nobody I’ve ever met has learned any of that stuff in college. They’ve either spent a lifetime developing it from a young age or they haven’t. I would encourage people to be mindful of the qualities I’ve listed when judging the competence of the candidates.

    Like


  142. 158: That depends on the religion, and also how you define “zealotry.”

    I’d have to say that anyone who believes they have insight into “God’s work”, or who sees themselves as an instrument of that work, is someone I don’t want to see running the country.

    Like


  143. he significant blurring of church & state in the form of people like Palin & McCain

    In what way do they believe in blurring the line?

    Like


  144. Michael Blowhard 134 —

    Thanks for that on Camille Paglia. It is indeed fascinating to hear her take.

    Paglia is a truly original and insightful voice. She has a laser like ability to sniff out falsity and sexual sterility, particularly among most feminists.

    I don’t always agree with her take on various kinds of sexual juice and power, though its usually fascinating. What is for sure though is her ability to detect with great accuracy the degree of sexuality goin’ on.

    She’s one of my heroines.

    Like


  145. Paglia attended Binghamton U., of course she is great

    Like


  146. hmm 165 —

    But she’s petty and ignorant and the fact that she has a one-in-three chance of being Pres. if the republicans win…. ugh… terrifying… ;~p

    Doesn’t terrify me whatsoever.

    You have to udnerstand though that I don’t like either Presidential candidate at all. Nor do I like Biden. He’s far too much of a hyper feminist for me. He’s far too much of a lefty ideologue, not too extreme sounding division.

    Palin could just turn into a Harriette Truman.

    Like


  147. doujnn said:Palin could just turn into a Harriette Truman

    Please explain

    are you grossly ugly and fat? in that case, i might believe that getting out of bed and facing the mirror would be a terrifying act for you.

    😯

    *dead faint*

    Like


  148. YTThing is, what’s happening in Black America, is beginning to happen in White America-fewer and fewer White males are choosing to go on to higher ed.

    So, why are fewer and fewer boys going to college?

    I think that there are many high paying or decent slaried jobs for men in blue collar fields. So men have more options women not so much.

    Like


  149. Why is it so important to leave a genetic legacy? Is the bar for human success so low to a point where simply reproducing means that you’re winner over a childless millionaire who leaves money behind for a charity to operate? Hell, by your logic, a poor woman who gives birth to 10 underfed, undernourished children is a winner over Bill Gates

    I agree 🙂

    Like


  150. on September 24, 2008 at 2:27 am Comment_Thunderdome

    Obamites say alot about Palin, so I think I’d like to say something about Obama.

    Every single thing, coming into this election, favored the Democrat nominee. The economy, the war, Bush himself. Everything.

    Given Obama’s FAILURE to just smash an old guy like McCain into the ground in a year when Obama has all the advantages says smart money votes that he is ‘limited’.

    On the other hand, Palin is victorious in the Icy Thunderdome of the North. That says smart. Winner-smart. And her husband could LITERALLY be victorious over any of you Obama supporters in an ACTUAL Thunderdome.

    Got that? Sarah winner-smart. Obama loser-stupid.

    I now desend into pointless fantasy.

    THE THUNDERDOME
    Maybe McCain could take Obama 1 on 1 to.

    I’d love the election to be settled by a battle between McCain and Obama in the Thunderdome.

    TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES! TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVES!

    Really, who here thinks Obama could take McCain one on one? Sure, he is old, but mean.

    Like


  151. I’ll make it a point to read the Roe for Men paper and roll through the comments to respond.

    Doug – I’m just going to have to agree to disagree on the child-support issue.

    Like


  152. Well, as a feminist I love Sarah Palin even though she’s anti-abortion – she has forced conservatives to back off the “can’t have it all”, “mothers of young kids shouldn’t work” stuff and forced them to defend the mother of an infant pursuing a powerful position as loudly as any liberal feminist could. Conservatives actually argue, “You wouldn’t criticize a man for that!”, indicating that they are pulling back on the “gender roles are good” mantra they used to have. Who could’ve imagined a day where Focus on the Family pundits sounded like NOW activists?!

    From now on, conservatives will just have to STFU about ambitious working mothers and I couldn’t be happier.

    Like


  153. Grace 172 —

    Doug – I’m just going to have to agree to disagree on the child-support issue.

    Yes of course. Feminists never have cared one iota about actually being fair. That is sacrificing even a little of what’s “fairest of all” for women to considerrations of what’s also fair in the new circumstances for men.

    Like


  154. Doug – No. We’re just looking at this from completely different viewpoints. I’m a woman, you’re a man. How I see pregnancy, sex, children and childcare is going to be different from how you see it. I don’t agree with your views. You don’t agree with mine. I decided to respect that.

    Like


  155. I had an additional post that was apparently eaten.

    Like


  156. Sarah Palin in her mid 30s:

    http://www.altforums.com/album_pic.php?pic_id=3934

    Oh.my.god.

    Like


  157. Miik says:

    It’s just that she isn’t qualified to win the Iraq and Afganistan Wars

    People who think Iraq is worth our time, money, and blood aren’t qualified.

    As for winning in Afghanistan: What does that look like? The tribes live in perpetual war that has lasted centuries. We are going to change their culture? How exactly?

    Like


  158. Randall Parker 180-

    I agree.

    Our stance to places like Afganistan, or outside of central gov’t control tribal areas of Pakistan, should be that if they start hosting terrorist training camps that pose a real threat, we should ignore the nation’s sovereignty as forfeit (after suitable warnings) and go in and bomb / special ops / obliterate those camps and the villages providing succor to them.

    Then we should leave them to stew in their own juices. If they want to start up again, so can we.

    This wanting to be loved by everyone is terrifically expensive, and has far too low a payoff. We’d actually be more respected and eventually loved to a degree if we made our policies less ambitious but clear.

    The “to a degree” part is all we should ever aspire to.

    Like


  159. I’m a bit late to the thread, but the CBC just bowed to popular outcry throughout Canada and the US and retracted an online piece by regular columnist Heather Mallick titled “A mighty wind blows through Republican convention”. Mallick is a shrill left-wing anti-American scold, and the column in question suggested that McCain’s selection of Palin as VP nominee was meant to appease the GOP’s “rural,” “unlettered” “white trash” base, and that Palin is a badly dressed redneck who resembles a “porn actress”. It was probably the most hysterical anti-Palin piece to appear in any respectable media outlet. If you could consider the CBC “respectable”, that is.

    Anyway. Take a look here:
    http://www.heathermallick.ca/pages/heather-mallicks-bio.html

    Two stepchildren, and she’s probably hit menopause by now. Coincidence? I think not.

    Like


  160. (Addendum to my last comment — I neglected to point out the obvious: Heather Mallick has a face that’d make a freight train take a back road.)

    Like


  161. If women had been ruling the world for xx millennia, then I would have no problem with the bashing of a female candidate. However, the female race is too often prone to the destruction of one of its own. I myself have personally witnessed it on Wall Street. We have never claimed victory over the physical and psychological abuse perpetrated by men. Simply due to a lack of solidarity. Physical inferiority had nothing to do with it, the brain rules. Why do I care so much? Perhaps because I love the female race too much, perhaps because I recognize its raw talent. Let’s make some progress.

    Like


  162. […] my acute ability to detect and deconstruct leftists, I was unprepared for the level of unhinged lunacy that ‘feminism’ had sunk to, which revealed itself in late ….  Here was a woman who actually achieved all the aspirations that feminists claim to value : a […]

    Like


  163. Sarah Palin is essentially a 50’s house wife with a deer rifle. Feminist or not, she makes me disgusted to be a woman in this generation.

    Like


  164. What is most disgusting about Sarah Palin is that she has never actually fired a deer rifle.
    She is another self-absorbed yuppie.
    In about 18 months her looks will vanish and she will be forever after ignored. God be praised.

    Like


  165. “But Sarah Palin’s worst enemy is not the mincing liberal betaboy, oh no. It’s the childless, career-tracked, urban slut machine, government-as-daddy-and-husband-substitute, spinsterette”

    I will have the author of the statement above know that I am that woman. I am a tall, thin creature with a career but without children, not by choice but because my husband and I have been beset with serious male-factor infertility, a condition which he cannot help. Someone writing a statement like that obviously is so vane about her reproductive capacity that she forgets that 1/5 of all couples actually suffer a disease called infertility. I may have to use donor sperm so in love with their uterus uber-judgmental types will cease thinking I am some career bitch. Honestly after going through seven-years of uber judgmental Hell from superficial fat types who would likely dub any woman with a slim figure and no children some sort of beast, I really do not want children any longer, but I am doing it for other reasons. I really thought that I could make this world a better place but now I am of a contrary opinion. I just do not want to come back to this existence. Honestly with 6 billion people, most of this with issues, I really do not feel like reproducing any longer.

    Like