In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Alaska is like a microcosm of America

Jill

And we all know that nobody reads in America.

Palin on the books, newspapers and other media she consumes to get a well-rounded worldview:

Palin: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, “Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?” Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

I missed that part of the interview, but I did tune in to the tail end to see Palin talking about her gay friend. Did you know that Palin has a gay friend? Because she does. Or rather, not a gay friend, a friend who just happens, coincidentally, to be gay. Who Palin just loves. But not like that. Because Palin has made a different choice in life; the choice to be straight, which she apparently sat down and thought about. Unlike her gay friend, who has chosen to be gay. Also, who has chosen to be her friend. Good friend. Who happens to be gay. Who she is not judging.

I also missed Palin on feminism:

I’m a feminist who, uh, believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway. And I’m very, very thankful that I’ve been brought up in a family where gender hasn’t been an issue. You know, I’ve been expected to do everything growing up that the boys were doing. We were out chopping wood and you’re out hunting and fishing and filling our freezer with good wild Alaskan game to feed our family.

Gah, enough with the hunting stories! We get it, you shoot things and eat them. NEXT.

Apparently, Palin believes that women should not only have the right to full participation in wood-chopping and moose-killing, she also thinks that they should get paid the same at work. Except, you know, if the law mandates it:

Couric: Where do you stand on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?

Palin: I’m absolutely for equal pay for equal work. The Ledbetter pay act – it was gonna turn into a boon for trial lawyers who, I believe, could have taken advantage of women who were many, many years ago who would allege some kind of discrimination. Thankfully, there are laws on the books, there have been since 1963, that no woman could be discriminated against in the workplace in terms of anything, but especially in terms of pay. So, thankfully we have the laws on the books and they better be enforced.

Couric: The Ledbetter act sort of lengthens the time a woman can sue her company if she’s not getting equal pay for equal work. Why should a fear of lawsuits trump a woman’s ability to do something about the fact that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. And that’s today.

Palin: There should be no fear of a lawsuit prohibiting a woman from making sure that the laws that are on the books today are enforced. I know in a McCain-Palin administration we will not stand for any measure that would result in a woman being paid less than a man for equal work.

Couric: Why shouldn’t the Ledbetter act be in place? You think it would result in lawsuits brought by women years and years ago. Is that your main problem with it?

Palin: It would have turned into a boon for trial lawyers. Again, thankfully with the existing laws we have on the books, they better be enforced. We won’t stand for anything but that. We won’t stand for any discrimination in the workplace – that there isn’t any discrimination in America.

So women face pay discrimination; our Supreme Court held that they only have a tiny window of time to bring a claim for that discrimination, and if they miss that window too bad, even if it was impossible for them to know that they were being economically discriminated against; Congress had an opportunity to fix the problem and Republicans (including John McCain) opposed doing so; and it’s trial lawyers who are taking advantage of women?

It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Over and over and over. On CBS.

Tomorrow will be interesting. What are you all doing?

27 thoughts on Alaska is like a microcosm of America

  1. “Alaska is like a microcosm of the United States”

    Yes. We have a chief executive who doesn’t have half a brain in his head and who has lead us down a path of utter destruction. Very astute observation, Sarah.

    We’re watching the debate… Peter’s making tacos… there may be beer.

  2. Someone needs to tell Palin that if you believe women already have completely equal opportunity, you are not a feminist, you are blind.

    Except probably someone already has, and she responded with something like, “You’re right, and blindness is a really important issue for Americans, and that’s why I don’t support national healthcare.”

  3. I know it’s a paint-job-on-the-Titanic type of thing, but I have to say that for some reason the frontier-woman schtick gets to me like nothing else. For Christ’s sake, lady. We know you have grocery stores up there. Stop trying to sound like Julie of the Wolves.

  4. I’ll be watching the debates at home. Last week for Pres. debate #1 I went and watched at the local Democratic headquarters. That was a fun atmosphere, but I couldn’t yell at the TV nearly as much as I wanted to. This way, it’ll just be me and Sarah and Joe, hashing it out!

    =)

  8. Angela, I wouldn’t put any of them a heartbeat away from the Presidency, either. They might consider themselves qualified to run the country, of course, but that’s a whole ‘nother problem.

  9. And I’d also mention that Joe Biden was asked which Supreme Court ruling he disagreed with. He cites part of VAWA being struck down. Here

  10. Look, you should all be ashamed for not being feministically politically correct and supporting the only female candidate in this race who says she’s a feministically correct feminist–as opposed to the, you know, gay feminists or the feminazi babykillers who want to kill babies and contaminate our edumacation system with their gay babykilling ways. Because we all should choose life.

    *snort*

    But I have heard that she’s a good debater. Hopefully Joe won’t fall into any of her feministically correct moosetraps …

  11. As a well-educated (in science), not particularly law-oriented, reasonably bright sort, I can name seven Supreme Court cases off the top of my head – under pressure I might lose one or two to brain freeze.

    I would hope that someone wanting to be the executive of this country would know at least as much as I do on any topic relating to that job. I’m not qualified to be VP – but at least I know it.

  12. Remember when people thought Katie Couric was a mental lightweight? I totally respect her intelligence now. Way to go Ms. Couric!

    Hot Tramp, the average Joe and Jill can’t name a supreme court case either.

    That’s why they’re not fucking vice-presidential candidates. I expect the people running the country to be smarter than me.

  13. I’m just surprised she’d heard of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. But if I wonder if she knows that Ledbetter is an actual, real, live woman, who got completely shafted-and not by trial lawyers.

  14. I’m leaving class early so I don’t miss a moment! Last week I went to a Presidential Debate party with some friends up in NYC. This week I’m coming down with something; I’ll be watching alone – maybe breathing into a paper bag.

  15. For Christ’s sake, lady. We know you have grocery stores up there. Stop trying to sound like Julie of the Wolves.

    Theres a lot of things to criticize Palin for (like, you know, her entire political career) but lets not take shots at the whole rural lifestyle thing. Not only is it a bullshit personal attack, but its maligning a whole hell of a lot of people who haven’t done anything to deserve to be maligned. Yeah theres grocery stores in Alaska but, depending on where you are, they aren’t always stocked, sometimes only get restocked once a week (or month, depending on location and time of year), and what you do find is expensive. A lot of people hunt because it helps make ends meet, but also because the food is better. Do you like organic produce? Dislike factory farms? Ever noticed how free range chicken or beef that wasn’t grown with a half gallon of hormones just tastes better? Just because some people like to pick up their minimal cruelty/naturally grown meat for free from the local forest instead of for half the cost of a new Audi at Whole Foods doesn’t mean it’s Julie of the Wolves.

    That right there is the reason that charges of elitism leveled against liberals work in the minds of a lot of people. That fundamental inability to understand or even respect why someone would do things differently, and the underlying contempt that some (usually vocal) liberals have for people who are culturally different from them. Thats the kind of comment that are going to make people who only glance at a story think “wow, Palin is like me and is being treated like a rube” instead of “crap, I know more than her!”

    On an unrelated note, did anyone else notice that Palin used the same phrases over and over again and seems to be looking down at her notes constantly?

  16. Jill,

    You need to do a google or youtube search for “The Ex-Beauty Queen’s Got A Gun” by Julie Brown. I heard it on the Stepanie Miller show today. I started laughing out loud at my office.

    Fantastic.

  17. That whole “but the average Joe or Jill don’t know supreme court cases neither!” is something that’s been bugging me ever since W first took office. Americans seem to be OKAY with the idea of our politicians being just as uninformed as us–because it makes them “real.” It’s a twisted connection to rampant anti-intellectualism. Knowing too much makes you a pretentious liberal. Obviously.

  18. Can’t watch debate tonight. Too darn nervous. Will read about it and watch You-Tube highlights later.

    Incidentally, I was a little surprised that *I* couldn’t name too many Supreme Court cases (Brown vs Board of Education. Dred Scott vs — who? Um . . .) And guess what? And average Joe Sixpack can hit google and get the scoop on some of the most important ones:

    http://www.landmarkcases.org/

    Cool. Just the kind of thing Joe Sixpack could easily do *before*, you know, running for Vice President of the United States of America.

  19. William — It’s not the fact that she hunts that I have a problem with. I have nothing against people who hunt, and I recognize that sometimes it’s a better option than digging through the frozen sausage patties at Stop & Shop to find the box that’s less freezerburned than all the others.

    But that’s the point: plenty of people do it. They’re not all glorious unpolluted reservoirs of pioneer spirit. They just hunt. And yet she keeps bringing it up as though having pictures of herself holding a big dead fish makes her the embodiment of all that is natural and wholesome.

    She wants the distinction. It’s an asset to her. She’s selling an image. The campaign is deliberately playing up this part of her persona, and I don’t think it’s a “bullshit personal attack” to call them on that. I don’t mean to malign people who live in rural areas and incorporate hunting as part of their lifestyle. I mean to malign people who cynically play on perceived regional differences to win voters by convincing them that every election is a test of loyalty to either the urban or the rural lifestyle. That’s the most bullshit construct at play in modern politics. When was the last time there was an issue on the national table that really pitted the urban against the rural? How likely is it that an urban voter today would have reason to object to an initiative that would benefit rural areas, or vice versa? Whatever lifestyle differences there are between regions of this country are in no way manifested in presidential policy. It’s a PR issue. If we had any sense as a population we’d agree that it has no place in election politics. But they get to keep bringing it up election after election because the country’s sensibility at the moment is that there’s some value beyond idle curiosity in knowing which side of the dichotomy a given candidate supposedly falls on. I’m so sick of it it’s not funny.

  20. Dred Scott v. Sanford, though I seem to recall my ConLaw casebook calls it In Re. Dred Scott.

    Bowers v. Hardwick. ACLU v. Reno. Bush v. Gore counts, however, ah, unconventionally decided. Lawrence v. Texas, which finally overturned Bowers. Miranda v. Arizona.

    I only disagree with Bowers and, of course, Bush.

    I don’t believe Sarah Palin has gay friends. I don’t believe she has friends.

  21. equal pay for equal work…..boon for trial lawyers …..taken advantage of women ….discrimination. Thankfully, there are laws on the books….woman ….discriminated …..thankfully we have the laws on the books ….enforced….. woman…. laws that are on the books….enforced….. a McCain-Palin administration….will not stand for…. woman…a boon for trial lawyers…thankfully …laws we have on the books…enforced. …won’t stand for…won’t stand for…discrimination…discrimination in America.

    Wow. Just wow. Pull the string at the back of her neck.

  23. William — Palin isn’t living the “rural lifestyle” of living off the land, although she’s posing as Sacajawea (like Misspelled discusses). Her annual family income is $250,000, five times the average American family income — even adjusting for Alaskan standard of living, her family makes 3 times the average ! Her “hunting” is for recreation, not food, and is probably involves less danger than Cheney’s “shooting parties”, since the helicopter pilots are’nt allowed to be drunk.

    Also, Palin keeps talking about “enforcement” of the laws but for civil rights laws (like gender discrimination), lawsuits are the enforcement mechanism ! The obvious follow-ups to Palin’s regurgitation of “enforce the laws on the books” are (1) how are those laws enforced and (2) why weren’t they enforced for Ledbetter ?

  24. An appropriate Supreme Court citation:
    “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” BUCK v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
    (Sarah, Bristol and baby make 3) !

  26. Pingback: The Tao of Palin « Chutney Soul

  27. What’s ironic about the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is that its statute of limitations provision is actually “conservative” in the sense of following general legal practice. Ordinarily a civil statute of limitations is “tolled” during the period when a plaintiff both did not know and could not reasonably know of a tort committed against her, such as in the case of civil fraud or embezzlement (i.e. conversion/unjust enrichment.) In addition, a pattern of ongoing sex discrimination in pay can be a continuing tort, insofar as discriminatory pay raises continue and compound the original tort. In some circumstances, a continuing tort can be treated as one act, not as a series of embezzlements, etc.

    The policy arguments in favor of extending the statute of limitations are to discourage concealment of the tort (or at least prohibit gaining from concealment) and to encourage cessation of an ongoing tort. No reasonable employee can be expected to know the salaries of her co-workers; most company policies actively prohibit such disclosures. Nor may a reasonable employee expect to get tipped off by an insider (as was Ms. Ledbetter) or to break into HR at n igwith a cell phone camera and an adding machine.

Comments are currently closed.