Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
"Establishment Feminism" and Palin
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, October 16, 2008

Miranda Devine turns over the rock of "establishment feminism" and isn't pleased with what she sees squirming around underneath:
Judging by the opinion polls this week, the Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, probably will not get to be the US vice-president. But in her brief starring role on the global stage she has been a powerful psychic enema, flushing out the poison at the heart of establishment feminism for all to see.

No more sheathed claws or pretence about "tolerance" and "diversity". From Madonna to Sandra Bernhard, Pamela Anderson, Naomi Wolf, Lindsay Lohan and Kathy Lette, a certain type of influential progressive woman has been driven to insane rage by Palin's very existence.
"Powerful psychic enema?" Heh ... fairly descriptive, wouldn't you say, but how else would you characterize the "product" of those named above but that of an enema?

Love her or hate her, there's no question Sarah Palin has indeed caused the professional feminists to show their rather tacky hands:
The violent sexual language used against Palin would be intolerable, possibly criminal, from a man. Yet these women think nothing of describing the 44-year-old mother of five as a MILP: "A Mother I'd Like To Punch".

From the moment Palin emerged, the effect on some women has been like this, from an editor of online feminist magazine Jezebel: "My head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull. Many friends … said things like ... 'This feminist wants to murk that idiotic c—t.' "
Sisterhood, obviously, is a word reserved for only a portion of the female spectrum.

Why the visceral reaction against Palin when most would think that real feminists, even if they disagreed with her politics, would be celebrating her rise to power. Devine has one theory:
But the intemperate reaction by women to Palin flags something beside ideological differences - a weird, visceral rage, with its roots in some entrenched psychic pain. There is an echo of bitchy high-school jealousy of the popular queen bee from the snarling, self-mutilating nerd and goths who vainly lusted after the cute boys she snared.

The consolation for the losers is that homecoming queens are meant to get married, get pregnant, get fat and lose their looks so the self-made strugglers such as Bernhard and Madonna can patronise them at school reunions. Palin, by having it all, has cheated. Not only was she Miss Wasilla 1984, but she married her childhood sweetheart, Todd Palin, kept her figure, had five attractive, seemingly well-adjusted children and was successful in her career.
Heh ... yeah, there is certainly an element of that.

But Devine goes on to say that while there's some of that, it really hinges on one topic: abortion.
There is even a bumper sticker, "Abort Sarah Palin", and no diatribe against her fails to mention abortion.

Abortion is the emotional peg on which Palin-haters hang their hatreds and justify their intemperance. The touchstone issue which makes both sides hyperventilate has become such a bedrock article of faith for establishment feminists that they question it as little as their born-again Christian nemeses question the existence of God.

Even in light of medical advances in foetal surgery, premature baby medical care and prenatal imaging, it is unthinkable that progressive women would rethink abortion, even late-term abortion.

For them "choice" is not about choice at all, which is why Palin is such a threat.
"'Choice' is not about choice at all." And any threat or perceived threat to that unspoken belief is met with the viciousness we've seen visited on Sarah Palin.

In fact, this particular issue is the corner stone and the sacrament of the secular religion which "establishment feminism" now rests. No deviation is tolerated or allowed.

Why?

Australian MP Christine Campbell says:
"Feminists like myself are just saying [this issue] is not about criminality, but what abortion does to the woman … It injures her deeply. [But] we continue to feed the denial."
Sarah Palin is an alternative they simply can't tolerate if they're to successfully continue to "feed the denial".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Fellow breeders...don’t worry, it’s just the end of them.

20-30 years, and no more worries.
 
Written By: A Dad
URL: http://
Sarah Palin did for feminists what Clarence Thomas did for blacks.

She exposed them, as did Clarence Thomas, for their bigotry and ignorance.

Bigotry? When a woman is harangued in the workplace, feminists scream and holler and go to court. Now, it is the feminists who have JOINED in that bigotry.

Ignorance? Feminists have been telling us for years that one day America will "rise up" to its good intentions and elect a woman as President. Only now that they have that shot - or damn near close to it - they turn away. Why? Because they do not want a woman VP or woman President...they want a LIBERAL woman as VP or as President.

A conservative female VP or President is not just a setback to their movement, but is its destruction.

What feminists do not realize is that when they yelled for years about sexual harassment, then gave Bill Clinton a pass for doing what they would normally castrate someone for, they gave up any pretense of their bipartisan nature. It is not LIBERAL sexual harassers that they hate - it is CONSERVATIVE harassers who must be stopped. I remember one woman telling me that LIBERAL men do not "have it in them" to harass women...as if they cut off their own dicks in some liberal sacrifice.

So, when women scream and yell and shout that they want a "woman on a national ticket," we can all now turn to them and say, "Hell, folks - you got one, but decided to mock her, denigrate her, deny her womanhood and motherhood, and then vote against her. Never again. Never again."

I predict you will not see a woman VP or presidential candidate (if Obama does win, Hillary Clinton’s dreams of the presidency are finished) on a national ticket for many years to come. Perhaps the time between Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, 24 years, will be short compared to the interregnum that lies ahead.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Edward Gibbon, in his work "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," made an insightful remark about women rulers of antiquity. He generalized that women rulers were often failures because they overpersonalized affairs of state.

Two examples off the top of my head are Cleopatra and the Queen of Sheba. Neither made the right decisions.

I’d say that today’s Feminists show the same shortcoming.
 
Written By: Joseph Somsel
URL: http://
The radical feminists would gladly restrain Palin, Condi Rice, or any of Bill Clinton’s various victims (including female Democrats) to facilitate rape, since their goal is leftism, not feminism.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
James,

Win or loose, Palin could be a presidental or VP candidate in 2012. By then, she will have either 6 years as governor or 2 years as governor and 4 as VP.

Hell, 2012 could see a gov. Palin run against a failed president Obama.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Some of these abortion supporters remind me of a death cult

There are some who have good, principled reasons whom I can respect

But many of them are of the "abort here, abort now" variety and it’s kinda creepy
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I consider myself a feminist and am firmly pro-choice. However, much as I disagree with Mrs Palin on abortion, I respect her sincerity. She’s opposing something she genuinely views as murder. I think she’s mistaken in that view, but I have the utmost respect for her willingness to stand up for what she feels is right. Sadly, I seem to be in the minority among feminists — or perhaps in a silent majority.
...He generalized that women rulers were often failures because they overpersonalized affairs of state.

Two examples off the top of my head are Cleopatra and the Queen of Sheba. Neither made the right decisions.
For which motives and means and etc. we have histories written entirely by men — a gender which can lay absolutely no claim to immunity to overpersonalizing affairs of state.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Establishment "Working Class" Smacks Joe the Plumber into Line...
 
Written By: AD
URL: http://
Cleopatra, she managed to hang on to her kingdom through Roman occupation till she backed the wrong horse in a Roman vs Roman fight.

How about Elizabeth I?

Victoria, she of the ’Victorian’ age?


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I consider myself a feminist and am firmly pro-choice.
I have a problem with the term "pro-choice". (And I say this with no disrespect for your views, Achillea) Sarah Pallin made a "choice". Her "choice" was to be pro-life. For whatever the reason, she in fact had and made a "choice". And she did so for her own reasons and does not condemn others for the "choice" they make. And for the "choice" she made, she is condemned. Somewhere the term "pro-choice" has become the PC term for pro-abortion and I believe that is disengenuous at best. Because, as with the case of Sarah Pallin, to make a "choice" other than abortion is to invite condemnation from the intellectual and feminist elite.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
I consider myself a feminist and am firmly pro-choice. However, much as I disagree with Mrs Palin on abortion, I respect her sincerity. She’s opposing something she genuinely views as murder. I think she’s mistaken in that view, but I have the utmost respect for her willingness to stand up for what she feels is right. Sadly, I seem to be in the minority among feminists — or perhaps in a silent majority.
Back in the 80s, I had some exposure to leftist feminists who didn’t have much trouble with Chinese communist efforts at forcing abortion. Hence I’ve never been inclined to view the "pro choice" side as being serious about a woman’s right to choose anything other than leftist dogma.

Feminists don’t like Palin because she isn’t a leftist. Abortion doesn’t have much to do with it, much less any sort of rights.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I’m convinced that most women realize, subconsciously, that they were never oppressed by men. We’re oppressed by biology.

In other words... we’re oppressed by children, by babies.

By having them.

Because pregnancy is debilitating. You swell, you puke, and when you’re done puking you spend each day feeling like you’re wading through arm-pit deep oatmeal, after a while you lose mobility. And then when the baby is born you’re even *more* debilitated because at least when the baby was inside all it’s needs were met. You’ve got a tether on the baby that doesn’t allow you a larger window than a couple hours when its got to be fed... again. Interrupted sleep impacts mental acuity and the ability to learn and function. So what results is something called "women’s work." It’s the labor that can be done in short bits between taking care of small children or that can be done without going far from home, or can be done with those small children in tow. (Agriculture, textiles, domestic chores, etc.)

The woman "kept" as a dependent is different. It’s modern. And it’s a case of people trying to ape the rich. Poor women always have contributed significantly to the family economy. In marginal environments (the old west... Alaska...) women couldn’t be "kept" because there was not enough buffer in the economy to endure non-productive members. No, the "house-wife", bored and ignored, is people trying to ape the rich, usually without the funds. A successful man, then, did not have a wife that worked!

Focusing on the one without admitting the reason that men have done one sort of work and women a separate list of tasks, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a primal understanding of the oppression of biology.

Children steal women’s freedom.

The idea that abortion is necessary to solve this problem at a time when *all* pregnancy is essentially voluntary is a logical error. (Barring rape, yes, of course... but if only rape victims got abortions we wouldn’t be having this discussion.)

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
Someone who is clearly a "breeder" is implying that having children is a *good* thing and probably something that women *should* do. It doesn’t take much to make people defensive... particularly if they are in denial.

 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
What about oppression of gravity? Oppression of breathing oxygen?

Having children was once thought a blessing. So much for evolution.




 
Written By: AD
URL: http://
Heh - so societally we’re evolving out of having children.

Check out the "Shakers" from the 1800’s.

The plan worked well, except for annoying little problem.....
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Yeah... got you.

I’m just saying this (being a breeder myself) that there are realities about having children that limit the mobility and opportunities available to women.

It’s a person’s own choice if she wants to do that. These days she doesn’t even have to give up sex.

I think that people are vastly poorer if they chose childlessness, but the practical realities of caring for small children (and this applies to men, too, for raising a family and valuing that) are what they are.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I pretty much agree with this article. Feminists, with just a few exceptions are much more into socialism, and all it’s attendant isms than they are with woman’s rights. Other wise you would not see such silence from them about the plight of women in Muslim nations.

As for women rulers. There have been many good and competent ones in history. However, history shows that they were all pretty quick to go to war. So that old stupidity, that if women ran the world we would have peace, is a non starter.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Somewhere the term "pro-choice" has become the PC term for pro-abortion and I believe that is disengenuous at best
Speaking of disingenuous, it was probably somewhere around the point the anti-abortion contingent co-opted the assuming-facts-not-in-evidence term ’pro-life.’

For the record, I have no problem with Bristol Palin (or anyone else) choosing not to have an abortion. I would, in fact, much rather that more women did so. I stand firmly, however, behind their having that choice.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
I’m all for choice, too.

But let me ask you this... is the right to "choice" the right to a "do over?"

Unless a woman has been raped, she made a choice, or a series of choices that lead to her pregnancy.

If the situation was, as it could reasonably be argued *was* at one time in our society, that women really didn’t have the ability to control their reproduction, did not have access to birth control, could not decide when to have sex or not, did not have options other than finding a man to support them... did an abortion actually solve any of those things? Would an abortion make any of that lack of "choice" go away any more than an abortion could make it so a rape never happened?

Of course not.

There is no case in which getting an abortion corrects a case of "it was not my choice to have sex or get pregnant." The lack of control and personal sovereignty remains, even when the pregnancy that results is ended.

Even considering that birth control is not 100%, men and women both have to consider the risk of pregnancy or disease when they decide what methods they will use to manage those risks. Just how badly do you want to be certain that you don’t catch a venereal disease? Will you use a condom after marriage because, although you trust your spouse, there’s a 1 in a thousand chance you’re wrong? Or do you risk it? Same with pregnancy. If you’re a man you have to decide how careful you’re going to be on the off chance a condom fails or your sex partner is untrustworthy. We all make risk assessments and choices.

Having a severe issue with disposing of a living human organism in no way means that a person thinks that women shouldn’t have complete control over their own reproduction. And if they make a choice to be "cavalier" (to borrow a word from Obama) then that, too, is a *choice*.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider