What is your take on Sarah Palin?

[Guest American Woman]

Palin charged raped victims for rape kits.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010930.html

under her mayoral leadership in Wasilla, Alaska, rape victims were charged for their own rape kits.

I sure hope the Obama campaign gets this kind of information 'out there.' That's outrageous.

Edited September 9, 2008 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

I think we are almost saying the same thing. I have no issue with her holding private beliefs, although I don't share them (Shady - that goes for Harper, Dion, and Layton as well). But when she talks about God's plan for government, or the war, or whatever else she thinks there is a supernatural plan for, she is mixing religion with politics. You're right, it is no different from those who say they are acting according to Allah's plan; both are being influenced by their subjective mythologies.

It does indeed sound as if we are saying the same thing. The idea of Palin, or any other politician, 'doing God's will through [their] political office' really rubs me the wrong way. Really, REALLY rubs me the wrong way.

[jdobbin]

I sure hope the Obama campaign gets this kind of information 'out there.' That's outrageous.

I think so too. And the fact that some Republicans take rape so lightly should be subject to a lot of attention.

[M.Dancer]

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

http://opedna.com/2008/09/08/wasilla-polic...-for-rape-kits/

Seems it was a police department policy. I note with interest that no where can I find in any of the ad hoc Pro Obama sites does it say that Palin initiated this policy. As well the policy was changed by the state gov't in 2000 and no where does it say she opposed it.

I did note in one of the ad hoc Obama sites that they said Govenor Palin charged.....

Home » Forums » Free Thought Society Forum » General Discussion » Governor Palin Forced Rape Victims to Pay for 'Rape Kit'

http://freethoughtsociety.org/?q=node/1012

What can I say?

Edited September 10, 2008 by M.Dancer

[CANADIEN]

If there is a devil, it is because god created it.

What we have here is profound lack of understanding about feminism. Being an "independent woman" is not enough tp make one a feminist hero. It also helps to not actively work to undermine some of feminisms core causes, such as abortion, birth control, LGBT rights etc. Palin opposes abortion including in cases of rape and incest. She opposes birth control, emergency contraception and is all about abstinence-only education. Nothing feminist about her.

Actually, she doesn't oppose contraception or education about it. There is already plenty to dislike in her world view and her policies; no need to add to it.

Edited September 9, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I would agree, if individual's didn't already have the right to decide the circumstances of their reproduction. Anyone has the choice to engage in activities that can lead to pregnancy, or the chioice to take certain precautions to prevent it from occuring. However, actions have consequences.

So, abortion is wrong not because the foetus is alive, but because women should face the consequences of their actions? And what are girls'' actions that lead to incest?

[Black Dog]

Actually, she doesn't oppose contraception or education about it. There is already plenty to dislike in our world view and her policies; no need to add to it.

The link for this is somewhere upthread, but here's the damning quote:

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

That tells me she favours abstinence-only programs, the opposite of sex ed.

[Guest American Woman]

The link for this is somewhere upthread, but here's the damning quote:

That tells me she favours abstinence-only programs, the opposite of sex ed.

You know, I thought the same thing. But in reading more about it, I don't think so any more, In fact, her "pro-contraceptive" view that condoms should be discussed along with abstinence might get her in trouble with some in her party.

It's McCain who is clearly "abstinence only."

McCain: McCain believes abstinence is "the only safe and responsible alternative."

"To do [teach] otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other, here is the way to go about it," according to a statement provided by the campaign. "As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong."

Palin: ...In 2006...[Palin] proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence. "I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau."

Palin appears to disagree with McCain on sex education: The Republican vice presidential candidate says students should be taught about condoms. Her running mate -- and the party platform -- disagree.

Edited September 9, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

The link for this is somewhere upthread, but here's the damning quote:

That tells me she favours abstinence-only programs, the opposite of sex ed.

I fail to see how abstinence is the opposite of sex ed..one needs to know what it is you are supposed to be not doing. Never the less it is a loaded question..Explicit Sex? What on earth does that mean? Extreme close ups of clitioral stimulation techniques?

I can't see any reason why sex ed for minors needs to be explicit regardless of whatever that is supposed to mean.

[guyser]

I can't see any reason why sex ed for minors needs to be explicit regardless of whatever that is supposed to mean.

At what age is a minor in this context ? I can imagine 8 is stupidly young, but progressing from there, since you have daughters, where do you start?

[Guest American Woman]

Most parents want schools to teach their children the ABC's of sex education but disapprove of the more explicit guidance commonly used in sex-education classes, according to a survey released here today by a coalition of conservative groups.

The survey found that while most parents approved of their children being taught about using condoms and contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and disease, they did not want them being taught about masturbation, sexual fantasies and homosexuality and did not want middle schools' teaching children how to unroll condoms, all subjects in the sex education guidelines. link

What good does it do to teach a teenager about condoms if they aren't taught the correct way to use them? Seems to me they're doing a real disservice. Kids using condoms think that makes them 'safe,' but they don't know the correct way to use them. That's just asking for trouble. And it seems to me that teaching about masturbation would go hand in hand (no pun intended) with teaching about abstinence.

[M.Dancer]

At what age is a minor in this context ? I can imagine 8 is stupidly young, but progressing from there, since you have daughters, where do you start?

We have started. Basic stuff. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby.The woman has an egg inside her and the easter bunny comes and says the magic words... As she asks more we tell her more...

[guyser]

What good does it do to teach a teenager about condoms if they aren't taught the correct way to use them?

Sorry to inject here, but how the hell does one not know who to use a condom? After all, it only rolls on one way. The other way really really hurts. <<<<dont ask how I know>>>>

The improper use I dont get.Hell , every kid has a computer and has seen porn. They have to know that the tallywhacker isnt normally blue or green or pink or ..wiat scratch the pink part, but still?

Now if they teach kids to get over the "embarass to ask for" angle then I concur. Although I cant prove it, I would bet the single most damning thing for a teen is going to the counter and asking "how much are these?"

On the plus side, they sell them at Esso and Petro Cans now.

Cue American Graffitti and the dork....a bottle of rum, some combs.....

Edited September 9, 2008 by guyser

[M.Dancer]

Sorry to inject here, but how the hell does one not know who to use a condom? After all, it only rolls on one way. The other way really really hurts. <<<<dont ask how I know>>>>

The improper use I dont get.Hell , every kid has a computer and has seen porn. They have to know that the tallywhacker isnt normally blue or green or pink or ..wiat scratch the pink part, but still?

Now if they teach kids to get over the "embarass to ask for" angle then I concur. Although I cant prove it, I would bet the single most damning thing for a teen is going to the counter and asking "how much are these?"

On the plus side, they sell them at Esso and Petro Cans now.

Cue American Graffitti and the dork....a bottle of rum, some combs.....

The first time I bought condoms for myself was no biggie..grade 11, 1976. I was at the pharmecy picking up hemoridal suppositories for my mother. Anyway there i am proud as punch because the cute clerk will know that I am a responsible sexually active male when the aged crone of a pharmicist comes out and begins to explain exactlt how the suppositories should be used (after the BM) etc etc. .....

Which only goes to show there's a lot of things more sensitive than buying condoms

[CANADIEN]

The link for this is somewhere upthread, but here's the damning quote:

That tells me she favours abstinence-only programs, the opposite of sex ed.

And, in a debate in August 2006, she was asked if programs that discuss condoms were part of what she called "explicit" sex-ed programs. Her response was::

No. I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also.

LINK

[kimmy]

Oh, I see. Betsy get your view not from what you say, but from what I say about what you said. Gottcha.

If you think I've read everything you've posted in that thread, guess again. I'm responding in this thread, so I'm going by what you said in this thread.

So you accused me of:

"So you're rah-rah-ing a woman for the executive office because you love her, even though you hate her views."

When to that point all I'd posted in this thread was:

"I hate her views, but absolutely love the woman."

... uh, ok. I think I'm starting to see the problem here.

Guess I missed those "several times."

Don't think I'll be doing that, so if you feel as if my skepticism is undue, feel free to fire up the board's search function yourself and prove me wrong.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....amp;#entry35966

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....mp;#entry294890

So, like I was saying, I was concerned about media treatment of female politicians when Hilary was campaigning for Democratic leadership, and I was concerned about media treatment of female politicians 4 years ago when Belinda Stronach was campaigning for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.

So your attempt to characterize me as somebody who only discovered the issue last week was ill considered, to put it as politely as I can.

I could say I'd expect better of you, but that just wouldn't be the truth.

Says all I need to know right there.

Of course.

And I'd say I've been on the board well before Hillary's campaign started and I haven't seen any of your "history" of outrage over how she was treated.

Yes, you've already established that you're not a very thorough reader. Let's not dwell on the point.

Is that what it's been? Seems to me it's been more a matter of rah-rah "love the woman" with a lot of "poor Sarah is a victim of everyone and everything." Poor Sarah has been called "miss congeniality." Of course poor 14 year old Chelsea was called a dog, and Hillary was called a multitude of things, but let's all walk on egg shells regarding Palin. Let's not even discuss the issues lest someone take offense.

I don't think I've criticized anybody for discussing the issues, even once. I've criticized people for ridiculous attacks, and I've criticized people for perpetuating myths that have already been debunked. If you've got any examples where you feel I've tried to impede a fair discussion of legitimate issues, please bring it to my attention and we can discuss it. Otherwise, feel free to go do a backflip into an empty pool.

Sorry if I missed the memo on Chelsea. I'll make up for it by acting extra-outraged next time some neanderthal talkshow host says something stupid.

I've talked about plenty of issues of substance. I've brought up several of her views, cited several quotes, and not once did I say she should leave her job to spend more time with her family.

Stuff like this doesn't exactly add to the impression that you're in it for thoughtful, issues-oriented discussion:

Too funny, Rue. You have her pegged.

She is a Stepford wife on amphetamines.

I'm going to use that.

Of course, when Rue posts something like that, I know that the next day he'll be sober again and have something intelligent to say.

As I said, I don't care if Palin is "likable" or not. My country's not voting for Miss Congeniality. The well being of my country, myself, my family, other Americans who don't want someone who's "doing God's work" dictating to them what they can or cannot do in their private life is at stake. So if Palin can't take the heat, she can get out of the kitchen. She's just as open to criticism as any other candidate, and I'll feel just as free to say whatever I see fit about her as I do any other candidate. I didn't cry a river over the sexism directed at Hillary and I won't put on kid gloves for Palin.

-k

[betsy]

Well, the Sarah-mania continues so far.

This time, women are calling for a boycott of anything OPRAH! TV show, magazines, endorsements!

The leader of the Republican women-something (can't remember the name), was interviewed on the celebrity show Insider yesterday and she said she's been getting tons of emails not only from Republicans, but also from Democrats, supporting the call for boycott.

Oprah had allegedly torpedoed the suggestions of her staff to have Sarah Palin on her show. Women are accusing her of being biased, that since Oprah's core audience are women, Palin should've been invited to the show!

Edited September 10, 2008 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Well, the Sarah-mania continues so far.

This time, women are calling for a boycott of anything OPRAH! TV show, magazines, endorsements!

The leader of the Republican women-something (can't remember the name), was interviewed on the celebrity show Insider yesterday and she said she's been getting tons of emails not only from Republicans, but also from Democrats, supporting the call for boycott.

Oprah had allegedly torpedoed the suggestions of her staff to have Sarah Palin on her show. Women are accusing her of being biased, that since Oprah's core audience are women, Palin should've been invited to the show!

Oprah has decided that no candidate, that is NO candidate, would be invited to her show during the campaign, and that's biased? That's even, as some people have suggested, racist? Give me a break.

As for those you say "but she invited Obama... twice", she indeed did it, BEFORE he announced his candidacy.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Oprah had allegedly torpedoed the suggestions of her staff to have Sarah Palin on her show. Women are accusing her of being biased, that since Oprah's core audience are women, Palin should've been invited to the show!

Interesting, because in the past, there was a demographic called "angry white males" (and all that implies). Looks like we now have angry females.....and hell hath no fury like women scorned by Oprah Winfrey.

[Rue]

Too funny, Rue. You have her pegged.

I'm going to use that.

And you know I would vote for you Americangal.

All kidding aside we know whys he was picked. McCain had alienated the Christian fundamentalist rump of the Republican party with his tolerance of gay rights and viewing abortion as a private issue between a woman and her fdoctor/family.

However that did not go down well with the fundamentalists and he had to do something drastic to bring them back.

She was brought in to pander to the Christian rump and that is a big strong group of voters who have been responsible for putting Reagan and Bush in the white house.

In fact some believe they are so powerful its impossible now to win an election without their support. Palin is the classic anti-abortion, Christian evangelical, NRA, Stepford wife. She is Anita Bryant reincarnated. She is Kate Smith.

Me personally I find that version of what a woman should be to be something the anti-thesis of I taught my daughters. I taught them their identity was not determined by their value to a man. I taught them the best way to respect their body was to exercise control over it and not delegate that control to anyone else.

This over-emphasis on her looks and gender is bullshit. Her looks and gender are irrelevant, her views are what we should be looking at.

Americans should be discussing their economy and environment and medical care and foreign policy not whether Palin is good looking or not but who is kidding who, the vote will be decided on people's subjective gender and race stereotypes.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Rue

[kimmy]

In fact some believe they are so powerful its impossible now to win an election without their support. Palin is the classic anti-abortion, Christian evangelical, NRA, Stepford wife.

Again, care to explain that one? The rest I can understand, but what makes her a "Stepford Wife"?

It seems like one of us has a serious misconception of what that term actually means.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....Americans should be discussing their economy and environment and medical care and foreign policy not whether Palin is good looking or not but who is kidding who, the vote will be decided on people's subjective gender and race stereotypes.

Yep...even Joe Biden commented on the "clean cut and good looking" Barack Obama. I guess that paid off.

[M.Dancer]

Yep...even Joe Biden commented on the "clean cut and good looking" Barack Obama. I guess that paid off.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy

No really, Obama is the first.

[stevoh]

I can't see any reason why sex ed for minors needs to be explicit regardless of whatever that is supposed to mean.

I think we would need to define explicit before we can make that choice.

Because, lets face it, in order to have any kind of sex ed you need to talk about penis's and vagina's, and how they work. You don't need to use actual photographs to get the point across, the cartoons I had in my sex ed class were very clear about how that worked. But those cartoons did have cartoon body parts. Would that be considered explicit?

[M.Dancer]

I think we would need to define explicit before we can make that choice.

Because, lets face it, in order to have any kind of sex ed you need to talk about penis's and vagina's, and how they work. You don't need to use actual photographs to get the point across, the cartoons I had in my sex ed class were very clear about how that worked. But those cartoons did have cartoon body parts. Would that be considered explicit?

Not in my mind. Picture's from Gray's Anatomy(the text book), not the show are detailed and as erotic as a dead fish. On the otherhand educational videos from Annie Sprinkle are explicit.