sarah palin - pauline hanson

Paglia (who supports Obama):

Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment ... A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit

Charlie Gibson's condescension (oh, you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is interview):

I was amazed at the utter condescension in Gibson's voice as he questioned Palin. He came across as a know-it-all and had no patience for Palin or Palin's answers, seeming to mock her after each response. I believe he spoke to her with contempt, possibly showing his bias against conservative republicans or women. Gibson sounded like a person annoyed that he was passed over for the vice presidency position. Another sure sign of his disdain is when asking Palin questions he rarely looked her in the eye or kept his eyes closed
- comment to An Army of Sarahs

In Australia we once had a politician by the name of Pauline Hanson, who stood for traditional values, questioned our immigration rates and could possibly be described as a racist. She wasn't particularly articulate or impressive in an interview. However, the more she stumbled when responding to the "superior", condescending liberal intelligentsia who thought they were exposing her inadequacies -->>> the more popular she became <<<--. In 1998, her party, One Nation, attracted nearly one-quarter of the vote in that month's State elections in Queensland.

Greer's problem

Marcia Langton has comprehensively refuted Germaine Greer analysis that aboriginal men are perpetual and hopeless victims of rage in a magnificent essay (Greer maintains rage of racists)

What is Greer's problem?

• recycling slogans from the past that are partially true but one sided, a one sided slogan based view of history, taking partial truths and presenting them as essential truths
• sloppy psychological based analysis, fitting the world to her view, not seeking the truth rigorously, not listening to those who know better, not being objective
• She uses her ideology as a blinker, not a filter. We all have ideologies but need some way to keep them in touch with objectivity
  
• lofty and grandiose pronouncement from afar, not really being on the ground or in touch or up to date with the real, current indigenous problems
  
• a comfortable victim hood view of the world, victims can't get over it: "Trust me I've been a victim and know what you are suffering"
  

Earlier on Pamela Bone exposed Greer for her lack of solidarity with oppressed Muslim women. The dialectical wheel has turned full circle: Greer from liberator of women to oppressor of women.

These are real problems which I believe can be extended to other contentious issues such as the Iraq war (Iraq is now finally emerging as a democratic state) and the alleged environmental catastrophe. It's easy to fall back on long held beliefs that add together to become a world outlook, it's easy to avoid the hard yards of rigorous analysis, it's easy to be a comfortable victim of forces so powerful they are hard to deal with, it's easy to seek attention with short blog posts like this that ride off the hard work of others. It's hard to be objective, really hard.

In this case, it's clear to me that Marcia Langton has done the hard yards and Germaine Greer has not. Read her essay.