Comments on: This is why we need more (& better) women politicians: http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:08:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: M.BNAR USMAN http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-654601 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:24:57 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-654601 OF XARYKA SHET ABM BO KER.SEXI

]]>
By: Physical beauty and professional competence in women : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-468090 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:50:04 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-468090 [...] the reaction to Palin’s presence on the national political stage has always been so disproportion…, and so focused on her beauty and her body.  Oh, well:  just more evidence that the left is just [...]

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-98275 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:49:39 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-98275 Hi crankypostdoc–thanks for stopping by to comment. I actually think that things other than ideas matter–including to some extent sex, race, and other things like that–but I don’t think they’re the only things that matter. You’re right that the outrage against Palin has exposed some hypocrisy on the left–but I would argue that the left’s gynophobia was exposed even more thoroughly in the primary election campaign.

I have tried, but I do not believe that I have succeeded in injecting much sanity into this debate. But, thanks for the encouragement!

]]>
By: crankypostdoc http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-98265 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:17:15 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-98265 Thanks for at least trying to inject some sanity into the whole Palin debate. It always amuses me that white males think they have the right to decide who is or is not a traitor.
Don’t forget, though, it was the Dems who came up with the idea that diversity is all about skin color or genitalia, it’s not about ideas. So you can hardly complain when the Republicans turn around and appoint people with the “right” skin color or genitalia who happen to agree with them. Just an ideology that comes back to bite lefties in the butt. And no, I don’t believe in false consciousness.

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-92172 Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:57:19 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-92172 Yes, indeed! Had she won against Nixon back in the day, she might have changed American history.

]]>
By: PZ http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-91866 Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:06:15 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-91866 OK – I guess I missed the news that the Democrats were upset the Republicans might have the first woman VP.

I’m for Helen Gehagan. http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qsort=&page=1&matches=49&browse=1&isbn=9780195068962&full=1

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-90949 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:43:40 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-90949 PZ–I agree with you that Palin is utterly objectionable because of her policy positions. But, my point in this post is that she’s no more objectionable for being a woman who holds those views/advocates those policies. (Anthony McCarthy’s comments suggested that she was especially objectionable as a woman who opposed liberal feminist positions because of her sex.)

My point in asking “Whose fault might that be? Huh, Dems?” was to highlight the foolishness of being upset that the Republicans might get a historic “first.” If indeed having the first woman VP or presidential candidate was a big priority, why did the Dems let their main chance go by? (I don’t think it was a big priority for most Dems, so that’s why I find all of the disingenuous boo-hoo-hooing really stupid now.)

]]>
By: PZ http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-90943 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:27:09 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-90943 “If Democrats are so exercised by Palin’s candidacy and are furious that she might become the first woman Vice President, or even (given the state of John McCain’s health) the first woman President–well, whose fault might that be? Huh, Dems?”

Huh? My problem is her positions.

“I think at least half of the anti-Palin Dem hysteria comes from a defensive sense of shame, as well as an angry (and irrational) insistence that Dems are the only party that’s allowed to have historic firsts.’ The other half is of course sexism: above all, resentment of ambitious women, as though ambition is itself proof of monstrousness…”

But why is it “hysteria” to disagree with her positions and why does this disagreement have to be reinterpreted as jealousy or disapproval of ambitious women? Who is projecting now? Why do only Palin and the Republicans get to be so hypocritical, for instance, as to request “privacy” for Bristol’s “decision” while working to deny privacy and the right to decide to every other American girl? WHY is it sexist to oppose this kind of thing?

I oppose McCain/Palin because they really are crazy enough to do something like start a nuclear war, not because I am jealous of Palin for being his VP pick or of the Republicans for having a woman on the ticket. AND:
if you want to keep tabs like that, remember GERALDINE FERRARO was on the Democratic ticket years ago.

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-90535 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:11:22 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-90535 Margaret Atwood (citing Antonia Fraser on “women rulers” in history) makes a point somewhat similar to Susan’s in an interesting interview in the Sunday _Times_ mag this week.

I don’t work for the _Times_, BTW, or flack for it, but I do cite it a lot, because in this burg, if you don’t get one each day (and some cigar-chomping guy in Altoona sets tight limits on how many get through that choke point) you’re pretty much finished, informationally–on the print side, at least!

]]>
By: Historiann http://www.historiann.com/2008/09/28/this-is-why-we-need-more-better-women-politicians/comment-page-1/#comment-90309 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:02:30 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=1253#comment-90309 Susan, you’re exactly right. I didn’t think that the first woman in the White House would be a liberal (or even a conservative) Dem. I thought she’d be a fairly moderate Republican. (And she may yet be!) Somebody like Tsippi Livni, for example.

Note, too, the different routes to political power compared to their male peers, and the greater success women have in parliamentary systems, where the paths to power are more varied, and where power is very often shared so that Prime Ministers aren’t as all-powerful as our Imperial Presidents.

]]>