Momma Grizzlies Know How To Protect Their Cubs - The New Feminists?

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/daily-show-takes-on-palin_n_670027.html

Last night on "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart addressed Sarah Palin's "Mama Grizzly" coalition and the media's interpretation that Palin is now a feminist leader. Stewart brought on Senior Women's Issues Correspondent Kristin Schaal to discuss who these "Mama Grizzlies" are and what they mean to Palin's political movement.

"Mama Grizzlies? It sounds like Sarah Palin's strategy is to release, for lack of a better word, killing machines into the legislative process," Stewart said, after showing Pain's ad invoking conservative moms.

Schaal pointed out that "Mama Grizzlies" aren't killing machines, "they're 'protecting machines'" who, as Palin believes, can stop "Obama, Pelosi and Reid and what they're doing to our country."

Throwing aside the idea that protecting children somehow equals the halting of liberals in power, Stewart asked if liberal moms also care about their children. "Absolutely not," Schaal explained. "Liberals aren't bears, if anything they're like gerbils. They'll eat their young if their welfare check's late."

Moms just kinda know? She's selling her political movement the way they sell peanut butter and fever reducers.

Here's the Daily Show episode.

Sarah's own words with different images:


Link to video.

Is Palin the new leader of the feminist movement in the US, as so many conservatives are now alleging? Or is is just more absurd conservative rhetoric by claiming that career women who want to act like momma grizzlies are the real feminists?

http://newsdesk.org/2010/07/conservative-feminism-trademark-of-election-rhetoric/

Spoiler :
Radical feminism. Ecofeminism. Second wave feminism. Post-structural feminism.

The term “feminist” has been preceded by countless qualifiers since its debut in France in the late 1800′s, but leading up to the November 2010 midterm elections, it has been paired increasingly with a word many believe to be its antithesis: conservative.

Though their success so far is hardly outstanding, the 144 female Republican candidates in congressional primaries far outnumber the previous high of 104. Big names on the ballot include California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, and South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley. Sixty percent of women House candidates who are challenging incumbents are Republican.

This sudden conservative female presence in politics represents what 2008 vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has dubbed as a “pro-woman, pro-life” movement.

“I kind of feel like the old mold—that a feminist cannot be pro-life—has never really been accurate,” explained Bay Area executive and Carly Fiorina supporter Darcy Linn, in a San Francisco Chronicle report. “So many Republican women I know are strong, opinionated, successful earners who have been encouraged to be successful on the corporate front.”


A News Real Blog blogger said, “Conservative women are strong, capable and are fed up at having faux feminists constantly claim that they speak for us as they strive to turn all women into perpetual victims, at the mercy of big strong daddy government.”

But skeptics maintain that these candidates’ ideologies are anything but “pro-woman.”

“If Carly (Fiorina) wants to describe herself as a pro-woman candidate, I’d say presiding over a company where 28,000 people lost their jobs, many of whom were women; working to limit the ability of women to make their own reproductive decisions; and appealing to those who support the idea that climate change is not a significant threat does not seems like a pro-woman position to me,” said pro-choice PAC EMILY’s List director Jen Bluestein.

Several political commentators and journalists have tried to define exactly what makes a “conservative feminist” earn that title.

A Times writer praised Palin in 2008 for creating an “explosion of a brand-new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut at the Republican convention, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before.”

Others have questioned a “feminist” ideology that encourages women to mimic men—at least in the professional arena.

“These women are part of a new wave of conservative feminism, which apparently views women’s advancement in the workplace and politics to be the most important tenet of actual feminism,” said blogger Tasha Fierce. “Basically, these conservative feminist leaders have decided that the advancement of women to the upper echelons of business — something they have already achieved — is what feminism should really be about.”

Many of the Republican women on November’s ballot have a background in business instead of politics. Whitman and Fiorina were both CEO’s.

While business and financial success are evidently integral to this movement, many of these women have said that family values and motherhood are also key principles.

In Slate Magazine, party spokeswoman Rebecca Wales described the Tea Party—whose leadership is dominated by women—as “a lot of mama bears worried about their families.”

Palin used a similar metaphor in her recent political ad Mama Grizzlies. In it, Palin, who recently endorsed Fiorina and Haley, says, “It seems like it’s kind of a mom awakening in the last year-and-a-half, where women are rising up and saying, ‘No, we’ve had enough already.’ Because moms kinda just know when something’s wrong.”

“When people say ‘pro-woman feminism,’ my suspicion is what they mean is ‘pro-traditional, feminine’ feminism,” said author Camille Hayes.

Other critics claim that conservative dismissal of feminism that “victimizes” women and the emphasis on corporate success contradicts this worried-mother rhetoric.

A Huffington Post writer reminded her readers that, though “conservative feminists” are currently in the spotlight, they do not necessarily share political beliefs with a majority of American women, and certainly do not mirror the country’s demographics. “If women made up 50% of elected officials, party leaders, and candidates, we would find them falling on all points of the political spectrum,” she said. “But women are so vastly underrepresented at all levels of office that prominent female figures are often thought to represent a dramatic trend or majority of women.”

Fierce agreed, “If you take a look at those calling themselves conservative feminists, the vast majority of them are white. Conservative feminism hearkens back to the days when more liberal feminists sought to marginalize women of color, lesbian women, and poor women.”

But a Jezebel writer said that, even though current female politicians may not represent the beliefs or demographics of the American female population as a whole, “Generally speaking, feminists are in favor of seeing more women in positions of power.”
 
It's a successful PR campaign by NOW and such that sadly link feminism with fringe lefty crap. The largest women's group in Amerca is the Concerned Women For America. Conservative, Christian, Female.
 
Feminism... Sarah Palin. Somehow I don't see those two going together, considering they usually adhere themselves to complete opposite sides of the spectrum.
 
Sarah Palin needs to gtfo already. She exists for the sole purpose of liberal bloggers making fun of her.
 
Sarah Palin needs to gtfo already. She exists for the sole purpose of liberal bloggers making fun of her.

Well, you have to understand that the liberal blog industry is in real dire straits with the obsolete state of their old flagship product, George Bush Jr. If anything, the Fed should prop up Sarah Palin to maintain the health of the industry until it can find a suitable product to call its own. :lol:
 
"New Feminists" suggests that there has been a dearth of feminists in recent times, or that vaguely post-feminist social reactionaries can legitimately be described as "feminists". I would strongly contest both.

It's a successful PR campaign by NOW and such that sadly link feminism with fringe lefty crap.
Feminism has always been associate with left-wing politics, right back to Sylvia Pankhurst. It's just that the sort of people who tend to be interested in this sort of thing tend to be interested in other progressive movement, as well. Most social reactionaries are reactionary across the board (with some exceptions, of course), and so unlikely to single out feminism as a cause worthy of advocacy, especially not contemporary third-wave feminism. That is, unless you know some reactionaries who are interested in the dissolution of binary gender?

The largest women's group in Amerca is the Concerned Women For America. Conservative, Christian, Female.
"Women's" =/= Feminist.
 
Oh that nasty women again.

Why won't she just shut up.

Exactly how much feminism still needs to be dished out in modern 2010 society? I mean, I know that women still make less than men for the same job, but that gap has been decreasing with every year and women more or less are equal with men. Sure some discrimination takes place but obviously not to the need for there to be a modern feminist movement equal in strength to those of the 70s and 80s and god forbid, the 10s 20s.
 
Many political analysts think that Sarah Palin is experimenting with different PR approaches so as to decide on the best campaign theme for her 2012 election bid.
 
Exactly how much feminism still needs to be dished out in modern 2010 society? I mean, I know that women still make less than men for the same job, but that gap has been decreasing with every year and women more or less are equal with men. Sure some discrimination takes place but obviously not to the need for there to be a modern feminist movement equal in strength to those of the 70s and 80s and god forbid, the 10s 20s.
Third-wave feminism has broader interests than simple material equality (which, incidentally, is still an important on-going struggle), including the nurturing of a small but growing masculist movement and the support of the LGBT rights movement. I suggest that you at least do some cursory reading before making such assertions (and it wouldn't hurt the rest of you, either).
 
Many conservatives seem to think that the Miss America pageant is the epitome of feminism. That a woman who believes in The Rapture, teaching creationism in schools, and overturning Roe v Wade is the true feminist.

article-1063272-02CF10D200000578-251_224x520.jpg
 
That is, unless you know some reactionaries who are interested in the dissolution of binary gender?

What's "dissolution of binary gender"?
 
Many conservatives seem to think that the Miss America pageant is the epitome of feminism. That a woman who believes in The Rapture, teaching creationism in schools, and overturning Roe v Wade is the true feminist.

article-1063272-02CF10D200000578-251_224x520.jpg

While those "many conservatives", you list are certainly... unbalanced, has anyone considered that perhaps segments of the population make themselves different by insisting on being different?

What I mean by this is it impossible that if you perceive everyone in the room is starting at you with no reason behind it, and start shifting your position and ducking into a corner, isn't that by drawing attention to yourself more likely to cause people to stare at you than the opposite?
 
What's "dissolution of binary gender"?

It means adding a third gender to our species, becoming a trinary gendered race. Star Trek: Enterprise delved into this issue in the episode "Cogenitor".

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cogenitor
The cogenitor does not pass on genetic material to the offspring they help create; Dr. Phlox suggested that they may supply an enzyme during the sex act which facilitates conception.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cogenitor_(episode)
 
What's "dissolution of binary gender"?
Well, a large portion of Third-wave feminism is given over to a post-structuralist examination of gender, asserting that not only are binary gender roles artificial social constructs, a traditional Second-wave position, but that the binary gender system itself is a construct. As such, they seek to over-turn the traditional model, creating a subscriptive, rather than prescriptive model of gender identity. This can refer to dissolving the association between biological sex and gender identity, although it usually extends to the acknowledgement of third gendered, inter-gendered and agendered individuals. It's tied to the LGBT rights movement, which is increasingly challenging not just the traditional prescriptive of sex and sexuality, but sex and gender, hence the addition of "T", as in "Transsexual/gender" to the original form (some also advocate the addition of a "Q" for "Queer" and/or an "I" for "Intersex", to represent those who do not cleave to the traditional models of gender or sex, although that runs the risk of becoming a bit over-heavy; as such, "queer" is becoming increasingly popular as an umbrella term for non-traditional sex/gender/sexuality, and is sometimes used as a political/social identifier by those who do, in act, appear to adhere to the traditional binary, but assert that their adherence is subscriptive, or that the appearance of subscription is superficial).
There's also an interest in overturning the accepted sexual binary as well, although that's more about challenging perceptions, rather than the binary itself (which is neither viable nor particularly desirable), specifically the idea that intersex bodies should be seen as valid in and of themselves, rather than as aberrant deviations from the binary.

It does not, however, mean this...
It means adding a third gender to our species, becoming a trinary gendered race.
...Because that's just stupid.
 
Good Lord guys, I was just joking and adding a bit of star trek awesomeness to the thread! :)
 
So they're "mama bears protecting their cubs," eh? Hmm, didn't something like this pop up in the news recently? Oh, yes, I remember now!

"LOS ANGELES — A grizzly bear that killed a man and injured two other people at a campground in Montana has been euthanized and her three yearling cubs will be sent to a zoo, officials in the northwestern US state said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gP6ZsMDPNzXRpvp0am_tQxiS9KDA

I guess we know what to do now when these mama bears attack someone while trying to protect their young.

Palin used a similar metaphor in her recent political ad Mama Grizzlies. In it, Palin, who recently endorsed Fiorina and Haley, says, “It seems like it’s kind of a mom awakening in the last year-and-a-half, where women are rising up and saying, ‘No, we’ve had enough already.’ Because moms kinda just know when something’s wrong.”

Translation: We can't actually substantiate why we're mad; we just are.
 
While those "many conservatives", you list are certainly... unbalanced, has anyone considered that perhaps segments of the population make themselves different by insisting on being different?

What I mean by this is it impossible that if you perceive everyone in the room is starting at you with no reason behind it, and start shifting your position and ducking into a corner, isn't that by drawing attention to yourself more likely to cause people to stare at you than the opposite?
I'm not sure what you point is here. That feminists undeservedly draw attention to themselves by acting as though there really are problems which concern themselves, as well as all women, instead of ignoring the problems and pretending they no longer exist as many people do?
 
As an accused third-wave feminist and reader of Bltch Magazine, I want no part of Palin's conservatism with regards to feminism. The whole references to "mom" she makes just seem to suggest a woman's role is still that of a mother. Third-wave feminism certainly lacks a clear cut, definitive stance, but Palin is too socially conservative. Blech.

Exactly how much feminism still needs to be dished out in modern 2010 society? I mean, I know that women still make less than men for the same job, but that gap has been decreasing with every year and women more or less are equal with men. Sure some discrimination takes place but obviously not to the need for there to be a modern feminist movement equal in strength to those of the 70s and 80s and god forbid, the 10s 20s.

Wages are just one problem. Advertisement portrayal is another. Political representation is another.
 
I agree with people like GoodEnoughForMe. Palin has no relevancy to the huge amount of academia associated with feminism, nor does she embody any real part of the historic Feminist movement besides "empowering women" (while simultaneously endorsing feminine gender roles contrary to most parts of feminism).
 
Back
Top Bottom