McCain’s VP Pick : Palin and the Politica and Privilege of White Woman’hood/ Mommy’Hood

by Guest Contributor Maegan “La Mala” Ortiz, originally published at Mamita Mala

Last night, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin accepted the nomination to the vice-presidency at the Republican National Convention.

Originally the buzz about Palin, focused on her having a vagina. Her presence was analyzed as a calculated McCain strategy to lure disgruntled, hard core Hillary Clinton supporters.

Then the shift went internal, to her uterus, her identity as a mother to five, the youngest with some form of developmental delay, and a 17 year old daughter, unmarried and pregnant.

So what does this Palin parranda of information and analysis mean to mamis of color, Latina mamis like me? Not surprisingly, nada.

Sarah Palin wants to put herself out there as “every woman”. She wants to be seen as “just your average hockey mom”, and other mommies see themselves and their reality reflected through Palin, except, mamis of color, that is.

The talk returns to mommy wars, not mami wars, because the entire conversation excludes Latinas and other moms of color. We are not even soldiers. Even for so called progressive white feminist, the war is fought by them and maybe, if mamis like me are lucky, we’ll reap some benefit. When I was a pregnant teenager, in a Latin American country where abortion was and still is illegal (Chile), there was no opting out of pregnancy or working. Which is why the debate of how Palin could go back to work after having a baby with special needs or how a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter is being used, feels like a sideshow with little significance in reality. The politics of choice is being raised, with the emergence of a woman who is anti-choice, even in cases of rape or incest and with no talk of how for women of color, choice goes beyond an abortion and means the very right to have children (forget 5!) Imaginate if Michelle Obama had five children? Imaginate if one of the Obama children were older and pregnant? Imagine the hate and stereotypes that would be unleashed? Oh wait, I don’t have to imagine, as a single mami of color, I live it. Palin’s large brood isn’t seen as a strain on the system. They are a beautiful portrait of an “American” family making every other family, families like mine, ugly.

And let’s talk about the perceived double standard, that if a man had five children no one would be making a big deal of it, that men are held to a different standard, as stated in the video above. Claro if you take race out of the picture, it’s easy to follow along, pero if Obama was the father to five instead of two children, you don’t think the media and politicos would be making all sorts of references to black men and their hyper-sexuality? Or black men and responsibility? I hear no one telling Palin’s husband to put on a damn condom.

Just as many of women of color couldn’t get behind Clinton and her campaign because of racist attacks on Barack Obama, attacks that asked women of color to choose a candidate based not on a complex and painful history and reality, but rather because of perceived shared genitalia. Palin positions herself as continuing Clinton’s struggle, as continuing the struggle set forth by Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to run as a vice-presidential candidate. Let’s not forget that Ferraro called Obama “lucky” for being black. Is Palin then lucky for having five children, like my abuela did before being forcibly sterilized? You wanna talk about Palin’s uterus or the uterus of her daughter? I want to talk about my abuela’s uterus, how it’s power was deemed dangerous because of it’s power to bear brown Spanish speaking babies, my uterus and it’s abortions, miscarriages, and pregnancies, violations upon it, the uterus of an immigrant woman being viewed as a weapon in a culture war and the need to put those immigrant women in chains as they push babies from them and the need the U.S. government has to separate mamis and babies and deport and dispose.

My uterus and my head is tired.

Sources of info and Ire/ NYT The Kitchen Table Jack & Jill Culture Kitchen

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Double Dose: An Open Letter to Gov. Sarah Palin; Transgender Employees Find More Workplace Support; High Rate of C-Sections in Washington; Latest Breast Cancer Rates; Videos You May Have Missed from the RNC … | Our Bodies Our Blog on 06 Sep 2008 at 9:29 am

    [...] see themselves and their reality reflected through Palin, except, mamis of color, that is,” writes Maegan “La Mala” Ortiz at Racialicious (and at her site, Mamita [...]

  2. i, mami. » Doing It All - On Steroids. on 07 Sep 2008 at 4:31 pm

    [...] Another great post from Racialicious about double standards between white moms and moms of color. Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page Save to Browser Favorites / [...]

  3. gwytherinn.com » Blog Archive » The Right Hijacks Feminism Part 2 on 24 Sep 2008 at 9:25 pm

    [...] “La Mala” Ortiz at Racialicious says it better than I could: McCain’s VP Pick : Palin and the Politica and Privilege of White Woman’hood/Mommy’Hood Imaginate if Michelle Obama had five children? Imaginate if one of the Obama children were older [...]

Comments

  1. Daniel Solis wrote:

    I forget where I saw it, but there was a great food-for-thought question posted somewhere:

    “How well would Barack Obama have done if he had come forth with five kids, one 17-years-old, pregnant and unmarried?”

    (Not to be the spellchecking nitpicker, but was there some subtext to your use of the word “imaginate”? Because otherwise, it feeds into the stereotype that Latinos can’t speak English correctly.)

  2. browne wrote:

    Daniel a stereotype isn’t going to go away because we have no typos. You can’t behave away racism. You know why? Because as human beings we’re going to make a mistake (probably two or three of them..lol…) and if that mistake is used against your people, that’s not your fault. That’s a racist jerks fault for being a racist jerk.

    Now moving on. Great post. Yes what if Michelle had five kids and one was pregnant. The hypocrisy and the pressure that people of color have on them to be perfect and ideal (to be thought of as “normal” not superior but “normal”) to only have the rules change on us.

    Palin can run for vice president with an unwed pregnant minor daughter and that in itself is not a problem. I think that is pretty progressive that we as a nation can accept that. I accept that. I have no problem with it. I would love it if the green party picked a never married woman with children as a candidate. That would be some progress, because as of now while the sex organs and shades have changed it’s still the same old song.

    The problem with Palin is if she were black or brown this would be a major problem.

    I think POC should stop trying to be perfect and just “be”. The conversation about race should be about capitalism, exploitation and power. The conversation about race should not be about our behavior. It should have never been about our behavior.

    Racism has nothing to do with our behavior.

    We need to get off the defense and go on the offense against racism.

    Excellent post Maegan.

    Browne

  3. Atena wrote:

    I always appreciate how much class it takes to publicly point out spelling errors in blogs. If Maegan mistypes, so what? Model minority, anyone? Feh.

    Anyway, back to the actual content: A lot of what you’ve written resonates with me, Maegan – it’s been a tense election season for mamas of color. Hillary was both exciting and disappointing to me – I hated to lose respect for her, but it was not a pretty campaign. I still have some respect for her, but less than before.

    I really appreciate your addressing the issue of number of children – I’m sick of hearing thinking people exclaim, “But she’s got FIVE kids!” Of the myriad reasons a woman might not be qualified to do a job, that doesn’t stand up without some serious argument.

    Anyway, good to see your writing here, Maegan!

  4. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    Sarah Failin can afford to have 5 kids including a baby with Downs Syndrome because she is a rich white privileged woman.

    Enough said.

  5. Myles wrote:

    WOW, this is really awesome.

    I have heard that some people feel it is really insulting to women to imply that they will just vote for someone because they are a women. And that if they supported Clinton they will easily switch boats, all in the name of voting for a woman.

    But, this is America, people. It’s understandable that we think everyone else is that dumb.

    And i feel frustrated by the “Hockey-mom-every-woman-every-mom” lines I keep hearing about Palin. I don’t think every mom in America is a Hockey-loving, gun shooting, “pitbull.”

    Aren’t there a lot of organizations started by moms against violence, and for gun control?

    I don’t feel like Palin is what America needs. I don’t feel we need to have continued support for the decreasing majority of hegemonic white Americans.

    But, hey, I’m Blackfoot and Cherokee. I’m going down with this ship ;)

  6. bill wrote:

    Ha — see, now, I didn’t even know a uterus could GET tired. I’ve learned something!

  7. Marcus Kwame wrote:

    Great piece and great points. Politricks count on constituents not seeing through the double standards and doublethink. They count on us to drink the kool-aid. I’ll stick with water.

  8. Tariq Nelson wrote:

    In a lot of ways, this woman (rhetoric-wise) is the equivalent of essentially putting Ann Coulter on the ticket. She is a flamethrower to give “red meat” to the conservative base, while also being a

    She can also attack Biden relentlessly in debate. If Biden fights back, then he will be portrayed as a bully. He has probably already lost the VP debate.

  9. chanita wrote:

    Daniel-

    I think she meant the spanish word for imagine. She just wrote it without the tilde on the i.

    You wanna talk about Palin’s uterus or the uterus of her daughter? I want to talk about my abuela’s uterus, how it’s power was deemed dangerous because of it’s power to bear brown Spanish speaking babies, my uterus and it’s abortions, miscarriages, and pregnancies, violations upon it, the uterus of an immigrant woman being viewed as a weapon in a culture war and the need to put those immigrant women in chains as they push babies from them and the need the U.S. government has to separate mamis and babies and deport and dispose.

    My uterus and my head is tired.

    Couldn’t agree more.

  10. Autonym wrote:

    Thanks for this perspective. It’s pretty obvious to me that general media and majority audiences see a big difference between the “choices” of white mothers/women and those of WOC.

    As WOC I’ve experienced prejudice from people for having two children – I can’t imagine how I’d be treated by some for having 5! Personally, I don’t understand how anyone can do it. Two is my personal limit.

    @ Daniel Solis, you parenthetical comment just sounds ugly and racist, IMO. Better to have left it out, as it really distracts from what you were trying to say.

  11. Black Canseco wrote:

    i said it before, i’ll say it again: Sarah Palin is ghetto.

    Any mami or sistah with a similar background would be held up as the embodiment of everything the RNC is against.

    Palin gets a pass cuz white skin trumps perceived sin.

    oh i luv how “stay at home dad” gets applied to her husband. y’all know if he’d been latino or a brotha, he’d be another no good so-n-so moochin’ off his babymama.

  12. maegan la mala ortiz wrote:

    Actually “imaginate” is meant to be spanish/spanglish without the the accent mark. Imagine in Spanish.

    Imagine if I didn’t need a subtext for the way I express myself.

  13. J newks wrote:

    Thanks for this! The food for thought and the passion of that last paragraph.

    (Also, in response to the last post, I assume the author was using “imagina-te” as in Spanglish not as “imagine-ate” as it looks on paper)

    Thanks again for your views!

  14. jvansteppes wrote:

    As an aside, Palin kind of resembles Tina Fey, which also creeps me out because I will never forgive her for her ‘bitch is the new black’ speech and her intersex-phobic film ‘Baby Mama’.

  15. Mary wrote:

    I despise Sarah Palin and everything associated with her candidacy. I was trying to come up with a more in-depth explanation, but going into the details just pisses me off.

    She’s been caught in more lies in four days than Obama has in four years, and yet the media JUST WON’T CALL HER ON IT. The empress has no clothes, people!

  16. Without a doubt wrote:

    This is definitely going to bring issues to light that have not come before now. I think your essay makes the case for the individual woman to decide what to do about her uterus and whatever may grow in it.

  17. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ jvansteppes–damn, you caught that likeness, too? I thought it was just me…and thanks for the mini-review of “Baby Mama.” I won’t get that on Netflix.

    @ Mary–yeah, Palin does. The designer name is “White Skin Privilege.”:P

  18. Atena wrote:

    Okay – I’m generally more than down with the moderation on this site, but I do have to ask:

    Why is ‘Sarah Failin’ permissible? I feel like I’ve seen it twice today. I think she’s bogus for sure, but if ‘Hellary’ isn’t cool, why would this be?

    Atena

  19. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Atena –

    It’s because they’re Republicans.

    Naw, I’m kidding. It’s because I am scanning, not reading all the way. I am on watch for HRC/BHO nicknames because they tend to cause a fight immediately as both kinds of supporters hang here. No one has noted the Palin thing until you did.

    I’ll keep an eye out from now on.

    @Everyone – No NICKNAMES!

  20. Kendra wrote:

    @ browne:

    “I would love it if the green party picked a never married woman with children as a candidate. That would be some progress, because as of now while the sex organs and shades have changed it’s still the same old song.”

    So divorce doesn’t count? Being a single mother, though not of younger children, doesn’t count? I doubt that Palin has ever had to live with blinded windows in fear of being found out out or killed, so while I understand that there is something progressive about her being accepted as a mother of five with a daughter who is pregnant–by her party most certainly–I don’t see how that makes the Republican situation anymore progressive than what the Green Party is doing right now.

    I’ll take power to the people any day, personally.

    Also, while I know very little about the Green Party’s history, I can’t say whether or not they have supported a divorced woman before, let alone a married woman. According to Wikipedia, I think that Cynthia is the first woman that they have supported, so that is something to consider (especially since the party started in the 1990s).

    Also, I don’t think that “we” as a nation have accepted the fact that she has a special needs child, five children in total, and a pregnant teenage daughter. People are talking about this, probably not in public since this sort of publicity may only get limited coverage if nothing at all. We’re not all on the same page, especially if there are people that just don’t like Palin.

    While I see nothing inherently wrong with her raising five kids and having other circumstances pertaining to her family, the next person doesn’t necessarily see things the way that I do.

    I’m certain there are many conservatives that are miffed about the fact that her daughter is pregnant. But that may or may not deter them from voting for McCain, since that is a personal home issue, and not something that will necessarily determine the policies that she advocates.

    But it would be interesting if a female presidential candidate with as much publicity, who is not Hilary, would get similar treatment just because she’s of the religious right. I don’t think that she would even be considered a viable option for a presidential Republican candidate, only VP.

  21. Kendra wrote:

    correction: “I think that Cynthia is the first woman that they have supported in this manner (as a presidential candidate versus a VP candidate) . . . ”

    They’ve had females VP candidates before, apparently.

  22. browne wrote:

    Kendra you can critique my comment to mean a variety of things. My comment was saying in general it would be nice if someone who didn’t fit the middle class construct of successful was picked to run. That to me would be progressive. I just threw the Green Party in there, because they seem to be most independent and well-known.

    Yeah obviously divorced would be fine. Lesbian would be fine. Transgendered would be fine, but my comment was a comment not a post.

    The Republicans are rallying around Palin and her identity as a woman with children. They are supporting that. They are going to bat for her due to that.

    Democrats would never even think of going to bat for Obama owing to him being black or biracial. He’s an “exception”. Obama is accepted as the a presidential candidate because he is an exception and Palin she’s being accepted as the vp candidate, because she’s the “norm”. At least that’s how it is playing out.

    I’m just critiquing the game from down here.

    I sort of felt as if I was attacked by you Kendra and I don’t see how my comments where out of line, maybe I am misinterpreting something, but my feelings are a bit hurt.

    Browne

  23. PseudoAdrienne wrote:

    Which is why the debate of how Palin could go back to work after having a baby with special needs or how a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter is being used, feels like a sideshow with little significance in reality.

    Just remember, it’s okay if you’re Republican or at least an anti-feminist/womanist, anti-choice woman (Phyllis Schlafly, Michelle Malkin, etc). However, if you’re progressive/liberal, a woman who works in the public sphere, not white, not middle- or upper class, not heterosexual, enjoys sex, and not Christian, then not only are you destroying your family but you’re also destroying America.

    As an aside, Palin kind of resembles Tina Fey[...]

    Really? Because whenever I have the displeasure of observing her as she wastes precious oxygen, I see Bush. I’m serious, her demeanor, her arrogance, her willful ignorance-is-bliss attitude, her perky incompetence, it’s Bush! And her Annie Oakley approach to politics is the perfect counterpart to Bush’s Clint Eastwood-in-his-cowboy-films approach to politics. Oh, and lipstick! Remember lipstick! Hockey-moms wear lipstick! See, the GOP loves [white] women and are so totally feminist now! LIPSTICK!!!! (eye-roll)

    Yeah, she’s the all American mom, while Michelle Obama is just a Baby Mama. Could you love the MSM and American politics anymore? ::seething with outrage:: Bell Hooks could write a plethora of essays dealing with this election.

  24. Sarah wrote:

    Bravo.

    And she probably won’t be put through half the crap Michelle Obama has been put through by the media. I also feel compelled to say that I am a white woman, and I do not relate to this woman at all. It disgusts me that I’m “supposed” to follow my ovaries from Hillary to Palin instead of Hillary to Obama.

  25. Desolation Ro wrote:

    Great post.
    As a working class woman, I cringe at how Sarah Palin is being held up as this quintessential American/woman. She certainly doesn’t represent me or anyone I know in ANY way. (Excuse me, but just how many people have the time for recreational hunting and fishing? Yeah, that’s right, most of us have bills to pay.) Of course she can talk about choosing to have her baby (and her daughter’s “choice”)- she’s got piles of money to help her take care of their needs.

    To me, the issue of classism is not being called out enough – most Americans don’t have the luxury of a stay-at-home parent. Good call on the other posters – those of us who don’t fit the Palin family mold are JUDGED, called ‘unemployed’ (stay-at-home parents) and ‘irresponsible’ (several children) for being in exactly the same situation.

  26. Kendra wrote:

    Browne,

    I wasn’t trying to attack you or hurt your feelings. I apologize for having made you feel that way, but it was either that or I wouldn’t have said anything at all (and I was considering the latter for a while).

    I just don’t see this as anything all too special. It seems like it’s only an exception to the rule because Palin is white, a Republican, and a VP candidate. Of course it wouldn’t benefit the Republicans to sully her image with condemnation or criticism, but it’s just hard for me to really appreciate the hypocrisy of the Republican party though their support of Palin for what she is–is something to be desired in the Democratic party.

    Also, I guess I was just trying to make a valid counterpoint, since I’m becoming a strong supporter of McKinney–who happens to be with the Green Party now–and I really feel for what she has been going through for the past years, especially in aid of her constituency. She’s just so fearless to me.

    You’re definitely right about Obama. He wouldn’t even be an option if he were actually Muslim, and that’s messed up.

    I’ll be mindful to make my post-responses seem much less like an attack next time.

  27. Daniel Solis wrote:

    Thanks for the clarification on “imaginate,” everybody. It’s unfortunate, but though my whole family speaks Spanish or is bilingual, I never had the opportunity to learn it fluently myself. (Long story.) In the absence of bilingualism, I focused really hard on communicating as articulately as possible in the one language I do speak, so that makes me a bit of a nitpicker sometimes. Sorry if I sounded like a “model minority.”

  28. Just Some Dude wrote:

    I came across this article and read it, then I read all the posts, I happen to be a Caucasian male ,well that’s what I look like but with 14 different nationalities in my family tree i consider myself multi-racial and a person of color ?(lots of different ones) the things that concern me about this Sarah Palin for one is all the stories about her supporting drilling in a national wildlife refuge and her opposition to claiming polar bears and other wildlife as endangered so that they can drill where these animals live. reminds me of another oil business based family known as Bush. screw the environment lets make some more money!!!!! this over-privileged , power hungry former beauty queen (I don’t see it myself) with her no choice for women policy on abortion even in instances of rape and incest (wonder if she was raped if she would carry that baby…doubt it!!!) not to mention all the legal drama she’s about to face for abuse of power concerns me as well. to me whether the candidate has a vagina or a penis makes no difference, can they do the job with the American peoples interest in mind ,or do they want to impose their own morals/beliefs on us all. I see more of the same crap that we have with Bush continuing on and on if McCain and Palin get into office, and that we definitely don’t need. and to all WOC you are beautiful and never let anyone tell you different, I’d rather be with a WOC than some arrogant over privileged white chick with no clue about real life and the hardships that are endured throughout it.

  29. changematador wrote:

    The greatest public relationized line in all of the RNC, “we let washington change us (republicans)” – John McCain

    fBoth of these conventions have been expensive, carefully scripted movies for us to participate in only as spectators.

    Palin in particular is a well-chosen protagonist in this play, and her role is to silence the criticism of the left that the republican ticket is more of the same. She is a smokescreen that steals the legitimacy of the liberal platform of “change” by co-opting it in the most plastic, disingenuous way possible. This is the same thing that eventually happens to just about every movement (I think of MLK’s face on my disposable McDonald’s placemat), but the republicans pulled a Rove by doing it earlier than usual.

    After watching these atrociously fake advertisments for a nonexistent popular democracy, knowing full well that in the fancy clubs, cafes, and restaurants of Denver and Minneapolis, lobbyists were bribing senators and delegates with high-class swank, I can only imagine them taking shots every time they heard the word “change”. I was shocked at how stupid they really think we are. A delegate offered his vote up for 2million dollars. If anyone still believes this is a real democracy (or republic for that matter), it’s because they really, really want it to be true.

    I think the presidency is a figurehead, a national parent, and a scapegoat, there for all of us to spend our rage, disgust, zeal, and hope on so that we ignore the real moves being made behind the curtains, in the back rooms, and in the control booths. And then, like after a pentacostal revival, when it’s all over, we’ll be too tired to do anything other than throw our hands up and say that we tried…

    I know the prevailing spirit is one of epic optimism, but if those who disagree would bear with me for a moment…

    In the context of such social manipulation, what is Palin’s value?

    She is a powerful distraction. She is attractive, her family is attractive, she is fed the best remarks that republican writers can offer, and the way she was nominated is a pre-packaged controversy. After all, how many reports on the Iraq war have we heard since the start of convention-palooza? Anything about darfur? Anything about Afghanistan? Pakistan? What about the protesters at both conventions? The fact that Amy Goodman was arrested and her fellow journalists beaten by the cops like they were regular people? Nothing. Like snowblindness, Palin obscures all. Also, I think the republicans are using her gender as a safe platform to launch offensive attacks at the left that any white male would never be able to pull off.

    Oh, and also I just wanted to add that Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are running an all Women Of Color ticket here – http://votetruth08.com/

    I think that the fact that this ticket is rarely mentioned anywhere is the most sexist and racist part of this whole process, more so than the teleprompter-fed repetitive talking points of career pundits that limit the discussion. THAT’S THE REAL DISCRIMINATION.

  30. NancyP wrote:

    Of course Palin is riding on the privilege of white womanhood to be considered good-looking but not slutty, prolific childbearer but not selfish, to be an all-star mother and not be blamed for her teenage daughter’s pregnancy, and to be called “vibrant” and not “uppity”/bitchy, or whatever Michelle O is being called by detractors.

  31. JC wrote:

    All I have to say, is that if somehow McCain gets elected, and dies on the job, I will uproot my family and move away from this country. The woman would wreak unimaginable havoc on the nation and the world. The potential abuse of power even as a VP would brings chills up my spine. I have never been fearful of a politician in my life, but this woman could potential end the United State’s reign as the top world power.

  32. starkitty50 wrote:

    I’m also very annoyed with the double standard I see with Palin versus a Black or Brown woman who would potentially be in the same situation.It seems that people have to tiptoe around this issue of her pregnant daughter, because after all,Sarah Palin is the one who is running for VP, not her daughter Bristol. Some people in the media think that it’s unfair to drag her children into this and it has nothing to do with her ability to do her job. What makes Palin so special?? She chose to be in the public eye, so whatever imperfections she or her family has, will be exposed for everyone to see and criticize. When I see the media bias that goes on, I think about what I’ve witnessed in my own life and I know that I’m not being paranoid because it’s still happening. When I hear someone describing themselves as a Conservative Republican, I automatically think of someone who doesn’t want to see a Black or Brown person get ahead because they are threatened by them. The last thing the Republicans want to do is see minorities as completely equal. This “Trickle-Down Economy” theory has failed on so many levels, but they don’t want to address that they way they should. They always have to have some hateful little labels like “Welfare Queen” or “Baby Mama” to justify their ideas about welfare or insurance reforms. From a statistical standpoint, a pregnant, unmarried White woman has the means to have an abortion or give her baby up for adoption, a Black or Brown woman has no choice but to have the baby because they can’t afford an abortion or those babies are not in demand to be adopted. Bristol Palin is privileged, but that seems to be ok, because it makes her mistake more “Real” for people. McCain didn’t think this thing through because Palin has a lot of questionable ideologies, but people are more racist than sexist. They would rather see him and Palin in office than a Black man who has been labeled as “Elitist”.

  33. abw wrote:

    You are on the money. The first time I heard about Palin’s daughter being pregnant I said to myself-if she was poor/minority,both,single-parent or liberal-no one would be cutting her daughter any slack even as liberals do not claim a platform of “traditional values”. Speaking of so-called traditional values, it does not help the fact that her mom endorses the republican platform of traditional values despite the fact that her own daughter does not seem to adhere to these values.On top of this, it was rumored that at some point the girl contracted mono.This is sad. However, this is not about just dissing, if at all. I am saying all this to highlight the hypocrisy of her mothers stance and how far her daughter deviates from it. Anyway, this little “so-called”booboo” **WOULD** be just the thing “Rethuglicans would used to tarnish the campaign of anyone that fell under the following criteria-minority/poor/both or liberal. In real life, people of ordinary means are cut no slack when they make mistakes like this. No effort would be/is made to sugarcoat the circumstances of the following candidates or people!

  34. abw wrote:

    I think people of color should stop trying to be perfect and just be.

    I feel you, and partly endorse this myself. Still, when you are seen in the prism of stereotypes-that impact your opportunities and whatever, it is not surprising that people find this hard to do. Anyway, still, you got a point!

  35. abw wrote:

    Most of the comments above mine are on the money!

  36. abw wrote:

    Since I am on a role, I have a question for any posters willing to comment. We have already concluded that Bristol nor her mom would be cut slack if they were minority,poor,or liberal. Do you think they would be cut slack if they followed any other religious practice. Like say Buddhism,Animism, Judaism, Shintoism,Confucianism, Jainism or say***ISLAM** ! What if Bristol was lesbian?

  37. Just Some Dude wrote:

    abw, what about scientologists ,wouldn’t that be a good one to mull over? and a pregnant lesbian daughter would of blown up in the RNCs face immediately I think. and JC I agree with you , if that happens I’ll be moving to Mexico or South America

  38. allheavens wrote:

    This women scares the hell out of me. I believe in the Separation of Church and State. I do not want right wing evangelicals dictating policy in this country.

    Not that I believe Sarah Palin is a true believer, I think she has pimped her religion, her family and her ovaries for ambition and the Vice Presidency.

    And anyone willing to do that is willing to do ANYTHING.

    The the working and some middle class GOP base are falling right in line because after all she is “one of them.”

    Hey, head over to ABCNEWS.com and read the comments about Oprah not having Palin on her show. I swear tears came to my eyes. But not enough to blind me to the outright hatred people of spewing.

  39. Mary wrote:

    Hey, head over to ABCNEWS.com and read the comments about Oprah not having Palin on her show. I swear tears came to my eyes. But not enough to blind me to the outright hatred people of spewing.

    @allheavens: Every time I read an ABC article online about the campaign, the comments are insane! I swear Karl Rove has a team of paid trolls staking out that site. The alternative, that there really are so many people who genuinely believe all the slurs against Obama, is just too depressing to contemplate.

    What’s even more odd to me is that I’ve read a couple of FOX News articles about the campaign (yeah, I know, I apparently have a mile-wide masochistic streak) and have seen several pro-Obama/Biden and anti-McCain/Palin comments. On Fox News!!! I feel like I’m in upside down-world…

    I can honestly say I don’t know what to expect Nov. 4.

  40. SoundGallery wrote:

    Yes, there is a double standard for sure.

  41. abw wrote:

    Scientologists, I actually forgot that one!As for the lesbian comment, Just Some Dude, I think so too!I agree with you completely allheavens!

  42. RainaWeather wrote:

    Thanks for the info changematador. And I 100% agree with you. People are all too happy to be deluded.

  43. Brian wrote:

    Regardless of the results in November. either a Black man or a woman will be in the White House. Let us all take a moment to celebrate that! What a step. The end result this election may not be what you want, but it opens the doors for future elections. Jackie Robinson anyone?

  44. butchrebel wrote:

    Maegan — excellent post.

    Bring it McCain — you’ve got Palin to mobilize all the “best” stereotypes of white womanhood; you’ve taken her on to exploit the racism of disgruntled white women Clinton supporters; You’ve got her to say all the racist things, and propagate all the lies that you — John McCain — won’t lower yourself to utter.

    And white conservatives are drinkin’ all that Kool-Aid. They love her!

    But guess what — Obama’s still gonna whup your white ass the November election.

    (yeah, I said it!)
    And what:)

  45. butchrebel wrote:

    I apologize.

    I should’ve said: Obama’s still gonna whup John McCain’s excessively and ungodly privileged millionaire, white male heterosexual ass in the November election.

  46. June wrote:

    I’m a Canadian Metis (mixed Aboriginal and white) woman and appalled by Palin. Her children are mixed race as her husband is Yup’ik Inuit (you Americans still use the insulting term “Eskimo”). But it always depressing to find conservative and hyper mainstream religious Native folks

  47. lunanoire wrote:

    This blatant double standard has me LIVID. I want to read feminist authors of color, both theorists and novelists. Any suggestions, especially non African-American authors (I have heard of some of them)?

    I am also sick of POC being told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, but when they try through collective means, they are accused of being segregationists or “clannish.”

  48. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    The reason conservatives give her the benefit of the doubt isn’t because she’s white. Do you see conservatives giving the same benefit of the doubt to white Democrats? It’s because she’s conservative. She has the views conservatives wanted in a running mate, and that’s especially important this time around, because John McCain isn’t exactly trusted by most conservatives. They expected Joe Lieberman, who would have been a disastrous pick. The base would have revolted. So of course they’re going to defend someone who turns out to be what they’ve been longing for so desperately.

    But there’s another factor. A significant portion of the people who happen to be defending her are evangelicals, and evangelicals do in fact accept single moms without any stigma. I’ve been in evangelical circles all my life. Some of the more fundamentalist churches may not (I know of one that wasn’t in at least one case when I was a kid), but those are the people who won’t vote for McCain no matter who he picks, because he supports stem cell research and won’t take a stand against same-sex civil unions. Mainstream evangelicals accept single moms, even 17-year-olds, without question. I’ve seen it happen over and over, and they don’t have to be white. A friend of mine in high school became pregnant, and no one ever questioned her about it or suggested she wasn’t welcome. She was simply accepted, and she had her baby, which changed her life significantly, but it was never made an issue.

    Conservatives also have no problem with people who have large families. I’ve got four kids, and my wife is black, and the only people who ever think that’s bad are my mainly liberal fellow academics who think it’s immoral to have more than a kid or two (but even they would never say it to us, but I can tell they find it unnerving that anyone would have a big family). It’s not because of her race. It’s only because of an ideological opposition to large families. Conservatives don’t share that ideology.

    Now I disagree with most of the cheering section here on a number of matters. I’ve looked very closely into the questions being raised about her, and I agree with Carmen that many of them would never be asked of a man. I’d go even further and point out, as Diane Rehm courageously did (against the bulk of her profession) that many of these questions would be illegal to ask at a job interview specifically because they are assumed to be sexist by those who have passed such laws.

    I also happen to be closer to her views than most of you, so I’m not as worried about the ones most of you think are incredibly scary. But I do think she’s been seriously misrepresented (e.g. as advocating teaching creationism when all she said is that she doesn’t mind if teachers can discuss the issue when students first bring it up, an eminently reasonable position no matter what your view is). I also think people are far too willing to assume charges against someone merely because the person belongs to the other party. A good number of the rumors going around have been plainly refuted but haven’t been covered in the mainstream media very well (such as that she belonged to some secessionist party, when she’s been registered as a Republican all her voting life).

    I also don’t think it’s very plausible to claim that the media is giving her a free pass because she’s white when the mainstream media outlets have been the ones perpetuating the false and unsubstantiated rumors about her for over a week now, often not apologizing or retracting stories when the rumors have been shown false. The same papers that refuse to cover Stanley Kurtz’s claims about Obama having a connection with a terrorist are happy to include whatever anyone happens to assert about Palin. The media instinctively distrust negative rumors about Obama and wait for more verification. They didn’t protect her the same way. That shows that it isn’t really about race.

    That isn’t to say that there’s no racial privilege here and that all black women would always be treated exactly the same in the same circumstances. All I’m saying is that there’s a pretty obvious explanation for this that doesn’t have anything to do with race, and any racial elements might add to it but aren’t the central or most obvious factor, and I don’t think they’d be decisive if they were the only element. If she had been a white woman with Joe Lieberman’s views but her family situation, there’s no way conservatives would have gotten behind her.

  49. waxghost wrote:

    I am by no means the first person to say this and feel like I am stealing it from others but feel it is an important point to inject into the conversation: if a candidate of color had a teenager daughter who had been impregnated by a young man of color who wrote things like Levi Johnston did on his MySpace page, the election would be over in an instant and McCain would win by default.

  50. Katie wrote:

    Thank you SO much, Jeremy Pierce, for your definitive arguments. Now we KNOW race had nothing to do with it.

    Why are you on this blog again?

  51. RainaWeather wrote:

    June, I think most Americans know the term Inuit, unless they’re trying to be insulting.

  52. cat m. wrote:

    @browne
    I think POC should stop trying to be perfect and just “be”. The conversation about race should be about capitalism, exploitation and power. The conversation about race should not be about our behavior. It should have never been about our behavior.

    You’re right, the conversation around race should never have been about our behavior and the way we choose to be. But that’s why it’s called racism. Actually, I know only a handful of people who’ve ‘drank the kool-aid’ of white supremacy and ‘try to be perfect’ according to them; but all these beautiful POC’s are still suffering simply because they ARE who they are.
    Have you ever ready Patricia Hill Collins Black Feminist Thought or Sudy’s post on Kyriarchy? These wonderful women seek to explore the intersection of all forms of oppression, be it sexism, racism, or economic and exploitative power, and how they all exist in our lives.

    Thank you so much for your insight.

  53. butchrebel wrote:

    lunanoire:

    I recommend the following texts by feminists of color (some/all you may already be aware of:)

    Gloria Anzaldua (a Latina writer — her work is amazing, important, and unfortunately, marginalized).

    Anzaldua wrote “This Bridge Called My Back” with Cherrie Moraga, an important work that brings together women of color writers from a variety of racial backgrounds & national origins

    Mari Matsuda — a brilliant (I think East Asian) law professor at Georgetown Univ. She’s written articles about affirmative action & she’s an activist

    Indrani Chatterjee — she’s a South Asian history professor at Rutgers who has written about homosexuality, particularly lesbianism, in the context of pre-colonial India

    Leah Lakshmi — queer, a multi-racial Sri Lankan activist & writer. Go to brownstargirl.com to learn more about her and her work

    African American feminists:

    bell hook’s work is very important (I believe). I recommend “Killing Rage; Ending Racism” and “Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center”

    Angela Davis’ Women, Race and Class”

    When I think of more writers I will post them here. Take good care

  54. browne wrote:

    Jeremy in regards to this:
    “The reason conservatives give her the benefit of the doubt isn’t because she’s white. Do you see conservatives giving the same benefit of the doubt to white Democrats?”

    I have to disagree with you. There is no way a conservative black or latina with her background would be picked. Look at the black woman that is invited to the Republican party. Condi Rice. She’s a robot model minority. There isn’t one black conservative in the mainstream conservative scene that has a background even kind of like Palin’s or even McCain’s. A black or Latino man with McCain’s background even if they were hardcore conservative would be relegated to the fringe.

    An if you’re a minority and Republican it seems some requirement that you be an ivy leaguer, so it’s not just about the conservative issue. Race plays into this.

  55. la frontera wrote:

    You’ve put into words what ive been trying to articulate since the announcement of her candidacy.

    thanks.

  56. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Katie, I said this:

    “That isn’t to say that there’s no racial privilege here and that all black women would always be treated exactly the same in the same circumstances.”

    I’m not sure how that translates to “race had nothing to do with it”. In fact, it seems to me to flatly contradict it.

    As for why I’m here, I’m not of the opinion that you seem to have that people should isolate themselves among those who think just like them. Whenever it doesn’t get into narrowly political issues and candidates, I generally agree with most of the authors at this site on the broad strokes and occasionally differ on minor points. The commenters seem to me to be much more extreme, and there’s an occasional post like this one that seems far more radical than the main contributors of the site. But I would think that you would be glad that someone who is politically conservative could generally agree with the message and motives of this site and would seek to interact on those issues. Since you don’t, I wonder why you’re here. It’s certainly not to engage in careful reflection, because then you’d actually address my arguments rather than dismissing them as if they weren’t arguments.

    A lot of conservatives wanted Colin Powell to run for president even though he didn’t have any electoral experience. Rice doesn’t have any either. I think either one would be so inexperienced for a political race that it would be laughable, whereas Governor Palin has been a very successful and popular governor, even if the Obama campaign keeps pretending that she’s still just a mayor of a small town.

    As for minority candidates, I think you’ve got it exactly backwards. Bush, for example, looked hard for both women and minorities for his cabinet appointments and Supreme Court appointments. He insisted on appointing someone who wasn’t a white male to replace O’Connor, and his advisers couldn’t find someone who was both reliably judicially conservative, willing to do it, and confirmable by the Senate. Edith Jones and Emilio Garza refused. Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen were unconfirmable. Edith Clement isn’t really a judicial conservative, but she was the best they could come up with. They ended up with Harriet Miers, who Bush thought would be acceptable. After that mess, he finally settled for a white dude. He looked hard for people who were qualified but not at the top, and it was just hard to find conservatives who satisfied him who were willing to put themselves through the confirmation circus.

    Look at his department secretaries. He’s been the most diversity-conscious president ever, but he’s had to pick people who some have judged under-qualified to do it.

    I’d be inclined to think that politicians would be more resistant to picking a white man with her background, just because there are people more in the limelight who would do, except that Tim Pawlenty was also a serious contender, and he’s a white man with almost the same level of experience as Palin. I can guarantee you that if Michael Steele had won the governorship of Maryland when he ran, he would have easily been on the short list for the VP pick with only a couple years’ experience as governor.

    I accept that this is a lowering of standards in comparison to people like Romney, Huckabee, or Lieberman. But it’s the same kind of lowering of standards that happens in any affirmative action case. Those who want to strive for diversity (as both McCain and Bush seem committed to do at some level) seek to count race and sex as qualifications of a sort, and they pay less attention to traditional qualifications. But that by its very nature opens them up to people who wouldn’t be considered if they were white men. So I think the kind of person you describe would be more likely to be considered, not less.

  57. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    The second half of my comment was addressed to Browne, but I forgot to put that in there.

  58. allheavens wrote:

    To Jeremy Pierce ,

    They picked her because she is conservative AND white. One does not cancel out or diminish the other.

    Many Republicans were prepared to hold their noses and vote for McCain no matter who is running mate was. But McCain needed someone to shore up his female and right wing evangelical base.

    Most white undecided females and a great many but not all evangelicals who were on the fence about voting for McCain or were prepared to sit the election out only needed that litte push to fall over into that Rovian abyss known as the Republican Party.

    They can now salve their collective conscience with claims of Palin being a woman just like them meaning white, Palin understanding “their values” meaning white values, Palin being a working woman with five kids meaning a white working woman with five kids.

    Do not be so intellectually dishonest that you are unwilling to accept the fact that if Sarah Palin were Black with the exact same credential and the same family background the Republican base would not have lost “their” collective minds had she been chosen as McCain’s running mate.

    Pandering is pandering and the Republicans have proven time and again you can fool half of the voting populace all of the time.

    All I can say to McCain is, he better hire a food taster.

  59. octogalore wrote:

    Browne said: “The problem with Palin is if she were black or brown this would be a major problem.”

    I disagree. (Usual libeal feminist caveat that I strongly disagree with Palin’s social positions goes here).

    This isn’t a problem with Palin. It’s a problem with our society and more specifically with racists with it, which covers a lot of ground.

    We’ve had white male Presidents with a lot of kids and they aren’t held up as a “problem” because MOC in their shoes would be treated vastly differently and massively unfairly.

    We cannot make women the stand-in for our anger at society’s failings.

    SP’s social beliefs are fucked up, but there’s no indication that her belief in them is based on an elitist sense that white women deserve different treatment rather than a completely misguided buy-in to religious beliefs.

    All politicians, and all people, who advocate positions that help them while hurting those less fortunate are hypocrites. Calling out only those with vaginas? There’s a word for that.

  60. superdukes wrote:

    @changematador -

    yo. wow. you blew my mind, and i went to that link and their platform is better than obamas! right on to what you said… a must read post

  61. Ron wrote:

    @Jeremy -

    I am a conservative black republican myself. Clarence Thomas would be the only type of black that could get away with having Palin’s issues. This is mainly because his skin may be black but his interests align with white nationalists. There are gradations and no black and white here. People like Steele and JC Watts would not get this type of consideration.

    Christian fundamentalists conservatives support like minded conservatives regardless of outstanding issues.

    A moderate or liberal black with the same profile as Palin would not receive the same consideration as Palin to be V.P.

    For example, Colin Powell would have been shredded by Fox and Rush eventually.

    Only the robot lock in step black republicans would fit the bill.

  62. browne wrote:

    @octogalore

    I’m not talking about her gender I’m talking about her race. If she were a white guy then I would have compared her to a guy, if I had compared her to a man that would be sexist, but me comparing he to a woman is not sexist.

    This is about race not sex.

    And you are correct this is society’s problem. It’s society’s problem (in this case the right leaning society’s) with race. It’s certain parts of this society still using race as a way to oppress people.

    And I am not angry at Palin. I’m annoyed at the literal demonstration of the hypocrisy and how some people are still trying say this has nothing to do with race.

    Where in my post did I talk directly about Palin and her view that she was superior? I can’t find it. Please don’t lie and make up things to prove your point using my comments.

    If I called Palin elite or superior or said she was using her white womanhood of even inferred it, I ask you to please cut and paste it before you accuse me of something I know I didn’t say or even think.

    Browne

  63. browne wrote:

    Jeremey,

    You are only looking at experience and not educational background and personal home life. The experience is not an issue. The big family is not an issue.

    It’s the non elite school mixed in with the pregnant minor child. It’s the husband with a high school diploma, she maybe typical American, but while a Republican may pick someone with less experience like Rice, they wouldn’t ignore those other two factors. Rice graduated from college at 19, she got her PhD before her 30th birthday, she’s a provost at Stanford. She as I’ve stated is the model minority. Powell he was military and very high ranking. He had a nice little traditional family if Powell had a degree from Public State College USA, no military experience and a wife with an arrest record as well as a pregnant minor daughter, no way would he be given the same consideration.

    They hold the blacks up in the Republican party to go, “See black America this is what you can do if you made an effort.” A Palin African-American wouldn’t allow that to happen.

    And while evangelicals are an important base to the Republican base, they aren’t the mainstream. Evangelist people in the party are like black people were to the Democratic party ten years ago. A vote they know they have. A vote the Republican party can throw a bone to, but not a group that in this election they care about as a group one way or the other.

    Think about it eight years of bush and Abortion is still legal. The Republicans have done a variety of horrible things, but that well it’s still there.

    I think many people who talk about African-Americans just blindly voting Democrat, if they are Evangelist, should look within themselves and wonder why they always blindly vote Republican. Other than the stance on abortion was does a true religious person have in common with the Republican party?

    Browne

  64. browne wrote:

    “Think about it eight years of bush and Abortion is still legal. The Republicans have done a variety of horrible things, but that well it’s still there.” me

    To clarify. I meant to say that Republicans have done a variety of horrible things, so why not add ending choice to the list. It seems pretty easy for them to do horrible things and ending choice for woman would be a horrible thing.

    Browne

  65. octogalore wrote:

    Browne — I’m aware you didn’t call her superior, and in fact I never claimed ou did. My mention of that was to make the point that we could more accurately say “the problem with Palin” (which you did say) if she were deliberately elitist in advocating policies only applicable to certain women, rather than being a captive to (racist, sexist) religious beliefs.

    And re “I’m not talking about her gender I’m talking about her race,” my point is that both were implicated in what you said, as I am not sure we call out white men for being “problems” for betraying men of other races to the same extent.

  66. browne wrote:

    “I am not sure we call out white men for being “problems” for betraying men of other races to the same extent.” octogalore

    Maybe you don’t, but I call out the system on that. The same way I called out the system on this.

    Are you going to use a comment I didn’t say to post something on your blog of how women of color are agressive towards white women, because that seems to be in my opinion the road you are going on.

    I just comment here. I didn’t write the post. A very good post that’s not accusatory in regards to Palin in anyway. My personal opinion is that if you have an opinion, have an opinion, don’t be a coward and scapegoat a new commentor (me) in order for a justification of your view.

    You could have easily stated what you said without reaching way deep down into what you think is in my mind and putting out what I feel are made up stories about what I said. I highly resent that. If I said that. Palin was using her white womanhood or that white woman do this or that. I would stick by that. I say lots of things I don’t have to infer anything.

    Please don’t take things you do in your own life and project it on to me (or anyone else for that matter.)

    Browne

  67. browne wrote:

    And octogalore while many people don’t view this blog as such this blog Racialicious is a woman of color feminist blog. Even though it doesn’t describe itself that way. The issues on this blog seem to centered around women issues, women of color issues that have been ignored by some mainstream feminists.

    Now if this was Daily Kos your statement:

    I am not sure we call out white men for being “problems” for betraying men of other races to the same extent.

    Yes, you are right, but do you go to Daily Kos and question them or other blogs that are more male centric aka less gender specific? Do you go to Feministing and question why they never bring up women of color in a way other than in an oppressive fashion or to make some general stereotypical commentary on black men? If not you should really question your accusatory tones on this topic.

    Browne

  68. Joseph wrote:

    @Octogalore
    “SP’s social beliefs are fucked up, but there’s no indication that her belief in them is based on an elitist sense that white women deserve different treatment rather than a completely misguided buy-in to religious beliefs… Calling out only those with vaginas? There’s a word for that.”

    You raise an interesting point here, one I have heard with increasing frequency over the last few days from white women who disagree with Palin’s politics but who are ringing a warning bell re: sexism in the way she is discussed.

    In principle I agree with you.

    However I don’t think it is entirely true that her positions are not based on racialized, gendered, elitism since the critical context for Palin’s campaign is her use of her own maternity as a positive virtue…. Her “Hockey Mom” image is the exact definition of the sort of elitism (disguised as populism) that you are unwilling to ascribe to her. It is not out of bounds to assume that the warm reception she has received is based not only on her skillful use of gender tropes–but also on the racial context for these images. Simply put: if she were Black this shit would not fly.

    The Republicans are trying to have it both ways with Palin: she is just another Hockey Mom…who is ready to run the country if called! She is a tough, experienced politician…who must be protected from giving interviews! She is a pittbull…in lipstick!

    There’s a word for that too.

    So I don’t think it is productive for feminists to pull yellow caution tape around Palin’s growing family at this point based on the abstract notion that “a male candidate would not have to answer these questions” when she is the one using her motherhood as political capital. (As opposed to say, Hillary Clinton, who never did any such thing). While I welcome the leadership of feminists in helping to parse this retrograde rhetoric about women and their “roles,” I don’t think it is acceptable to bar any questions relating to Palin’s family position vis a vis her gender–when that is her entire platform so far.

  69. Alston wrote:

    I agree with most of the comments I have read, and I have read more than half of them. I just had a small comment on the use of the word “responsible” as it relates to the number of children POC have. When people say that a POC is irresponsible because they have a lot of children, it means that they have made a lot of children without having the means (financial or otherwise) to take care of them. This is irresponsible no matter who you are.

    Palin has the means to take care of them, and still find time to go recreational hunting. That seems more responsible to me. Brad and Angelina have the means, and they have a whole bunch of kids. So it’s fine.

    If Palin were poor, people would likely call her irresponsible, but then she wouldn’t be running for VP, so it wouldn’t really matter. On the other hand, I am not entirely convinced that Michelle or Barack Obama would be called irresponsible if they had five kids because they have the means to take care of them adequately. Of course, I could be wrong about that last bit.

  70. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *sigh*

    Chill folks, things are getting a bit heated.

    1. Conservative perspectives are welcome here, but be mindful that if you spend most of your post arguing that this isn’t an issue of race (even with a disclaimer on the end) you’re going to get push back.

    2. If someone is annoying you with their argument, directly engage with what is being said. Asking them why they are here is more a mod kind of question, something I generally ask before I ban someone.

    3. Most of the women who comment here are feminists/womanists/unaffiliated but care about gender issues. If you are unfamiliar with someone, assume they are a feminist as well.

    4. We don’t necessarily call ourselves a feminist blog because all of our contributors don’t identify that way. And even if we did, we’re a bunch of weirdo feminists – Thea is the only feminist-feminist but that may change. I’m a hip-hop feminist, Fatemeh is a Muslimah feminist, and heaven knows what everyone else identifies as.

    5. To go back to something Jeremy said, yes this piece is a different kind of post than we normally list here. As such, it’s bringing a different quality of conversation. Once again, remember to remain respectful of each other, and try not to let our emotions run rampant on the page. This has been an emotionally charged election, no doubt, and a lot of tempers are running short.

    Now, tap gloves and go to your corners before heading back out for round two.

  71. Jo wrote:

    This is great, thanks for writing it and, to the editors, thanks for making sure it got up on Racialicious!

  72. octogalore wrote:

    Browne — I think you are taking what I said too personally. By “we,” I didn’t mean you specifically, but our society in general.

    And of course this issue is about race. Any deference given to Palin or to white politicians about family matters should be given to WOC as well. I’ve argued on Feministe for more coverage of McKinney, in fact, to answer your question.

    But the issue isn’t about race or gender in isolation, but with their intersection. And in that context, I think it’s fair to ask whether the discussion of Palin differs from the discussion we’d be having w/r/t a male politician. Because the point this essay eloquently makes — these aren’t courtesies extended to women and mothers of color — must be consistently applied to all groups. To drive home racist double standard that Maegan is illustrating, we must make sure we don’t invoke any other double standards.

    Re “Are you going to use a comment I didn’t say to post something on your blog of how women of color are agressive towards white women” — if that’s a serious question, of course not. If you are familiar with my blog, you will see that that’s absolutely antithetical to my general genre. I may have alluded in one post to how one of my sisters, who is a WOC, forced me to join her in a punishing hill run, but I think that’s the closest I’ve ever come to what you suggest.

    As the editors here know, this is among my favorite sites and the last thing I’d want to do is be accusatory. As I think they are well aware, I tend not to comment in a cheerleading way and while I have often been forced by the sheer brilliance of Latoya’s writing to say something banal like “brilliant post,” I am more likely to try to engage in ways that might include agreeing, disagreeing, or disagreeing in part. That’s how I’d want people to comment on my site as well.

    I agree that my point should have been made within a larger context of agreement with much of the OP’s thesis. So, I will pay more attention to that in future.

  73. JC wrote:

    I forgot to write down the reason why I’m so afraid of her. This is from someone who knows her personally:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-kilkenny/about-sarah-palin_b_124528.html

    The excessive abuse of power for personal reasons, the total disregard for the environment, the lack of management skills (she has to rely on professional managers who she later fires for no good reason), not to mention her ultra-conservative views on almost everything. I won’t be surprised if she’s caught using racist languages. I won’t be surprised if she’s involved with the KKK, actually.

    I think she will blow up and be exposed soon, and McCain will have much to answer for.

  74. Elena Perez wrote:

    We linked to this in our post “Why Sarah Palin is Bad for American Women” at the CA NOW blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/why-sarah-palin.html

  75. chgo_liz wrote:

    Thanks for that link, Elena. After reading it, the thought that came to mind was: as a woman and a feminist, I WILL be voting for “my own” to go to the White House…Obama might be a man, but he represents like a woman. A really smart woman.

  76. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    One thing that I should make clear is that I have a weird mix of idiosyncratic views on race. I enjoy this site’s interesting analysis of race, which generally takes no party line. It resists the color-blind desire of mainstream politics in both parties (which has been calling itself post-racial of late among Democrats but is really the same view). It recognizes the social reality of race and sees mixed-race people as mixed rather than furthering the one-drop rule. It frequently recognizes the complexity of the issues when often those who are race-sensitive are sometimes looking for a race issue where that may not be the primary factor.

    Except when the rare, explicitly political issues come up (where on some important issues I think conservatives have a better approach), the main place I’ve raised questions at this site are on that last issue. I’m something of a skeptic when it comes to particular accusations of racism where I can think of alternative explanations or at least explanations that primarily involve other factors. I won’t accept arguments that find some hypothetical that has never occurred by assuming people would respond a certain way to that hypothetical when that hypothetical has never occurred and there’s no evidence it would go that way if it did. This is something both political parties do, and I don’t approve of it. I give people the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances, because I don’t believe in labeling people evil when there’s no evidence. Racism is a serious enough charge that it’s best to stick with clear and obvious cases, and I think it hurts the anti-racist cause to go too far with charges of racism.

    So what’s happened in this case is there’s an assumption that conservative voters would take a certain attitude toward someone just like Palin except she’s black. There hasn’t been such a candidate. So we have no evidence for such a claim. I’m therefore inclined to say we shouldn’t make such an accusation based on hypothetical responses. There aren’t that many black conservatives, and since black conservatives have to face so much social pressure within the black community at being called Uncle Toms, very few of them want to be in the public light and thus don’t run for office. We could try to explain why so many of them are “model minorities” in terms of what white people would require of them to give them support, but we could equally explain it in terms of the factors black conservative politicians have to overcome on their own end or in terms of the few in social settings like Palin who want to be in the public light no matter the political views, and since black conservatives are fewer numbers anyway, we’re dealing with a very small population. So I can’t see how claims like this can be remotely justified given the small numbers we’re dealing with.

    This is really the same issue as those who say Hillary voters were voting against Obama because he’s black or for Hillary because she’s a woman and Obama voters were voting against Hillary because she’s a woman or for Obama because he’s black. We can’t assume that. There are issues that separate them, and a good number of people supported either candidate because of the issues or because of factors that had nothing or little to do with race and gender, e.g. viewing Obama as inexperienced and Clinton as experience, viewing one of them as having better judgment on certain issues or as having better policies, or simply seeing a connection between oneself and the candidate that crosses sex and race lines. I can tell you that my wife sees a lot of herself in Sarah Palin, and my wife is black, so there’s something in Palin’s experience that she identifies with.

    The other thing that strikes me as very strange in this argument is that it takes certain elements of Palin as the sort of thing that white people would disapprove of if they were true of black people. The only things I see here are that she has a large family, that she was knowingly willing to have a Down Syndrome child, that her first child was conceived before she got married (but she married the guy), and that her daughter conceived a child while unmarried (but she’s marrying the guy).

    Now I can’t tell you 100% how all social conservatives would respond, whether the same or different, if someone with all those factors but who was black had been picked by McCain. But I can tell you that social conservatives would have generally liked to see someone who didn’t abort a Down Syndrome child and who didn’t encourage abortion in her daughter but encouraged marriage. And I don’t think the fact of a large family with both parents intact (and both earning an income, I should add) would have suggested “welfare mom” to those conservatives who tend to disapprove of professional welfare recipients. I just don’t think that’s true, and I’ve spent a lot of time among the very evangelicals who seem to be the main support for Palin. So I have some reason to resist this even apart from my general skepticism of charges based on hypotheticals.

    I want to add that it’s also a bit unfair to say the attention to her motherhood is her own doing. That’s clearly not so if you look at the timeline. The questions about her family and motherhood came up over and over again in the media before she decided to respond by highlighting the hockey mom thing and presenting her family as having problems but as evidencing her character as well. Like any good mom, she is proud of her son for what he’s choosing to contribute to society. Like any good mom, she’s proud of her daughter for making a choice she believes to be the right decision. Like any good mom she chooses to respond to smear attacks on her character. I don’t see how that’s merely using her family for political gain. She would probably have been happy to leave them largely out of the picture, I’m sure. She certainly didn’t ask for this, and it’s as insane to think she did as it is to think dressing provocatively is asking to be raped.

  77. Lyonside wrote:

    >I give people the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances, because I don’t believe in labeling people evil when there’s no evidence. Racism is a serious enough charge that it’s best to stick with clear and obvious cases, and I think it hurts the anti-racist cause to go too far with charges of racism.

    Jeremy: It depends on what you consider “evidence.” There are layers to race, race-relations, and racism, absolutely, and you CANNOT divorce race from US politics, ever, ever, ever. We are just not that far yet. You seem to be limiting “racism” to clear acts and words. Part of living in a racist country, in one obsessed with race and positioning and grandstanding about it (or negating it completely), is that racism is in the very air we breathe (or choke on) – it’s institutional, it’s pervasive, and while it’s nowhere at the levels it used to be, it’s far from where it could be.

    It’s like an old grungy tiled bathroom in a poor school – a combination of neglect, lack of funds, shoddy maintenance, and deliberate misuse or abuse of the facilities means that the room is ill-lit, lacks tools needed to keep it functional, and reeks to high heaven. Now, someone can go in there with pressure hoses, bleach, and brushes. Maybe even a coat of paint. But unless you clean or replace the plumbing, the hardware, and the tiles themselves, the reek and the problems will still be there. Racism is in the grout of our society. Cleaning the obvious stuff out only gets you so far.

    The Bradley Effect is evidenced by polling (flawed as it can be) that disproportionately shows the minority in a positive way… until the actual private voting resutls are tallied. A stat I just heard (and can’t recall the source, sorry – might have even been around here): David Duke when running for office was an outright outspoken racist, and he got 5-10% in the polls… but a whole lot more in the ballot count. People didn’t want to ADMIT what they preferred, or what they were comfortable with.

    Do I think everyone who voted for Duke was a card-carrying Klansman? Absolutely not. But I do think that people tend to go with “the devil you know” over the unknown, and they rely heavily on checks and balances, other elected officials, and the judicial system to keep their particular person from doing anything too damaging. We can look around at our state and federal legislatures, judiciary, and yes, our executive brancehes to see how well that’s been working.

  78. gatamala wrote:

    They hold the blacks up in the Republican party to go, “See black America this is what you can do if you made an effort.” A Palin African-American wouldn’t allow that to happen.

    spot on browne. BUT when an African American (Democrat) family pulls itself up by its bootstraps they are out of touch, atypical liberal elites.

  79. Squidfly wrote:

    Jeremy Pierce wrote: I don’t see how that’s merely using her family for political gain. She would probably have been happy to leave them largely out of the picture, I’m sure. She certainly didn’t ask for this, and it’s as insane to think she did as it is to think dressing provocatively is asking to be raped.

    Why put out a press release about her teenage daughter’s pregnancy and then spend the next few days attacking the press for covering that press release?-Maureen Dowd.NYT

  80. Squidfly wrote:

    Jeremy: Sarah Palin is a Political animal, as hungry as any of them, and she will do anything to obtain power. It’s that simple. Here are a few quotes for you to mull over, which I believe the McCain/Rove/ Bush/ Cheney machine has employed.

    All from Joseph Goebbels, Minster of Propaganda for the Nazi’s.

    “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

    “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

    “Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character”

  81. Sherry wrote:

    First – let me say another blog led me to this one and I am ever so grateful. I am a woman, 55 and single mother. My skin tone is brownish/pink showing my multi – racial background.

    That Said: You have brought up points I never even thought of – but even my 30 year old daughter pointed out. I tend to be color blind with people having parents that would have ‘wupped my butt’ if I so much as ever had considered a person based on anything but who they were inside. I don’t have tv – cable or otherwise and haven’t for over 15 years. Couldn’t afford the cable bill and then discovered I didn’t miss it.

    What this means is – I just now saw a picture of Palin…….. and she scares the hell out of me. I was already livid over her choice as an insult to all women everywhere. She paraded her family as if cattle – and then got upset when everyone started looking at the ‘brands’

    I am scared – for my country, for my family, for my gender, for the world. Let’s face it – McCain will win the Electoral college despite the American People actual choice. McCain believes in War – pure and simple. War with Iran (anyone else remember the ‘bomb bomb bomb-iran), war with Afghanistan, war with Iraq and re-creating the Cold War with Russia, keepipng the ‘rich corporate status quo, and destroying our environment by keeping us addicted to oil. Palin is from the only Oil state that is so addicted to oil that the people are actually paid off every year to look the other way. Alaska is the new Texas.

    The Mayan Calender ends on the year 2012 – which will be the year the McCain(Bush) /Palin presidency will either be renewed or over. With such determination to destroy our country and the world – can we wonder why? I am afraid – I know that as I deal with cancer, I’ve been told stress makes it worse and weakens me. McCain has cancer – so we’re looking at Palin being the next President sometime in the next year.

    Be afraid – be very afraid. :(

  82. livininphilly wrote:

    Hi all,

    I just sent a letter to this website:
    http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
    They are requesting that the voices of women who don’t think that Sarah Palin is a good choice be heard. You can help out by sending information about this project to others & by writing your own comments. Women from around the country are writing in to this website and their letters are posted. It’s a very inspiring project.

    I am not a writer for this website I am just a woman who was forwarded information about this and decided to spread the word.

    Thanks everyone!

  83. Lyonside wrote:

    >McCain has cancer – so we’re looking at Palin being the next President sometime in the next year.

    Sherry – to my understanding, McCain’s skin cancer is cured or at least in remission, if the information released is accurate. More recently, he has had suspect pre-cancerous lesions removed, just like my 80 YO grandmother who has never had a bout of melanoma or anti-cancer therapies related to skin cancer (it’s outpatient and painless, she claims). So I don’t think it’s valid to assume that McCain HAS cancer, more that he is a cancer survivor. His age is a factor, but then again, a good VP should be standard, not just based on the age of the presidential candidate. I’d rather we look at McCain/Palin on issues and actions, not agism.

    That said, my best wishes to you on your struggles with The Big C. Cancer in any and all forms sucks.

  84. Jeremy Pierce wrote:

    Institutional (I prefer the term ’structural’ myself) racism is not racism per se. It’s derivatively racist. You can say the structures in society are racist because they lead to results that have negative results along racial lines. What I don’t think is justified is the claim that many make that structural racism derives from intentional racism on the part of those in authority positions. Some probably are racists, but some probably aren’t, and the effect that we can call structural racism doesn’t depend on whether it’s intended to be racially harmful.

    There are false stereotypes and assumptions that result from ignorance. Sometimes it’s willful ignorance and self-deception, but sometimes it’s not. There are policies intended by well-meaning people to accomplish some good that turn out to affect people in a negative way racially speaking, usually by harming a minority or historically-oppressed racial group disproportionately. There are also self-interested tendencies like making what sells or hiring people you know that will also disproportionally harm along racial lines.

    But we need to be careful when we call something racist. If that term is unqualified, the vast majority of English speakers will assume that it’s unqualified racism that’s being talked about, i.e. racism in the head and/or heart. It’s at best misleading, then, to call it racism without qualifying that term if all you mean is structural racism. Academics and others who specialize in race issues feel free to talk that way amongst themselves and get used to hearing it, but most people won’t hear it that way. They’ll hear it as an unproven accusation against people’s very character. So I refuse to engage in that game. If I’m talking about structural racism, I don’t call it racism in an unqualified way. The context needs to make that clear.

    There are also unconscious responses that people might have because of unquestioned stereotypes. This is probably best called residual racism. If I might have a prejudice against black people, and it would lead me to vote against Obama if he were running against someone who on the issues, in of experience and qualifications, and in personality and speech-giving prowess was exactly like him but white, then it would be a sign of residual racism. Of course you’re not going to find such cases, so it’s very hard to quantify such things. That makes me skeptical of particular cases even if there clearly are strong signs that it does happen and happens often (which still needs to be established with particular issues even if it can’t usually be established with particular cases).

    The Bradley effect is one such particular issue where it can’t be established in individual cases. It’s well-recognized among pollsters that the undecideds have often made up their mind but won’t say what it is, or more often all the factors that will lead to their making up their mind are present but they haven’t become aware of how it will lead them to choose. Pollsters have noticed that these undecideds lean slightly more to a white candidate in races between a black and white candidate.

    (This is misrepresented in the media as being about white voters lying and saying they will vote for the black candidate when they intend to vote for the white candidate, but that’s not what the Bradley effect that’s been observed really is. It’s at most a kind of self-deception, not an outright lie. It’s undecideds being in effect decided but not aware of it, in a way that leans against black candidates and in favor of white ones.)

    As for the press release, imagine yourself in Palin’s shoes. People are spreading rumors about you that your baby isn’t yours but is your daughters. Your daughter is pregnant, and it will eventually become known. It’s better to admit it honestly before the tabloids get to it, and it also serves the purpose of refuting a pretty evil rumor going around about you that the mainstream media seems happy to repeat even though they never go near Obama rumors that aren’t anywhere near as vicious. So what do you do? You nip it in the bud and show that you’re willing to risk this setting the tone for your new appointment as VP rather than allow someone else to claim later that you’ve been hiding it.

    How exactly is that putting your family on trial for the national media, as if you’ve given permission for them to be treated in a vile and inhuman manner? Being honest about something a little embarrassing that will eventually get out is not the same thing as bragging about it for political gain. It simply isn’t, and those claiming it is are looking at this with distorted vision. This is parallel in some ways (but certainly not all) to the claim that women who dress provocatively or walk alone at night are asking to be raped. Dressing provocatively isn’t an invitation to rape. Walking down a dark street alone at night may be unwise, but it’s not permission given to rapists. The claim that Palin deserves this because she supposedly trotted her family secrets out for political gain has a lot of similar features.

  85. Ada wrote:

    My dad put it like this. “She’s a redneck, a total hick.” In my words, she’s hella country. If she wasn’t white, hunting, religious, pretty, and in yo face she wouldn’t even have been considered for VP. McCain only picked her cuz she was a pretty white woman who, unlike Hillary, could navigate being a female candidate a little better. What I hate is that some Hillary supporters are voting for McCain just cuz of Palin. They want a woman, but Palin is definitely not the right woman. The Republicans are acting like total hypocrites about her as well, all about their bible-beating and abstinence, and her daughter’s knocked up at 17. They care about where you’re from, but Palin went to 4 no name colleges in 4 years. Racist, classist, bullshit.