Mrs. Palin's Mangina

6/14/2011

I first met Dr. Hugo Schwyzer over his penis.

Permit me to explain.

Last year I wrote a 4,000-word tome on the Foreskin Revolution for the ultra-edgy, super hot Good Men Project Magazine. And Mr. Schwyzer’s unapologetic, in-your-face views on the foreskin restoration movement made me admire the balls it takes to tell his personal story.

Reporting that article was the first time I became acquainted with the word “mangina”. GMP Founder Tom Matlack penned this eloquent piece on his own “man purse” and a simple search ties Professor Hugo Schwyzer to the word for his forward thinking, fearless, and unapologetic views on the modern man and feminism.

But put another way, the Urban Dictionary calls a mangina this: “The broadest definition is a man who calls any over the hill right wing bimbo a MILF.”

Which of course made me wonder if I could think of any over-the-hill (don’t forget those dashes next time, Urban Dictionary!) right-wing bimbos who men want to fornicate with (or to).

So I contacted Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, who has taught history and gender studies at Pasadena City College since 1993, where he developed the college's first courses on Men and Masculinity andBeauty and Body Image. He was for many years the leader of the high school youth program for the largest Episcopal parish in the Western United States. A writer, public speaker, and professor, Hugo is also a husband and father. “Hugo,” I said, “I’ve got two words for you: Sarah Palin”:

HUGO: I have such mixed feelings about Sarah Palin. On the one hand, I loathe most of her political positions. I also am exasperated by the way she has repeatedly claimed to be a feminist, even as she’s advocated for depriving women of their most basic rights. On the other hand, I appreciate that she’s done a great service by forcing even social conservatives to acknowledge that a woman can be a spouse, a mom to young kids, and a public figure. If the right-wing is willing to accept a female candidate for president who has small kids at home, that sends a powerful message about how far we’ve come. It really marginalizes the troglodytes who think that mothers should stay quietly at home with their kids.

LN: Then I must be a troglogyta, which is, in fact, Latin for a cave dwelling Conservative. Because I had a medically fragile baby. And while I can understand women needing to commute an hour a day and work from 9-5 in order to maintain their job and home, I cannot understand a woman leaving a four-month-old, fragile baby and flying all over the country, in a manic tour-de-force for personal and political gain, and as a result, rarely seeing or nurturing it.

HUGO: I hear you. But here’s the thing: this whole line of conversation is an invitation to play the “mommy wars.” Once we stipulate that Palin was a bad mama for flying around the country and leaving her baby at home, then we open the door to talking about how working mothers who leave their kids in day care are bad mamas. It is never a win for women to pit mothers against each other. Short of outright and obvious abuse, I think it’s really unhealthy for feminists to criticize another woman’s parenting choices. It’s what a misogynistic culture wants us to do. Let’s not give them the satisfaction.

LN: Let’s touch on my headline. I find it difficult to believe that you are a mangina because I can’t imagine you lusting after the loins of one, Mrs. Todd Palin.

HUGO: Yeah, it’s a strange definition. I mean, how do I respond to that?   I’m as annoyed at everyone else by the way that Sarah Palin was sexualized, even fetishized by some in the media. But it was mostly the right-wing who crowed about having all the “hot babes” on their side, wasn’t it? Even if some of us on the left think Michelle Obama is pretty damn hot.

LN: Michelle Obama is hot, not just because she is beautiful, but because she is so smart. So then, what IS it about Palin? Can we tap into your PhD brain because I want to understand the allure.

HUGO:   As modern as she is, she’s a classic and familiar figure: the smart (she is no fool), sassy, competent, suffer-no-fools, God-fearing mama of the sort that has always been found in the American west.   She’s the perfect counterpoint to Obama, who offends a lot of conservatives by his cosmopolitan novelty. We’ve never had a leader like him before. But we’ve always had Sarah Palins, in small towns and even in urban neighborhoods. Palin’s forebears are the women in the past who seemed to easily embrace both their traditional femininity and the trappings of masculine power. Think Deborah in the bible, or Annie Oakley. What makes Palin different is that she has something truly modern – an alpha male husband who seems content to remain in her shadow and take the lead on caring for their children.

LN: Do you think that basically pisses off the women who have found out how hard it is to live a double shift? Because I have a great husband. But I have no delusions of power beyond my capability. And my husband would call me out on it if I did. In part because he respects me, in part because he protects me. Maybe that is what pisses off many women about Mrs. Palin: That Mr. Palin didn’t do his duty as a loving partner and say, “You’re not qualified to be the leader of the Western World.”

HUGO: I think that puts an awful lot on Todd. He clearly believes in her, as many people do. And I think it would piss off far more women if Sarah had said, “Yeah, Todd burst my bubble and made it clear I wasn’t qualified.” More women have suffered because their wings were clipped by jealous and controlling jerks than have suffered because they were unduly flattered by adoring spouses.

LN: This piece in Salon included the following quote from famous feminist Camille Paglia about Palin:

“When I watch Sarah Palin, I don't think sex — I think Amazon warrior! I admire her competitive spirit and her exuberant vitality, which borders on the supernormal. The question that keeps popping up for me is whether Palin, who was born in Idaho, could possibly be part Native American (as we know her husband is), which sometimes seems suggested by her strong facial contours. I have felt that same extraordinary energy and hyper-alertness billowing out from other women with Native American ancestry….”

Yet when I hear the word “billowing” about Sarah Palin, I can only think of one thing. And that is the trail of billowing scarves she left behind her after her alleged pregnancy with Trig Palin. Talk me down, Hugo. Tell me this wasn’t the greatest political hoax ever perpetuated on the American public.

HUGO: I’m not going to comment on whether the hoax is true. I come from the “trust women” school of feminism, after all. But if she did pretend that her daughter’s baby was hers, she did something that would be entirely in keeping with her faith and her frontier ethos.   This isn’t new. A hell of a lot of children have grown up being told that their mothers were their older sisters, and that their biological grandmothers were their moms.

I remember during the Clinton impeachment scandal feeling very disappointed in the president, both for what he’d done with Monica Lewinsky (which struck me as an abuse of power) and for the way he’d then treated both Lewinsky and his own wife Hillary, to whom he repeatedly lied. But as an historian and a feminist, I never for a moment believed he deserved impeachment. I never bought the ridiculous notion that someone who will lie about one thing will lie about anything.

When it comes to sex, we’re all somewhat dishonest.   We don’t have the vocabulary, most of us, to take the truth about our messy private lives into public spaces. Even if we want to tell our stories, our fears and our shame and our concern for others lead us to be less than forthcoming. And if Sarah Palin did pull off an elaborate hoax, I’m not sure that speaks to her essential truthfulness as a politician. When it comes to sex (our own and our children’s), we lie when we’d tell the truth about anything else.

Honestly, when I first heard the story of the hoax, I thought it was put out by her supporters to burnish her reputation. It would indicate how fiercely she protected her family; it would burnish her grizzly mama reputation.

LN: Fascinating: her supporters rather than her detractors. I had never thought of that. And yet it’s her supporters who love the ongoing controversy over what is widely called “Babygate” because they believe it now burnishes her reputation as a “victim.” Is this now the feminist dialetic redux: Palin-the-politician as heroine versus Palin-the-mother as victim?

HUGO: Absolutely. And this is part of a larger trend in American politics – the quick claims of victimization are a perversion of feminist politics.   It’s used to silence criticism of the powerful instead of protecting the vulnerable. I find that tiresome.

LN: Earlier you spoke to Palin’s smarts. You know, when I think of smart, I think of a person like you who graduated from U.C. Berkeley and then went on to earn an MA and PhD from UCLA. That’s smart, Hugo. And what Mrs. Palin is, in the words of another Barnard alumna, Martha Stewart, is “confused.” Her disordered thinking. Her disorganized speech patterns. This would be alarming from any leader. Why does she have a “Get Out Of Stupid” card and other politicians don’t?

HUGO: Well, Americans have a long fascination with politicians who don’t have much book-learnin’. Andrew Jackson ran against John Quincy Adams and boasted he was a “ploughman” and the latter was a “professor.” Palin is part of a long tradition of anti-intellectualism in our politics, in which home-spun wisdom (usually involving fecundity and firearms) is seen as superior to formal education. It’s an old “get out of stupid” card – she’s just the first major female politician to play it so deftly.

LN: I have covered Hillary Clinton on her husband’s campaign trail. I know she’s not svelt. She knows she’s not svelt. And that shouldn’t matter. Yet it does when you have the most ardent feminists lambasting the woman’s figure. Excuse me? Is that what women fought for? Because that’s not what I remember while coming of age during the women’s movement and reading Ms. Magazine in my dorm room. How far have we devolved here?

HUGO: No question, we’re still too fascinated with the bodies of women politicians. And that’s what bugs me about the whole Palin pregnancy thing. Whether it’s the cleavage or the tummy or the hair, we’re too damn obsessed with the sexuality, the reproductivity, and the size and shape of women politicians’ bodies. What we are still fighting for is not for a world where beauty doesn’t matter, but where the allure of the figure matters less than the content of the character (to borrow from MLK.)

LN: I believe that from the moment of conception, two primal forces overtake us: The love for and protection of, our children. That expands beyond their physical well-being. It includes holding dear their dignity and supporting their integrity. I don’t believe that allowing rumors to fester about your child’s maternity or birth to be noble. In fact, it’s diametrically opposed to my idea of the core value of motherhood. And what I see from Mrs. Palin is that any and all controversy can be good, as long as it lines her pockets, inflates her ego, and enhances her victimhood.

HUGO: I’m not defending Palin. But there’s a long tradition of what we call the “good mother discourse” that I find troubling here. You know, it’s when folks say “A good mother would” or “A good mother wouldn’t…”    I really don’t like that. It’s part of policing women. And mothers in particular are trained to turn on other mothers. We call it the “mommy wars”, and it’s as old as feminism.

LN: You’re a father Hugo. Would you allow anyone to question the circumstances of your daughter’s birth. Would you have shown her birth certificate and quelled the controversy in 2008? Or would you fan the flames and keep your eye on 2012?

HUGO: Well, yeah. I would have. But then again, I’d have released the long form birth certificate if I were Obama. Look, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

LN: Define your terms here. Because Obama did release an initial document of live birth. Mrs. Palin has lied about releasing any proof of her son’s parentage. I suspect you’ll argue that one was running for president, the other was wearing a diaper. But Trig’s assumed mother aspires to be POTUS and it irks me that the mother hood badge that she wears as a qualification for higher office is deeply debated in all walks of life. I want closure on this.

HUGO: I’m not here to defend Sarah Palin’s choices. But I do think that bringing such scrutiny to the reproductive decisions of any famous woman is a huge problem. What we’re saying to any woman of childbearing years is “forget about the political process unless you want the world second-guessing and judging every one of your most intimate decisions.”   We have to demand greater accountability from politicians in their public lives – and give them more freedom from scrutiny in their private worlds. I’m anti-Palin because I find her politics abhorrent. But not because of how many children she had, or because of what those children did or didn’t do. She’s clearly a mom, even if you continue to challenge her motherhood of Trig.

If someone asked me for my daughter’s birth certificate, I’d tell ‘em where they could go. Not because I have anything to hide. But because they have no fundamental right to know.

LN: Well, Hugo, it has been my fundamental privilege talking with you for my blog. And I am thrilled to know that you will be checking in on comments and will gladly discuss these issues with readers while I take a few days to get some other things done. School is ending soon, and with it some work I have there. And I’ve got a huge rewrite due for two fabulous Bay Area police detectives who I am working with on their first thriller.

Folks, dive in here and talk to Hugo. He is a fabulous teacher and sparring partner! Hugo also blogs at his eponymous website and at the Good Men Project and at Sir Richard's Condom Company.

Maddies_Mom

6/14/2011 09:38:45 am

Maddies_Mom

6/14/2011 09:39:53 am

Well.... that was cringe-worthy.

6/14/2011 09:55:15 am

i have to, with greatest respect, disagree with Ms. Novak. If a child has one good caretaker parent who cares whether that parent is mother or father?

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/14/2011 10:22:50 am

Dr.Hugo Schwyzer states, "Honestly, when I first heard the story of the hoax, I thought it was put out by her supporters to burnish her reputation. It would indicate how fiercely she protected her family; it would burnish her grizzly mama reputation."

Yes, this is the usual reason why hoaxes of this sort, concealing who the real mother is, are perpetrated. In this case, however, it is NOT clear that the baby was her daughter's. And it IS clear that she has derived substantial political advantage from the hoax. It is not the reproductive decisions of Ms. Palin that concern the Trig Truthers. It is the fraud.

However, I argue that biology, broadly conceived, is at the root of an important part of Palin's appeal, as well as her ability to get away with Babygate. Specifically, it has to do with the feelings evoked by Palin as an attractive woman, and feelings involved in consideration of the details of pregnancy and birth.

Palin is a lap dancer, metaphorically speaking. Her hypersexualized presentation of self (winking, tongue protrusion) is seen by some as an indication of a history of sexual abuse as a child. Whether that is true or not, it is clear that a great part of her personal charisma is as a MILF (sexually attractive housewife, to give the
G-rated paraphrase of the acronym).
Let as take as an example, "Sarah Palin mesmerizes Israeli filmmaker: Los Angeles-based director Elan Frank met Alaska's governor, Republican vice-presidential hopeful several months ago while filming documentary about extraordinary women, and was hooked."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3591532,00.html

We can see Sarah using her womanly wiles on Elan, smiling broadly and batting her eyes as she discusses how she has not hidden/hidden her "pregnancy", in a video clip available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16uf12lmMcg

Writing in the New York Daily News, Stanley Crouch summarizes what Thomas Mann wrote in "Doctor Faustus": "that the virtual power of interest, or fascination, can actually be stronger than love. Apparently, however, the power of fantasy, and the willingness to follow fantasies even when they reveal themselves as delusional, is especially dangerous because it is a virtual cloud of unknowing."

The other sexually-related part of Babygate as a successful Big Lie has to do with a different aspect of unknowingness - not ignorance of how one's thoughts are shaped by desire, but a desire not to know about icky things - male reluctance to delve into the details of gestation and parturition. The falseness of Palin's story is revealed when one examines the photographs of Palin during the time when she was supposedly pregnant, and when one reads the laughably implausible account of the journey from Texas to Mat-Su Hospital to give birth to Trig. In each case, however, it requires a willingness to confront details of women's bodily life which induce discomfort and disgust, especially in men. Many are reluctant to do so.

And then, of course, there are the irrelevant "family values" diversions: How can you attack a teenage mother? How can you attack a handicapped child? Combined these with the demons of disgust and desire which guard the deception from being seen by the light of reason, and we have the situation Palin and her powerful backers have put us in.

Melly

6/14/2011 10:36:22 am

This was infurating to read. By Hugo's lights, women cannot criticize other women about parenting because it's all about the woman, not her children and how she's treating them. Can I criticize the bad dad...please? Oh, OK, but just not the mother or I'm trying to incite mommy wars. Ridiculous.

Palin sexualized herself. And she's an out and out liar who shouldn't be mythologized or excused for it because she happens to be a woman. We're not prying into her reproduction, we're prying into her lies.

talk talk

6/14/2011 10:41:46 am

i have to agree with the prof...my mom and i have this discussion/disagreement all the time. the more salacious aspects of her governorship make me cringe, yet the results of her political career scream (to me) 'i hate women!' 'i hate minorities' 'i love money'. she is not the kind of politician i would ever vote for.

Ottoline

6/14/2011 11:31:08 am

You went too deep for me here. I am not interested Palin's sexuality, her being pregnant while working, her mothering ability, her being a working mother, the goodness or badness of her marriage, her attractiveness, or her occasional tackyness.

Any or all of these characteristics could be fine in a reputable politician. But blatant lying (about anything) tells me I cannot trust the politician, and I cannot really learn where s/he stands.

Had Palin been a respected candidate and discreet with her family (as other politicians usually are), and had I suspected all that we now know about Trig, it would not have mattered to me. Family secrets and difficulties are not my business as a voter.

But to make a hoax for political gain the centerpiece of one's brand makes the hoax a big issue -- not what the hoax is about, but the fact of the hoax. This isn't about Trig, it isn't about unusual family arrangements or family members. It's simply about lying in a major way for political gain.

For me, it's about lying, hoaxing, cover-up, and lack of responsibility for that by Palin's enablers and the MSM.

Delving into motive -- going any farther than verifiable behavior -- seems a slippery slope that is unnecessary for the work that is required now, which is MSM discovery and MSM acknowledgment of actual behavior. The ultimately unknowable thoughts of the participants might be interesting to speculate on at a later time, but not now, when we have other work to do.

Conscious at last

6/14/2011 11:56:43 am

Dr. Hugo-

I am afraid that your politically correct,
a priori intellectual post modern rule machine has gotten in the way of your
EYES, EARS, inner knowing and your BRAIN.

Chew on that for a while and I'll get back to ya.

ginny

6/14/2011 11:58:35 am

There are lies, and then there are LIES. Anthony Weiner's obsession with showing off his bod to women online and keeping this to himself is a lie to his wife. Sarah Palin faking a pregnancy while governor and using her alleged "choice" to give birth to a child with Down's Syndrome as the basis of her political appeal is a LIE. It has nothing to do with her choices as a mother or a woman. It has everything to do with her choices as a public figure, politician, and servant of the People. I don't question how she chooses to raise her children while she pursues her career. I DO question how she claims to have choosen to put the life of that precious baby in danger when she bypassed at least 3 major hospitals with NICUs after going into premature labor with ruptured membranes, and instead flying thousand of miles for many hours and driving yet farther so that she could give birth in her home town hospital. If any of this is true, she has demonstrated extremely poor judgment and decision-making in the face of an emergency in a way that I feel DOES reflect on her abilities to lead a town, state, or nation. If she lied about any of this, it DEFINITELY reflects on her abilities to be such a leader. These are not lies. They are LIES!!!!! This has nothing to do with Palin as a mother or a woman.

physicsmom

6/14/2011 12:30:30 pm

Dr. Hugo, I sympathize. It's hard to be a liberal under these circumstances and faced with this kind of blatant deception. One of the biggest problems today is that this issue is less pressing and significant than it was three years ago. However, our friends in the media failed to respond intelligently to the stories being leaked out of Anchorage and do any investigating when it really mattered. (As Prof. Scharlott has ably described). I believe it still is important to expose whether or not Sarah Palin seeks higher office, because she is nevertheless damaging political discourse with her vitriol and she needs to be discredited by the hoax.

It took me a long time to get on the "babygate" bandwagon, so I understand your reluctance. As there is no one piece of evidence that is known to prove the hoax, it is difficult to explain concisely how one comes to the conclusion that Palin lied. It is the preponderance of evidence that finally brings the fraud to light; there are just too many oddities, coincidences, and photos which offend my sensibilities and knowledge of biology to buy her story any longer. As others have said, the issue is not Bristol or Trig, but only Sarah and the LIES she has told to impress her followers and gain fundy credibility. I don't care who the birth mother is or if she found the baby by the side of the road, it was unethical and immoral to pretend that she birthed it from her own body, knowing that society does not want to confront the realities of childbirth and won't question or look too closely. I don't think Sarah is smart, but she is very shrewd.

The baby hoax is entirely different from the "mommy wars" issues, which also bothered me early in her national publicity. As a working mother, I too followed my career dreams while raising a family with the able assistance of my spouse. I'd like to think I would not have made the choices she did under the same circumstances, but I wouldn't deny her the right to make them. All except the choice to fake a pregnancy. That goes beyond the pale and uses her sexuality in a way to obfuscate her venality. It's not forgivable. Sorry.

Hugo Schwyzer link

6/14/2011 01:02:10 pm

I appreciate being part of this dialogue, and grateful Laura asked me to participate. I'm not convinced at all -- to me, frankly, this is of a piece with the Birthers and the 9/11 Truthers. I like and respect Laura, however, and was happy to participate in this discussion.

I don't think we can talk about the hoax theory without bringing up the mommy wars, unfortunately. And for those of us who are unconvinced that Sarah Palin is not Trig's mama, the fascination with her reproductivity is centering a woman's body in a political discussion in a way that it simply shouldn't. That's what it came down to for me, but I'm glad to have had this discussion.

Viola

6/14/2011 01:21:15 pm

I love how this well-educated and gender-sensitive man sentimentalizes Sarah Palin, the pioneer woman, and her trusty sidekick, the caring alpha-male iron dog Todd. Sheesh. There may be no hope.

How did you feel about good ol' boy George Bush, who would rather ranch than govern? Or dear Ronnie Reagan, that charming film star who kept forgetting things?

To sentimentalize Palin is to demean all women (and mothers!) She is a construct, meant to seduce, and she has seduced you, Hugo.

As for judging Palin on the basis of her mothering skills, she forces me to by profaning them in public-- in much the way Anthony Weiner has forced me to consider him as the husband who would humiliate publicly his pregnant wife by sexually harassing/techno-assaulting other women.

It has nothing to do with sex. Or motherhood. Get a grip.

Viola

6/14/2011 01:35:36 pm

Dr Hugo, forgive my tone. I have no patience for liars, whether they are mothers, fathers, men or women. I'm sorry if I sounded rude.

But I would like to share a short story. My son's girlfriend, a wonderful young woman recently said to me, "What happened? Your generation was supposed to fix things. It's even harder now. Now we have to be smart, pretty, rich, AND hot." This from a 20 year old who has already survived drugs, alcohol and cutting. Women like Sarah Palin perpetuate this lie. Women, no more than men, can have and do it all.

Ottoline

6/14/2011 01:38:11 pm

Wait! Please! One more question: Since you are unconvinced, you are the perfect person to ask my key question: How is this March 14 photo possible if she was pregnant as stated? It is a photo that appeared simultaneously in news sources; it is not a fake or compromised photo.

http://s406.photobucket.com/albums/pp141/WestCorrespondent/Sarah%20Palin/?action=view¤t=5weekstobaby.jpg

How can you explain this and retain your position?

Anonfornow

6/14/2011 01:38:31 pm

Prof. Schwyzer, this kind of thinking is why Sarah is getting a pass from the media. I have no problem with a woman choosing to let her husband raise the kids while she pursues her career. I do, however, have a problem with that same woman posing as a mother earth goddess, and calling herself a Hockey Mom and a Mama Grissly, and talking about how "moms just kinda know," and dragging a sick infant around with her so she can be photographed in Madonna poses, after which she quickly shoves the kid off to someone else to take care of. She's a fake and a fraud, and that's what we are calling her on.

Enough about the mommy wars already. This is about a woman who pretended to go back to work two days after giving birth (Why should women need maternity leave? Sarah didn't.) This is about a working woman who charged her state tens of thousands of dollars to drag her kids around the state and across the country with her because she seems to think she had the right to have them by her when she was on the job just because she was a mom; know any company that would agree to that? Know any men who tried to do that? Has this helped the image of women in the workplace? Hardly.

This is about a woman who dresses inappropriately, who wears short skirts and peep-toed shoes, who winks and flirts and talks girl talk and is constantly photographed with her tongue suggestively out. This is a woman who deliberately, consciously uses her sexuality to attract supporters, then whines whenever anyone tries to call her on it.

The reason male politicians taking pictures of their penises and playing with interns and prostitutes is important is because it tells us something we need to know about their character. And for a woman to fake a pregnancy, to write a letter pretending to be from God, to go on the road making millions writing and speaking about something that never happened, well that tells us volumes about that woman's character, and god damn anyone who tries to protect her with bogus arguments about mommy wars and an over-zealous fascination with uteruses.

Ottoline

6/14/2011 01:43:00 pm

Also, I just wanted to say again -- I am not fascinated with or even interested Palin's reproductivity. It is her lie that has created a giant hoax that interests me, because I hate blatant lying in politics -- on any subject.

Thanks for talking to us! (But please, don't forget to explain how the Mar 14 photo can exist. :-)

Rationalist

6/14/2011 01:48:47 pm

Dr. Hugo -

I do appreciate the slippery slope of criticizing Paln's parenting. Setting that aside for a second, I ask you to consider this: Sarah Palin is an unprecedented figure in American politics - a female politician who has made the story of her pregnancy and birth of a central part of her political appeal. She is quite literally using an elaborate birth story the way male politicians use their war records, at campaign events and fundraisers. And yet, as with certain politicians' military records, there are many aspects of her story that are highly questionable. However, when asked to clarify, she claims "sexism." She cannot have it both ways. As a feminist, I say

Rationalist

6/14/2011 01:53:23 pm

oops - posted too soon.

As a feminist, I say giving a politician a pass on a very likely false claim she's made again and again is the very height of sexism. And she's playing the victim of sexism masterfully, knowing that many well intentioned folks are very uncomfortable pressing her on the topic.

Ivyfree

6/14/2011 01:55:51 pm

The perfect answer for a fraud: bring up the mommy wars. Don't even discuss it- it's just the mommy wars again.

The difficulty here is that this is clearly not a case where a child (Bristol) might have her reputation suffer: Sarah didn't give a rat's ass over exploiting Bristol's sexuality at the RNC convention... and that, of course, is IF Bristol is in fact Trig's mother. (I think she is.)

Nor is this a case where a child (Trig) might suffer the ongoing stigma of the bastard child in our society. This once was a severe stigma indeed, affecting all areas of the little illegit's life. Bastardy simply isn't an issue, in this day and age.

But Trig is an issue. Trig is a real person, and his mother, whoever she is, is a real person. And their personal birthing experience has been devalued, disappeared, in the quest for votes.

And while another child might grow up, understand the trick that was played on him, and how he was callously used- Trig might never have the capability to understand that. Another child might grow to understand what happened, and even why, and might even come to forgive the perpetrator, but will Trig? Of all the players in this drama, Trig alone is completely innocent of any intent to harm or defraud.

Trig's potential capacities are unknown to us. They could have been optimized by devoted parents, working hard to get the child into the programs that would help, to get the daily therapy that is required, as early as possible, to maximized his potential.

That didn't happen. How do we know? Because you don't get a toddler into daily therapy while hauling him around on a bus to peddle your ghost-written books. That's how we know.

Most of us are taught at a very early age. At it's crudest, it's "don't make fun of the retarded kid." Don't abuse that kid. Be patient and gentle, and grateful that you aren't dealing with the issues he has. Be nice.

Essentially, Sarah has made fun of the retarded kid, played the ultimate rude trick on him: she is pretending to be his mother. Intentionally or not, she is meanly depending on him never being able to figure it out. It doesn't have anything to do with the mommy wars. It has to do with being, at heart, a decent human being. Palin's behavior to Trig shows that she is not.

Trig may never understand what he has lost. He may never have even the potential to realize that he has missed out. But we know, those of us who have been watching the Palins know, we know Trig has missed out on nurturing support and care and encouragement. If you don't realize this, ask yourself a question: When did you last see Trig wearing his glasses?

Jellicle Cat

6/14/2011 02:01:46 pm

Question for the oh so admiring professor.

How would you feel about Sarah Palin if she looked like Barbara Mikulski?

Yeah, I thought so.

Totally agree with the first post - this interview was cringeworthy. BEYOND cringeworthy. Ugh. Another self-appointed Sarah Palin protector. UGH.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/14/2011 02:02:46 pm

Is there an openness to evidence here? Not to "dialogue", not to "I let you talk for a while and then I talk for a while", but a willingness to examine the data?

beth d

6/14/2011 03:11:54 pm

@anonfornow 20:38

WoW, you put into words what I could not have done. I agree with you completely. This mommy war, at least mom's get their children at the end of work and take them home. Palin couldn't even take Trig on her so called family vacation. Palin uses this child for political reasons, he's to much of a bother otherwise, that's child abuse no matter who's son he is. why do I know he's a bother, because Trig is a now you see him now you don't, but she sure carts Piper around.

Anonfornow

6/14/2011 03:35:13 pm

Laura, I would like to thank you for this interview. I began reading with the hope it might give me some insight into how and why Sarah mesmerizes so many people. Unfortunately, since the professor is himself a victim, he was not able to articulate the mechanisms behind her attraction and could only defend her. But it was instructive to see how even someone educated and aware can fall victim to her charms.

And I'm sorry I lost my temper!

curiouser

6/14/2011 05:35:19 pm

It is wonderful if Sarah Palin's example is an encouragement for women to pursue career goals outside their home. I'm skeptical that there's been a significant change among those religious leaders who teach a woman's place is in the home; I wonder if their support of Sarah was specific for her or other attractive, charismatic women in politics who can get votes for their anti-choice agenda. How better to achieve the goals of the right than by using women to undermine other women. Ironically, if the anti-abortion movement continues to gain ground, it will be harder for women to leave their homes.

Hopefully, the women newly inspired to seek careers won't try to stick to close to Sarah's model or they're in for a big shock. What she presents is largely myth and form over substance. Her personal goals are ego-based; her public/career goals are those of her husband and her fundamental Christianist supporters. She presents an unrealistic model of a working woman in our society for all but a very few. She was proud to be able to return to work two days after Trig was born. She talks about bringing the baby to work with her but doesn't mention that Todd also went with them, both as a father and also in his role as the 'shadow governor'. She hides the fact that she has hired nannies and also uses her staff as fill-in babysitters. She's against public policy that would help women with the home/career balancing act.

On a personal level, she has publicly stated more than once that she and Todd approached their marriage as a business relationship. The rest of her family's personal ambitions have to be subordinated to the demands of her role. Only time will tell, if the toll on all of them was fulfilling or harmful.

As a woman who couldn't begin my career until my children were older and who worked hard to advance in my career based on my competence, I see Palin as setting women back over two decades. I hope I'm wrong.

mumimor

6/14/2011 06:24:58 pm

Dr. Hugo and Laura, thanks for this interview. It is a good reminder of what a lot of good, sane people are thinking about this. It's easy to forget when one is obsessing over details in photos and mails.
I had a similar (if not as educated) conversation with a male colleague the other day. Not specifically or only about Palin, but about female fraudsters in general (I am not in the US, and here we have other, similar women). My colleague said a lot of the same things as Dr. Hugo says here. But at the end, he also said something else: he said: "at the end of the day, I don't really care. With a woman like that, you know you are being taken for a ride, and so what?"
My colleague doesn't take Palin seriously at all - he thinks she has no chance in a presidential run at all. So who cares about that child?
All of us who worry about Palin's lies are taking her a lot more seriously. We believe what she says and does is important because we see her as an important influence on American politics.
Those of us who are women are maybe also worried about something else, I am at least tired of all the myths and lies about women's health and reproduction Palin depends upon and propagates. But again, my good colleague said: "don't think I can't see through all of that. I'm 50 years old, I have grown children. I just don't care. She's a phony, and so what?"

I listened to this as I read this interview, and I can understand the points. But as I've stated somewhere else here: after the people of the USA elected Bush twice, and seeing how your country is close to defaulting on its debt (thus triggering a world-wide depression), I cannot take your "rogue", idiot politicians lightly. Palin is one of the leading figures of the politics of ignorance. She should be scrutinized as one would scrutinize any political leader. And because some of her key political issues are abortion rights and teen abstinence, we need to hold her up to her own actions on these issues. Just like male politicians who fight against gay rights should be outed when they have sex with men. Not because of the sex, but because of the hypocrisy.

Excuse me for the long rant..

6/14/2011 06:34:18 pm

I, too, ignored the palin baby hoax ... until I did the math and realized she was almost certainly lying.

Whenever we're not allowed to ask questions ... because it's pregnancy, or unpatriotic, or because it's someone's faith, even ... that can be used to rip us off.

Furthermore, as I age, there is probably only one thing left that I hold dear: the truth. I am tired of the lies, and my species' gullibility.

ginny

6/14/2011 08:37:24 pm

V- "Whenever we're not allowed to ask questions ... because it's pregnancy, or unpatriotic, or because it's someone's faith, even ... that can be used to rip us off."

Well said! Whenever a line of questioning or criticism of our leaders becomes off-limits, you can guarantee there will be many unscrupulous cons ready and willing to use this to their advantage. Just like the unquestioned trust in priests combined with their close contact with children played a large role in the horrific epidemic of pedophiles who were attracted to the priesthood. It's a mistake, IMO, to say "you can't go there" just because the criticism of Sarah Palin involves pregnancy.

6/14/2011 09:18:24 pm

For me, the babygate hoax has nothing to do with reproductive secrets, successful career women or parental skills. It’s all about the mental health of a person who would put a pillow up her shirt to fake a pregnancy (for whatever reason).

Heidi3

6/14/2011 11:13:47 pm

"V" says...

"Furthermore, as I age, there is probably only one thing left that I hold dear: the truth. I am tired of the lies, and my species' gullibility."

Concisely said, V. As I approach my later years, I've cast off all of my previous interest in intrigue and gamesmanship. Frankly, it disgusts me as a waste of time, but with one very specific exception:

I've devoted the last 3 years of my life to studying Sarah Palin's every utterance and tactic. In my quest to understand her mystique, I finally came to the conclusion that she represents a clear danger to the very foundation of our country. She needs to be railed against - mightily. So, dissecting her and discerning the powers behind her is not at all a waste of time. Before Sarah, I had absolutely no idea that Christian fundamentalists were so doggedly deluded. And that they were in fact, creeping closer to turning our country into a theocracy, one election or judicial appointment at a time. The very antithesis of our founding fathers' ideals!

Sarah Palin is a 'milfy', uneducated mannequin being backed by forces intent on feeding their own greed at the expense of our founding principles. They (some foreign born) care nothing for our country, considering us as nothing more than an ATM run amok spewing $20's by the millions.

We are at a crossroads, no doubt about it. If ever in my life I've stared evil in the face, it is Sarah Palin. I, too, was looking forward to finally finding out from Dr. Schwyzer what exactly is Sarah's appeal, but unfortunately, and inconceivably, he's obviously drunk the Kool-Aid. How can this possibly be, and what does it portend? I am saddened and stunned, and have to hope he's an abberation.

I apologize - this interview has obviously brought out some latent fury in me about what is happening to our country. A liberal so damned 1970's liberal that he can't see the forest for the trees? 'Mommy wars', my butt. That was 30 years ago!

I will close by thanking you Laura and Hugo for this discussion. It gave me a clearer idea of what we're up against.

d.t.

6/14/2011 11:13:50 pm

Laura: Just a quick comment to say that even though I'm unpersuaded by Dr. Schwyzer's position, I appreciate the fact that you feel secure enough in your own position (and your readers') to create space for the discussion of a dissenting opinion here. Bravo.

6/14/2011 11:26:01 pm

And now I will wade into potentially offensive ground: the book of Genesis. Nearly the very first story is about Satan tempting Eve to disobey God and to eat of the Tree of Knowledge - which she does, and then she tempts Adam, and God then banishes them from Eden and punishes them. Not only is this story used as an excuse to be horrible to women for millennia, but consider how it sets things up: obedience is more important than knowledge. Asking questions is dangerous ... even frowned upon.

Now, for society's sake there may actually be some historical and evolutionary merit to this - your group had to function as a unit, few/no questions asked, or you were overrun by the Assyrians or the Romans or the Goths or the Vikings. On the other hand, in other mythologies - such as the Greeks' - the deity/being who brought knowledge to humanity was appreciated and celebrated (even if punished by other deities, such as Prometheus).

OK, I know I'm way off-topic. Except I'm not, because it gets back to the fundies, who are willing to believe. I think believing becomes a sort of weight-lifting exercise - like the White Queen's six impossible things before breakfast - and soon you have to work out your credulity and contort it so you believe things that even more implausible. Not just someone conceiving and bearing God's son, or someone rising from the dead, or the earth being only 6000 years old ... and to be fair, it's a little harder to prove that these things didn't happen (like Palin's pregnancy) ... but soon you need to believe harder stuff. Like Obama was born in Kenya. Like health care is bad for you. Like cutting taxes on the rich will cut the deficit. Yes, these things take work to believe -- like lifting weights in your credulity muscles! - but I think some people need to do it.

Ah, I am really ranging and ranting here. Apologies!

Heidi3

6/14/2011 11:33:31 pm

Oops - make that "aberration".

KatieAnnieOakley

6/14/2011 11:39:30 pm

Bottom line, I want to be judged and accountable based on my ACTIONS, words and deeds - not by my gender. Period. And I expect the same of others. I judge people by their own stated standards.

Palin's "standards" are constantly in-flux; her hypocrisy is boundless. Black is white, up is down, insanity is rational.

There is Looking Your Best and there is sexualized. Palin KNOWS exactly what she's doing. She is mind-fucking men with her body and gestures, and mind-fucking women with her words.

This isn't about us vs them, and it isn't about women against women; it's about calling a fraud, a fraud.

It's that. damn. simple.

omomma link

6/15/2011 12:15:56 am

More blather from a just another distracted male unable to go beyond the t and a of WGE.

No one gives a flying f_ _K about her reproductive system, sexuality, blah blah blah. It's the blatant lie that offends and provokes.

Viola

6/15/2011 12:16:55 am

If Hugo's sentimentality about Palin scared the bejesus out of me, this chorus of articulate voices from Women and Mistah Charley (who may be a woman for all I know) gives me hope.

Have you read a concise Trig Truther argument, Hugo? With a presentation of our facts? I actually heard a Birther's argument at the dog park one day. Didn't want to do it, but I listened calmly while he laid out his evidence.

In the end, I didn't buy it. But we had a civil discussion, and I realized he firmly believed in his truth and had facts to back it up.

My reply to him was simple. I am close to Obama's mom's age. I KNOW for a fact that no first-time U.S. mother would ever have risked giving birth alone, in Africa, if she didn't have to. There's no way a first-time mom would have traveled far from her parents during her pregnancy if she absolutely didn't have to. For that reason, I could never accept any amount of proof to the contrary. Women simply didn't act that way in the 1960's when they were pregnant. They literally hid especially during the last few months. I know.

The young male Birther heard me. Couldn't argue with me. Then I told him about Sarah Palin. He was shocked people believed she hadn't given birth to Trig. He had NO idea. We shook hands and agreed to disagree.

Have you read our argument? Seen what we call proof? Actually heard what women have to say about Palin's act? Even if it doesn't fit neatly with your gender theories. . .

Yellowgirl

6/15/2011 12:25:30 am

I share readers' frustration with the ultra-liberal prof's viewpoint. I am sorry, this has nothing to do with being sexist or mommy wars. I myself am an education woman, who also happens to be a mother. In what I hope is the *only* similarity to Palin, my husband does much more of the day to day child care due to his more flexible work schedule, while I am the primary bread winner. I wrote a paper on how working mothers were better role models for their children than stay-at-home moms in the 8th grade. (Sorry SAHMs, I don't want to start an O/T discussion, but I just want to point out that I've been a pro-working mother feminist since birth).

Having stated my credentials, here's my beef with Palin's hoax: she MADE it our business. I don't bring my child to work, hold her up ala Lion King, and claim that someone should elect me to the second highest (or highest) office in the land because I chose not to abort her. Palin does. I have a female governor- ask me how many children she has. Go on, ask. I have NO IDEA. Know why? Because she didn't make it part of her campaign. Oh, sure, there may have been the standard "picture of the wholesome family" card or whatever, but nothing beyond that.

Palin has nothing BUT her fecundity. Her stint as a Mayor was a disaster. She quit the Governorship (which was also a disaster). Yet she parades around the country, in provocative clothing (don't tell me the wonder bras today, no wonder bras tomorrow stuff just "happens"). She knows that men like her because she's "hot." Look, even crazy Michelle Bauchman (sp?) doesn't parade around her kids with her. That is simply unprofessional- male or female. My understanding is that Alaskan governors before SP paid for their own children to travel, or traveled without them. Why does SP get a pass- BECAUSE she's a woman/mom? Please. If I ever told my company I wanted/demanded that they pay for my child to travel with me, I'd be looking for a new job pretty darn quickly. And yet, when called to the carpet on the childrens' travel expenses, she cries sexism. Sorry, SP, but sexism is when you insist on special benefits BECAUSE of your gender. (With the notable exception of childbirth- maternity leave is a different creature).

If Palin wants to be a politician, let her be one. Don't hold up your children as your REASON for being qualified, then tell me I can't talk about them. That's where the hoax really gets me. Cover for your daughter- fine. Happens a lot. Then why was she so quick to throw her under the bus and announce that she was 5 months pregnant at the RNC JUST TO DISPEL RUMORS ABOUT YOU? Produce a birth certificate, have your doctor issue a statement, something, anything-- but there was NO REASON to bring up her daughter's pregnancy right before the whole world looked on.

So I'm sorry, professor, but I think you are just flat wrong on this one.

Yellowgirl

6/15/2011 12:29:11 am

Me again. I just realized that I changed tense/tone/audience all over the place. Sorry about that-- I am just so angry I hit post before editing. I really do know better, promise!

molly malone

6/15/2011 12:49:52 am

I think I need a clearer definition of what Dr. Schwyzer calls "mommy wars". It is one thing to say, "I'm a better mother than SHE is because my children were potty trained at 9 months", and quite another to disapprove of the parenting techniques of someone like, for example, Ma Barker. There is a point somewhere along that continuum where criticism does become justified. I just don't happen to know where Dr. Schwyzer would draw that line.

There are, however, definite lines that can be drawn when a man or woman rides to fame and glory under false pretenses.
If a man were to recount his acts of heroism as an Army Ranger--when he never served in the military--those who have actually gone through Ranger School and experienced combat firsthand would be more than a trifle annoyed. Especially, if the fraud went on to claim that the training was a piece of cake, the traumas and dramas of combat are, ho-hum, just all in a day's work, and PTS is simply an excuse losers use to avoid accepting personal responsibility.

As for Palin representing some kind of Wonder Woman of the Wild West, I'd like to point out that Mary Jane Canary was also known for her tales of derring do, most of which were easily recognized as fictional. But then,again, "Calamity" Jane was homely.

karenw729

6/15/2011 12:53:23 am

A few things really jump out at me.

Hugo, and men in general, cannot understand Palin like women can. Most women know a female predator when they see one. I've discussed this with other women and Palin sets off a primal alarm bell in our heads. We know she's not good for families. It's a gender based instinct Hugo is simply not programmed to understand.

Which is why he doesn't understand that the controversy surrounding who gave birth to Trig has nothing to do really with biological birth and motherhood. It has to do with honesty. You could substitute one action for another, but the essence is still was it truthful? We are ultimately questioning Palin's truthfulness, and that is directly relevant to her capability to be a leader.

Regarding Todd, I don't think he's an alpha male who is comfortable with his spouse being the bread-winner. I think he's an enabler. And greedy to boot. He sees in $arah a way for him to enrich and empower himself.

And yes, there have been family situations where the parents adopted the child's child and passed the biological mother off as an older sister. I actually am friends with a product of this situation. And you know what? She found out about it when she got older. She was pissed. And hurt. It took a long time for her to heal. Just because it was done in the past does not make it acceptable.

So, interesting conversation between you two, but Hugo's education doesn't make him street smart. I definitely wouldn't go to him for advice.

Conscious at last

6/15/2011 01:20:56 am

Hey Hugo-

I hope that this has been
"a learning experience" for you.

Perhaps someday you will be able to refrain from using cerebral devices to dampen true discernment.

Comparing Palin to Andrew Jackson is like comparing a tiny tots little league player to Derek Jeeter. Palin may scoff at the intellectual elite, but she claims to have a B.S. in journalism.
Guess what? She's lying, she has no
college degree. But according to you, that's part of her charm!!!! So what do you find alluring, her lying or her obvious use of her sexuality to gain fame and fortune?

Hugo- you give it away - you tell us up front what's going on with you. When we examine her belly bump or lack there of,
you are gazing in awe at her sexy body!
You've become ensnared in the net yet you can't go there.... so out comes all of your intellectual tools to confuse and confound us. But guess what, we are not confused my friend, you are.

6/15/2011 02:02:19 am

re women's issues Palin has done us all a huge disservice with her Mama Grizzly act. No woman can successfully manage a large family, big job, etc without significant help from others. We all need supPort.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/15/2011 02:50:07 am

HS states "I'm as annoyed as anyone by the way Sarah Palin was sexualized, even fetishized, by some in the media." The mistake I see there is the idea that the sexualization was done TO Sarah, instead of BY Sarah. It's not a flaw - it's a feature. But I think the main reason HS is unable to perceive what is actually there in the Sarah Palin phenomenon is not so much his reaction to her fascinating womanhood, but his own strongly-held ideology. He believes he knows why the Babygaters believe what they do, and he believes that they are as deluded as the Obama birthers or those who think that Lee Harvey Oswald had help in pulling off the 9/11 attacks (sarcasm here, folks.) Why take in additional facts when you've already got a beautiful theory that doesn't need them?

As to where I'm coming from - as my screen name implies, I am indeed male, white, with a doctoral degree. For further contextualization, generationally I am a boomer, I am married to an immigrant Latina (missus charley, m.d.) and am registered as a Democrat although I no longer self-identify as such. I regard myself as an enemy of the military-industrial-congressional-financial-corporate media complex (MICFiC) and an advocate for truth, justice, the potentially sentient way, delicious, nourishing food, unselfish love, and a comfortable place to read an interesting book. May the Creative Forces of the Universe stand beside us, and guide us, through the Night with the Light from Above (metaphorically speaking.) And have mercy on our souls, if any.

LTA

6/15/2011 02:58:07 am

Well, this was painful reading.

Out of the two professors Laura has featured lately...I'm squarely on the More Scharlott/Less Schwyzer side.

I feel like I can't even say "no offense, sir" to Schwyzer...because he certainly is not worried about offending ME by lumping us in with Obama birthers.

Let's go through this ONE last time, folks:

Obama produced his legal birth certificate when he ran for his first public office. It was the same legal birth certificate we ALL use to enroll in school, get driver's licences, and prove our identities. Obama's birth was announced in not one but two Hawaiian newspapers. The outcry of the birthers was "he wasn't born in America!!!" because they were too embarrassed to say what they MEANT-- "black man! there's a BLACK MAN in a SUIT! It must be a rapper or a drug dealer!"

Contrast to Sarah Palin's "birth certificate issue"--
No birth certificate anywhere, ever. She has SAID it was released but it never was. Can you IMAGINE how utterly apeshit the Obama birthers would have gone if he'd said "all right, you all have asked for my birth certificate so here it is"...but had NOT actually released it?

You simply can't call these situations similar. They aren't at all similar. Yes, both involve a desire by certain parties to see a birth certificate. But that's like saying earth and mars are "just alike" because they are both planets.

Beaglemom

6/15/2011 03:20:59 am

I disagree with Prof. HS but his contentions about Sarah Palin are probably fairly common among intellectual males. For many men, the thought of talking about the reality or the physical manifestations of pregnancy and birth are abhorrent. Pretty funny since they all seem to like "locker room" humor. And, if they are college professors, they are even more likely to be afraid of criticizing her. Hats off to Prof. Scharlott, one brave man.

And Sarah Palin likes being a sex symbol. That's what she does best and that's what got her as far as she got in politics. Not her careful study of the issues or her intelligence or her longstanding involvement in helping people.

The babygate issue revolves around Sarah Palin's faking a pregnancy (for whomever or for what reason we do not really know) and then using that fake pregnancy to garner sympathy, make money, and to hood wink voters. That is why she must be exposed.

In addition, there are serious questions of judgment involved in babygate. Assuming that Trig was the biological son of either her son or daughter, wouldn't a woman in Sarah Palin's political position have been wiser to announce the pregnancy, explain that the family would be taking care of the child so that the underage parent could complete his/her education, ask for prayers (if so inclined) and ask that the family's privacy be respected? The whole world would have understood and given the family members the emotional space and support they needed. But Sarah Palin's six-week pregnancy, complete with a letter from God predicting an early birth, and a "wild ride" that defies the experiences of any woman who has given birth make no sense at all. Her constant lies and lack of reasoning ability are frightening in someone who would like to be president.

Ennealogic link

6/15/2011 03:22:29 am

1- Thank you Laura, and Hugo, for this post. I appreciate the discussions here very much.

2- The comments are fantastic and, as as another reader noted, offer some hope to those of us who DO care about the pervasive influence that Sarah Palin seems to wield in US politics.

3- Hugo, I don't think the -babygate- issue is at all about "pitting mothers against each other." In fact, that statement sounds misogynistic itself! It is true that I am a mother and Sarah Palin is a mother. And it is also true that birthing is something only women can do. But from that point on we don't need to have gender in mind at all to explore the issue.

Ethics are ethics. Lies are lies. Hoaxes are hoaxes no matter who perpetrates them and who falls for them and who ultimately uncovers them.

During the '08 campaign, Hillary Clinton exaggerated her war-time resume by saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. It turns out that wasn't exactly true. Was the media misogynistic for reporting that story? I don't think so. We like to know when our politicians are trying to pull a fast one. Or, at least I do!

During the '10 campaign, Christine O'Donnell was called out for using campaign funds for personal purposes and tried to lie about it. Were such questions about her ethics legitimate? Absolutely. Why not?

To me it doesn't matter if the lie or the ethics problem is related to bullets or money or prop-babies. It is still an issue that needs investigating. If we say that anything having to do with a woman's reproductive system is off limits, what if a female politician claimed to have 3 children when she only had 2 but took tax deductions for 3? Should that be overlooked because it marginally deals with her sex? What about issues that are tangent to a man's reproductive system? Should those also be off-limits?

4- Hugo, you wrote, "I'm as annoyed at [sic] everyone else by the way that Sarah Palin was sexualized, even fetishized by some in the media." I don't think you can blame this entirely on the media. Sarah sexualized herself. It's documented that she'd been doing that for years already before hitting the national scene. It was how she worked, how she got her way, and it was absolutely intentional on her part to promote her own sexuality during the '08 campaign and thereafter.

5- I come from the "trust people but keep eyes wide open" school. Personally I don't care who Trig's biological parents are, but I do care that Sarah Palin has used the birth tale to establish her pro-life political credential. If it is a hoax, as I believe it must be, this lie is just as bad as if John McCain had not ever been a prisoner of war. McCain built his political career on that story. Palin has built her political career on the 'choosing life by not aborting Trig' story. Whether or not she, along the way, covered for a daughter's unwed teen pregnancy is a moot point.

Once again, thank you for this interview!

Bobcat Logic

6/15/2011 04:13:02 am

I am no more interested in discussing Palin and her family for "style" or "life-style" issues than I am in analyzing the personality and cultural implications of an incoming missile.

What I want to know is: who deployed this weapon and why? And how do we defend ourselves?

Palin did not create the Hoax on her own; I doubt that she even thought it up herself.

Who "weaponized" her and why?

K.M.R

6/15/2011 05:01:17 am

The tone in the comments has already been set (applause applause), so the purpose of my quick response is to echo what has already been said.
I'll add that I think that birth is a sacred event. I use the word, sacred, not in a religious context (I am not religious). I mean it in a purely human way.
Sarah Palin pollutes and diminishes the very act of birth by expecting that she can fool those who have shared in the pain and the joy of this most quintessential human experience.

Shame on her. Shame on anyone, male or female, who does not see that to accept her lies about this (so-called) birth is not a liberating position. Quite the opposite.

lilly lily

6/15/2011 05:34:48 am

I found the discussion boring.

But I find mens attraction to the MILF inexplicable and how they give her a pass a bit condensending.

6/15/2011 05:41:45 am

Ugh, mommy wars.

I'm a mother, a feminist, and a PhD and I found Dr. Schwyzer's answers to be a bit patronizing.

I will criticize Sarah Palin on her choices because she LIES about them.

Sarah Palin, perpetual victim, LOVES to hear that she was sexualized and fetishized by the media. She loves that she was sexualized and she loves that she can claim she was sexualized. That's her schtick.

And, I'm sorry Dr. S, but any mother worth her salt (or father, for that matter), would have produced the birth certificate and all the other paperwork a long time ago and told detractors to fuck off. Instead, Sarah Palin pushed her pregnant daughter literally onto the national stage as proof of her own maternity.

It's a false equivalency to compare Sarah Palin and Barak Obama on this issue. Barak Obama produced valid proof of citizenship a couple of years ago (the same birth certificate form that all Hawaiians use to unequivocally prove their American citizenship).

Sarah Palin has produced NOTHING.

MariaT

6/15/2011 05:54:36 am

I too am grateful for Laura's dialogue with Hugo. It's quite a revelation to discover that the professor, despite his 'gender studies' specialty, does not get it.

I'm a grandmother whose first child was born 4 weeks early more than 45 years ago. The moment I heard her account of the 'Wild Ride', I knew that Sarah Palin lied about giving birth to Trig and since then she has lied about practically everything else as well. She is also vindictive, arrogant and ignorant, with a focus on image rather than substance that is borne out by the recently released emails. And yet she entraps not only dumbed-down conservative supporters, but also educated liberals.

And the latter is what I don't get!

DebinOH

6/15/2011 06:16:51 am

How many people here would even still be talking about any of this if it weren't Sarah Palin? I doubt many people would. It is EVERYTHING about her. She is the snotty teacher's pet that gets out of everything because she knows how to work the teacher.

Then goes behind the teacher's back and makes fun of her. She is the girl who puts on a low cut shirt, short skirt and knock me down F me pumps depending upon who her audience is that day. She is everything I would NOT want my daughter to be if I had one. Some of the tapes when she is outright giggling and flirting is disgusting. Wink so you can get your way. I'll bet you $50 she was the "queen" at church and when she got out of the building talked about every person there.

Want to woo the Jews throw on a star of David necklace. Wants to pretend she is patriot just stick on a flag pin. Christian event just throw on a big old cross. This is what ticks me off about her.

I guess it is okay for her to tell us that women can do anything they want while giving birth and fishing at the same time. She is a fraud. No one can do everything - something always has to slide. Talk about what you have had to give up on. Don't pretend you are wonder woman and act like you are better than all the women out there.

Men don't have to work with other women who are just like SP. We have all worked with people just like her. I believe that is why we see who she really is and that is a LYING fraud.

I have been on the fence about her pregnancy from day one. I won't be surprised by anything she did to be honest. I have a problem with everything else I mentioned.

No other self-respecting woman would have a chance running against this woman. They could be the smartest people ever and it wouldn't matter. Why? Because she is a woman who doesn't play by the same rules we do not does she want to. She is an embarrassment to all women who have worked and studied their butts off to get where they are.

Sorry for the rant!

Ottoline

6/15/2011 06:21:08 am

Another example of someone who does not believe that Palin hoaxed us refusing to look at and comment on the Mar 14 photo.

Have you noticed that phenomenon? The ones who reject the Hoax also reject looking at the evidence we are presenting on a silver platter; they NEVER explain how the Mar 14 photo could exist is she really was pregnant as stated. They never comment on it. Never. NEVER!

If any of you finds someone who is willing to explain that photo in a way that is consistent with a pregnancy, please tell me. I ask this at every opportunity, and I NEVER get an answer. Of course there is none. But even this professor did not even try, but he still holds to his misguided belief. Yuck.

Professor: one last chance?

FrostyAK

6/15/2011 06:24:11 am

A new word has been introduced into my vocabulary on $palin - predator. (H/T above commenter) I've been skirting around it, but never actually got to saying it for some reason. PREDATOR - like those wolves she just adores having killed from the air... makes her the ultimate predator, doesn't it?

On topic. A few points that make HS's theories non-sustainable:

1. The media didn't sexualize little sarah. She began it publicly/politically all by herself, starting on the Wasilla City Council. complete history is important when making statements about the present.

2. Were she not a ongoing self- advertised public spectacle, no one would much care about her hoaxing the public with Babygate. It is the HISTORY of LIES and divisiveness (that continue daily) that is at the core of our pursuit of the truth about her acquisition of the boy known as Trig. When $plain opens her mouth, there will be a lie emanating, guaranteed. It might be mixed with a smidgeon of truth, but rest assured, there will be a lie.

3. All of the above would not be of much importance if she were not FLIRTING with running for higher office such as POTUS. Lap dancing one's way to the top office in the land certainly is a new concept. If men like HS can be so easily bamboozled, then we must ask if other normally sensible people can be so swayed by the Tease. Politicians in AK didn't take her seriously, to their detriment.

This from someone who lives not only in AK, but in the Wasilla area, and is very much aware of palin's political history

DebinOH

6/15/2011 06:24:25 am

Oops - I meant she doesn't play by the same rules we do she does what she wants to. She makes her own rules and she does whatever it takes to get what she wants.

I also we are not setting women back or hurting them when they disregard everyone else to get what they want. If she was a man I would be saying the same thing.

lilly lily

6/15/2011 06:47:01 am

So who are her base? The self styled "dudes" who fall for the MILF persona, and want to see her naked in stilettos. (Roaring Thunder fan.)

The fundamentalists, with her God speaks to me persona.

Jewish homeland types, because she champions the settlements, and sports that ludicrous huge Star of David, alternating with huge Christian crucafixes.

Flag nuts, who think wearing a flag pin means you are a patriot. Wrap your bus with a flag, wrap yourself in a flag. Your a patriots wife who wants Alaska to secede from the union.

Gun nuts who swallow her bull sh*t that she is a gutsy fronteirswoman, who loves dudes in Carharts. (Did she mention Carharts in her god letter about Trig?) Gonna put him in little Carhart outfits as soon as she can.

Ignorant people who swallow her folksy "I'm one of you" lies.

I don't know the women who like her. I've saw a very obese woman in the hot tub at the pool, with her beer bellied hubby for whom Sarah Palin is a pin up girl. The only two people I ever met who were totaly gung ho on Sarah Palin.

Though a neighbor has named their mixed breed mutt (golden lab and English cocker spanial) Piper. So I guess I won't bring up Sarah Palin with her. Though I'll walk Piper as she is full of beans and wants attention.

I think Piper is a cute name for a very cute mutt.

Yellowgirl

6/15/2011 07:00:29 am

Laura: When you return to the blog, I hope you will ask your professor to kindly address some of these comments. I hardly feel like we've had a dialogue here; rather, he presents his opinion like that is the end all be all, and that we must all be into the mommy-wars to believe in the hoax. That may be how it works in his classroom, but I would hope he could engage in an actual discussion, not a lecture.

The sexualization of SP was started by SP. There was an email I believe in the first release about wearing her sexy/good/something bra to "get her way" at a council meeting or somesuch. Perhaps someone here has the cite. At any rate, to quote the old saying, "She's got legs; she knows how to use them." Indeed-- she FLAUNTS her sexuality. [This is the usual point where someone comes along and calls us all jealous dried up old bitter hags-- I am a good 15 years younger than her, am not jealous, am not dried up, and am not obese- all the usual attacks]. SP RELISHES in being a MILF. Nothing wrong with that, but then don't cry victim when folks think of you that way. Sheesh.

litbrit link

6/15/2011 07:35:16 am

If Dr. Schwyzer is still reading, may I chime in with this question: would you consider it unseemly/sexist/inappropriate to question a male politician's war stories if said tales were riddled with holes and inconsistencies, and said politician had been very vocal about his military credentials (indeed, if those battlefield bona fides made up the bulk of his appeal as a candidate for high office?)

You see, questioning Palin's utterly unbelievable--and frequently changing--birth stories is not the same thing as questioning her "parenting choices" as you put it.

This is not about Mommy wars, body policing, or criticizing women's reproductive choices. It is about calling out a politician--a still-potential presidential candidate--on a very big lie.

Faking a pregnancy with a child with disabilities in order to curry favor with a large and politically significant voter bloc is not a "reproductive choice". It is a stone-cold lie that insults the humanity of every woman who actually has given birth, especially those of us who've given birth to a fragile child, as Laura terms it (I have) (Three times). If this is indeed what Palin did--and to my mind, the circumstantial evidence supporting it is overwhelming, whereas the evidence to the contrary is all but nonexistent--and Americans found out the truth, I believe they would be disgusted and insulted, too.

Trouble is, the story was tamped down early on, thanks to efforts (or lack thereof) on the part of the male-centric media being risibly squeamish and completely in the dark about matters pertaining to labor and childbirth, as well as those of a number of feminist bloggers who, like Dr. S, derided any and all questioning of Palin's ridiculous lies as "inciting mommy wars", "body policing", or "criticizing another woman's reproductive choices". (Has anyone among us ever said she should have more or fewer children? Or not given birth at all? Didn't think so.)

Leona

6/15/2011 07:39:21 am

Does Palin EVER tell the truth? Can she tell the truth, or is she a true pathological liar?

K.M.R

6/15/2011 07:45:46 am

lilly lily asks, "who is her base?"

I know two woman who are huge Sarah Palin fans. Both have a fiercely pro-life mentality. They look at SP as someone who is speaking for the unborn child because of Trig's birth.

I know no men who will discuss the topic with me seriously.
When my husband at times, engages with his men friends, asking them why they like her?
From what he tells me, they almost always tell him how they'd love to take her to bed (to be polite).

Lidia17

6/15/2011 07:59:43 am

Ivyfree, I couldn't even reach the end of the comments here without stopping, crying, upon reading yours.

Not only is Trig a (perhaps thankfully less-aware) victim of The Monster Sarah Palin, ALL her children and relatives are victims. >>>>>Everyone she comes in contact with is a victim of the sick, diseased THING that she is.<<<<<<

• How can you guide your daughters to choose a partner and have sex safely, well, and with love? Oh, that's right! You don't!!

• How do you teach your kids the value of an education? Oh, that's right! You don't have to!!.

• Does she teach us the value of the law? No… she considers herself above the law.

• Can she engage us with history or politics or economics? No, she is a functional moron.

All enabled by dweebs like Hugo here (I refuse to give him the honorific of Mr., much less Dr.) and his enormous male ego, who sees "power" when he sees "Naughty Monkey" shoes. One guess why!

When you say you "aren't defending Palin”, Hugo…??? News flash: you are.

Sarah Palin is "clearly a mom" in that perhaps her loins have issued forth some kids… but she DOESN’T ACTUALLY CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM, which is the only salient point!!

Notice that Ferraro, Pelosi, Clinton, Eliz. Dole, even Phyllis Schlafly have not gotten the degree of negative attention that Palin has... Ann Richards had four kids, who knows jack-shit about them?!??!?

As one theoretically conversant with the scientific method, don't you care to ask yourself why Sarah Palin is different from these women, Hugo? Maybe the answer is TOO FUCKING SIMPLE for you: they are better mothers than Sarah Palin. A PIRANHA is a better mother than Palin!!

Sarah Palin is a psychopath!

Real women know better: that Sarah Palin may well have Naughty Monkey" power, but that isn't the kind of power ultimately worth having; it's the opposite of dignity and true worth.

Fuck you, Hugo. Seriously. I bet you are getting off even on the opposition you're coming up against here. Dear Laura, note for the future: psychologists and psychiatrists are among the MOST fucked-up people on the planet: this is my experience.

For him to diagnose "US" as being "FASCINATED" ***with SARAH'S BODY*** is the final straw!! As a middle-aged woman, I couldn't have anything LESS than fascination for Sarah Palin's body, except for the fact that as a middle-aged woman I KNOW SARAH PALIN DID NOT BIRTH THAT BABY.

No one is "fascinated" by Nancy Pelosi's body, or Ann Richard's body or even Michelle Bachmann's body… we are "fascinated" by Sarah Palin's body to the extent that she WIELDS IT AS A DANGEROUS WEAPON AGAINST US!

This is blaming the victim, here, Hugo. The defrauded is being accused of undue interest in the mechanics of the fraud!?!? Then all deniability is valid, and there is never any real guilt, I guess, because the wronged could be seen as UNDULY interested in justice?!?

You don't need a degree to see how psychopaths work, Hugo; you just need to have the sense God gave you, which you mentally-masturbate away.

The fact that anyone can call Sarah Palin "competent" with a straight face shows us which head HE is thinking with.

Mhurka

6/15/2011 08:05:09 am

I think Dr. Hugo was looking at babygate mainly from a cerebral viewpoint. I don't know if he un derstands the visceral revulsion people feel when they discover that they have been duped.

viola

6/15/2011 08:07:34 am

litbrit! great to hear your cogent voice again. and K.M.R., thank you for your comment regarding the sacredness of birth. I've felt this from the beginning and always believed I was alone in my outrage that Palin's lies profane the act of giving birth.

Lidia17

6/15/2011 08:11:30 am

Finishing reading the comments so far, my props go out to pretty much everyone, especially mistah charley, ottoline, ivyfree, LTA, jk, FrostyAK, mumimor, yellowgirl, and finally litbrit who manages to keep her cool where I could not.

I don't really see the point that a few of the other posters see, that this is somehow valid to "understand" where Palin apologists are coming from.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
--Jiddu Krishnamurti

LTA

6/15/2011 08:15:55 am

Lidia!!!!!!

LIDIA!!!!!!!!!

*standing ovation for Lidia*

Girl, you read minds as well as you make Perfidy videos. EVERYTHING you said = yes, thank you, absolutely, yes, yes yes!

elizabeth

6/15/2011 08:16:02 am

I am blown away by the intelligence and thoughtfulness of many of these comments.

It is obvious that Sarah Palin touches a deep nerve with many woman. Many us have worked our entire adult lives while raising children. We know what being pregnant is. We know what working in a man's world is. We know what the glass ceiling is and I think the unifying theme of many of the woman posting here and on many of these anti-palin-blogs is that this woman disgusts us because she has no moral compass, lies without compunction, sees nothing wrong with exploiting her young children to further HER unbridled ambition and still has the unmitigated gall to turn around and make accusations that she is some sort of victim. We don't despise her because she is a mother and a woman. We despise her because she is a disgrace to mothers and women.

She is either certifiably insane or just a blatant fraud. That is the only thing I am on the fence about with Sarah Palin. And seriously I could see arguing it either way.

But what I am not on the fence about is that she is any 'victim' of Mommy Wars. She is a crappy mother even if she didn't exploit her young children and lie about her pregnancy and throw her young teenage daughter to the wolves at the RNC.

And what is so wrong with questioning why a mother with a 4 month old 'fragile' baby shouldn't be thinking twice before putting her child's needs before her ambition? And if we can't even ask that simple question without being accused of sexism what questions can we ask?

I am heartened by all the good, thoughtful and intelligent women who post on these blogs. I am disheartened by the Hugh Schwyzer's of the world who bought the 'Palin' branding hook, line and sinker.

mumimor

6/15/2011 08:20:44 am

At the core of all this doubt is Sarah Palin's own story.

It has been stated countless times, but I'll try to cut it short.

- No woman in any civilized country will travel anywhere with amniotic fluid leaking. She won't do it because her doctor will forbid her from doing so. In countries with universal healthcare, the doctor will plainly say, go to the hospital and everyone will go since there is no reason not to.
In the US, this has huge implications both for insurance and the doctors license. It is less likely that an educated adult will ignore the doctors advice in the US than anywhere else.
If a woman is expecting a complicated birth, she will already be instructed beforehand to seek medical assistance without hesitation.
She may be told to relax and wait. But she will be instructed to stay near the hospital and have daily, or near daily check-ups. Again, she will not be traveling across a continent.

- if any woman, anywhere in the world, experiences signs of a premature birth, she will seek help where she can. Some places in the world, that can be difficult. But not in Texas.

- any woman who's labor is induced will experience strong contractions. She will not be writing messages on any device.
If labor is induced a month before due date, it will be because the doctors are worried about the mother and child. This means a pediatrician and a surgical team will be on alert from the outset, even if a natural birth is planned. These experts were not available in Wasilla, but at several other hospitals on the way.

There is no way Sarah's version can be true.

- If Sarah Palin's version of the story is a big lie, intended to cover for her daughter, I can see a lot of people forgiving her. I can find some sweetness in that. But what I don't find sweet is the convoluted and weird lie. A political leader who invents a crazy, unbelievable story to cover up for a small, forgivable incident is someone similar to Nixon in my book. Specially when it is combined with the hating Palin specializes in.

lilly lily

6/15/2011 08:43:48 am

I like the comments. They are forceful and well expressed.

I think the gentleman is patronizing females.

I don't admire Palin's mind, her body or her face. The face is surgically enhanced, the body is starved and the brain in that bobble head is non- existent.

Sarah Palin is the "id" personified.

DebinOH

6/15/2011 09:19:13 am

"I’m not here to defend Sarah Palin’s choices. But I do think that bringing such scrutiny to the reproductive decisions of any famous woman is a huge problem. What we’re saying to any woman of childbearing years is “forget about the political process unless you want the world second-guessing and judging every one of your most intimate decisions.”"

The point you are missing here is that SP brought all this on herself. Do you see any other woman going through this? Not so much. Ask yourself why?

Do you see any other politician bring their children to anything and everything? Hell, I don't even know the names of Arnold's kids and you know why? They are not in your face. I don't even know how many kids Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Michelle Bachmann have let alone their names. Same goes for Nancy Pelosi. SP admitted she used Piper as a shield. So we are not supposed to talk about how awful that is?

And by the way, she also caused these stupid pregnancy rumors to begin with. She did not look pregnant at all (the people who worked with her all the time were shocked) and who waits until 7 months to tell people you are pregnant? If she had told people at 3 months everyone would have said that is great and nothing would have been said. It is everything she did and said about this pregnancy. Not one thing she has said or done about it is normal.

I also agree that my initial reaction would be F you I am not showing you a birth certificate, BUT if it was harming my family I would have whipped that thing out immediately to PROTECT my children.

I don't think that anyone gets a pass, women or men, on their actions. If I make a bad choice as a mom does that mean that no one should talk about it because that means we then aren't supporting one another? That is ridiculous.

Hell, I have a gay son and there are a lot of idiots who believe it is the mother's fault. I know what it is like to be perceived as a bad mother. I have lived it. People are going to be talking about me and you know what? I don't care. They haven't lived my life and I didn't put myself out there as Mother Theresa to begin with. IF I chose to ran for an office of any sort do you think I would think no one was going to talk about that? Huh, it would be great fodder for a lot of people.

At any rate, you don't get a free pass to not be discussed just because you don't want to continue the "mommy wars". When I stayed at home other women thought I was an idiot. I didn't care because that is what I wanted for me and my family. People are ALWAYS going to perpetuate the "mommy wars" anyways because it is human nature. People always want to feel better about themselves and unfortunately this is how we do it. Doesn't make it right and we should try to do better but we will never be 100% perfect.

Lidia17

6/15/2011 10:11:34 am

Elizabeth? right on!

The "mommy wars" bullshit is just concern-trolling propagated by the top (the haves) to get the have-nots to pick fights amongst themselves. This "doctor" is either simply dull, in which case I feel bad for him, or is a conscious tool, in which case I can go back to loathing him with an energy bordering on the effervescent. Nothing personal, of course.

Hugo: "FOLKS" are not saying Palin is a bad mother; you are using a weasel-word there. From what I can see, MEN think she is a fertility goddess and domestic hero. It's WOMEN who think she is a bad mother, and women "policing women" happens when women know that another woman is bullshitting them.

DebinOH, I think if you need a PhD, you should borrow Hugo's because he obviously ain't making sensible use of it… You deserve it more than he. [He *could* be out trying to figure out why Hillary was trashed over things like "Travelgate"—why Chelsea was called the "White House dog" by Limbaugh when she was THIRTEEN—while Palin is considered Presidential material by all and sundry in the MSM, Rushbo first among them. Hugo hint: SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX… and male attitudes about SEX. GOT IT?] SEX. DIVIDE. CONQUER.

Deb!! Mwah! Best wishes to you and tell your son I said he has a GREAT mom.

DebinOH

6/15/2011 10:45:08 am

Lidia, Thank you! One thing I can say at the end of the day is that I did everything humanly possible to be the best mother I could be.

I am turning my computer off after this comment;) This is what really ticks me off:

"I appreciate being part of this dialogue, and grateful Laura asked me to participate. I'm not convinced at all -- to me, frankly, this is of a piece with the Birthers and the 9/11 Truthers. I like and respect Laura, however, and was happy to participate in this discussion."

I feel (yes I guess this makes me a woman) that this comment is so dismissive. This is just as bad as the religious right who only hear that SP is a "good" christian without looking at any facts to support how or why she is a "good" christian or a christian at all.

If you came here and told us why you didn't believe this was all a giant hoax then that would be fine. We can all disagree. Like I said she is so crazy that NOTHING she did or didn't do would surprise me. I am still on the fence and will be until I see a birth certificate or someone finally comes forward to refudiate (ha ha) her.

The facts as they have been told to us or shown to us - out of her own mouth and photos, etc. - are bizarre and I can't believe anyone would think they weren't. It doesn't make anyone crazy to sit back and look at the facts and come up with a theory that she didn't give birth.

I guarantee if this had been Hillary Clinton it would have been in the news front and center every.......single........day. The press for some unknown reason has left this woman alone for the most part. Yet it was okay to report things said about a thirteen year old innocent girl that were hideous.

Thank you Laura for the "discussion" but quite frankly I shouldn't have read it;) I find it insulting that WE are considered part of the "mommy" war crap. It couldn't be further from the truth.

It also makes me ill that an educated person could even believe or say this woman is smart. She is smart at manipulating people and using herself and her kids but she is NOT what I would consider GOOD smart.

6/15/2011 10:58:33 am

There's some anger here, Dr S and, speaking for myself (although I suspect I'm not alone in this) it's due to frustration over how the media and others have given Sarah Palin a pass because she's a woman. She has been under-vetted, under- questioned, coddled, pampered, and put on a pedestal. She's been allowed to lie, avoided any direct scrutiny, and been treated like some kind of political rockstar. Let me go further and say that she has been allowed to get away with this not because she's a woman, but because she is a PRETTY woman. Sarah Palin isn't smart, she's crafty. She's an opportunist. She's playing both sides of the madonna-whore coin and doing it very, very well. And you've walked right into her trap. I'm angry that the feminist movement is being used by conservatives to silence feminists like me. I do hope you read all these comments, Dr S. Our motivation isn't jealousy or cattiness.

OzMud link

6/15/2011 11:07:39 am

Dr. Hugo Schwyzer,

I agree that criticizism of how a woman chooses to play her role of mother opens the door to complicated criticisms for the rest of us.

But...

We should absolutely be allowed to address Mrs. Palin's hypocracy regarding her role as mother.

Because she doesn't get to tell us how great a mom she is when we can all see with our own eyes she spends no time at all being with her kids and seldom if ever puts her family first.

Has she even one time at the end of a bus tour or speaking tour or fake-foreign-op tour said she couldn't wait to get home to her kids? No. On the contrary. It's all lip service this claim of family values thing. She clesarly wants title but none of the responsibility.

My criticism is not that Sarah chooses to be a working mom. It's that Sarah wants us to believe she spends all of her time working and all of her time being a devoted mother - which is humanly impossible.

My criticism lies in the fact that she wants all of us to believe she sdpends her time personally championing Trig but has yet to show she spends any time with him at all. and all her smoke and mirrors about Down Syndrome? In three years time she has banked over $10 million and has donated all of $1,000 to Down syndrome research.

Oh wait. That wasn't her donation, that was paid for by her PAC.

So she'll accept a speaking engagement and charm the socks off of DS parents who paid hundreds of dollars for the privilege of hearin gher speak and then payh her $100k for her words of wisdom... and it's all fake.

And it's this contrariness that we on the outside get to keep poking at with a stick until some truth starts to emerge.

As a mother who actually put aside a budding career long enough to help her special needs child get through thse most important, formative years I resent Sarah's negligence of her youngest son while all the while preaching about how devoted she is to him.

Lidia17

6/15/2011 11:37:13 am

Agree wholeheartedly, Deb. Plus I did not mean to overlook KMR and KARENw729 who clued Hugo in to the fact that Palin is a PREDATOR.

When you come in contact with a predator, the hackles on the back of your neck go up. This is a valid physiological response to DANGER.

6/15/2011 11:49:58 am

@Laura,

I must be a Closet Compassionate Conservative, bc you completely nailed me with that O-T-H-RW bimbo I'd fornicate (with, at, or to). I think that covers all of the variations I'm versed in, anyway.

SP DID seem like a VPILF at first glance, you know, attractive visually in a 2-D kind of way; but, as it turned out, she was no more an ILF-candidate than she was VP-material.

Sadly, SP's bag of bones do nothing anymore for the majority of her original RW leg humpers like Bill Kristal and Fred Barnes.

So sad.

Lidia17

6/15/2011 11:55:17 am

Mhurka is picking up on the visceral revulsion. See Robert Hare about this:
http://tinyurl.com/3lor35b
(marginal-quality pdf of New Yorker article)

"Harenski, who is thirty, did not
experience the involuntary skin-crawling sensation that, according to a survey conducted by the psychologists Reid and M. J. Meloy, one in three mental-health and criminal-justice professionals report feeling on interviewing a psychopath; in their paper on the subject, Meloy and Meloy speculate that this reaction may be an ancient intraspecies predator response
system."

Two-thirds of us, I guess, are not creeped out by psychopaths. I feel thankful that I am!

Also:

"Psychopaths are unlikely to spend much time weighing the pros and cons of a course of action or considering the possible consequences. "I did it because I felt like it," is a common response. These impulsive acts often result from an aim that plays a central role in most of the psychopath's behavior: to achieve immediate satisfaction, pleasure, or relief.

So family members, relatives, employers, and coworkers typically find themselves standing around asking themselves what happened? JOBS ARE QUIT, relationships broken off, PLANS CHANGED, HOUSES RANSACKED, PEOPLE HURT, often for what appears as little more than a whim. As the husband of a psychopath I studied put it: "She got up and left the table, and that was the last I saw of her for two months."

http://www.hare.org/charming.html
caps emph, mine

ginny

6/15/2011 12:35:53 pm

To all that gave SP her proper name: Predator: Thank you and Perfect! Don't know why I never applied that word to her before, because that is EXACTLY what she is.

Ottoline

6/15/2011 12:49:40 pm

I'm baffled by everything about this post.

In the 3 yrs I've been following this, I don't recall anyone criticizing Palin's reproductive choices, only her lying.

I don't even know, really, what anyone means by "mommy wars." In my life and in my reading, I see very little criticism of other mothers. Instead, I typically see a lot of understanding and acknowledgment that things are complex and not always clear to an outsider. And support from other mothers.

I also don't understand why the good professor declines to tell us the basis for his believing Palin (a documented liar) was telling the truth, and how he rationalizes the Mar 14 photo with his view.

Lidia17

6/15/2011 01:02:13 pm

Ottoline, I have a theory about the issues you are raising, actually. Take a look at some of the material in Laura's provided links about this person.

clf

6/15/2011 01:02:18 pm

Wow, what a surprise to see Hugo here. I’ve read his blog from time to time through the past year. http://hugoschwyzer.net/

It’s really important to put Hugo’s comments into perspective.

Hugo, by his own account, was a sexual predator for many years. He used his status as a feminist to get laid and take advantage of women for his own ego gratification. He slept with his students, cheated through his various marriages, abused drugs and battled with mental health issues.

Now he is in a healthy relationship and is atoning for his past sins. Literally. Hugo is also a Very Religious Person. He does not fall into the typical stereotype for a women’s studies prof.

I believe he is bending over backward here to be "fair" to Palin. This is why liberals always get kicked in the teeth. It's this kind of attitude that lets Palin attack Obama for "palling around with terrorists" and lets her put Gaby Giffords "in the crosshairs" while simultaneously playing the victim of the "lamestream media."

It’s also important to note that Hugo believes women have a fundamental right to dress slutty if they so wish. So any attempt to convince him of that Palin dresses slutty and therefore brought on her own media sexualization will not be successful.

Rather than argue with Hugo’s stated views, I’ll pose some additional questions (because, let's face it, we know he's still reading):

What do you think accounts for Palin’s dismal poll numbers with women? (Specifically high negatives.)

What are your thoughts on Sarah Palin tearing down other women (such as Gabrielle Giffords and Michelle Obama)?

Should we just take a politician’s word at face value when it comes to his/her personal history? Should we never question the storyline a politician uses to sell himself/herself as the candidate of choice? (For example, never question that John Edwards was a great husband and father.)

Does being a feminist mean that one can never go for the jugular in attacking a female opponent the way one would with a male opponent?

Do you believe that there is no such thing as a “bad mother”?

Do you believe that fundamentally people do not conspire, and therefore all “conspiracy theories” are just not worth looking into?

What evidence can you point to that Sarah Palin is “not stupid”? (Her record in Wasilla and as governor, the accounts of those who worked with her, and her very own statements in the media, and the emails she wrote prove otherwise. And for the love of god, When did word salad become “plain talking”?)

Are you aware that Sarah Palin is a pathological liar? That she has lied about just about everything that can be proved, from her personal life, to her political record, to her ability to shoot a gun and kill a moose, to mundane things like the weather?

Do you have any thoughts on the exploitation of the special needs child Trig? Do you think his mother’s need to use him as a political prop trumps his health needs? Should any criticism of the way he is being parented (for example, dragged out in bare feet and little clothing during 40 degree weather during Sarah’s book tour) be absolutely off limits?

Did you know that Walt Monegan, Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner (the guy in charge of all state troopers) under Palin, was fired by her because he let her know that she had been seen driving with her baby not strapped into a car seat? He reminded her that this was against the law. Would bringing this up fall into the category of criticizing Palin’s mothering, and therefore be off limits as far as you are concerned?

Have you read Frank Bailey’s book “Blind Allegiance”? You really should.

Lidia17

6/15/2011 01:13:41 pm

Hackles. Neck. DANGER DANGER, Will Robinson. Sorry, Laura.

Great questions, clf! I'll try to stifle my… well, let's just say I'll wait to hear the interviewee respond before commenting any further.

Ivyfree

6/15/2011 02:14:33 pm

"I think the gentleman is patronizing females."

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!

Conscious at last

6/15/2011 02:41:28 pm

Hugo,

I am going to give this one more chance because of what has just been stated above.

What I've been trying to share with you transcends the Sarah Palin issue. (Although as you can see, we are all quite happy to discuss that with anyone!) Because, quite frankly, I knew about your personal history simply by seeing how you responded to Laura's questions.

It is unhealthy and unwise to use complex theoretical constructs to suppress feelings, thoughts or internal conflicts. Some folks use drugs, others turn to food, sex, media based escapism, or "hyper-consumerism." Then there's the great imposter -- the well tooled intellectual, "who can scale and conceal complex emotions in a single bound."

Healing is a very tricky business. It's probably imprudent for a recovering food addict to work in a bakery.

Good luck and Peace to you Hugo

clf

6/15/2011 03:54:12 pm

Jumping in with a few more thoughts.

It is no secret that Sarah Palin was selected for the VP nomination by the McCain campaign simply BECAUSE she was an attractive woman. (There are numerous accounts of the events that transpired leading up to her selection that support this.)

In addition she was selected for her hard-core “pro-life” credentials (she stated during her gubernatorial run that she is categorically against abortion even in the case of rape, and that her views apply to her own daughters) as EPITOMIZED by her “CHOOSING” to not abort her Down Syndrome fetus.

As such, you betcha that the validity of that story is absolutely worth looking into. It is absolutely fair game. And it is irresponsible of the media not to look into it and of voters to turn away from it simply because it makes them uncomfortable.

Would a male candidate with the same thin credentials, questionable educational background, lack of understanding of the world (didn't know that Africa is a continent), lack of work ethic (refused to study for the debates), who used his position to settle personal scores (like attempt to ruin the life of an ex-brother in law), who unlawfully charged his state per diems for LIVING AT HOME, and from a politically insignificant state with a tiny population have EVER BEEN SELECTED? Would a male candidate who badmouthed his running partner during the campaign and hogged the spotlight on a LOSING ticket ever be given media attention again? IN HIS LIFE?

In the words of Palin: No FLIPPIN’ way!

Palin has used her sexuality and her gender as a very sharp sword. No way could Joe Biden go after her the way he would have had he been debating Joe Lieberman. Same goes for Obama. Any attack on Palin would be perceived as the political equivalent of “hitting a girl” (with glasses to boot!).

At every turn Palin uses any criticism of her, even the slightest, as an “attack on my family.” And it is SHE who turns everything into something sexual and untoward. (For example, when she implied that author Joe McGinnis was a pedophile who was after Piper. When Letterman made a tasteless joke about her ADULT daughter, Palin cried out that he was some sort of a perv who was after her UNDERAGE daughter Willow.)

She has a pathological fundamentalist Christianist obsession with sex that brings to mind Oral Roberts, Ted Haggard, and all the other preachers who turned out to have dirty secrets in their closets.

She uses her mom status (“I’m just a hockey mom”) to show that she is a “common sense” and “real American.”

It is absolutely fair game to judge her on those things. She’s the one who brought them up in the first place.

6/15/2011 07:02:13 pm

While I don't agree with HS, I found his reaction enlightening. And I want to bring up why - because it may play a part in the psychology of why some of our objections are dismissed.

My husband once said to me with respect to Palin: "You just don't like her because she's attractive." My own reaction was: WTF? However, I think there's a point: some women have been disliked by other women because they are attractive and end up sucking up all the male attention in the room. This is a real phenomenon. I know. I have been that attractive woman in the past.

On the other hand, I *really* don't think this is why I can't stand Palin. First, I don't have a problem with other generally attractive women - movie stars and former colleagues. Even when they outrank me by far on the good looks scale! There was only one exception -- a secretary that the men in the office were gaga over - while I kept thinking, have you noticed her attendance record? Turns out she had a substance abuse problem.

So, yes, we get annoyed when men give women a pass for being beautiful. It's OK if it's her job just to be beautiful, as may be the case with a model or an actress. But Palin was pretending to be a politician.

Sometimes I wish the world could be run by those whose hormones are not clouding their thinking.

Bob

6/15/2011 08:04:57 pm

i agree with many of the articulate comments here that this is not about the mommy wars or about the choices Palin has made in her home life.

Palin has substituted her motherhood of a ds child for a line on her resume. Every employer should check that resume claims are valid. That's what this is about and that what legitimizes investigation into this probable fraud.

i will also point out that Palin was pushing the dubious remarks of Donald Trump on the whole birther issue, and claimed that if Obama didnt ask Hawaii to release his long form b/c, it had to be becuz he was hiding something.

But laura has done us a service by interviewing Dr. S--while i believe his remarks are wrong-headed, it is likely the same view many in the msm hold.
And if Palin didn't put Trig so front and center as part of her qualifications, i would agree with him that this is a private family matter.

as for protection of a family member as potetial motivation, there were other options available to Palin to bring that child into her family without faking a pregnancy and daring us to question her motives.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/15/2011 08:34:23 pm

Laura, my thanks to you, Hugo, and the commenters here for one of the most informative, interesting, and thought-provoking discussion threads I've seen on the many-faceted topic of Sarah Palin,
the Alaskan-Arizonian Evita.

HudsonElizabeth

6/15/2011 10:00:27 pm

Wow! What a smart bunch of readers/commenters. I have nothing much to add except this one observation: As I read through it all, including the interview, I kept thinking, he surely has formed his opinion ONLY on what he has read/heard in MSM. The MSM is at the core of the still-too-wide acceptance of this woman. If that is the only source of information, people are not going to understand how truly evil,manipulative and incompetent she is. The media has failed the country miserably by not following up on all the warning signals she has given off, from the beginning. I am so thankful for all the blogs, and so glad to have Laura on the case now.

Rationalist

6/15/2011 11:23:22 pm

Clf: wonderful. I've run into similar arguments as Hugo's, and you just provided a checklist for my response. Thanks for thinking this through!

Jeanette 123

6/15/2011 11:27:11 pm

I think your guest is missing the point or a couple of points. It is the Hoax that Sarah pulled not the choices she made as a "mother". The reasoning that we can't question whether her body was really one of a pregnant woman is what allowed her to pull it off in the first place.

It is not that she chose to run for office and then to take a book tour rather than focus on caring for Trig. It is more that she did not make sure that someone WAS playing that role and that Trig had the environment and therapies he needed in the very early years to be all that he can be. Instead he was carried from stage to stage as a prop, carried from busses in the middle of the night, sometimes with little clothing while others wore coats.

And now when he is older and likely not so compliant, he doesn't fit the role of a prop and so is left somewhere, not even taken on the much hyped family vacation.

Exp:Nov.5/08

6/16/2011 12:10:01 am

There are some very insightful comments here. Thanks to Laura for initiating this discussion.

Sarah Palin, self-proclaimed feminist, initiated this whole subject all on her own. I knew Palin was no feminist, long before she started on her ranting about the "Pro-life" attitude being a feminist attribute.
I do have to laugh a little about the idea that it's the big, bad, male-dominated media who sexualized and fetishized Palin (when in fact, it's just the opposite - classic sociopathic turnabout - the predator is really the victim! Why did Schwyzer fall for this?), and not the pageant she entered, or the way she winks and sticks her tongue out, or the way she fetishizes and sexualizes and SEXUALLY DEMONIZES the "weakness" and "impotence" of her "limp" male detractors, or has sexualized, and fetishized, her own children. And cries sexism when held to the same standard that male politicians and public political figures are?
Do we get to do that, as feminists? If there's something I'm not able to do, can I cry until someone lets me royally screw shit up? Then, when I do, can I cry more, and say the only reason nobody thinks I can do it because I'm a woman?
I wonder what would happen if Joe Biden called Sarah infertile, a bitch, menopausal, a black widow, said she was PMSing, or just needed to "get some" (can't remember who Palin said that about in the emails... that they were probably sexually frustrated and should therefore be kept away from her daughters?). Why does Palin get to say these things about men with no recourse? And with feminism's complicity?
Palin needs to take a little of what she dishes out. Isn't feminism about equality, at its core? Why should she be exempt from the same questions, judgments and observations that she exercises outwardly toward others? Because she's a woman? This seems backwards.

If we have no right to question a very public woman's choice to lie about private, personal "womanly" events that didn't happen, while asking for votes, then that is a request for women to be silent, cloaked in a disguise of being respectful of another woman's privacy and privledge, simply because she's a woman. It doesn't seem to me to be because Palin doesn't deserve the scrutiny - in fact, she's asked for it with her claims of being transparent. It seems to be based on some kind of shame or secrecy or unwillingness to exercise critical thought. Unless there's some new world solidarity under feminism that I'm not aware of, that allows all women to do whatever they want, and bear no accountability. This might be good news for us, ladies!

Nobody is calling Palin's body or reproductive rights into question (the way she would, and has, through her politics). It just so happens that her body and her reproduction rights are something SHE wanted US to talk about. She introduced us to her broken water, her breastpumping, her stretch marks, her Braxton-Hicks, her "big laughs" and "...more contractions". And it was all a lie.

Does the topic being lied about negate the research and discovery of lying about it?
This feminist says nope.

Sorry for the rant. And thanks again!

6/16/2011 12:38:03 am

Excellent comment, Exp:Nov.5/08.

I want to add, since Laura brought it up, that I found it offensive although also kind of amusing how Camille Paglia downright drools over Sarah Palin and fetishizes women of Native heritage.

Get a grip, Camille. You're embarrassing yourself.

Viola

6/16/2011 02:18:07 am

The comments just get better and better. Why is it that no journalist or msm writer has dared express these obvious responses to Sarah Palin? Calling her down as a human being, public figure, and politician -- not as a woman.

Because they're afraid to wrestle a girl.

So much for equality.

Original Lee

6/16/2011 03:17:52 am

Ottoline: But to make a hoax for political gain the centerpiece of one's brand makes the hoax a big issue -- not what the hoax is about, but the fact of the hoax. This isn't about Trig, it isn't about unusual family arrangements or family members. It's simply about lying in a major way for political gain.
----------------------------
This. Thisity thisity this.

Thought experiment:
Make Sarah Palin Sam Palin. Make Todd Palin Toni Palin. Now try out the story of Trig:

Sam Palin, governor of Alaska, travels with his pregnant wife Toni to a conference in Texas. The governor's staff and many members of the state legislature were astonished a few weeks previously when Sam announced that Toni, an unofficial advisor who frequently attended meetings along with the governor, was seven months pregnant. Nobody had had an inkling that Toni had a bun in the oven. In a puzzling move, the governor declined use of his security team for the trip. On the morning of Sam's keynote speech, Toni discovered she was leaking amniotic fluid, yet after a phone call to her OB/GYN in Alaska, she stayed by her husband's side throughout the morning. The couple drove to the airport and boarded their flight back to Alaska without notifying anyone of Toni's condition. Nobody noticed that Toni was in any distress or even that she was very pregnant. After landing in Alaska 8 hours later, the couple drove to their local hospital, where their son Trig was born early the following morning. Despite being at least 5 weeks premature, with Down's Syndrome and a hole in his heart, Trig weighed a little over six pounds and looked big,ruddy, and chubby, with a nursing blister on his lip, in a photo with his grandparents taken a few hours later. He and Toni were discharged later that day, and Toni brought him into the Anchorage office 3 days later to show him off to staff. Toni was already able to fit into her pre-pregnancy clothes again and looked well-rested and put-together. Sam was immensely proud of his wife and new son and made the couple's decision to keep Trig the centerpiece of his political speeches from that point forward. Trig was brought onstage with the governor at every opportunity during the presidential campaign where the VP candidate traveled, and during many meet-and-greets during the subsequent book tour. Trig and his story helped boost the governor's popularity tremendously at the national level. However, Trig frequently slept through all the noise when he was younger and was not always appropriately dressed during his appearances.

I could go on, but even if you switch the genders, the Story of Trig is very weird, so I don't buy the "mommy wars" argument against investigating this further or continuing to question the circumstances surrounding Trig's birth.

6/16/2011 03:20:59 am

Is the MSM ignoring the discrepancies because she's a girl - or are they giving her a pass because she's Republican? And they don't want to fill her constituents with self-doubt?

She made a big difference in the midterms - and contributed to the deaths of six people in my district, for which I will never forgive her.

FrostyAK

6/16/2011 04:57:28 am

On LIES and lies. $palin lies/LIES about everything.

Example of a lie, found in her emails:
http://malialitman.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/the-consummate-liar-sarah-palin-lies-about-jogging-with-trig/

Example of a probable LIE perpetrated by the palins (and exacerbated by the law enforcement in AK):
http://shaileytripp.yolasite.com/blog/today-was-court-day

lilly lily

6/16/2011 05:01:08 am

I have been reading Shailley Tripps allegations that Todd Palin has a connection of a ring that provides sex for favors in high places. Both male and female sex workers.

There are sex workers on the North Slope? But this allegation is more than that.

Now there are many rumors about Sarah's bar habits, and many rumors in the blogs from Alaskans that the Palins have an open marriage with wife swapping, and affairs. Those rumors have swirled around and around and never make a dent in her popularity with men or women who are her bots.

Does Shailley Tripp have valid information about sex rings in Alaskan Government and Todd Palin's role? I don't know Shailley Tripp, and have been taking what she writes with a grain of salt, but I believe she service Todd and other men at his insistance. Gryphen seems to think she isn't making things up, but has proof.

This could explain Sarah Palins apparent harping on sexual predators targeting her daughters. Every man seems to be suspect in her eyes. The man who has two restaurants, the males who targeted her older daughters? in Juneau, her attacks on Joe McGinnis. She throws out insuations that these men are pedophiles. Pretty outrageous.

If those she helped promote are implicated as Johns in a prostitution ring that Todd was involved in, it is obvious they would protect her to the death. Sex for favors isn't anything new.

This would be bigger than babygate if Todd is involved.

Or will all this dirt go under the rug, as everything else in Palinland.

Who knows what can be proved. Is Shailley Tripp the whistleblower that will blow the house of Palin down?

Karen

6/16/2011 06:31:03 am

Glad to see all the smart commenters pitching in to direct the doctor to the real issues at hand. And, sorry, but I just don't see guys as being "feminists." Sexist I suppose, but it just doesn't really work for me. Strong supporters of women's issues, pro Choice, etc., but feminists?

FrostyAK

6/16/2011 07:23:01 am

Lilly,

Yes, there certainly are sex workers on the North Slope. Though the rules say no booze, drugs, or prostitutes, the rules are mostly overlooked.

Think about WHO the North Slope is connected to - Big Oil. Think about WHO Big Oil is connected to. Follow the money.

Shailey needs to make sure she has good protection and good lawyers. I've maybe mentioned "palin mafia" a time or two?

Scout

6/16/2011 09:19:07 am

What Hugo seems not to realize is that calling yourself a "feminist" does not equate defending all women, no matter what. Especially when the woman in question is anything BUT a feminist, and someone who, in fact, has actually set the woman's movement back with her idiotic behavior, lies and obfuscusions. I have to wonder if Hugo even realizes what a feminist is.

Sarah Palin is not an innocent victim of Mommy Wars, nor is she an unwilling victim of sexualization. Hugo seems to have gone into this interview with very little real information about its subject and now is trying to weasel out of an embarrassing situation by comparing the people questioning this proven liar to the "Birthers." I think the very first commenter summed the whole interview up perfectly - cringe-worthy.

I thought Hugo was going to hang around and discuss. Still waiting for him to defend his thesis. Isn't that what PhD's are good at?

Ennealogic link

6/16/2011 11:25:51 am

Let me add my voice to the chorus. There have been many carefully and thoughtfully written counters to the line that Hugo has taken vis a vis the Palin birth hoax.

I would definitely appreciate hearing his own comments among ours, and if not there, perhaps in a separate interview where Laura raises the questions, points and concerns that so many of us have expressed.

What say you, Dr. S.?

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/16/2011 11:27:00 am

At the end of his only response to the comments here, on Tuesday evening, HS wrote: "...I'm glad to have had this discussion."

I took that as an indicator that further engagement with this thread probably was not perceived by him as the best use of his time.

clf

6/16/2011 11:27:10 am

Hey, go easy on Hugo! This is finals week at Pasadena City College. That's crunch time for both students and teachers. I'm sure he's working on grades for his classes. The man does have a day job after all.

Ottoline

6/16/2011 01:22:51 pm

Every time I stop by here to see if there's a response, I want to shout it even louder: my problem with Palin is not a feminist issue. It's a LYING issue. A HOAX issue.

Remember when Hillary Clinton lied about being subjected to Bosnian sniper fire? I just hated that, and I hated the way she tried to defend the lie. (But she's an intelligent, capable, dedicated, life-long public servant for whom I have great respect [but not full trust], and now she's in a job where lying is an asset. Great! And doing really fine work.) I hated when Bill Clinton lied. Neither of those issues was a feminist issue, and neither is the Palin Hoax.

I have a feeling we aren't going to be hearing from this interviewee again.

Suits me, because if he comes back, I just KNOW he will not answer my qu about the Mar 14 photo: how could Palin possibly have grown a 6+ pound baby in 5 weeks from that flat photo?

MariaT

6/16/2011 06:53:34 pm

Ottoline, I tend to agree that Hugo may not come back. This is what he had to say on his blog a few days ago:

"Count me in the camp of those who instinctively reject conspiracy theories — and who find it find it difficult to believe that Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up for Bristol (or some other family member.) But Novak tends to side with Scharlott, and both she and the professor have achieved some considerable recent notoriety as a consequence."

And he also quotes from this interview:

"When it comes to sex, we’re all somewhat dishonest. We don’t have the vocabulary, most of us, to take the truth about our messy private lives into public spaces. Even if we want to tell our stories, our fears and our shame and our concern for others lead us to be less than forthcoming. And if Sarah Palin did pull off an elaborate hoax, I’m not sure that speaks to her essential truthfulness as a politician. When it comes to sex (our own and our children’s), we lie when we’d tell the truth about anything else…"

Hmmm... so it's OK to lie to the American public about matters sexual? Really?

Conscious at last

6/16/2011 11:02:00 pm

I do not see what particular expertise Hugo Schwyzer brings to the issues of Palin and babygate. I can't imagine how a return interview would add anything valuable to the discussion. He clearly knew very little about Palin and resorted to using concepts like "mommy wars" or the "the trust women school of feminism" to protect himself. Simply having a Ph.D. (in what--is it history or gender studies?) does not mean he has any special authority to discuss or explain Palin. He may have proven to be a useful foil for some of us, but that's all. He was very confused and obviously lacked real knowledge of babygate. What's more, he has not been thinking about it, intensely, as some of us have for over two years! So I see nothing to gain from further dialogue with him.

But there is one concept that gets thrown around in these discussions that quite honestly makes me crazy-- it's "conspiracy theory." That term is a show stopper and it gets used like a club to smash the discussion. It's like accusing someone of being a communist in the 1950's. So first, it's BULLSHIT to suggest that there are no conspiracies in present day political life or in the past. Has anyone ever heard of the Manhattan Project?? How about the D-day landings at Normandy? Whatever you believe actually happened on 9/11, whoever planned it, they were involved in a CONSPIRACY!!! This does not mean we have to be crazy, fearful or paranoid. Conspiracies do not explain everything, they are simply part of a complex mix.
To dismiss conspiracies out of hand is evidence of very unclear thinking.

Exp:Nov.5/08

6/16/2011 11:06:06 pm

Thanks, jk :) So many great thoughts and comments here!
I also assumed Dr. Schwyzer would not be returning after his last comment. And Paglia's love note just confounds me. I'd think Camille would be highly interested in the psychology of how Palin has manipulated everyone. Her family, her friends, her country, and the world.

This is not about Palin being a woman or mother. This is about Palin being a dangerous, untrustworthy person. No feminist does what she did to her own daughter (outing her pregnancy and parading her around with those ridiculously stuffed boobs? Saying on several occasions that her daughter is the object of men's pedophile fantasies? Insane!!! How can anyone defend this behaviour? Again - what would people say if it was a male politician who kept bringing up his daughters being gang-raped?).

Judgment, first impressions, and intuition are very important biological functions in we little humans. It helps us to determine who is a threat to us, and who is not. When there are holes in someone's identity or story, we get nervous, and we try to figure things out, for our own safety and security. When that is met with defensiveness, and an unwillingness to help us make sense of things and people, we feel a threat, and added confusion. That is cognitive dissonance. What you know and feel, and what you're seeing and hearing, are contradictory. It throws us off and creates the smoke and mirrors that covert abusers rely on to continue their charade of friendly safety... meanwhile, they're fighting to get whatever it is they want or need from you, without your knowledge or consent.

I'm no psychologist, but I have experience with highly disordered people. And Palin is a threat. Her stories are full of holes. Her 'personality' is all made up. For her, these identifying personality qualities serve an important purpose: HIDING who she really is. Christianity hides her badness and excuses her contrived sexiness. Politics hides her corruptness. The Grizzly Mom hides her maternal ineptness. Pretty outside hides her ugly inside. She is the exact opposite of what she claims to be. That's why sane people are hit with such revulsion when it comes to Palin.

She is a threat, all trussed up and smiling.... and then, there's the tongue, sneaking out through the grin, letting us know she's up to no good. She is literally a wolf in sheep's clothing.

mistah charley, ph.d.

6/16/2011 11:57:38 pm

Kurt Vonnegut (peace be upon him) attributed to Bokonon, the Calypso Zen prophet, the following verse [slightly edited to be gender-inclusive]:

Tiger got to hunt
Bird got to fly
People got to ask themselves
Why, why, why

Tiger got to sleep
Bird got to land
People got to tell themselves
They understand

We all try to understand, and yet somehow different people can arrive at very different understandings. Sometimes we change our understanding, our own and those of others, by talking and writing about things. In this process, I call bullshit whenever anyone uses the term "conspiracy theory" as a reason to ignore a body of evidence and line of argument. Not every conspiracy theory is true; but we know for double damn sure that SOME are true.

Here's something I posted at my eponymous blog in 2005 - please excuse the lack of capitalization and punctuation, which seemed like a good idea at the time:

conspiracy theories - some go too far, some not far enough

just a few words on paranoia -

a paranoid's worldview sees the hand of an enemy in events, which he perceives as intentional acts designed to harm him

obviously, it is possible to be too paranoid, and to overinterpret the coherence of historical events and see connections that aren't really there - and to blame many events on a vast conspiracy - the jews, the illuminati, the communists, the jesuits, the "greys"

on the other hand, it is also possible to miss the coherence that is really there - to be oblivious or to have "false consciousness"

it's not easy to know what's really going on, and everyone applies a bayesian approach - we evaluate the probability of new information being accurate based on what we already believe

i try to stick to the middle way - to be appropriately suspicious - the goldilocks principle - neither too much nor too little

as i'm sure most of us here recognize, there really ARE conspiracies - a relatively large number, some working together, some at cross-purposes

at "all spin zone" recently there's been a discussion of the "paranoid shift" - a change of weltanschauung when a person begins to believe that some of the events of recent history really are connected in ways that have been concealed (recall that bush's first choice to chair the 9/11 commission - a commission he hadn't wanted in the first place - was henry kissinger)

woody allen said we stand at a crossroads - one way leads to despair, the other to total destruction - let us hope we make the right choice

lilly lily

6/16/2011 11:58:18 pm

Exact. Perfectly expressed. This is how I always felt about Palin.

Up is down, black is white, wrong is right.

Sarah Palin is the opposite of what she pretends to be.

And many of us have seen her for what she truly is from the beginning.

Our hackles went up.

Viola

6/17/2011 12:02:09 am

I'm thinking of printing out this thread, because here it is: a perfectly expressed argument of why Sarah Palin is a threat to this country and to the role of women and mothers worldwide. For that reason, Hugo was useful to me. All of you put into words what I've been feeling for years. Thank you, Laura, for letting the conversation mull.

On the other hand, I think Hugo's a coward or a swell-headed smarty pants to make those irresponsible, unsubstantiated statements and not return. I'm old enough to remember when someone of his position would have responded graciously-- even if only with "thank you for your feedback. There is much here for me to take into consideration." I find his silence patronizing as hell.

Fie on him for calling what Brad and Laura have stirred up as "notoriety."

lilly lily

6/17/2011 12:09:19 am

I gagged as I read all that patronizing smoke and mirrors.

The people here have expressed our feelings about Sarah Palin as well as it will ever be expressed.

She is the slithering serpent with its flickering tongue, testing, testing.

How much can she get away with?

Evidently a great deal.

lilly lily

6/17/2011 01:01:51 am

Sarah Palin is an attractive, slim politician who has sexualized every aspect of her personal persona. She projects seductiveness. Just look at her answer to what she learned about Paul Revere. She is adorably ditzy. HUH?

With the Israeli who taped her and "loves" her. He said they hit it off immediatly. She is flirtatious and cutesy poo, and he swallows it down big time. The great big man and the flirtatious governor. UGH.

But, there are billions of great looking sexually available women out there. Both adorable and sexy. Sarah tries both ways. She gets increasingly adorable the more she is cornered or boxed in.

I have watched a few minutes of her Hannity interviews and he slobbers over the woman and again the great big man, helps her over her most ridiculous answers.

That seems to be some of her allure for men. "Little adorable me."

Anyone in my generation( post 2nd world war) has played that silly game, very much with tongue in cheek. It works. But we played it knowing it was a game, and certainly not as candidates for the role of POTUS.

The dumb blonde was very popular then.

lilly lily

6/17/2011 01:24:37 am

She has done Walt Disney one better. Sarah Palin has tapped into many peoples fantasies.

She is Joan of Alaska.

She is Queen Esther

She is childrens Guardian Angel. (Trig)

She is a savior, Jesus suffering on the Cross.

She is adorable and sexy and safely distant for a sexual fantasy with a mother figure. MILF.

Sigmund Freud could write a marvelous case study. I'de take Jung or Adler over Freud.

Anyone here have any idea how she pulled the wool over so many supposedly smart peoples eyes?

Many of us think she is a con artist, a sociopath, but the Palin bots don't seem to see it. They make every excuse for her flaws, lies and fails, and swallow down her victim persona whole without choking.

Foreigners seem to see it immediatly. What is it about Americans that make them swallow down all her hogwash?

Leona

6/17/2011 02:28:27 am

You know how Sarah Palin always talks about "Moose chili" and "Moose burgers" and eating caribou meat, etc.?
Well, her dietary choices as governor included chicken, steak, spaghetti, pizza, but apparently no caribou and no moose.

This woman even lies about food!

Jeff

6/17/2011 02:53:15 am

I agree with the description of Palin as a predator, but not like the aggressive animal on National Geographic which has adapted as a hunter to survive within the food chain of nature.

The type of predator that SP typifies is that of child molester.

While sexual gratification with a minor is not her goal, Palin uses many of the same psychological tools to attack and abuse her prey, who are comprised of the gullible, low-information, science hating Caucasians who respond to her dog-whistle code injected into her servings of word salads to her faithful.

Like the child molester, Sarah uses deceit, cunning and sleight of hand to exploit the trust of (and extract $$$ from) the truly naive, weak-minded masses lacking the natural skepticism and discernment learned through political socialization.

I don't know who said it first, but "Palin has a SERPENT'S heart" is the best description of her I have read. SP exists simply to meet her own needs to feed her narcissism and to line her pockets with OPM.
(OPM = Other People's Money)

After her conquest, both her prey as well as any of her personal resources expended in the pursuit (friends, associates, minions), are simply discarded. The RV/bus the Palins secured through their grifting efforts has provided a handy place under which to discard the bodies of not only Palin's conquests and adversaries but also for those who formerly served her who are no longer useful to her.

Like a child molester, Palin lacks compassion, empathy and remorse. To her, those qualities are worthless. After all, because she has a serpent's heart and deranged mind, she is without fault in every instance. And though Palin is often the victim of other who are jealous and afraid of her, each of her impotent adversaries, along with all of the less-privileged throughout society, get what they deserve. If only others could be perfect like Sarah, they too could be rich with the same sweet spoils of success. If only.

Jeff

Ottoline

6/17/2011 03:13:42 am

Hugo says: "When it comes to sex, we’re all somewhat dishonest. We don’t have the vocabulary, most of us, to take the truth about our messy private lives into public spaces."

I say: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Hugo sees this as a sexual issue, I do not. It has elements of sexual issues, which the other commenters have addressed, but those elements concern me v little -- a curiosity but not the meat of the matter.

The meat of it is LYING; a hoax; enabling by fat cats, MSM, and a nutty base; and lack of awareness of this by people like you (i.e., educated voters who pay too little attention). A dangerous, scary perfect storm that distracts the national dialogue from the work President Obama is struggling with. Struggling against those who wish to derail his success in helping the nation.

I quoted you above, Hugo, because:
(a) I maintain this is NOT a sexual issue (did I mention that?);
(b) I believe I have a vocabulary adequate for my thoughts, thank you very much;
(c) My private sexual life is not messy and that of the people I deal with is also far less messy than your area of interest;
(d) I and the people I respect do not aim to "to take the truth about our messy private lives into public spaces." (Our lives are not that messy; and whether they are or not, we do not wish to take them into public spaces. Nor do we have a lot of interest in the private lives of most public figures.)
(e) I have almost zero interest in Palin's issues of any kind except insofar as she was the VP candidate; she remains politically dangerous; her enablers are waaaaaay more dangerous than she is; too few people seem to realize that.

rubbernecking

6/17/2011 03:28:26 am

It's hard to keep my self-imposed exile. I'm impressed by Laura's willingness to engage intelligently and humorously with people who disagree with her.

Laura *chose* Schwyzer for an interview. Laura *invited* Schwyer to second-guess her. Laura *acknowledged* that she judges Palin as mother. Schwyzer offered his *opinion* that feminists shouldn't criticize another woman's parenting choices. Schwyzer abhors Palin's politics but says questioning Trig's birth circumstances violates his values as a feminist. Nonetheless, Laura *shared* the interview (and her issues with Palin's mothering) on her public blog.

Schwyzer is not alone in his discomfort. Media Matters, NYT's Bill Keller, and Ezra Klein have all clearly stated that it is wrong to pursue this story. Many liberal bloggers expressed profound relief when Salon's Justin Elliot told them they had nothing to worry about. A subset of liberals believe the spiral of silence is a *moral* choice.

There are at least three agendas among non-trolls active on this blog and these agendas determine their response to people like Schwyzer:

- Maternity Doubters: Palin is not Trig's biological mother. It is important to uncover who are Trig's true parents, when he was conceived, and born because political candidates should never lie about the parentage of their offspring. These people try to convert the Schwyzers of the world by showing evidence of Palin's mysterious pregnancy. The Schwyzers aren't persuaded by this evidence because THEY DON'T AGREE THAT DECEIT ABOUT BIOLOGICAL PARENTAGE IS POLITICALLY IMPORTANT.

- Anti-bot Community: The Palinbots have a counterpart, the Anti-bots. The Anti-bots abhor everything about Palin: her politics, her appearance, her life choices. The Trig story is useful for reinforcing their beliefs about Palin's dishonesty and immoral character. Like the Palinbots, the Anti-bots are sensitive to criticism of their cause. You are either with us or against us. There is no middle ground. These people try to convert the Schwyzers of the world by berating them. The Schwyzers aren't converted because screaming and ranting is rarely persuasive.

- Political Junkies: Junkies like me suspect Palin represents the latest evolution of Atwater-style politics. It is important to understand how her birth story was deliberately packaged, and likely mythologized, for partisan objectives. Biological maternity is not a critical factor. The Political Junkies try to convert the Schwyzers of the world by reframing the story line. The Political Junkies haven't told/sold their story well. They also keep antagonizing the Maternity Doubters and Anti-bots. The Political Junkies want to polish up the Maternity Doubters so we can confess our secret relationship in our favorite whip-smart political blogs. These Pygmalion efforts are a comedy of errors. Some of the Maternity Doubters believe anything that Professor Higgins corrects is, in fact, a confirmation of a truth--the Doubters are only getting these corrections because they're finally on the right track. And the Anti-bots vehemently resist any attempt to polish up the Doubter Dolittles because it hurts morale in their community.

Anti-bots, in the unlikely event you've read this far, don't fret...I solemnly promise to never post more than once a week.

P.S. For a smart, nuanced, and devasting take on the mommy-wars from one successful woman's point of view, check out http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html

lillly lily

6/17/2011 04:02:59 am

Well I know where I stand. LOL.

And I am not about to be pigeonholed by anyone.

It is a great deal more complex an issue than stated above.

I loathed Joe McCarthy, Nixon, and I loathe Palin.

I didn't get involved in politics because I thought the country could survive poor leaders. After all they aren't in it for their lifetimes.

I don't think this country could survive a Palin POTUS. She is THAT dreadful and moronic.

Ottoline

6/17/2011 04:50:11 am

rubbernecking -- good to hear your take, because I perceive that it is shared by many.

How do you feel about liars and hoaxers? Not little white lies, not a discreet lie about private family matters (all okay with me), but a huge lie that is the centerpiece of your brand, that you literally hold up in front of you and wave about, that you lie repeatedly about? For the sake of political advantage.

This is NOT about Trig or his bioparentage. It's not about Palin's family or private life. Nor should it be. Private lives should remain private. I wish Weiner's had, but he put it out there, so it becomes a public matter to everyone's great regret. Palin presented it, emphasized it, crammed it down our throats. It's the centerpiece of her definition of herself. It's not about parenting, it's about a lying deceptive hoaxing politician.

The fact that the lie is about an innocent disabled child, or about a set of issues that matter to many, is not the point. The point is the huge lie, And who enabled it, and why.

I agree with lilly lily: "I don't think this country could survive a Palin POTUS."

DebinOH

6/17/2011 05:38:41 am

I agree with Lilly - I don't want to be pigeon holed either. I CARE about our country because I have two sons and SP as our president would be the worst thing I could ever even think of. Knowing the craziness of her she could order all our young men to go to war for something as ridiculous as some leader saying something about her that she perceives as bad. I don't want my sons killed because she is a moron.

Going back to what everyone has been saying, SP is a person that is either loved or hated. There is really not much in between. I believe the reason for this is everything everyone has articulated above. Seriously, if she had not spread such hatred and division in our country she would NOT be as loved or hated. She is a fear monger and a liar. She elicits a gag factor to those who actually looked at her political past.

I really don't think most of us would still be talking about her at all if she still wasn't a threat to our country.

Am I anti-Palin because I bothered to read about her past, and I have watched her lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. She is a vindictive person who hasn't grown up emotionally past the level of middle school. The bots haven't even looked past her right to life and look at me I am a good christian persona.

The reason I think this PhD has pissed everyone off is because he is just like the MSM and he sounds incredibly dismissive (and I would add condescending as well). Not only to us but to Laura as well. She is a big girl and maybe she doesn't care and maybe she does. I just don't like when someone dismisses SP without even looking at the facts. Nor do I care for the way he has been dismissive to all of us.

I don't give a flying fig if he doesn't come to the conclusion everything about her (& her pregnancy) was just plain baffling. I don't care if he thinks she gave birth after he looks at the facts. It is his opinion but NOT researching her and then smugly assuming that we are just like the "birthers" is just plain rude.

DebinOH

6/17/2011 05:52:22 am

And while I am on my soapbox I just want to say one more time - THIS WOMAN HAS CAUSED HER OWN PROBLEMS! She is the one who has never let the Trig story die. She is the one who wouldn't release her medical records until 5 min. before the actual election. She is the one who is always going on about President Obama and his "associations", all the while living with someone who doesn't want to be a part of the U.S.

She is the one who went around our country talking about the "real" pockets of American that are truly patriotic. They are really the ones who work hard, etc. etc. etc. They pray and cling to their guns - Wow!

She is the one who wouldn't or couldn't even talk to the media other than Faux News. What other political person could have EVER got away with that? She got away with not showing up for debates in Alaska. Who else would get away with that?

The MSM may have reported a few things about this woman but NOTHING close to what needs to be told about her. She is right - they have been lame. I have NEVER seen a candidate get such a pass in all my life.

All that only adds to the dislike of this fraud.

lilly lily

6/17/2011 06:23:23 am

I watched Rush Limbaugh for a few minutes and listened to his take on so many womans disdain and loathing of Palin. JEALOUSY? Simple Jealousy because their husbands like her? That bit of nonsense.

I rarely get involved in politics though I have known many important men in top positions, and I mean top positions in Washington. Men and Women who I respect. And those deceased who I continue to respect for their honest service to this country.

I generaly avoid talking politics or religion as being problematic in pleasant social meetings.

First rule.

Being a pleasant and amiable woman who has enjoyed a very good life and met wonderful and intelligent people. I always avoid argumentive discusions. Politics are not my forte. I don't know enough to discuss these matters since they rarely interest me.

But any possible outcome such as Palin becoming the Republican candidate is too bloody awful to ignore.

Michelle Bachman won't make it. She'll try with the Fundamentalists backing her.

Palin has enough important and ruthless money backers to keep her fingers in the political pie.

My deceased husband would have loathed her, as do my living adult sons. We pretty much don't mess with politics in the family. Too many more interesting things.

For the last two years I have chosen to spend a few hours a day in working at cutting this woman down to her true size.

The reason. I have Grandchildren.

Armageddon isn't going to happen if I have any say in the matter.

Palin in Power? Disatrous. Like Mao in China. Did you know his start?

Yale owned the building in which he ran a book store. Mao got his voice there, and a foot in the door. A rung up to power in 1920.

I don't care who Trigs biological mother is. It is a small part of her devious life and pathology.

Take her seriously?

Your damn right I do.

Lidia17

6/17/2011 07:25:10 am

Somehow I missed Hugo's bowing out of the discussion without engaging a single one of our contentions/

WAY TO GO, HUGO.

I held my tongue hoping he might respond like an adult, but that was too much to ask because Hugo is like Palin: another sociopath. He drew Laura in just the way Elan Frank was drawn in by Sarah, notice.

=============================================================
Here's my take on Hugo, written two days ago:

Besides a revulsion for Palin, I have a revulsion for people who are too creepily, publicly, introspective. To me, at first glance, this "Good Men" project looks suspiciously like a secular version of "Promise Keepers", i.e. run by grifter priests who need to justify their own existence.

People need to spend less time WRITING and BLABBING about "trying" to be "good men" (or "good women") and just fucking set about doing it. Am I blind or something that I just don't see the issues here??

If I have to consult a blog about what "ethics" are—heads up!—I DON'T HAVE THEM AND NEVER WILL.

The Golden Rule. Don't treat other people the way you wouldn't want to be treated. You can't get an academic chair in that shit, or have people send you envelopes with money, or make you the feature of "4000-word tomes" is the only problem…

Why should we care, exactly, about THIS hyper-sexualized man, with an admittedly ABnormal and impulsive past, telling us what is normal or not normal about people's reaction to Sarah Palin? Someone who abused his own sex organ to the point that it needed surgical intervention? Is he important just because he has a Ph.D. after his name?

I don't want to wear out my welcome here, but… Laura, did you INTENTIONALLY pick a psychopath to comment upon another pyschopath, or… are you just too nice and too credulous for your own good?

I'm reading this interview a second and third time, and it is sounding worse, and worse, and worse, and worse:

[Hugo] if Sarah Palin did pull off an elaborate hoax, I’m not sure that speaks to her essential truthfulness as a politician.

[Me] You're NOT SURE!??! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU!…

Like Sarah Palin's, "Hugo's" statements start out banal, but become more interesting and revealing the more closely one analyses them.

He sounds like the Sam Vaknin character [originator of one of the forums on narcissism and psychopathy], who's had the clever insight to re-jigger his own dysfunctional narcissism into a slightly more socially-acceptable form: like Sam, Hugo's now "trying to help". I don't think you will ever get a straight answer out of him. He's mirroring the "expertise" you want to see, when he is only expert in manipulation.

Re-reading his comments, it sounds to me that he really HATES women and feminists and, as I said before, off-the-cuff, is doing the "concern troll" thing.

Hugo is also racist: Obama's "cosmopolitan novelty"? As opposed to Michael Dukakis, John Kerry or the “hayseed” GHWB?

Hugo is a feminist to the farthest reaches of his now-truncated dick and that's where it ends. He hasn't "reformed" one bit. Sarah is the further thing from "classic and familiar"!! [Familiar because she is white?]

Rather than "classic and familiar" she's usually described as either “polarizing”, or giving people "starbursts".

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sarah is FAMILIAR TO HUGO, that's who she is familiar to.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Of course he sees aspects of his own past excesses in Sarah's "supernormal vitality" which was exactly his own problem, it would appear.

And of course he doesn't buy into the notion that liars TEND to lie, because that reflects badly on him, in ways that he doesn't want to own.

Hugo is still —consciously or unconsciously— a liar, because if he looked at Palin's actual critics, he'd see that the vast majority are women. How can you "trust women" when you are IGNORING them in the main, and telling them that Sarah Palin is SMART AND COMPETENT!? … a notion the majority of women have rejected. That is not only paternalistic, as another commenter pointed out, but DELUSIONAL and manipulative.

Todd does not "believe in" Sarah. Todd uses Sarah. Todd calls ahead to tell the staff how off-the-wall to expect her to be. Todd tells Schmidt that "you just gotta let her work through it" when she throws screaming fits on the campaign trail. By no means "remaining in her shadow", he is pulling the strings (cough-AIP) and her power is his by extension.

>>>>>> Like my narcissist relatives, Hugo seems to be one who invents his own universe and then gets to enforce the rules thereof. [What better place for these sorts than in academia??] His whole interview is a lesson in arguing against straw men.

back to
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
=============================
“We fill in the "missing humanness" by filling in the b

Lidia17

6/17/2011 07:28:31 am

(CONT.)

back to
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
=============================
“We fill in the "missing humanness" by filling in the blanks with our own assumptions, based on what WE think and feel and mean. And, in this way, because there are these "blank" spots, we fill them in with what is inside us, and thus we are easily convinced that the psychopath is a great guy - because he is just like us! We have been conditioned to operate on trust, and we always try to give the "benefit of the doubt." So, there are blanks, we "give the benefit of the doubt," and we are thereby hoisted on our own petard.

“**********PSYCHOPATHS VIEW ANY SOCIAL EXCHANGE AS A "FEEDING OPPORTUNITY," A CONTEST OR A TEST OF WILLS IN WHICH THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE WINNER. [caps emph. mine] Their motives are to manipulate and take, ruthlessly and without remorse. [Hare]

“One of the chief ways psychopaths prey on others is to make use of the normal person's need to find meaning or purpose in life. They will pose as grief counselors, or "experts" of various sorts that attract followings of people who are looking for answers. They are masters of recognizing "hang-ups" and self-doubts that most people have, and they will brazenly pander to them to gain a follower to use later.”
==================

Laura, any insight into why you said Hugo is a “fantastic teacher” and good "sparring partner"? He gained a follower to use later, don't you see? He’s neither teaching us anything, nor sparring with us. He’s just regurgitating superficial talking points, like Sarah.

This "feeding exchange" indeed had one winner as far as Hugo was concerned.
Like Sarah Palin, he folded up his tent and declared victory.

DebinOH

6/17/2011 08:30:27 am

I swear this is the last comment I am making on this thread. You go Lidia - don't hold back;)

I think that the most frustrating thing is that this PhD reminds me so much of the MSM. How many times I have heard some news person spit out a blurb about SP that was clearly a sound bite that someone gave them (her "handlers" or "ragtags"). They didn't research the sound bite and just stated it like it was true. I just sit there and think what the hell am I missing? I just saw a video tape of her saying or doing the exact opposite of what was reported. I want to scream. I want to call them up and ask them what the hell is going on. It really makes me NOT want to watch the news ever again.

I just cannot figure out what or who has caused this bizarre situation. I have never been so disgusted with reporters in my life. Is it because we now have news 24 hrs a day and so many news stations (newspapers, magazines, etc.)? Does no one care anymore what the truth is?

Or am I just an idiot and believe that people are honest and care about the truth or what is really going on in our world? What are we teaching in college? Do we not have anymore critical thinking skills? Is it just ratings? But even if it were ratings SP is a person that has enough weird stuff going on to make them - that is for sure!

I don't know but this whole experience makes me frustrated and very sad......

FrostyAK

6/17/2011 08:33:38 am

Wow. Just Wow. I have never been a part of such an informed, educated, thoughtful and outspoken group of people. I thank Laura for the venue, and you all for your comments that made me rethink my belief that I knew pretty much all there was to know about $palin because I am a local. You have expanded my thinking greatly.

I especially like Jeff's comment about the TYPE of predator $palin is. I have dealt with both wild predators, and with children who were the product of the type of predator he suggest she emulates. I believe he is correct.

rubbernecking

6/17/2011 09:42:00 am

I'm on the couch recovering from the Vapours but I must ask Lydia17, have you called Laura's mom to let her know that Laura is hanging out with a very naughty professor??!!

Thank the stars you're here to protect us from dangerous, soul corrupting ideas. Wake me when it's safe to come out again.

jeff

6/17/2011 10:14:47 am

@Lidia17,

Just put this one in your "diverse opinion" file and let it go, if you can.

It's just my opinion here, but… while Hugo's opinions are somewhat provocative, I don't think he was speaking from an expert/authoritarian on the subject of Sarah Palin, necessarily. He made some comments based upon his own area of academic expertise/concentration, and then attempted to apply his knowledge base to what information he thought would best fit with the Palin scenario, but in my opinion, he is lacking much of the essential data in his analysis.

Given less a volume of factual data, you’d have more unknown variables, yielding an exponential number of errors in using the wrong tool with the wrong application (again, my opinion only). I believe that was what I heard in many of your well-stated opinions and analyses here in discord with some of Hugo’s comments.

It would be unjust for me to demean Hugo's statements and responses to Laura's questions, but I feel pretty certain that most of us here on this comment board have a much deeper well of data specific to Sarah Palin to analyze Palin's past behavior and to make value judgments, accordingly.

I think perhaps the nuggets I gleaned from Hugo's commentary have more to do with how SP's actions/behavior might be interpreted by many on the sidelines with their own predispositions and without all the "insider knowledge" we have all gained and shared collectively.

For instance, I'm sure there are some very intelligent folks that are behind SP 100%, that would "flip" 180 degrees if they knew what "we know". In fact, I'm positive some folks would do that, because I was one of them (disclaimer: I was just one of her supporters, not necessarily one of the very intelligent folks. ;) just sayin'.)

In that regard, I probably had a bias toward powerful female voice with exceptional communications skills, a history of success in business and industry, and a tested, strong management style that would make her a key player in helping to "fix" our economy, which went into the ditch in fall of '08. Of course we know that was how she was "packaged” as a VP candidate for the electorate. Personally, I was less sensitive to her opinions on social issues, bc I think that she has her right to have those opinions for HERSELF, just let me and others decide what works best for ourselves. In fact, if she had experience as a competent successful CEO, she would understand already why most people wouldn’t give a shit what her opinions were. It's sad to note that one of the (former) hallmarks of Conservatism used to be to stay out of the business of others--- personally, domestically, and regarding foreign policy, too! But I digress.

Anyway, it didn't take very long to realize that Palin was an empty suit, and I found I couldn't even hold my nose and vote for the GOP ticket bc of SP and McCain's horrible sense of judgment. I just felt sorry for anyone who couldn’t see easily that she was worse than W---much worse than W.

Great comments, folks, seriously it’s a big help to me. I won't go down the list and mention everybody with a substantive comment bc my msgs are too long already and I’ve overstayed my welcome. But I do appreciate the input, especially from the female perspective where I am void of experience.

Jeff

Lidia17

6/17/2011 10:16:16 am

rubbernecking, you broke your promise.

jeff

6/17/2011 10:26:03 am

OOPS!

That one just jumped out at me. I think I meant "devoid of" instead of "void of" in my last sentence.

Or as we say around here,

"I ain't got no 'sperience bein' no momma, jes a daddy."

Jayeff (that's 2 syllables)

jeff

6/17/2011 10:40:48 am

Lidia,

I'm making no promises about this being my last comment, especially since we might have to wait a few days for a new post from Laura.

Jeff

Lidia17

6/17/2011 10:49:34 am

Jeff, "if Sarah Palin did pull off an elaborate hoax, I’m not sure that speaks to her essential truthfulness as a politician."

Tell me why this person should be regarded as an expert in "history" OR "gender studies", with a line like this. Tell me if you would want your kid in his history class.

Lidia17

6/17/2011 10:54:11 am

Jeff, know what? Cancel that request, 'cause your painful shuck and jive above renders my interest in your answer null. But thanks for playing.

jeff

6/17/2011 11:16:43 am

lydia,

I don't think I'd want a professor of anything teaching my son if the prof took a strong position on something outside their area of specialty without at least qualifying his/her answer as essentially a "guess". Unless it were an exercise in defending an argument versus "devil's advocate". But this wasn't an academic exercise we're doing here. If I offered my own opinion as "expert analysis", I'd be sure to look at all the data, and then analyze it before reaching a conclusion.

My thoughts are that it wasn't that elaborate, but it was a hoax. If it were elaborate, we'd never have known about it. But unless she runs for national office and, thus, "surrenders" her medical records, all we can do is build a strong circumstantial case. But my opinion is that it's more much more likely that she did not give birth to Trig than than the probability that she was pregnant and all of this evidence to the contrary are just anomalies due to chance.

The safe position is to take no position. I'm willing to risk ridicule based on my own analysis as an observer. My position just gets stronger the more circumstantial evidence we get.

Is that close to your opinion, or do you have some different thoughts?

Jeff

jeff

6/17/2011 11:21:43 am

Um, sorry, I just saw your 2nd note. I had started a reply already when I got a call and my pups decided it was time to go in the backyard. Which part of my comment was my shuck n jive?

Venefica

6/17/2011 12:39:27 pm

On September 10, 2008, I came across Camille Paglia's astonishing encomium of the "feminist" Sarah Palin, in which Paglia compared Palin's "physical fortitude and indomitable spirit" to that of 19th century pioneer woman Abigail Becker. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/camille_paglia/2008/09/10/palin

That same day, I read on HuffPo that Palin had telephoned Rick Warren and had asked him to "send her some bible verses on how do you deal with all of the unfair, unjust attacks and the mean-spirited criticism that comes in." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/rick-warren-sarah-palin-c_n_125420.html

I immediately sent that quote to Paglia and asked her: Do you think the estimable Abigail Becker would have whined about "mean-spirited criticism"?

Unsurprisingly, I received no reply.

P.S. Thanks, all, for such a stimulating and instructive discussion!

rubbernecking

6/17/2011 03:18:15 pm

I believe Laura introduced the Paglia quote, not Schwyzer.

Apologies in advance to the angry liberals here. But might **SOME** of the Anti-bots be social conservatives? If you were a social conservative who thought Palin damaged your cause, what might you do? Palin definitely has critics among this demographic. Bailey wrote about one who really went after Palin's life style choices when she was Gov.

I can certainly see how some of Schwyzer's comments would be offensive to social conservatives (e.g., his glee with conservatives adapting to the reversal of traditional gender roles in the Palin marriage).

Colorful professors who say provocative and even disagreeable things are not the usual high enemy of liberals. Just saying...

clf

6/17/2011 04:59:54 pm

People, people-

In the words of the inimitable Cheri Oteri: Simmer Down Now! http://www.spike.com/video-clips/6lycf9/simmer-down-now

Why do Hugo’s comments engender such a visceral response? He’s just one guy. One opinion. Sure, he’s dismissive, but who cares? Get over it.

A reminder: Hugo is an *instructor* at a community college. He calls himself a “prof” and is referred to as one by Laura, but the fact is there are no professors in the California Community College System. All faculty are referred to as instructors.

University professors mentor graduate students, oversee research and write groundbreaking books and papers. Hugo’s biggest claim to fame is repeatedly making it to RateMyProfessor.com’s “50 Hottest Profs” list.

Research and rigorous analysis of data hold no interest for Hugo.

In his words (from his blog):

“I quickly realized that it was teaching that turned me on, not research. I didn’t like musty old archives, and I sure as hell didn’t like working on long papers. I enjoyed discussing ideas in seminars, but nothing was as ‘fun’ as interacting with students in the classroom.”

While Brad Scharlott wrote an academic paper about Palin, Hugo chose a different kind of project: Helping model Carre Otis pen her upcoming memoir.

http://www.amazon.com/Beauty-Disrupted-Memoir-Carre-Otis/dp/0062024450/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1308376703&sr=1-1

6/18/2011 12:04:28 am

You're cracking me up, clf (really).

I've worked with and seen pretty much every type of professor/instructor/academic pontificator, although I've not had any personal interaction with any "famous" ones (famous outside of the academic community, that is).

I once had a professor in my graduate program tell me, "professors don't teach, they profess." And, yes, that's exactly what this particular professor did.

My own response to "Dr. Hugo" is born out of frustration although not toward him specifically. Over the past couple of years, we've been told that feminists MUST support Sarah Palin on principle, that we MUST make room for the anti-choice perspective. We've seen high-standing women in NOW throw their weight behind Palin, either overtly or behind the scenes. And now a guy comes here and tells us we can't discuss Sarah Palin's lies and hypocrisy because we're teetering on the edge of Mommy Wars.

Just because it's about sex or parenting choices, doesn't mean it's off limits. If the person is practicing the "do as I say not as I do" brand of politics, he should be called out for it. If a politician is railing against homosexuality while secretly engaging in homosexuality or a politician is voting against abortion rights while enjoying those rights, isn't it important to make their hypocrisy knows? These are not private citizens, these are people who have real power to influence our lives. As long as Sarah Palin is playing the "will she or won't she" game and appearing on Fox News as a "political commentator," she falls in that category.

I don't give a crap what politicians do with their reproductive organs (as long as they do it with other consenting adults). It's always been about the hypocrisy and how these politicians are protected from their lies--or, as in the case of Mrs. Palin, actively use them to get ahead.

Laura Novak

6/18/2011 12:18:40 am

Thank you all for chiming in to what I hoped would be an intelligent discussion offering different points of view. You've all been great and really filled the void while I helped these cops get their manuscript agent-ready. They are great at law enforcement, but their narrative skills...not so much!

I regret that I might have misjudged how Hugo's perspective would be received. I don't agree with him on everything at all, and vice versa. But I respect his intelligence and ability to counter me with ideas that made me pause. If I only filled my life with people who fostered and furthered my world view, I would live in a lonely, dark tunnel.

I think in the end, Hugo was turned off by being told to fuck off. Having his sexual history thrown in his face was not germane to the topic at hand. So, I can't blame him for not returning.

Someone pointed out that Hugo has not the benefit of the research so many of you have in to the photos and details of this story. So again, I regret that I might have led him down the wrong path unprepared for the vast knowledge you all hold.

That said, I am so very glad to see Rubbernecking has returned. In case you don't know, Brad and I also offered an apology to you after your last comment the last time you joined us.

You are all among the smartest, fiercest and most caring, energetic people I've seen on any politically-minded blog. I thank you all again for your insight, passion and caring.

Namaste, Laura.

viola

6/18/2011 12:42:11 am

Thank you, Laura, for your comment and the forum you arranged.

The clear, rational arguments here were just what I needed (as well as the righteous anger.) I can't always say what I mean about Sarah Palin, and I appreciate the words of those who can.

As for Dr. Hugo's previous life not being germane to the discussion here, I must differ, particularly if he posts his history and makes it public information. (And more than likely uses it anecdotally when convenient.)

I am a Southerner. We have a longstanding belief which is this: If you do it, I can talk about it.

To own one's history no matter what is a sign of a healthy person. To accept that one's public behavior is a logical extension of one's private behavior is also, imo, a healthy attribute.

I warrant that many of the women who commented here may have grown up with or been married to people who lived with secrets. There is nothing more unsettling than having trusted someone -- whether college professor or president of the United States or your own father-- who professes to be one thing but in reality is another. I'm sure for anyone who has survived a liar in their personal life, Sarah Palin is a huge red flag.

It seems to me that Dr Hugo is like that, too. He seems to thrive on controversy and invite dissension, and yet in its presence here, he scarpered. Perhaps because we weren't charmed by his own roguishness?

elizabeth

6/18/2011 02:00:23 am

I think Dr. Hugo chose not to respond here because he realized the 99.9% of these comments pointed out pretty damn accurately and with great intelligence that the reason woman don't like Sarah Palin is quite simple - she is lying fraud. It has nothing to do with an obsession with her 'reproductive organs'. It has to do with a series of completely outrageous and illogical statements she has made regarding the birth of Trig. Not only has she never offered 'proof' of the birth, she has even lied and said she did. Add in the fact she chose to sacrifice and humiliate her teenage daughter as 'proof' of HER (Palin's) pregnancy told me everything I needed to know about Sarah Palin. Can you, Dr Hugo explain, how one is so unpregnant looking no one notices (including trained airline personnel) yet there that one is five days earlier looking extremely pregnant in an extremely sketchy picture that arrived on the scene 7 months after the fact? But hey, there she is two weeks earlier flat as a board.

It is the lying in her we detest. And we resent that she USES her femininity as an excuse to lie!!!! And you Dr Hugo are just another victim of Sarah Palin in that you don't bother (or don't care) to look below the branding to see what a fraud this woman is.

Hugo said..
"As modern as she is, she’s a classic and familiar figure: the smart (she is no fool), sassy, competent, suffer-no-fools, God-fearing mama of the sort that has always been found in the American west. "

No she's not. She is a thin-skinned, lying, manipulative, whiny, incurious fraud. There is a difference - a big difference.

rubbernecking

6/18/2011 02:20:09 am

Laura, thanks for the kind welcome.

I studied with a brilliant, raunchy professor who landed at my second-rate college after he torpedoed his career at a top-flight university. His sin: organizing a debate with a speaker who infuriated the political sensitivities of both conservative and liberal donors. He was a quasi-reformed libertine, his role model was Montaigne, and he was hands-down the most infuriating and provocative professor I ever encountered. No teacher pushed me harder to sharpen my thinking and writing skills. Despite our numerous differences of opinion, he has been one of the biggest influences in my thinking life.

Cheers.

Lidia17

6/18/2011 02:46:47 am

There is no occurrence of the word "fuck", nor any reference to Hugo's history, in any of the comments before the one in which >>he runs away and shuts down any further dialog.<<

In fact, the majority of commenters before that point engaged Hugo in earnest, and a couple even supported him.

Hugo appears to be a fellow traveler of Sarah's, using his past as a prop and entrée, just like Sarah uses her own promiscuous nature, along with Trig and her family. Then when one looks into it —the past, the promiscuity, the family— all of a sudden those are off-limits!?!? Please. Sex is Hugo's calling-card, and Laura AMPLY employed this in setting up his bona fides for us in her introduction.

Viola gets it.

Hugo wants an adoring audience which will flirt with him.
We didn't provide it.
Class dismissed.

Rather than admitting to having misjudged Hugo (our "fantastic" teacher and sparring partner), Laura admits that she has, instead, misjudged "how Hugo would be perceived"(!!!) Is that what's important here? How Hugo is perceived? And here I was thinking it was getting to the bottom of the Sarah Palin hoax phenomenon.

Then Laura goes on to apologize to rubbernecking, of all people, another merry-mix-up whose latest assertions are (out of what hasn't been deleted, anyway) that among those disagreeing with Hugo must be "social conservatives" and people squeamish about sex (apparently including yours truly). And, more clownishly, that if we think of ourselves as liberals we should back Hugo up solely on the basis of his being "provocative and disagreeable." Bwa ha ha ha ha!

The next step will be to accuse us of being jealous of Hugo, just like we've been accused of being jealous of Palin. Laura hasn't seen these people at work for the last three years, but a lot of us have, and this is all distraction from the issue at hand: Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with a Down Syndrome child for political and monetary gain.

lilly lily

6/18/2011 02:51:40 am

Seems Bristol has come out with her own batch of justifications. Another victim.

I have no intention of reading her book, but I'm sure those in Wasilla who know what is what will do so.

I'm going by what is being written at IM. Apparently Gryphen has read Bristols book.

Wine coolers, too many, in a tent on a camping trip in Alaska in April.
awakes with no memory of what happened? and Levi outside the tent talking.

It is sad.

If she was too drunk to know what was happening as it was happening why would she stay with Levi?

If she is implying he forced himself on a dead drunk girl, and she was a virgin, that would give them a hold on Levi.

A straight A student (she says). Virgin on birth control pills for painful periods.

Why allow someone who took advantage of their princess to shack up in the Palin home?

Heather told a different story.

Lidia17

6/18/2011 02:55:59 am

My apologies for the reference to deleted comments: I had remembered something as a separate comment which was contained in another, and wrongly assumed it to have been deleted when I tried to go back and find it.

lilly lily

6/18/2011 03:09:52 am

The N.Y. tabloids are on the Bristol story now, and the comments are uniformly anti Bristol.

The hypocrasy of these women is monumental.

I thought Bristol stole Levi away from her best girlfriend Lanesia. And Lanesia and Levi had been an item for years.

Bristol had to have Levi, she justified herself to Lanesia who was very hurt. He was her kind of man. And now he is a little gnat and the no good punk who took her while she was incapacated and bragged to his buddies while she could overhear?

Why doesn't this girl leave well enough alone, if only for Tripp's sake.

It is so monumentaly stupid.

lilly lily

6/18/2011 03:24:48 am

Thinking this over before leaving Palin fairy tale land for the day.

Why air more dirty laundry? More scuttlebutt, more negativity?

It is gossip fodder for her new reality show. In Palin country any publicity is welcome.

It is nasty backbiting, what she learned at her mothers knee, Payback time..

Teens do have sex, teens are full of hormones and very little sound judgement, nothing new.

But I recall the cover of Levi an Bristol with Tripp, and the story of the rose petal heart, with the two of them working things out.. blah, blah, blah.

They couldn't pull off a reality show together, and it went poof.

Now Bristol has a reality show, and Levi is history.

clf

6/18/2011 05:18:34 am

Laura-

Well at least your comments went over 100, so that’s a good thing!

I wonder how much you knew about Hugo—other than that he was a great, quotable source who added color to the Good Men story—before you invited him on board here.

I’m surprised that you think his sexual history is not germane to this discussion. The first thing you mention is that you met Hugo through his penis. You link to your Good men Project piece, which mentions his sordid sexual past and that his dick “went a lot of places” (Hugo’s words, not yours) and as result he suffered from sexual-related injuries.

I think you probably had a good chat with Hugo during the interview, found him imminently quotable and thought he’d have something interesting to contribute here. (Palin, feminism, makes sense.)

Hugo makes his sexual history the cornerstone of his blog. He frequently explains his current worldview and bolsters his arguments with it. (For example, in your story Hugo uses his sexual history and the fact that he had his foreskin removed as an adult to make this argument: I had foreskin for a long time and I used it to the point where it almost wore off; now I don’t have a foreskin and I don’t miss it, therefore all other people who equate circumcision with female genital mutilation are ridiculous.)

If you read Hugo frequently, you’ll find that his whole schtick is based on being infuriating from a moral high ground. That moral high ground comes from having repented of his wayward ways. Read his blog and you’ll learn, that Hugo—to put it bluntly—likes to beat his readers over their heads with his dick.

Like a latter-day Apostle Paul, Hugo uses his own sexual road to Damascus to exhort others to See The Light and change their ways.

What happened on this thread is nothing new to Hugo. On his blog he delights in baiting readers and pissing them off. A post titled “Circumcised at 37: A Personal Story and a Rebuke to Men’s Rights Activists” led one of the commenters to respond thusly:

I… am taken aback by the brazeness of this post because it not only scores a Hat Trick with the Schwyzer triumvirate of arrogance, narcissism and ignorance of the topic at hand, but also because it was written deliberately to provoke MRAs.

Sound familiar?

(Read the whole exchange here: http://hugoschwyzer.net/2006/10/11/circumcised-at-37-a-personal-story-and-a-rebuke-to-the-mras/ )

I think Hugo’s sexual background (which he makes no secret of) was important to note so your readers could take his comments in stride, put them in context and understand where he is coming from. I brought up his sex life but made no judgment on it.

Also very important to note (and so far unmentioned here) is that Hugo is an evangelical Christian. He write: “Theologically, I’m a mainstream evangelical who could sign on to Fuller Seminary’s statement of faith.” (Read Fuller’s statement of faith here
http://www.fuller.edu/about-fuller/mission-and-history/statement-of-faith.aspx )

Finally, I feel that Hugo got more respect and fawning here in the set-up to the Q&A than did Bruce Scharlott, who is a tenured university professor. And I find that unfortunate.

Both hold a Ph.D. (Hugo’s is in medieval studies) but there is an important difference. A tenured professor at a university is expected to publish papers and mentor grad students. Teaching at a university is an intellectually challenging endeavor. Teaching at a community college is not. (Though it’s challenging in other ways, to be sure.)

A community college instructor, specifically one at Pasadena Community College, is a glorified high school teacher. With its open enrollment policy, PCC is not an academically rigorous environment. It’s a sad fact that many students are barely literate and have little sophistication or understanding of the world. There is no Gender Studies department at PCC, where other faculty can spar intellectually with Hugo and keep him on his toes. He is not expected to publish or do any research.

Instead he’s free to be a provocateur on the internet; write columns for a condom company (despite having no healthcare credentials) http://sirrichards.com/blog/reproductive-health/top-5-penis-myths/ ; appear on television promoting SlutWalk; and help a troubled model pen her memoir.

It’s important to consider the source when reading this Q&A post with Hugo.

To anyone who's been pissed off on this thread: If Hugo infuriates you, then that is exactly what he intends to do.

Conscious at last!

6/18/2011 05:50:10 am

SARAH, HUGO and US

clf-- thank you for saying all of that- it was ESSENTIAL for us to understand.

I, too, did a little more exploring w/r/t Hugo. I needed to see if my initial impressions were valid... and they were.

Like Sarah, Hugo is a very sick person who's early wounds involved sex (and other things as well.) Like Sarah, he has chosen to suppress his wounds by covering them with lies and judgementalism. We are watching Sarah unravel before our eyes. Hugo will unravel too, sooner or later. He has not healed, he has simply moved his pain to a new location. Obviously sex is still a charged issue for both Sarah and Hugo. Sarah's stock in trade IS sex. Hugo pretends to have some expertise in history-- yet what are the foci of his concerns(check his blog folks)-- other men's penises and hugging teenage girls. Hugo, you are in danger of repeating everything that you think you have left behind. You are a damaged fraud, just like Sarah. If I were you, I'd switch to teaching senior citizens and get the hell away from those younger students. But I'm fairly sure that you won't do this. (Also too, Hugo, I'd try to truly heal the damage.)

Well, if nothing else, we are learning from this. I am actually grateful for Sarah Palin the way I an grateful for the smell of moldy cheese in the back of my fridge. It tells me something is not right and must be changed or eliminated.

I have learned a great deal about psychopaths, narcissists and the like from watching Sarah and chatting with you all over the last few years. It has helped me to understand early life wounds inflicted by a sociopath who pretended to be an authority. So thank you Sarah and thanks to all of you who share thoughts here.

Hugo-- you are a time bomb-- I wish I could warn your family.

CLF

6/18/2011 06:21:07 am

Just to be clear: I did not go digging through Hugo's blog to cherry pick some posts and bring up his sexual past.

I'm very familiar with his writing because I was a Hugo reader way before i discovered Laura's blog.

Any comparison of Hugo and Sarah Palin makes me uncomfortable. I realize Hugo can provoke a desire to lash out and fight back, but I find this comparison unwarranted. For one, Hugo has no power over anyone.

I think Hugo would agree that he WAS a sick person. He has gone a long way toward making amends and changing his life. For that he should be respected.

But it's important to note that Hugo has the zeal of a new convert. (He was raised by atheists and found the Lord as an adult.)

He approaches everything from that moral high ground, born-again mentality (he even remade his penis to signal a break with the old life and considers the surgery a spiritual marker of the start of his new life).

Being a new convert he has remarkable energy, drive, and an uncanny assurance that He Is Correct. He is a true zealot, and I mean that in the real sense of the word, not as an insult. He is uncompromising in his beliefs

If you've ever known someone who has just discovered a new religion, or become a macrobiotic, or quit drinking, you know how unbearable such a person can be at times. Hugo is like that.

I find little to agree with in what Hugo writes, but I still read him.

Conscious at last!

6/18/2011 07:00:40 am

CLF--

I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree- Hugo has power, in his own realm.

First he is a teacher- he deals with many students each year. There is a GREAT DEAL of power there. Secondly, he issues forth proclamations from his blog and other such podiums. Lastly, he has a young child.

If you don't think that each of these positions involves power, then I'd have to ask you what you mean by power.

Most of us are not hurt by a political figure that we gaze at on the T.V.. We are hurt by those who have an every day presence in our lives. We react to the public figures because they remind us, in some ways, of the folks in our lives.

6/18/2011 08:06:30 am

I've seen Hugo's type before. I'm sure he didn't expect us to agree; he's already written us off as conspiracy theorists and--dare I say it?--anti-feminists. I'm sure coming here and writing the phrase "mommy wars" was a deliberate provocation. And it worked, but only to prove in this comment section that it is absolution NOT our intention to do a mommy drive-by on Sarah Palin.

And, thank you Laura for providing this forum, even if it didn't turn out exactly the way you might have thought it would.

CLF

6/18/2011 08:10:43 am

Conscious at last-

I don't find taking the conversation in this direction is helpful or productive.

Community College instructors have little power over their students. Even kicking a disruptive student from class isn't an easy feat.

Hugo has admitted his mistakes and appears to have atoned for them. This is all one can ask of a human being.

The focus of this post was one feminist's point of view of Palin. Hugo's background and writing is relevant because it helps us see the lens through which he views her.

Comparing Hugo to Palin (a person who never apologizes or shows remorse) and calling Hugo a sociopath is really over the top. So much so that it discredits many of the valid points that are being made here.

All that's left now is for someone to throw in Hitler.

Conscious at last

6/18/2011 08:23:41 am

CLF--

Truly, from the heart, you are missing my point.

If you wish to, you can re-read what I have written, perhaps after a bit of air.

Admitting one's mistakes is a meaningless exercise unless the root causes of the pain are addressed. Finding a toxic waste dump is a separate operation from cleaning it out.

Setting oneself up as some sort of authority-- a true zealot as you say, without real healing is a recipe for disaster. If you can't see that, I am sincerely sorry.

Lidia17

6/18/2011 11:53:10 am

Conscious at last, I agree. I appreciate what CLF is saying, but I just don't think he/she fully knows what narcissism is all about.

Is it possibile for a narcissist apologize? Yes. Will they mean it? No. They will do it to save themselves, though, when their backs are against the wall, sure.

The zealotry CLF speaks of here only serves to consolidate my opinion of Hugo: he's projecting himself absolutely, as before, but in another less-self-damaging sphere. [Christianity is fertile terrain for the narcissist; after all, in what other religion does God sacrifice himself TO himself? The God of the OT is one scary-ass psycho…]

-----
"…an uncanny assurance that He Is Correct" is how CLF puts it. Even capitalizing the He!!

Uncanny is a delicious word: "The Uncanny (Ger. Das Unheimliche -- literally, "un-home-ly", but idiomatically, "scary", "creepy") is a Freudian concept of an instance where something can be familiar, yet foreign at the same time, resulting in a feeling of it being uncomfortably strange.[1] (See Uncanny valley)

"Because the uncanny is familiar, yet strange, it often creates cognitive dissonance within the experiencing subject due to the paradoxical nature of being attracted to, yet repulsed by an object at the same time. This cognitive dissonance often leads to an outright rejection of the object, as one would rather reject than rationalize." (wikipedia)

"Uncanny valley" is even more interesting: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UncannyValley

In the case of both Sarah and Hugo, who for me fall into the "uncanny valley", I would rather reject than rationalize about why their behaviors are so odd.

"The Sociopath Next Door" does not have to be a serial killer, or Hitler… but it is still wise to steer clear of him or her.

Conscious at last

6/18/2011 12:28:37 pm

Lidia17-

Sigh... yes, so true, uncanny indeed.

Unfortunately, sometimes the only way someone wakes up is through pain or victimization.

For those with eyes that are open, steering clear of danger is possible.

6/18/2011 02:00:06 pm

I really don't see that Hugo's behavior here allows us to diagnose him as narcissistic or psychopathic.

He merely expressed his opinions. Unfortunately, he's based those opinions on the most surface understanding of Sarah Palin's history. Considering how the media has misreported and misrepresented Palin time and time again (to her utter delight), I'm not surprised.

Hugo brought a dismissive attitude with him that was extremely off-putting and unfair. I'm sure his attitude has not changed. That, too is unfortunate.

Hugo came off as a a condescending jerk, but I'm not convinced based on his comments on this blog that he's another Sarah Palin.

Jeff

6/19/2011 03:45:04 am

namaste. happy father's day. shalom.

jeff

minnesotamud

6/20/2011 05:08:08 am

Are clf and CLF the same poster?

phantomimic link

6/21/2011 01:07:02 pm

People tend to give more importance to symbols than to thoughts. I read many opinions along the lines of Palin giving birth to a Down Syndrome child as being all they needed to know to vote for her. Thankfully she was not elected to office but as long as people think this way there will always be this danger.

Elizabeth link

3/15/2013 05:54:40 am

This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work.

Comments are closed.

Mrs. Palin's Mangina

Laura Novak

Blogs I Read

Categories

Archives