Print This Post
Nov
11
Full transcript of interview is here.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it’s interesting. You lured some feminists to the Republican ticket, which you might not expect. I mean, feminists have typically been Democrats. By feminists, I mean some of the farther left. But you lured some of them. But if you think about it, a woman on the ticket is very exciting for women. Why do you think that you didn’t get more women? I mean, you’re a working woman. You’ve been successful as a governor. Why do you think some women probably weren’t lured to your ticket?
PALIN: I don’t know, but I’m going to work harder on that, if anything ever happens in the future in terms of me running for office, to kind of put more women at ease, I guess, with the idea of me or any other woman serving in higher office. I think that it’s really important because I truly believe that we have more in common than we have differences, when we want to make sure that our communities are healthy and safe and that we have health care for our children and that our daughters have equal opportunities in the workforce. All those things that we have in common, again, certainly outweigh the differences than perhaps we have.
So I would like to see, perhaps, some of these feminist women — and sometimes, you know, I consider myself, too, as a feminist, whatever that means. In fact, I subscribe to Feminists for Life. I’m a pro-life woman who wants to make sure that, you know, we cherish the sanctity of life. And this group, Feminists for Life, sort of encapsulates all that I believe in with that — with the pro-life movement.
But I would like to see more of these feminist women open their minds, too, and not be, perhaps, narrow-minded in consideration of a working mom who represents much of what they have fought for all these years, also, with equal opportunity and — and I would like them to just be bold and brave and kind of at least explore someone like me. And I guess “like me” means I — I am a conservative in terms of not believing that government is the answer to all of our problems and challenges. I believe that individuals and our families, and then on the local level, a local government, can make better decisions than — for what we need and what our priorities are than what big government on a federal level can make for us.
So in that sense, you know, they’re going to put me in the conservative box, then so be it. But I would sure like to be able to meet more of these women and find that common ground and similarities and have them not to be afraid of finding out what perhaps a conservative woman represents and believes in.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think it’s the abortion issue?
PALIN: That’s what I wondered, too. Is it — is it that litmus test that is the be-all, end-all for — for some women? I don’t know. But my – - my position on abortion is — here again, knowing that there is common ground here with those of us who are pro-life and want to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world, and those who support abortion rights.
They, too, the ones whom I have spoken with — and there are those in my own family that don’t agree with all my pro-life positions that I’ve taken. But the common ground that we have is they, too, would like to see fewer abortions and preventative measures be available and being — you know, that we wouldn’t shy away from those things. So again, the end result would be fewer abortions.
So I don’t know if that’s the be-all, end-all issue there. If it is, it’s kind of unfortunate because I think we could and should all be working together to meet the challenges that our families, our communities, our nation face.
___
Three points I want to make:
1. I find the entire premise of this portion of their conversation to be wrought with problems because Van Susteren frames the conversation with the mistaken belief that women should vote for women. Have people – media, candidates, voters – really not learned from the results of this election, from Joe the Plumber even, that we frequently vote against what might seemingly be in our best interests or be that which represents what, on the surface, would seem to be what we identify with?
2. Again, her inability to think abstractly and to speak in conclusory terms makes her statement nonsensical.
So in that sense, you know, they’re going to put me in the conservative box, then so be it. But I would sure like to be able to meet more of these women and find that common ground and similarities and have them not to be afraid of finding out what perhaps a conservative woman represents and believes in.
Palin evinces a complete failure in understanding that this has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with different policy preferences. Her favorables were so high and so many people have come away with a positive feeling about her because they found her to be likeable. And yet these same voters were very able to say, yeah, I like her, but she doesn’t hold any of the same policy preferences I do.
In other words, voters were extremely capable of realizing that Palin has the very positions she says she has – which are in common with conservatives, and voters were able to say for themselves, I do not hold those positions.
This reminds me so much of the logic of people who don’t like gays or Jews or Blacks. They say, you must not know about them – let me help you find out about them – and then you will realize why homosexuality is wrong or Jews are taking over the world or Blacks are…I don’t even know what people afraid of people of color would say.
This isn’t about a quantity of knowledge. This is actually about people knowing and thinking critically, for themselves.
3. What Palin says in this portion contradicts other statements she’s made, specifically, that she is in favor of abstinence-only education, and yet here she says that she “would like to see…preventative measures be available.” Well, one of the biggest preventative measures for abortions is contraception, other than abstinence. And I don’t believe she’s said a single thing that demonstrates an interest in supporting contraception.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:55 pm November 11th, 2008 in Gender, Politics, Sarah Palin, Women
Comments
8 Responses to “[transcript] Palin on “these feminist women””
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
There’s a further logical contradiction.
1. Palin first defines her own form of conservatism as “not believing that government is the answer to all of our problems and challenges”.
2. She then says that “my position on abortion is —” … and trails off, talking about common ground instead of actually saying what her position on abortion is. Fortunately we all know that her position on abortion is that it should be illegal, all the time for everyone, including in cases of rape and incest.
That’s a clear case of government intervention in what would otherwise be a private matter. The opposite of her stated conviction that “individuals and our families, [...] can make better decisions than [...] big government”.
The synthesis of these apparently antithetical views can be found buried in the first statement: “not believing that government is the answer to all of our problems and challenges”. When she says “all”, she’s defining conservatism very broadly. In fact, anything other than absolute totalitarianism fits the definition above. Everyone agrees that government should not do it “all”. The question is which things we want government to do. Palin believes stopping abortion is inside the role of government, but that health care is not. She believes that funding the gathering of evidence of property crime is inside the role, but funding the gathering of evidence of rape is not.
These substantive policy differences are why many people abhor her; and so they are the topics she must at all costs avoid.
While I’m hesitant to comment given the Palin bashing is still continuing past the election loss…
Palin was not responsible for the rape kit issue, despite some attempting to make that an issue. It was something that other cities and states have had to deal with and some still were until recently.
Women should support other women, it’s the main reason why there are not more women in office and some celebrate a mere 1% increase in DC. We don’t support our gender. The whole concept of women supporting women is what organizations like “She should run” are about, or at least what they were supposed to be about.
You can be a feminist and not support abortion, despite those that claim it is not so, it is. Groups like the New Agenda have been created for this specific purpose, to focus on how to improve the lives of women and their political impact/power while not allowing the issue of abortion which has been used to divide women for years to become an issue.
Some women did see that even a conservative like Palin would break the glass ceiling and make it easier for other women. It’s pure hypocrisy to not accept the fact that for some race was their primary motivation in supporting the presidency of Barack Obama but to ignore the fact that some women out there viewed gender the same as others did race.
Ironically some of the very same women who fought for us to have the right to vote, did not support abortion…While some would like to forget that historical tidbit it shows those of us who look at the real long term goals of having an equal representation of our gender in elected office that reflects the diversity of all women not just liberal pro-abortion women benefits us all.
It’s why I have pushed for all women to blog, not just liberal women or those who share my beliefs. It’s why I support all women who want to seek office, it does not necessarily mean that they will automatically get my vote, but I’d much rather have more women in office, no matter their party affiliation.
We as women have the opportunity to move forward or we can continue to allow and assist men to hold us to a different standard, to bash our gender as a whole and to continue to tell us to be good little girls and wait our turn. We can continue to allow abortion to be used as the dividing issue, and we can pretend that our party is better when it comes to women’s issues. We can as women write we “abhor” another woman not because she is some evil monster but because she has a different political ideology, one that a good portion of this nation also holds, which I guess suggests they should all be “abhorred” as well. We can continue pretend that we for some reason are better than “those women” and we are the only ones worthy of being elected.
As you can guess, I’m opting to be one of those who wants to move forward. I am realistic enough to know that the only reason there are not more women in power, from both parties, is because we as women have failed them. Considering how we treat our own, it’s not surprising.
I agree with everything you say here, Lisa Renee, with one exception: Women SHOULD support other women but that does not mean that we SHOULD vote for them simply because they are women and therefore not voting for them means we’re not supporting them.
I read in what you write the suggestion that women who didn’t vote for Palin need to take a guilt trip over not voting for her because, as you say and I agree, women frequently don’t treat other women well.
But that takes it too far for me.
If you’re not suggesting a guilt trip when you write this paragraph, then I apologize for the wrong interpretation – but would be interested to know, then, what you wanted the reader to come away with after reading it:
“I am realistic enough to know that the only reason there are not more women in power, from both parties, is because we as women have failed them. Considering how we treat our own, it’s not surprising.”
I think this an oversimplification and not accurate: “the only reason there are not more women in power, from both parties, is because we as women have failed them.”
Women should not support women simply because they are women. You should look at the candidates, not the gender/race/religion/barganess/etc.
sometimes, you know, I consider myself, too, as a feminist, whatever that means
… yeah, that doesn’t need a comment, it just stands on its own.
LOL okay – this will sound strange to some, but honestly? I agree w/Palin 100% there – I’ve been asked about being a feminist and may answer is almost always something just like that – because I so rarely use that label to describe myself.
Bet it wouldn’t suprise anyone to know that the conference idea I’ve been submitting to whomever will take is a session on language and labels.
I wish that she would just go away. At times she is barely coherent. I haven’t any problem deeming her intellectually lazy and uninterested in learning about the world outside of her sphere.
Well, you can guess that I agree with you, Jack – but it is just astonishing to me, to watch and listen to the switchbacks – of saying no fingerpointing, then fingerpointing, of saying she wants the press to just present the Five Ws and she doesn’t want to be criticized, of saying that someone like Bill Ayers actually could impact our government? Now – seriously, I’m no supporter of his but can we have a reality check here? Bill Ayers is not a danger to our country – and if he was, is or has been, then we have a pretty weak system of laws and law enforcement if he is SUCH a menace and yet still free, employed and teaching (I’m being sarcastic obviously).
I’m all for being cynical and skeptical, but the trumping up and clutching of some of these ideas.
Ok – I need to stop. Now see what you did by commenting! You got me all worked up again!