This is the kind of nasty, extremely sexist post that gives all Liberals a bad name. Right now, I'm completely ashamed to be on the same side of the political fence as somebody who wrote this atrocity:
Boy this last 24 to 48 hours have not been very kind to poor Sarah Palin. . . Then you send out a bitter, and clearly insincere tweet (and follow upFacebook post), in which you thank the troops for killing Osama Bin Laden while denying any credit to the Commander in Chief, which once again identifies you as a hateful, immature attention whore, and which receives richly deserved condemnation from all over the blogosphere. And just when you believed that things could NOT get any worse, somebody posts a picture of you on the Internet with food stains (At least we hope they're food stains!) ALL over your expensive outfit. Okay I don't want to start any unnecessary rumors, but exactly what was on the menu at that Vanity Fair after party?
This just makes me want to vomit all over that inexpensive blog. People who have been around my site for a while know that I have been consistently critical of Sarah Palin and have expressed my criticism in very harsh terms. However, calling a person a whore and making ridiculously stupid suggestions about stains on her outfit is simply not right. This is sexism, and I don't give a rat's behind where it comes from. It's just so sad that wherever you turn, you find some sexist shit like this.
I am very disgusted right now.
15 comments:
Attention whore is actually a term used for both men and women... Donald Trump is for example a GREAT attention whore. Meaning someone who would (degrade) themselves in hopes of getting some attention. Even Obama was called an arrogant attention whore many times. Its a colloquial term (I think) not one meant to single out her gender.
Which is not really the true definition of a whore, but it is how its used nowadays.
The stain comment was kinda hilarious though but very mean. Poor woman!
Attention whore is a term that applies to either sex.
A personal attack on a person who just happens to be a woman is not sexist. If we're going to have equality, men deserve the right to poke fun at women, even if it's in poor taste, so as long as they don't generalize the attack to all women. It's not like women have a monopoly on virtue; although we're actively encouraged to think they do.
Not sexist: "She's acting like a whore. What's with the stains on her clothes?"
Sexist:"She's acting like a whore. What's with the stains on her clothes? So typical of women."
We've made fun of Janet Reno's appearance. Then we compared Bush's face to a chimpanzee. If Bush were a female president, and we compared her face to a chimpanzee, that should be OK too. I'm tired of double standards.
Unless of course you're of the position that every attack made by a man on a woman's personal character is motivated by subconscious chauvinistic motivations. In which case, I'd think you're crazy, and then you'd call me sexist for thinking you're crazy, and then I would think you were batshit insane just like those fundamentalists. Please don't be crazy. I like this blog!
Gross!
I'm also not a fan of Palin's, but I hate seeing her subjected to this kind of sexualized mockery as much as I hate seeing Hillary Clinton, or any other woman, insulted like this.
How hard is it to criticize her positions or her rhetoric?
Come on, people, have you ever seen anybody suggest that food stains on a male politician's clothing come from sex which is used to CONDEMN that person? Seriously?
Have you seen anybody put in doubt Bush's or Obama's fatherhood? That would be much easier to do for obvious reasons than putting Palin's motherhood in question. Still, the blog I linked to and the blogs of many of the people who participate on it are dedicated to questioning whether Palin is the mother of her child. That's not sexist? Seriously?
Here is just a random, completely unedited copy-paste of some of the comments to the post I quoted. Read them and tell me again how this is not sexist and how the outfits, shoes, and parenting skills of Bush and Obama are regularly discussed in the same tone and with the same amount of detail. Also please show me where these guys' participation in oral sex is hinted at and mulled over in such detail:
Anonymous said...
@Anon 4:20 Someone also pointed out that Sarah's jacket has pinstripes and she is wearing a plain skirt. They don't match, and the shoes didn't match either.
4:33 PM
Anonymous said...
Sarah Palin has an eating disorder.
4:34 PM
Anonymous said...
RE: The too-big shoes on the Red Carpet - didn't Palin just recently snark on someone for being accustomed to walking the Red Carpet, making it sound like doing so was beneath her?
God, the woman's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
4:34 PM
Anonymous said...
That teaches Sarah a lesson for actually trying to do something human normal - anything but Diet Red Bull and Power Bars do get awfully messy.
4:35 PM
Olivia said...
Oh, come on y'all.Give her some credit. She did all that on purpose. She knows she is a trend setter. Soon all the bots will be clumping around in shoes too big. They already have food stains all over their clothes. Next she will be drooling in public just like her fans do.
4:35 PM
Anonymous said...
She pulling a Lewinski? It's the only way she'll
stay in the press. Isn't he pretty? Isn't she nice?
4:36 PM
Anonymous said...
Gryphen, you have to add the shoes!
http://www.glittarazzi.com/home/2011/5/2/too-big-shoes-sarah-palin-flip-flops-down-red-carpet-at-whcd.html
4:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Did she bring her best loved prop Trig? She can throw him under the bus and say she was nursing him when he spit up on her as she was pulling one of her heroic, multi-tasking feats (all in a day in the life of Sarah) writing her new book, teleconferencing with her top notch advisor team, twittering and Facebook posting, editing Bristol's new book while checking on the chastity belts of her daughters and husband.
4:40 PM
Anonymous said...
And then there's the jacket with no blouse under it, not even a camisole - which, if it had a little shine, texture or embellishment MIGHT have made this outfit almost work for the occasion. Well, except for the awful mismatch of two different fabrics, patterns and shades of black. Or the laughably huge shoes flopping on her feet, drawing attention to her tanning bed legs and thick ankles. That's before we even get to the food she's wearing. Trashy is as trashy does. But it's nice to see her show her ass like this, isn't it?
And some more. I'm just copy-pasting them here. Ever heard Reagan called a skank? Ever heard any suggestions that Obama spent a lot of time on his knees prior to a public appearance?
Anonymous said...
LOL! Love the post! She is such a skank.
I predict she'll have a bad night tonight also. She's speaking with the creepy Lt. Gen. Boykin who is a fundamentalist and loves to rile up the Muslims by saying his God is better than theirs. I can see him getting her worked up enough to say something utterly stupid about our President capturing and killing bin Laden...cuz you know they just hate that he accomplished what Bush couldn't in two terms.
4:55 PM
Anonymous said...
Okay, ripping on Sarah's looks I can get my head around. Frump. Who shows up 45 minutes early? Desperate much? Did she think she was in the receiving line? Gotta go - Rachel on in 10 - she made Scarah a drink! Although, that little anecdote will probably have to wait for another night - it will be preempted by stories of our Presidents awesomeness.
4:56 PM
Anonymous said...
LOL Gryphen!! Ha-ha ha! I am rolling over here. Thanks. Man she's a piece of work, huh?
4:57 PM
Anonymous said...
What's that on Sarah Palin's jacket?
Why it looks like Track's, Bristol's, Willows's and Piper's half brother or sister to Be Named at a later date.
4:59 PM
Anonymous said...
What's that on Sarah's jacket you asked?
Well firt of all, that is not Sarah's jacket, it belongs to Bristol. Sarah just borrowed it.
Second, you asked about the stain? Well, you are going to have to ask Gino, Ben or Levi. For some reason Bristol kept that jacket in the freezer next to her blue dress.
5:05 PM
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Gryphen, you have to add the shoes!
http://www.glittarazzi.com/home/2011/5/2/too-big-shoes-sarah-palin-flip-flops-down-red-carpet-at-whcd.html
4:39 PM
OMG! Those are the shoes Todd wears when he is at home by himself or when he does role changes with Shailey Tripp.
That's the problem when you marry a transvestite who has bigger feet than you.
5:09 PM
miller said...
Just to add, the too big shoes had glitter on them! Since she uses Sarah Pac for everything else, why not hire a wardrobe stylist? She is the picture of a "fashion, no, no". Can this truly be what she wore to a garden party and to give a speech for which she was paid $100K. No wonder the NRC had to fork over mega bucks to dress her and the rest of the family.
PS: All of your comments are fabulously funny.
5:10 PM
Anonymous said...
uh oh, might have a Monica-Blue-Dress sort of problem. Was she spending time on her knees just prior to this photo?
5:10 PM
Thank you for this. I'm like you: both horrified by Palin's politics AND horrified by the sexism directed towards her.
I remember you supporting the sexist attack mounted on a Florida Republican candidate by the Democratic party, stating that since she is deeply sexist herself (wants to ban birth control and abortion, introduce abstinence-only, etc), she deserved to feel the end of her own stick.
So... why the double standards? Sarah Palin and her critics are the product of a culture where a woman not being the perfect Barbie is always grounds for intense criticism. In fact, being the perfect Barbie was a huge part of Palin's USP. So if you're okay with a sexist woman being attacked by sexist barbs, why shouldn't a wound-up Barbie be attacked on Barbiqesque grounds?
Rimi: here is the post you refer too: http://clarissasbox.blogspot.com/2011/03/are-democrats-wising-up.html
Since in that post i very obviously advocate the exact same treatment for conservative men and women, I wonder where you managed to find sexism here.
If a male politician had a sperm looking stain, I'd think he was jerking off too much at work, having quickies with the secretary, or frequenting men's Minnesota airport bathrooms.
When was the last time you thought a positive thought about someone who had a food stain (any stain) on them? If you know them personally, you'll tease them mercilessly. If you don't know them, you think that guy/girl is a bit of a slob. Where does sexism come into play?
Significant number of those comments seem fashion-related. Would I be stretching it to assume women made those comments? I would like to think half of the commenters were women participating equally in the trashing of Sarah Palin, not because she's a woman, but because she lacks cognitive ability and misrepresents her true abilities. Low-brow does not equate discrimination/prejudice in and of itself.
Some insults are gender specific. That doesn't make them sexist. I can't really call a guy a whore, because "whore" has not historically been a male profession. There's a reason they primarily traffic young women and not young men.
"If a male politician had a sperm looking stain, I'd think he was jerking off too much at work, having quickies with the secretary, or frequenting men's Minnesota airport bathrooms."
-It's not about what you'd think. It's about the fact that the media NEVER make such statements about men. But they ALWAYS make such statements about women.
Ever hear Bush called a skank? Just amswer, yes or no. Heard him called a whore on a daily basis? Again, yes or no will suffice. Ever heard his paternity called into question?
" If you know them personally, you'll tease them mercilessly. "
-I gave you no reason to insult me in this way. I never would and never have teased anybody mercilessly. I have autism, so hand coordination on me is not fantastic. I'm covered in food stains all the time. So? What about it?
"I can't really call a guy a whore, because "whore" has not historically been a male profession."
-You cannot be serious about this. I know that ignorance is bliss but not to such extent, surely. Men have and always will prostitute themselves just as much as women.
Clarissa, sometimes I honestly wonder whether you pretend an inability to understand clearly spelled out arguments merely to be provocative. I'm going to assume you do, chuckle over it, and not get drawn into it this time.
Men have and always will prostitute themselves just as much as women.
In Austen's novels f.e. both genders were supposed not to marry down, but I don't think most people looked at searching for a good dowry as prostitution. Marriage wasn't viewed like today in the West. And today too even in the West most marry in their own socioeconomic class.
In "The Three Musketeers" men get presents from their women lovers, but nobody looks down at them for that.
Seems that:
a) then and now it's mainly (99.999%) women, who officially sell themselves for money (on the street, rich lover when they both understand she's 100% only because of money, etc.) and are viewed with contempt by society.
b) men almost never officially sell themselves and as a group aren't viewed as gold-diggers, etc. A man would probably get more leverage for the same behaviors a woman would be judged for as prostituting herself.
So, society doesn't seem to notice when men do it, and I personally have never seen them doing thus, unlike women. (Except pornography and gay men selling themselves to other gay men). Examples?
I agree with you, el, in that female prostitution is stigmatized while the male equivalent of selling sex for money, goods, services and favors isn't. This happens because sex is still seen as ultimately degrading to women and exalting for men.
In grad school, I often witnessed conversations between my male colleagues about how one could go about offering sex in exchange for favors to a certain powerful female professor or where one should go at our university to find a rich wife. Just imagine the kind of ostracism and rumors that would have arisen had I engaged in the same kind of fantasies.
It's exactly the same double standard that we see here in the case of Sarah Palin.
Lyudmila, please just write to me in person at clarissasblog@hotmail.com. Please do.
Otherwise, your comments get buried in Spam. You can write in Russian, too.
Post a Comment