Reading it I can almost think she's trying to write something satirical. But if so she manages to completely miss the mark...

Edited at 2008-10-05 08:13 am (UTC)

You go, girl.

I cannot believe that this is really real and that TIME really published it. Remarkable in every sense.

I hate Sarah Palin for the following reasons:

Maverick.
Maverick.
In Alaska...
Biofuel.
Maverick.
John McCain.
Maverick!
*WINK*

HAHAHAHAAHAHA! OMG. I love you. :)

I hate her for all of those, plus "nucular."

Thanks you, Jaderrabbit! It drives me around the bend!

So...wait...what?

How is the way she wears her hair have anything to do with what kind of politician she is? Should I not vote for Obama because his hair is short and curly? yeah...perfect logic there.

There's a belief that female politicians are judged by "haircut, hemline, and husband. It's not completely untrue.

Completely missed the satire mark there...
That just... wow... I never knew I hated her not because I disagreed with her politics but because she's 'confident and prettier than me'...
Epic Fail, Time magazine. Epic Fail.

I don't know. I accuse her of something worse: trying to be funny and failing spectacularly.

Although I do think Luscombe was attempting a humorous tone, it seems like her central point is exactly what it seems to be: women who don't support Gov. Palin are just jealous because she's prettier and more popular than they are. I don't think she's being ironic about that, unless it's a much drier irony than I've ever seen in a mainstream publication.

See, I am not sure whether she is being sincere or facetious when she claims other women won't vote for Palin because she's too pretty or too confident. I'm not sure whether she's being sincere or facetious when she claims other women won't vote for Palin because "she could embarrass us [as women]".

The one line, however, where I feel strongly she is saying what she means, albeit saying it through sarcasm, is "But don't despair, if all else fails, we could just do what we always do and just vote in some guy." Which, with the sarcasm removed, is "We have to vote for the woman candidate just because she's a woman; she'll automatically make this a better country for women than any male candidate could -- even if the male candidate is competent and capable and she's ill-informed and ignorant with a history of abusing any power she acquires."

That article is disgusting. Thank you for writing that letter to TIME.

Try The Week.

Don't forget that the only reason that Ms. Palin was even on the ticket was that the Republicans think us women will vote for ANY woman, just because she's female, because of Hilary.

Oops. I should read first, comment later, and save the pixels. :)

I was commenting to Shaenon's post, not the Time article.

So was I. If you look below, you'll see I posted almost exactly what you did, which is why I said I should read (the other comments) first. Then I wouldn't be wasting space saying what others had said already.

Fortunately, pixels are a renewable resource.

Whatever point she was trying to make seems lost in the translation to the page. Good for you to write to TIME. There are a lot of very insightful comments on the Digg pages.

is because I'm a catty overgrown schoolgirl who hates how gosh-darn pretty she is, you betcha

*slow burn*

EXPLODE

Edit.

Ah. There. Better now. That was fun to rip apart. >:)

Edited at 2008-10-05 01:43 am (UTC)

It's kind of like how Palin herself only sees fit to address me as a woman by assuming I have kids and they play sports. Because obviously I base my entire vote on a single aspect of my complex identity. Oh, wait. I don't even have kids. Guess that means I won't be voting.

I will not be purchasing TIME again, either.

ohjeez, is it bad if I dislike her even more now because of reading that article?
reminds me of a quote from the Stranger in an article they had a while back the interviewee had said "my honest opinion is unprintable" to which the reporter had quipped "wanna bet?"

I'm torn--as a man, am I supposed to go punch one of the Time editors in the face over this, or just set fire to a pile of their magazines? Decisions, decisions.

This is the part that really seals the deal, IMO:

They loathe — deeply, richly, sustainingly. I do not say this to disparage my gender; women also love in more or less the same way.

"Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that women are just hateful! No, they're hysterical along the entire spectrum of emotion!"

I like the "Sponsored Link" at the bottom with the headline "I had high blood pressure." Apparently at least one ad copywriter read the article too.

... women are incapable of forming opinions about candidates based on their positions and public behavior rather than how they wear their hair.

Wait. Isn't that exactly why McCain chose her? He figured all women who originally wanted Clinton would now vote for him because he has a woman on his ticket. Never mind the position being a polar opposite from Sen Clinton's, she's a woman.

And yes, I know McCain isn't TIME. Or maybe he is?

What the fuck, TIME.

Yeah, that's about the reaction I had.

I'm with you on this... the article managed to make it pretty damn offensive. Though when I read bits outloud to T, he pointed out that Belinda has a point though it's not the one she seems to have meant to - part of what skeeves him out about Palin is that she DOES play "girl games." Palin does do the cringeworthy teehee-I'm-so-cute-and-harmless-and-have-all-you-boys-wrapped-around-my-finger thing.

Which actually is a pretty valid reason for hating her politically -- Cutesy ain't presidential, it's not leadership material, and she *is* embarassing. This is not what I want the most public face of a successful woman to be. (Thank god for Oprah Winfrey.)

Wouldn't it be nice if Palin was an individual rather than a representative of 50% of America? Then we wouldn't have to read ridiculous articles about what she represents to women, good or bad.

What the hell? I was a Hillary Clinton supporter all throughout the primary season- of course I hate Sarah Palin VP candidacy (I don't know her personally, so I can't hate her, but her candidacy) because she's a confident women. Not because it was obvious pandering to me with a woman clearly not qualified to lead this country should something horrible happen to McCain in office if he was elected. Of course. I think this was supposed to be humorous, but it didn't come off to be funny. It was actually really irritating.

Also, I hate the cliche that women like to drag out their problems. Anyone who knows me knows I like to just drop problems and get back to getting along, while my little brother is the complete opposite. I don't think it's a gender thing- it really depends on the person.

Also, I hate the cliche that women like to drag out their problems.

I feel like that's true in middle and (less so) high school, but that's a result of the environment, not people's inherant personalities. After all, most men stop beating each other up if they don't like each other after high school, don't they? Why wouldn't women stop being snitty and holding absurd grudges? Oh right, according to Luscombe, it's because apparently men can progress past the high-school mindset while women are incapable of it. I have to say I disagree with her basic thesis, needless to say.

Although I still don't have a lot of female friends, I get along with women much better than I did in high school precisely because most people grow out of that behavior, and are capable of maturing emotionally. If someone holds a grudge as an adult, it has nothing to do with their gender.

The article in three sentences:

"You don't like her? Well, you're just jealous. And ugly."
To which I would like to gently remind Belinda Luscombe:
1. She's got virtually no experience.
2. She runs Alaska like a small town.
3. She has political opinions that are antithetical to mine.
4. She's already displayed a woeful lack of knowledge and an inability to respond to questions without being carefully prepped.
5. She's also displayed an outward lack of compassion and morality. Making victims pay for their own rape kits, contrary to what Belinda Luscombe thinks, is a big deal. So is using private email accounts for state business in order to hide the actions of the government, particularly when "her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records." (From the 9/13 New York Times)
6. SCARY cronyism.

Is that not petty enough for Belinda Luscombe? I've got petty reasons, too.
7. She running for VP while she's got a five-month-old special-needs baby.
8. She was chosen on the assumption that voters can't tell one person-with-a-vagina from another.
9. She implied that she was proud of her daughter for "choosing" to keep her baby, never mind the fact that she seems to think it's okay to take that choice away from every other woman.
10. Her voice is annoying and she says "nukular." I don't think I can stand four more years of "nukular."
11. Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and TRIG? Seriously? I thought Liane was a bad name.

I don't want Palin on the ticket because she is a CREATIONIST. I am a card-carrying member of the GENETICS Society of America and the American Association for the Advancement of SCIENCE, as well as the Graduate Women in SCIENCE. This has nothing to do with gender, looks, etc. It's about being infuriated that the last administration has politically manipulated SCIENCE in accordance with their crazy Fundamentalist views.

I'm surprised the Hillary voters aren't supporting Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party--she's an honest progressive as well as a woman.

And I agree with Yennafrost's critique.

It's okay to publish it because a WOMAN wrote it! How catty and schoolgirlish of you to think otherwise!

I do not hate Sarah. I am willing to believe that in her own Sarahsphere, among her own people, she is a charismatic and devoted leader with a solid head on her shoulders and an understanding for what needs to be done to make everyone happy. I am much the same with my group. This does not make me eligible for running the country.

You know, there was a point where I evaluated whether I should vote for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Ultimately, it did not take much for me to realize that that's lamesauce. Americans like Belinda have to get over this stupid fixation on gender. There are other countries that have had women leaders for years and no one cares.

I vote for my leaders because I think they'll do the job and because their beliefs and policies most closely resemble mine. There was a point where I might have even considered voting for McCain, but that got blown to high heaven when he irresponsibly picked a running mate for what seems to have been the Hillary Factor.

What really, really bugs me is that there are competent female Republican leaders in the House and Senate who he could have tapped and didn't. You can't even begin to persuade me that Palin was his first and best choice, because it's clear she wasn't -- she was picked for her gender, and her willingness to go along.

If I'm mad and feeling catty at anyone, it's that perky maverick John McCain for playing politics rather than thinking about the welfare of my country, and how it would fare in the hands of a green-as-grass politician should one of the Fates decide to go snippy-snippy on McCain's ass. We have been in the hands of that exact person for the last eight years. No thanks.

This bit:

No matter how seemingly benign, every attribute becomes an affront: the hair, the voice, the husband, the moose-shooting, the glasses, the big family, the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits.

was beyond appalling. Equating her hair style with the test kit debacle. I have no words for it.

Are you going to actually send them that letter?

Switch to "The Economist" Right wing but beautifully written with an emphasis on fact. Opinion is clearly labeled as such.

Excellent letter, and the loss of the subscription will make it sting more.

What really, really ticks me off about Sarah Palin is that the Republicans are fielding this total incompetent as a candidate, calling her tough, and simultaneously setting her up as a sympathetic victim. Way to fall for it, Time.

Urg... if she really thinks that some men don't hate just as deeply and with just as much vitriolic acid as some women then she definitely hasn't met my old landlord/boss. Gah. I lived with him during the last election and there were times when I didn't dare come downstairs because he was yelling at the TV so much.

Well said.

In all fairness, I will be voting for the candidate who's ears are less cute then mine.

I hope that you did in fact send them that letter? I don't have a subscription, but I almost wish I did, just so I could send them a similiarly beautifully scathing letter of rebuttal.

Sure did!

You might like Harper's magazine, which assumes the reader has a mind and can use it. (On line as http://harpers.org (http://harpers.org).)

--
D.

Extremely well said, Shaenon!! Thank you so very much for saying it for SO many women, not just in the U.S.A., but I know for a fact, in other countries as well. I am from Canada & just cancelled my subscription for the same reason. And my friend in Great Britain just did the same thing. Could we all just copy your perfectly expressed letter & send it as a copy, to the Time Eds.? I think they'd be completely inundated with mail! I read their comments about us "silly girls" & had to literally stop and shake my head for a few minutes - I thought maybe I'd just dreamed that we had worked & fought for 60 years plus and that I really WASN'T living in the twenty-first Century!! SHAME ON TIME MAGAZINE! (Hey, you Time writers need to get out of your caves more!)