Skip to comments.Why Do Feminists Hate Palin?
Posted on 06/01/2010 3:33:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Mytheos Holt doesnt know the half of Jessica Valenti. Having identified her merely as a Washington Post writer Mr. Holt proceeds to take apart Ms. Valentis attack on Sarah Palins conservative feminism. But theres more to it than that. Valenti, the author of multiple books on Generation Y Feminism, is a fairly radical feminist, still clinging to shopworn bromides about patriarchy, institutional sexism, and the ever-looming threat of misogyny. Shes wrong about the history of feminism. And she couldnt be more off-base when it comes to Sarah Palin.
When I criticized feminist date-rape propaganda two months ago, I was criticized by the feminist blog world including one of Valentis own blogs, Yes Means Yes for not realizing that there were feminisms, and not merely feminism. Since Valenti claims that Palin opposes real feminism, whatever that is, can we finally dispose of this meaningless line? To borrow a line from Simone de Beauvoir on psychoanalysis: when one criticizes the letter of the doctrine, its insisted that one must actually just embrace the spirit of the argument, but once one embraces the spirit of the argument, they just want to bind you to the letter of the doctrine! (Of course, Valenti speaks out of both sides of her mouth, since later she claims that there is no true feminism and that its actually a highly intellectually diverse movement. So Im not sure what to argue with.)
I cant say that Im a fan of Sarah Palin, but if she doesnt embody everything that feminism ought to stand for, then what we have on our hands is a manipulative language game. She has it all: a college degree, a family, a high-profile career, and a history of taking on powerful, entrenched men in established institutions and winning. The presidential race of 2008 exposed feminist ideology for the charade that it is. What a riot that Hillary Clinton, who rose to power on her cheating husbands coattails, was hailed as a feminist hero while Sarah Palin, a self-made woman, was spat upon!
Of course, feminism originated as a classical liberal movement. Despite an organized effort by radical feminists to bury the true legacy of Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, these women had far more in common with Sarah Palin than with, say, Gloria Steinem or Jessica Valenti, for that matter. Wollstonecraft and Stanton, especially, were adamant about the primacy of Enlightenment values. Radical feminists pay these women lip service as forerunners but dismiss their actual arguments as quaint or archaic. Stanton, in the famous Seneca Falls Declaration of 1844, purposely borrowed words from the Declaration of Independence. Like her counterpart Frederick Douglass in the early civil rights movement, Stanton did not dismiss the Founding Fathers as part of a hegemonic power discourse intent on subjugating women and people of color. She believed that America had to move forward because it was not being true to its own standards. The cure for womens ills was in more Enlightenment values, not a revolutionary program against them.
Valenti cites Betty Friedan as a founding mother of the modern feminism that Sarah Palin is somewhat dismissive of, but Friedan has been somewhat dismissive of recent feminism, as well, saying that its gotten too victim-oriented. Susan Faludi decried her as having sold out to the patriarchy, and Friedans pro-porn views put her at odds with the now-dominant feminism of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, whose anti-pornography standpoint has found admirers in conservative women like Tammy Bruce, as well as much of the religious right. Sarah Palin would probably find a lot to like in Dworkins Pornography: Men Possessing Women.
Sarah Palin is typically feminist insofar as she complains about (generally non-existent) glass ceilings and media sexism. She nauseatingly hails Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton as people who helped blaze the trail for her. And she has long been a member of Feminists for Life. But she is not drunk on fashionable nonsense such as the kind that came from, say, Kate Millett. She does not believe that feminism must be a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end. When you hear Foucault-esque jargon like structural analysis [of power relations] you know youre dealing with an airhead.
Valentis feminism is uncommonly silly, actually. She is the author of a hilariously bad book called Hes a Stud, Shes a Slut, purporting to expose double-standards against women. Among the worst is the contention that while shes a cougar, hes dating a younger woman. Really? Im twenty years old and I cant even say that I think that Justin Bieber is cute without being called a pedophile by some people. Since when have men gotten away with being into younger people? Another: Hes an activist, shes a pain in the ass. Most people think theyre all pains in the ass, actually. Hes hot and heady, shes brainy or boobilicious. Really? I think that most guys out there can attest to the jock/nerd dichotomy. Hes drunk, shes a victim. Hey! Now theres a real double-standard. That might make for a good article.
Feminism as we once knew it is dead. And, as the classical feminist Valenti criticizes, Christina Hoff Sommers, is apt to point out: thats a good thing. It means that its work is basically done. Now, the focus should shift back to the eternal question facing us all men and women the latter no longer merely the second sex: what does it mean to be a fulfilled member of ones sex? Sarah Palins answer is as worthy of debate as Valentis. Lets have this discussion. Its one well worth having.
"I cant say that Im a fan of Sarah Palin, but if she doesnt embody everything that feminism ought to stand for, then what we have on our hands is a manipulative language game. She has it all: a college degree, a family, a high-profile career, and a history of taking on powerful, entrenched men in established institutions and winning. The presidential race of 2008 exposed feminist ideology for the charade that it is. What a riot that Hillary Clinton, who rose to power on her cheating husbands coattails, was hailed as a feminist hero while Sarah Palin, a self-made woman, was spat upon!"
This is surprising from Frum.
Why do they hate her? Because she is smart, has a career, has a large family, pro-life, loving husband and she looks good doing it all.
Let me give it a try: She’s hot, has kids, is happily married, and is successful.
BTW, I’m guessing Alex is a female, based on the Justin Beiber reference.
Because Sarah Palin defuses one of the central tenets of dialectical feminism, that gains for women have to come at the expense of men. Just like Clarence Thomas gave the lie to dialectical racism.
They hate her beccause she has all that, and got it by working for it instead of just raising a stink about being "entitled" to it.
The main, pre-eminent reason feminists hate Sarah Palin is that she chose NOT to have an abortion and to bear a child that has Down’s syndrome.
EVERYTHING else is secondary to that.
She is poster child for pro-life courage.
Feminism has met its goals and just needs to go away. We are going to college and graduate school, we can own property in our own name, and we can vote. That’s about all most women wanted, and in light of that past 5,000 years, that right there is a lot. Personally, I am grateful.
Why do they hate her?
Because of the Marxism that has seeped into feminist ideology that states that there is no difference between a man and a woman, that they are equal. She exudes feminism and her husband seems to be a perfect male. They love themselves and each other.
Feminists loath the way that God designed woman, and are jealous of men. They are reminded constantly of the fact that their whole ideology is a fraud and goes against natural law whenever they see Sarah Palin, esp. with her family. Must make them all puke.
Although I don’t think Sarah is Presidential (yet?), she certainly is causing the divisions that Glen Beck speaks about. But, as he points out, the division is beginning to take the shape of God-fearing vs. anti-God.
Tammy Bruce is not a conservative. She is a lesbian who is attempting to break down the barriers between those who believe the US is principally a Judeo-Christian based nation and those who think low taxes are all that this is about. She is a liberal in disguise.
Almost all feminists are leftists (Note that some Right leaning women may declare themselves feminists, but it is of a different stripe), therefore, they are against Palin.
LOL. Well done. I'll add doesn't abort to that list.
To 12 - Then why would Tammy Bruce fervently support Palin running for president? By your analysis of Bruce she would seek out a potential candidate who did not espouse pro-life/pro-family ideals.
Article word count: 948. Ugh.
Answer: “because she’s conservative and beautiful.”
Doctrinaire feminists hate Palin because she let her child live.
Openly homosexual women are not pro-family in any stretch of the imagination. Bruce is like Woody Harelson backing Joe Arpaio based on his drug enforcement policies. This is useless. Conservatives mean something more than lip service to positions...it means we back them up with lifestyles that match our words.
Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
A little late for that David.
They only like their own kind:
ugly witches with 40 cats who live alone underground and eat babies.
She’s disenfranchising another device the left has used for decades to bilk legitimate institutions and businesses - gender inequality.
Can’t get what you want, you can tie somebody up in court using sex or gender to force the issue.
Palin’s very existence shuts that whole ruse down. And the very WORST thing about Palin - she’s a Christian.
On top of the success, the family, the raising a special needs kid, the ethics, the guts, the being female - it’s the being Christian too. Beyond that, she appears to be happy, and happily married.
She’s also hotter and smarter than the entire feminist movement, and married to a stud. How do you argue with any of it if you’re a Gloria Steinam feminist?
Oprah’s potemkin village of success is starting to wear pretty thing. Only so many boats you can ski behind. At the end of the day, you’re either happy or you aren’t, and you can’t buy that. Oprah doesn’t look all that happy.
They hate her because of guilty rage and contempt
She kept the retarded baby and loves and cuddles him and in public no less. “Feminists” find that life choice, and the baby’s very appearance- repugnant and are ashamed to admit it
Bruce has done a lot of damage to the marxists. Not everyone working to stop the destruction of the USA will meet your approval. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles. In the meantime, i’d rather have Tammy Bruce doing what she has been doing, rather than what she was doing when she was in their side.
It’s a multi-pronged attack. SOme people want Christianity protected,, some want us back on the gold standard, some want strong defense, some don’t want NASA to stop shooting rockets. We all gotta work together,,even though we have significant differences.
It’s a come as you are party, we don’t have the luxury of excluding people working hard to stop the left.
They hate her because she chose life.
and yes,, Sarah puts the lie to everything they stand for. SHe lives the life they say is impossible. They say downs babies must be aborted. They say a woman has to choose between marriange and career. They say a career woman can’t have kids. They say large families aren’t practical. They say a woman needs to dress and act like a man to succeed.
Sarah proves all those to be wrong, and they hate her for it. She shows that they have, and are, wasting their femininity.
You got it,, and not only that,,, doesn’t act like a martyr. She acts blessed.
It amazes me how many people, especially leftists, look at everything in the world as a zero-sum game.
“Feminism has met its goals and just needs to go away.”
Like all causes in the grievance industry, they don’t care about goals - they just want those grants and donations to continue so they can keep their cushy jobs. To do that, they have to keep screeching.
Cause she looks like this:
And they look like this?
ugly witches with 40 cats who live alone underground and eat babies.
I've know a guy that is a member of NAMBLA and likes little boys. But, he is a heck of a small government, low taxes, strong military, secure borders advocate. Do I want him alongside?
I know a woman that is into witchcraft, loves the libertarian perspective (hands-off government), wants strong crime prevention. Do I want her alongside?
By your analysis we have just a few platforms that distinguish us from what you call the "left". I see a bigger group of platforms identifying the left. And I view much moral sewage as from the left, perhaps moreso than you do.
Sorry, Bruce is not welcome since the destruction of the family begins with the profound statement that sex outside of marriage is just an "orientation"...a woman having sex with another woman doesn't affect what a family views as correct and moral. How do we say to the kids, "Do what is right, son." and we hold that our ally is a woman climbing on her same-sex partner? These are not specious remarks. Is that what you call integrity, morality, uprightness? Does it matter?
I didn't either. I said, by her actions she is destructive to the pro-family position so what comes out of her mouth means little as compared to what comes out of her life.
Sarah Palin exposed that there is no ‘glass ceiling.’ Now the feminists fear their victim-card cottage industry will fall apart.
Well, some of them, no. That's true.
I’ll bet the one on the right never had an Orgasm with a person of the Male persuasion in the same room.
Can't say the same for the Couple in the picture on the right.
I'll bet a male never did with her in the room either. Even if, for whatever reason, he was motivated to try.
Because she’s pro-life. And I might add she’s pro-life without saying a word. Her life is pro-life.
At the core of that belief is classical Marxism, which borrows heavily from Hegel’s dialecticism. Under that perspective, for example, capital cannot be created. So it must be accumlated in one hand by taking it from the other. By extension, the same principle applies to any form of power. Power defines social classes and wherever there is an inequity, there is conflict.
It’s fertilizer, of course. But that’s the scat-smeared lens liberals use to examine the world around them.