Facebook
Look Bill, I’ve avoided calling you (and Rush, and Glenn Beck, and all of your conservative friends) out on this for awhile. But enough is enough. Let me say this nice and slowly for you, so we can move on:
The fact that Palin and I both have vaginas does not mean that I have to agree with her.
It does not mean that I have to defend her, when I feel she is wrong.
It does not mean that I have to like her.
It does not mean that I have to vote for her.
It does not mean ANYTHING except that we both have vaginas, same as over half of the population. It’s really not that rare… certainly not to the point where every vagina-having-person should have to stick together in some sick sorority. I mean, honestly, how would that even work? I can’t agree with both Palin and Clinton at the same time and yet… we all have vaginas so… I have to agree with them both? For that matter, every time Palin took a shot at Clinton, was she somehow betraying the covenant of the vagina? Or does she have immunity because she’s on your side Bill?
Let’s just move on.Personally, I’m a little more concerned with what a politician has going on in her or his head, than I am with what’s in their pants. Maybe you should be too.
Let’s recap what set this tirade off: Super-awesome feminist playwright Eve Ensler made a comment about Sarah Palin in an interview; this comment pointed out the absurdity of the fact that someone who doesn’t believe in global warming, a proven scientific fact, was almost our Vice President. She uses this point to question Palin’s intelligence.
What we have here is one women disagreeing with another women’s take on an issue that is much less about opinion than it is about facts. That woman insinuates that the other woman may not be smart enough to run our fucking country on the basis that she feels it is acceptable to abstain from believing in proven scientific information.
Let’s revise this for a second: One person disagrees with another person about something that is pretty hard to argue; the first person questions the second person’s intelligence on the basis of their ridiculous science-ignoring beliefs.
This seems reasonable… unless you’re seeing things though vagino-vision like you seem to Bill. I mean really how dare one vagina question another! Honestly, the more you talk the more you seem to only be making one point: all women are to you are vaginas. I mean, people are capable of having differing opinions (something you allow men to do all the time) but not vaginas. Nope, we vaginas have got to stick together.
You, on the other hand, with your big manly brain, get to make attacks on people’s intelligence. In fact, let’s start with Eve Ensler:
“I am smarter than Eve Ensler […] put her in here and I will pound her into pudding with intellectual arguments. Okay? She couldn’t stand up and Eve Ensler knows it. […] But I’m not going to run down her intelligence…”
Except you just did.
Let’s take this real slow: Ensler questions Palin’s intelligence and that’s horrible. Bill insults Ensler’s intelligence and that’s a-okay.
If you were a woman, Bill, would that make what you said off limits? By your logic, I suppose it would.
To recap: My vagina does not require me to defend Sarah Palin, or any other woman. I judge people based on their INTELLIGENCE regardless of sex. Not making arguments against a woman I disagree with, just because she’s a woman, is not doing her any favors; in fact, doing this would be patriarchal since I’d be basing my actions on a judgment of this person as a vagina first, person second. As a feminist, that’s just not fucking okay with me.
To recap: My vagina does not require me to defend Sarah Palin, or any other woman. I judge people based on their INTELLIGENCE regardless of sex. Not making arguments against a woman I disagree with, just because she’s a woman, is not doing her any favors; in fact, doing this would be patriarchal since I’d be basing my actions on a judgment of this person as a vagina first, person second. As a feminist, that’s just not fucking okay with me.
But anyways, I ought to let you have the last word here Bill-O
“I’m very low IQ and I’m proud of it.”
(It’s in the video, I swear!)
That sounds about right.
Get email updates and action alerts:
by Anatic09
I love that Bill O'Reilly says that people didn't attack Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, they attacked her intelligence and her appearance (and even her daughter's appearance) because she has dubious politics. Yet somehow Sarah Palin is definitely being attacked for being un-intelligent because she's a woman. Not because she doesn't believe in science.
I'm sorry, but even my Republican, tax-cut-loving, big-government-phobic boyfriend believes in global warming and recently stopped hanging out with a former friend when she told him that she (a Democrat!) thought global warming was a hoax and that we shouldn't try to speak for mother nature. Also, my boyfriend is aware that real, science-based sex education matters, something I cannot say for Ms. Palin.
I know that science doesn't always get it right, but in both these cases, the evidence is overwhelming. Palin and others who believe the things she does will harm young people in more ways than one if allowed into the government. Faux News, much as I dislike it, is the safest place for her if she insists on being in the public eye.
Bill got this whole thing so wrong. Eve Ensler was not making a personal attack on Palin, she was making an attack on Palin's anti-enviornment policy/poltics. Palin's view on climate change has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. It Palin was male, Eve Ensler would have said the same thing. This wasn't a woman attacking a woman- this was a woman attacking a liar.
Also, do you think Bill O'Reiley would ever call himself a feminist? He basically said he was gender blind, but he said "feminists like you," not "feminists like us." He has no idea what feminism really means.
Evidence has been found that Alaska/northern Canada used to be tropical, as well as evidence the Sahara used to be fertile land. Also, a volcano erupted more than 500 years ago and emitted so much sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere that it cooled the earth's surface temperature for 100 years.
The human race is not capable or poweful enough to change something as complex as climate; not enough well-rounded research has been done on the matter.
How much research have you done in this? I ask because after two college level classes regarding susutainability issues I am left with no doubts that human kind IS having an effect on our climate.
The idea that we're too insiginificant is bullshit, and a very easy way to avoid taking reponsibility. The fact of the matter is WE have released chemicals into the atmosphere that wouldn't be there without us, chemicals that trap GHGs into our atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up. Its true that human kind is not 100% the cause of this; for instance, the fact that more and more glaciers are now melting means that the ice which once reflected sunlight back out is no longer doing so - thus heating the environment.
However, we are a GREAT deal responsible for setting off the processes, like this melting ice, that are quickly steamrolling to ensure that climate change will happen and will be devastating, very soon.
It may not effect you and I, living in the industralized world, very quickly; but people in countries that are less developed are already feeling the effects of rapid climate change as their water sources shift, food becomes harder to grow, disease becomes more prominent, and so on.
Its NOT a good situation, and its not something that can or should just be dismissed.
This article may help to explain my side: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=more-proof-of-global-warm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
I started looking into global warming after the Climategate scandal, with the majority of my reading coming from the BBC, which originally purported climate change but started to change after the infamous e-mailsstating there has been so significant warming trends in the next 15 years.
Also, if you are so concerned about the effect global warming has on less developed nations (I am going to assume you mean the poor as well), you should be concerned about the cap and trade bill going through Congress, because it will costs jobs as businesses would have to spend money to make their industries more "green" and will cost low- and middle-class Americans thousands of dollars to retrofit their homes to meet a certain "green" standard.
Most of these "green" entities neither save people money (one would spend the money they saved on gas replacing the battery on their Priuses) nor are some of them particularly safe (flourescent light bulbs contain mercury, which if disposed of improperly can get into the water and cause brain damage in infants and children).
I'm just not willing to put my faith in a system of science that is only a few years old.
Yes it is true that many of the measures congress is trying to push through will cause inconvenience to American businesses and citizens, but sometimes inconvenience is NESSECARY when one looks at the bigger picture. It's horribly negligent of those of us in the United States to focus only on how this will effect us when, because of industrialization, we are the least effected by any sort of climate related issues.
I mean, I'm pretty sure the people of the small island nations that are currently coming closer and closer to being completley submerged due to rising sea levels would like to hear that we don't care enough about their homes to make some minor (on the grand scale) inconvenient changes to ours.
You may not be willing to put your faith in this science but I am, because even if the climate change we're currently facing is not 100% man-made, we can still do something to slow it down and we should because this isn't about some petty argument, its about people's lives.
This article isn't really about climate change at the end of the day, however. The point of my blog post is simple: Eve Ensler has every right to DISAGREE with Sarah Palin in a public forum, regardless of the fact that they both have vaginas. Bill O'Rilley does not see it that way and that is what pisses me off.