by: Kirsten Powers
September 4, 2008
ST. PAUL
If you drive around my home state of Alaska for very long, you're sure to see a bumper sticker exclaiming, "Alaska girls kick ass."
Last night, "Sarah Barracuda" more than lived up to that slogan as she fought back at the media and Washington naysayers who've ridiculed her as a bimbo bumpkin interloper and showed she isn't going to be pushed around.
Had the media not been viciously attacking her family for the last few days, the speech might've seemed too tough. With that backdrop, it was more than appropriate.
The Obama camp also gave her the perfect chance to smack it around for being elitists - since its first response to John McCain picking her was to ridicule the size of her home town.
On that stage last night, Sarah Palin represented everything the feminist movement claims to strive for: a successful working woman with a happy family life and a husband who helps raise the children. Yet, rather than hailing her accomplishment, the feminist establishment has sat by silently as she's savaged for being a working mother.
Turns out old feminism is really just a bunch of good 'ole girls telling you what to think.
Ladies, don't you worry your pretty little heads about deciding what you believe; the audaciously named National Organization for Women is here to speak on your behalf.
NOW put out a press release saying that Sarah Palin doesn't speak for women's rights. That's NOW's job.
Except if a conservative woman is being smeared in the media with sexist attacks and held to a completely different standard than her male counterparts. Then NOW has nothing to say about women's rights.
Time for a little truth in advertising.
Liberal women have been furiously penning identical screeds against Sarah Palin - blasting McCain for not understanding women and then announcing, "Now, let me speak on behalf of all women and tell you what women want in a candidate."
Talk about condescending.
Actress and 1970s women's-rights activist Jean Stapleton once allegedly quipped that Edith Bunker would support the Equal Rights Amendment "if she understood it." Today, nobody could blame any woman for not understanding a movement that purports to support equality for women but sits by silently as liberal radio host Ed Schultz uses "bimbo alert" to refer to Palin - and calls her a bad mother on CNN.
Where is the condemnation for the sickening misogyny, such as the DailyKOS's mock Playboy cover with Palin? The Huffington Post's photo montage of Palin, headlined "Former Beauty Queen, Future VP?" The Washington Post's Sally Quinn criticizing Palin for being a working mother?
Well, I suppose she could've stayed home and baked cookies.
But conservatives shouldn't get too self-satisfied - they have plenty to atone for, too. Having discovered sexism now that their darling Sarah is under attack doesn't get them off the hook for their part in tearing down liberal working women in the past. (See: Clinton, Hillary, cookies.)
A 2001 National Review cover story screamed, "Thanks Mom! The Case Against Working Mothers." It included such gems as: "Maybe a little stigma is exactly what [working mothers] deserve . . . for abandoning their children. We are committed to 'leaving no child behind' unless it is by his mother hustling off to make her career." Now National Review Online is the hub for condemning sexist comments on Palin - who went back to work three days after giving birth to her last child. Hustle, hustle.
Many liberal women remember how infuriating it was to watch the conservative Phyllis Schlafly travel the country lecturing women about the evils of equal rights and urging them to not work (as she worked and was away from her family). Now, she supports Sarah Palin.
At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Pat Buchanan demonized Hillary Clinton as a "radical feminist" who hated the institution of marriage despite her seeming attachment to her own marriage against all odds.
When asked during the primary by a supporter about Hillary, "How do we beat the bitch?" McCain laughed and answered: "That's an excellent question."
Both sides suffer from the same illness: Ideology trumps all.
Now it's time for both sides to move past this and embrace some postpartisan feminism. Sexism will never stop if both sides are blind to it when it happens to their opponents.
There's some hope. The new women's group, WomenCount, which sprung up from the Hillary movement, was founded to speak out against all sexism - not just that lobbed at women they agree with. In a statement about Palin, it said it would "stand up for [Palin] against misogynist smears not because we like her or support her, but because that's how feminism works."
Amen to that.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 20
The woman is a proven liar, hypocrite, and right-wing radical.
She is, however, very good at reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter. If the majority of Americans were complete morons, she would be in good shape.
I think your letting your bias get the way of being objective about Gov. Palin's speech.
I haven't heard anyone except people here and on the blogs say her speech was anything but great! Even Democrats
As many people watched her speak as did Obama's gala affair.
As far as three guys hopping into a post about feminisim asap! I'll say LOL! and wait for some people who have a more vested interest in the subject.
Been a long time since I was a ditto head LOL!
Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie. (click on the link to read the entire op-ed piece)
And the attempts were so pathetic to align Hillary with the Rs...only a chromosome similarity between Steinem and Palin, I mean Hillary and Palin.
That is exactly what I was trying to say, lots of bloggers and posters like here on gather are being critical of Governor Pakin's address the other night but people like 'Dick Morris past political advisor to the Clinton's, Karl Rove political stratigist for the Bush campaign, one of Hillary's chief political advisors and just about every "expert" says she hit it out of the park with her address.
Oxnard, I have explained this several times on Gather. I wish people would look at those articles about this topic and read the comments, because then they would see my answer. Gov. Palin said that she wouldn't even entertain the idea of being VP unless she was sure it would be a fruitful job, because she is used to being busy and getting a lot done. As the VP job largely depends upon the will of POTUS, she was saying that she wouldn't say yes or no until she had talked to the candidate and agreed upon her duties. JFK had LBJ doing nothing, while Bush has Cheney doing quite a bit. She was simply saying that she wants to know what her duties will be. Nobody can definite the VP's duties because they are whatever POTUS tells them to do, outside of being the President of the Senate, which amounts to breaking a tie vote--a rare occurrence. VP rarely shows up at the Senate for this reason.
Her declared stance on resistance to the bridge to nowhere contradicts her record on the subject. And she made no attempt to return the allocated federal funds to Washington either. That said, she is far more interesting than any of the 3 guys from the two parties and neither being a lawyer or professional politician are points in her favor.