Posted on Saturday 6 September 2008
The other night, The Daily Show probably summed up why it’s a challenge to work up much enthusiasm to any discussion on if Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin is the victim of sexism.
For me, it’s not a question of if someone who looks likely to work against gender equity deserves to be defended from sexist attacks, just an overall feeling that in most cases any discussion of sexism won’t do any good because you’re on the same side as people whose interest in the topic at hand aren’t really interested in the topic at hand beyond how it can help themselves. Because they have no real interest in combating gender inequity, a good part of me usually feels there’s little to be gained in defending Palin from sexist attacks — at least in the general, public discourse, there’s good reason to have those conversations when it’s idiotic lefties running at the mouth. In the end, does anything get accomplished besides empowering people who’ll turn on you in a heartbeat?
I guess I’m still pondering the old sexual harassment claims made against Bill Clinton where women’s groups were characterized as showing little sympathy for the accuser because of the parties involved and acting hypocritical. In the end, however, did the dialogue about Paula Jones‘ case do anything to make people understand the issue of sexual harassment better? The people who screamed the loudest about it went on to.. well, to obsess about Hillary Clinton’s “cackle”.









Monday tidbits:
Fail:
Dear CW, your video site sucks:
Cupid's coming!:
Now... this? Is hillarious.:
I have a new favorite lesbian comedian: