How many people reading this would have left such young children at the mall under the supervision of 12-year-olds? None, I hope. Maybe the charges of child endangerment are too stiff, but hardly proof of a societal hatred of educated, affluent women. A real stretch.
But Warner has even further proof: The rise of Sarah Palin.
It’s precisely the kind of thinking that has fueled Sarah Palin’s unlikely — and continued — ability to pass herself off as the consummately “real” American woman. (And it is what has made it possible for her supporters to discredit other women’s criticism of her as elitist cat fighting.)How convenient to blame Sarah Palin because a professor is charged for reckless parental behavior. Is there anything for which Sarah Palin is not to blame? [clarification added: Warner argues that support of Palin is a reflection of hostitility towards women, not the cause of the specific incident which took place before Palin's nomination.]
And how telling, that this criticism comes from the same Judith Warner who wrote how people in her liberal circle joked that Sarah Palin probably never met a Jew before she met Henry Kissinger during the campaign, and who could not understand how professional women were attracted to Palin:
What, I’ve wondered, could the kinds of suburban moms I met, for example, at the McCain-Palin rally in Virginia, some of them former professionals with just two children apiece, one a former grad student making links between Palintology and the work of Homi Bhabha, have in common with a moose-killing Alaska frontierswoman with her five kids, five colleges and pastoral protection from witchcraft?The same Judith Warner who felt uncomfortable at a McCain-Palin rally because of all the "real" people, which made it harder to execute her plan to make fun of the rally and Palin:
I should have been finding this funny. My whole plan, after all, had been to write something funny this week about the whole Sarah Palin phenomenon. I’d arrived at an if-you-can’t-beat-’em-laugh-at-’em kind of a juncture, I suppose.And the same Judith Warner who mocked the way Sarah Palin speaks:
She speaks no better — and no worse — than many of her crowd-pleasing male peers, dropping her g’s, banishing “who” in favor of “that,” issuing verbal blunders that linger just long enough to make their mark in the public mind before they’re winked away in staged apologies.And yes, the same Judith Warner who could not resist, just days after Palin's nomination, a shot at Palin's family:
Why does this woman – who to some of us seems as fake as they can come, with her delicate infant son hauled out night after night under the klieg lights and her pregnant teenage daughter shamelessly instrumentalized for political purposes — deserve, to a unique extent among political women, to rank as so “real”?I don't believe there is a pervasive hatred of intelligent, affluent women, as Warner proclaims. There is, however, a pervasive media hatred of women who do not read the NY Times, do not follow the traditional academic plan, and do not attend cocktail parties in Manhattan, but who obtain fame and sometimes fortune nonetheless.
How unfair it must seem to people like Judith Warner that a supposed simpleton like Sarah Palin achieved so much. I mean, aren't the world's riches reserved for those who did well on the SAT's?
And the hatred of women who do not fit the NY Times' mold owes much to snobs like Judith Warner, who sit on their perch passing judgment on everyone else, while refusing to examine their own shortcomings.
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
Liberals always blame the victim. That's how they excuse their own egregious behavior. It's always Palin's fault, or Israel's fault for getting missiled, or America's fault for getting attacked, or Republicans' fault for failing to inform people about liberals' vicious lies. The essence of liberalism is irresponsibility at someone else's expense. That is the principle on which their ideology is founded. That's how they claim that someone else's refusal to subsidize their irresponsibility is oppression. That's how they justify coercing the few to pay for the irresponsibility of the many.
ReplyDeleteWarner is exactly the type of elitist that the prez and his crowd cater too. I am not surprised at all of the mentality of her article or her arguments, because she can't understand anything of everyday life for people. If you went by the standards of her and my favorite goofballs at huffpo, we wouldn't even have a nation because none of the Founding Fathers had the right pedigree to be president for them. George Washington, well he was just a General in the war so no he might be trying to create a military junta. He chopped down that cherry tree so he's not green at all. What about that nice Arnold fellow instead? LOL
ReplyDeletePalin is such a threat to the left because she is an unknown to them. She hasn't gone to their colleges and parties, and people can actually relate to her. She is an outsider to the game and got thrust into the limelight by the VP nomination. Now the media have created a monster, because the more they pick on her the more they are building her chances for a Presidential run in 2012.
As for if she can do the job or not? Well, all I can say is that she can't screw it up any worse than some of the men have and especially the current one is.
Well, it's likely that the Constitution's requirements for elected office were just sloppily written.
ReplyDeleteNothing in there about Ivy League, NYTimes subscription, or 1400++ combined SAT scores.
Probably should be amended.
Whats wrong with 12 year-olds supervising the younger children at an outing at the mall?
ReplyDeleteDon't 12-18 year old girls commonly earn money as baby-sitters? While I wouldn't necessarily give a boy of 12 this kind of responsibility ( A bit of sexism on my part I suppose) I don't see an issue with this as they probably also had cellphones and knew where mall security was.
When I was a child I ranged all over the place. Whats up with the over-protectionism everywhere?
Educate the kids, make them stay aware, give them the means to call for help and make sure they stay in groups.
Another big difference between Judith Warner's crowd and Sarah Palin: Unlike Warner and her crowd, Sarah Palin isn't fantasizing about Barack or wishing her marriage was more like the Obamas.
ReplyDeleteI was going to say. I realize this isn't the point of the post, but I see nothing particularly wrong with sending three younger kids to the mall in company with two twelve-year-olds, assuming the twelve-year olds are reasonably responsible.
ReplyDelete(Obligatory "in MY day" moment: I went to the mall fairly often at that age in company with my 8-year-old and 3-year-old brothers, and no one freaked out about it, let alone tried to bring criminal charges or plunk us all into foster homes.)
That being said, back to the main topic: if I understand correctly, Warner's point is even more perverse than your headline indicates: it isn't simply that Palin is to blame for woman-hatred, it's that support of Palin is, in itself, woman-hatred. That's some strange contorting there.