Proud of Palins

[sistermagpie]

So I watched the debate and thought many things throughout it that I've discussed elsewhere but there was one weird moment that I haven't seen brought up yet. I found myself thinking about it after the debate and this morning. It was when the candidates were asked how they felt about their running mate being president if something were to happen to him. Obviously that question was there to address the many things said about Palin.

Here's the transcript.

Well, Americans have gotten to know Sarah Palin (see photo). They know that she's a role model to women and other -- and reformers all over America. She's a reformer. She is -- she took on a governor who was a member of her own party when she ran for governor. When she was the head of their energy and natural resources board, she saw corruption, she resigned and said, "This can't go on."

She's given money back to the taxpayers. She's cut the size of government. She negotiated with the oil companies and faced them down, a $40 billion pipeline of natural gas that's going to relieve the energy needs of the United -- of what they call the lower 48.

She's a reformer through and through. And it's time we had that bresh of freth air (sic) -- breath of fresh air coming into our nation's capital and sweep out the old-boy network and the cronyism that's been so much a part of it that I've fought against for all these years.

She'll be my partner. She understands reform. And, by the way, she also understands special-needs families. She understands that autism is on the rise, that we've got to find out what's causing it, and we've got to reach out to these families, and help them, and give them the help they need as they raise these very special needs children.

She understands that better than almost any American that I know. I'm proud of her.

And she has ignited our party and people all over America that have never been involved in the political process. And I can't tell you how proud I am of her and her family.

Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too.

So he says, "I'm proud of her" and "And I can't tell you how proud I am of her and her family."

It's that particular use of "I'm proud of her/her and her family." It just sounds like how you talk about a child. I can understand using "proud" to talk about your running mate, but I'd expect it more as a "I'm proud to be running with her" way. It may sound like nit-picking but he said it twice the same way...it was just incredibly paternalistic-sounding. I didn't think it was an intended insult at Palin, of course. He's proud of her and her family--iow, her children. And one could maybe take it that he's saying that he's proud of all American families and this is one of them, but that still puts him in a position of responsibility *over* those families as president.

It was just a little troubling to me what that seemed to say about how he viewed her. I couldn't imagine Obama or Biden speaking that way about the other. I just...can you imagine Obama saying how proud he is of how Biden's done as a candidate? Even worse if Biden said it about Obama? Without something that put them on the same level, like "He makes me proud to be a Democrat" or some such? I'm probably not explaining it well, but that phrase and the way it was said just came across as completely but casually setting up a clear inequality between the two.

And that went along with "[Americans] know that she's a role model to women and other[s]..."

Again, that raised my hackles. You don't tell me that she's a role model to women--therefore me (in some ways she's the exact opposite). I know there's probably a very easy response to this, that he's not really saying that, he's just saying that some women, perhaps many women, look up to her as a role model. If you're a woman and running for vice president you're going to be described as a role model at some point. And I get that since Palin's main appeal is as a character--the feisty hockey straight-talking hockey mom who plays with the big boys and wins, she's a "breath of fresh air"--that's the kind of thing he's going to talk about in praising her.

But it just to me felt like it revealed the cynicism in the choice of her, like he has this vague notion of women liking Hilary Clinton because she was a woman so, you know, here's that role model that you wanted. That's part of her job as vice president. He's looking down on her with approval and pride; the man says I should look up at her for what I want to be. That's the hierarchy.

Then he rounds out the thing with the completely bizarre "Her husband's a pretty tough guy, by the way, too."

Um...so? Yeah, I know that it's not unheard of to say something about a candidate's wife with regards to his presidency. But not when you've got 90 seconds to sum up why he'd be a good president. And usually only when the wife in question is understood to be a professional of equal standing who's going to do some specific thing for the job. Otherwise she's just a gracious first lady--which can be a fine thing, but it's not really considered part of the job of president. It's hard to not get the impression that he just didn't have enough of substance to say about the woman in the short time he was given so had to start talking about other members of her family in a way that went beyond just showing how they reflect the way she would govern.

Given the history of women's rights bringing up a woman's husband in her job qualifications has a totally different weight. Men haven't historically had to fight to be taken seriously on their own. To bring up Todd Palin (heh--I always want to call him Todd Packer) in a way that implies that he's part of the deal because Sarah Palin is a family unit...it's hard for me not to see Todd as the de facto head of the family as the "tough" husband. I don't think McCain was throwing him in as a winking implication that it's really Todd who's going to be v.p. or anything, but I was sure reminded of times when that would be a given listening to this answer.

I feel like I still haven't explained this well, but that there are probably people who could zero in on exactly what I'm describing and explain it better!

ETA: THANK YOU JON STEWART: "You're proud of her? What is she, your daughter?"

Comments

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

But it just to me felt like it revealed the cynicism in the choice of her, like he has this vague notion of women liking Hilary Clinton because she was a woman so, you know, here's that role model that you wanted.

This whole thing has been bothering me since I inadvertently became a victim of this sort of thinking. I was recently told, in an extra-curricular academic setting, along with three other students, all female, that it seems as though women should support other women politically because "her issues will be more in line with ours" (though I might have the wording just a bit off - isn't it the sentiment that counts?) The speaker was referring to Hillary Clinton, juxtaposing modern politics with medieval thought where women just seemed to go along with the program even when it harmed other women.

In a minute, no more, one of the female students began to rag on Sarah Palin, talking about her clothes at some appearance, saying how she expected to see a plate of cookies, and the others laughed - without the same caveat about women shooting themselves in the foot by not taking other women seriously brought up just seconds before about Hillary. Excuse me but isn't ragging on a woman the same thing as ragging on a woman no matter what the politics?

It isn't a vague notion that women should like Hillary because she's another woman. It's being preached on university campuses. Blacks should band together and vote for a black candidate because he or she is black and for no other reason, too. Apparently, if one is not a member of the dominant dominant culture (both white and male), one automatically will have the same issues as another minority of one's own stripe just because. To me, this is demeaning anyone not a white male, removing individuality, identity, past and beliefs, in exactly the same way that people group into a single blob the people they are prejudiced against.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Absolutely--and the women you were talking to certainly proved it--rudely. I mean, whether Sarah Palin looks like she should be carrying a plate of cookies or not really doesn't matter (and hey, cookies are great!). Nobody who was going to vote for Hilary would vote for her just because she's a woman--they have completely different beliefs on everything. And plenty of people who are planning to vote for Obama would certainly not vote for some other black person just because he was black. Assuming this is how it works is completely dismissing the actual concerns of the voters in question, as if they don't really care about whatever policies they claimed they liked in one candidate. (And wasn't this proven back in the 80s when Geraldine Ferraro was running? Women didn't all vote for her as vp just because she was a woman.)

Of course with millions of voters there are going to be people who do react to certain things about a candidate. I've seen individuals say to reporters they wouldn't vote for a black man. But with any individual person they're going to have a lot of preferences and you don't know what's going to take a priority. I love the idea of having a woman president. If that was the only difference between candidates I probably would vote woman. But there are other things that were more important to me.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

(snipping) Geraldine Ferraro [...] Women didn't all vote for her as vp just because she was a woman.

That's exactly what the person who said this thought, though. The only male in the room, doncha know, saying that a (generic) woman (such as Hillary Clinton) would have more of the same issues as I do simply because of genitalia. I had one of those "things I should have said" moments a couple of hours later on the drive home - should have told him, "I assume, then, that you're voting for McCain, since you're both white males." The guy's a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who is very political - he would have split his gut.

To me, voting for someone based solely on a specific non-ideological quality (male/female, white/black, Dem/Rep) is the heart of stupid. It's the exact same thing as saying, "My daddy always voted Democrat, my granddaddy voted Democrat, and God willin' and the crick don't rise, I'm a-votin' Democrat too." It's irresponsible, it's insane, and it just shows that all some shifty types need to do is hit your "pro-vote" button and you'll punch those chads.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Right--even if the person does have some of the same experiences you'd have to make sure that translated into a similiar view on how to address them. And then that would have to translate into policies you wanted to vote for. If you're a white male you might (or might not) prefer voting for someone also white and male. But you wouldn't assume that any white male is going to agree with you. You're used to having a variety and a choice of white males to vote for.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

We've had Ferraro (sp?), Hillary, now Palin. Three very different women with three very different upbringings, entrances into politics, family lives, side concerns, and I'll bet that none of them have the same college courses under their belts. If Rice decided to run at some future date, we'd have yet another set of background/beliefs/politics/side issues and college courses which won't match exactly any of the candidates named above.

It's the same thing as coming at a text. I've found that age alone might make a huge difference in the way I interpret a text compared to the other students in my classes. I suspect it's more age plus region of upbringing plus the fact that I have children that I've completely raised and have grandchildren plus the life experiences I've had with various types of people and events that give me what is definitely a minority opinion on text in both my King Arthur lit class and the creative writing class. Heck, I even like or don't notice things the other students think are significant either negatively or positively.