Skip to content

Fuck Politeness

“This is a revolution, not a public relations movement”

Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

November 11, 2008 Today’s Religious Nutbaggery brought to you by Sarah Palin

From this article in the SMH. Sarah Palin on faith, doors and ploughs:

“You know, I have, faith is a very big part of my life. And putting my life in my creator’s hands – this is what I always do,” Palin said.

“I’m like, OK God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is,” she added.

“Even if it’s cracked up a little bit, maybe I’ll plough right on through that and maybe prematurely plough through it, but don’t let me miss an open door.

“And if there is an open door in ’12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plough through that door.”

While it speaks for itself, and needs no commentary, I just don’t know what kind of doors they have where Palin is from, but in these parts, you just walk through an open door, no ploughs necessary. And if a plough IS necessarily, it’s kinda classed as a closed door right?

They’re also kinda obvious – I don’t feel like it’s a huge risk in life, just *missing* open doors. And wtf is with the cracked up a little bit?

Never fear, she’ll plough on through, prematurely even.

That’s really kinda like destroying a perfectly good wall, something solid, probably created to keep nutjobs out and using brute force and a staggering sense of entitlement in order to CREATE a massive hole and call it a ‘door’.

Tags: , , ,

October 17, 2008 Devine bullshit flows like a river

[This post follows my More Devine Bullshit post]

Miranda Devine is at it again, in her one man band that plays in a never ending cycle on automatic repeat such hits as “The Loonie Lefties”, “Policitical Correctness Gone Mad Mad Mad” and “Feminists Should Be Shot I Hate Those Rabid Communist Babyeating Bitches With A Passion Even Though I Don’t Seem To Have Ever Met One”.

Again it’s about feminists not liking Sarah Palin. This time we’re VIOLENT, UNSAFE, DERANGED, PSYCHOPATHIC…why? Well cos always-a-little-odd attention seeking celebrities have spoken out against Palin.

Sandra Bernhardt (a comedian, I have no idea of her status as a card carrying member of DA FEMINISM or otherwise) is alleged to have made a gang rape comment. Ok, holy shit. Bernhardt says “did not”, Devine says “did so”. I say “Huh???”. Since when did Bernhardt speak for feminists?

Even if she calls herself a feminist, even if she’s spent years acting out feminist principles, while feminists are not of one mind, I can safely say that Feminism Does Not Find Gang Rape Funny. Ever. So maybe she said it maybe she didn’t. But a/ does SHE say she’s a feminist, b/ does she perhaps have some problems as the quote in Devine’s piece indicates, c/ if she said it does that reflect on feminism in any way since feminists continually remind people that no joke/analogy around rape is ok. Um…next?

Oh, right Pamela Anderson. I could see why you’d hit us hard with that one, she’s been SUCH a champion of women’s rights, such a model to our daughters of the power of women and a thorn in the side of patriarchy. She may be a lovely and intelligent human being for all I know, but seriously? On WHAT grounds can you with a straight face say PAMELA ANDERSON, star of Baywatch, owner of spectacularly and unselfconsciously FAKE FAKE FAKE breasts, constant seeker of the patriarchal spotlight and approval, returning to her deadbeat violent prick of a husband, making strange, unpredictable and vapid remarks to anyone who will listen and who has found her high horse in regards to vegetarianism and losing her shit when encountering a random chicken eater is someone whose views feminists should be held accountable for? NEXT.

Lindsay Lohan? Sporadically talented teenage actress battling the pressures of fame and substance abuse, erratic behaviour, completely unpredictable, and yes, I hear she has a blog with a vague (if somewhat *eclectic* and confused approach to being political and left wing) political bent…but really? Miranda? You’re using HER as an example because she’s got a girlfriend now, let’s be honest. Is that not a little…presumptive? She enjoys sex with a woman, therefore all feminists everywhere back her every viewpoint, her entire world view?

Madonna, of the Used To Be Transgressive, Now Mostly Just Rich and Religious fame…

Cathy Lette, who has her moments, but is fond of recycling her own tortured puns…I think if Devine did the slightest homework she’d find that Lette has used the “Kept her bra and burnt her brain” trope about a billion times before. And it’s hardly the sexual violence she accuses feminists of is it?

Naomi Wolf…whatever. She’s written some stuff. I haven’t bothered reading much of it. Although she’s a published author who identifies as a feminist, you’ll find there are many – she’s still not Our Leader.And where’s the example of this alleged sexual violence as coming from Wolf anyway?

OK, I had not heard of VPILP (VP I’d like to Punch) before, which, though in poor taste is a piss-take of VPILF (VP I’d like to Fuck) which men had up within hours of Palin’s nomination.Apparently “these women” (feminists) think nothing of calling Palin VPILP. No citation there Miranda…not sure WHO SAID IT, WHO SUPPORTED it, but you just can’t tar us all with that when you don’t so much as attribute that quote to anyone.

Miranda really loses her shit in the last couple of paras on the first page, and the first couple on the second. They’re totally not worth engaging in.

But this:

There is much more than high school angst to Palin hatred. Her ideology is 180 degrees wrong – evangelical Christian, hunting, oil-drilling and, most important of all, anti-abortion.

My GOOD GOD. Devine wrote a sentence where she got the fucking point. Well she wrote a sentence that reflected reality anyway, while still *wildly missing the point since she seems to think that feminists having a problem with her ideology is damning condemnation*. Many feminists have a problem with an evangelical Christian woman who is vehemently anti-abortion. I have a problem with anti-abortion evangelical Christians wanting to run the world according to their religious beleifs, and denying women and girls the right to choose when they will reproduce. YES MIRANDA, it IS more than high school angst. It is EXACTLY that her ideology is 180 degrees wrong. That’s why I don’t support her just cause we both have mammary glands.

My GOD how DO I live with myself?

Tags: , , , ,

October 9, 2008 Paper suggestions: msm and the use of extreme photos to make points

So I was thinking that someone (not me though cos I have my hands full of papers to write already) ought to write a paper/thesis on mainstream media and the selection of photos, particularly of women used to villify or deify. Remember when the divorce of Heather Mills and Paul McCartney was being dragged through the courts? They had all these shots of her looking really quite deranged, exaggerated expressions with eyes super wide, mouth open, lips curled. They didn’t need to use those pics, they could have used any, but they had the story in writing, then the story they told through their pictures – Sir McCartney looking composed and ‘dignified’ even though I’m sure they’ve got a few pics of him pulling strange faces, and pictures of Mills part way through a word or a facial expression – we’ve all seen pics like that, taken at inoportune moments, that are extraordinarily unflattering. Pause a dvd at the wrong moment and you get conventional stunners looking really quite unattractive, cross eyed, slackjawed, like they’re about to spit. It’s what happens when you interupt the continuity of expression – one moment captured and taken out of context can paint a very different picture than if you could see that in context, in flow with the moments before and after.

I was reminded of this when I saw the following photo on the front page of the SMH:

Writing underneath:

Shackles on his ankles, student has his day in court

David Kernell faces five years’ jail and a $350,000 fine for resetting Republican’s email password. 

I dunno, maybe I’m reading too much into it, but the wind seems to have changed a little in the mainstream media, who are fickle in their political allegiances. Contrasted with the image below when she was the darling of the mainstream media, a fox, a babe, a chick in politics, oh the WONDER:

 

Oh looky there! So *cute*! So *harmless*! So very very feminine! Why WON’T those pesky feminists support her? Look how sweet and sexy she looks, nevermind the corruption allegations! Irrelevant!

But now, post debates, when the mood has shifted a little and there are papers to be sold in sledging her for the inexperience, and the corruption allegations (conveniently ignored initially in favour of a little of everyone’s favourite sport Let’s Bash Those Unruly and Unreasonable Feminazis)…let’s put a picture of her looking overly grumpy and unattractive next to a headline emphasising how trivial the boy’s misdemeanour is and how much she’s overreacting. Just *like* a woman really.

I just think that there’s a little sexism involved in portrayals of women as angelic hotties when that suits your cause, and moody unattractive irrational despots when that suits, and I think the use of these photos, given the focus on looks when it comes to women in politics/in the public eye, is kinda sexist. And that ain’t cool.

Tags: , , , , ,

September 6, 2008 *Feminist smackdown continues*

One. More. Time.

FEMINISTS are arguing for Sarah Palin to be taken seriously as a candidate. We’re busy discussing her politics, the issues, what she stands for – the mainstream media is discussing her possible extra marital affairs, her daughter’s pregnancy, her pregnancy, can a ‘Mom’ work in the Whitehouse, and…VPILF:

Sydney Morning Herald Screenshot today?

The writing chopped off that should be seen running across the bottom of the picture:

Cocktail of Cleavage and Authority – Sarah Palin is having a remarkable effect on the conservative male

The pic leads to an Annabel Crab article, whom normally I love, but occasionally get shitted by – for the laughs she will dilute or skate right over the top of the issues that are the basis of the article.

Today we got a run down of men’s infatuation with Palin and Thatcher, including a “rough translation” of a Silvio Berlusconi quote that Thatcher was a ‘nice piece of pussy’. We get:

It’s something more; a compelling cocktail – authority plus maternalism, with a hint of cleavage.

Matron’s back.

And she’s hot.

And she’s armed.

Call it the dominatrix effect; it’s the same element that used to turn grown men into fawning, wobbling supplicants before the former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

She makes the quick point that Clinton was never discussed in these terms* (that’s right, and it deserves more than the one small paragraph it got – perhaps a look at the implications of this bullshit misogyny) – before attention turned to the *FAIL* by feminists to ‘deal elegantly with Palin’. Jeez, sorry we’re not being elegant, we’re busy discussing her stance on the *issues*.

So anyway, what’s Crab’s *evidence* of this humongous *Failure of the Feminists*?? Oh yeah. That the National Organisation for Women won’t back her play – that’s right the National Organisation for Women is busy fighting for women’s rights and choices. They aren’t going to back an anti-choice, anti-equality, anti-sex-ed candidate just because she’s got tits. In Crabbe’s books it’s a FAIL!!!! FAIL N.O.W, FAIL ALL FEMINISTS EVERYWHERE ON THE BACK OF JUST ONE QUOTE!!! FAAAAAAAIIIIIIIILLLL!!!

She sees this *failure* to back Palin/a woman,any woman, as a diminishment of the National Organisation for Women. I see it as standing for the rights of women to make choices, that’s right, the rights of the women whom Palin’s government would like to deny their choices, AND for the rights of Sarah Palin. We’re not denying her her *right* to stand for office, we’re excercising our right to say “She is NOT a friend of women’s rights to choose when/how they reproduce, whom they love – we wish her success and gainful employment, but we do NOT endorse her as a political candidate”.

The National Organisation for Women should NOT be backing a candidate simply because she ís a woman. Or because she is a mother. Or because she is a hot mother/woman. Or because she is a hot and able to shoot mother/woman.   

I expected better from Crab. Not ‘because she is a woman’ because Miranda Devine is a woman (and by the way I would still fight for Devine’s rights to choose her lifestyle, to not be subject to harrasment) but because she can write well, and because she has the facts at her disposal – why did she not mention the explosion of feminist blog posts keeping an eye on the sexism of the media’s treatment of Palin, why did she not acknowledge WHY N.O.W would not endorse an anti-choice, anti-rights-for-same-sex-partners, anti sex-ed candidate?

*It’s true that for all the sex scandal surrounding Clinton, we’d never run a headline about his intoxicating “Cocktail of COCK and Charm”. 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,