An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, "feminist" is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.
That is because what used to be called feminism--the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination--is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin--especially not Hillary Clinton, the left's favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.
But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.
Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology--most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.
As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.
To the extent that "feminism" remains controversial, it is because of the position it takes on abortion: not just that a woman should have the "right to choose," but that this is a matter over which reasonable people cannot disagree--that to favor any limitations on the right to abortion, or even to acknowledge that abortion is morally problematic, is to deny the basic dignity of women.
To a woman who has internalized this point of view, Sarah Palin's opposition to abortion rights is a personal affront, and a deep one. It doesn't help that Palin lives by her beliefs. To the contrary, it intensifies the offense.
It used to be a trope for liberal interviewers to try to unmask hypocrisy by asking antiabortion politicians--male ones, of course--what they would do if their single teen daughters got pregnant. It's a rude question, but Palin, whose 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy coincided with Mom's introduction to the nation, answered it in real life.
Recently we were at a party where a woman in her 60s, a self-described feminist, called Palin a "moron" for having encouraged her daughter to carry her child to term and "to marry the sperm donor." Even apart from the gross language, this was a completely irrational thing to say. First, that Palin's values are different in no way reflects on her intelligence.
More important, why is Bristol Palin's decision to carry her child to term any of this lady's business? Those who claim to be champions of privacy and choice need to do some serious soul-searching if they have so much trouble tolerating the private choices of others. (emphasis added)
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feminism. Show all posts
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Palin Hatred and Modern Feminism
James Taranto has a great column on the Left's hatred of Sarah Palin that serves to perhaps explain why so much vitriol has been lobbed at her in the past few weeks. But he goes further in explaining how feminism and liberalism are hopelessly intertwined and exposes the hypocrisy of those who are theoretically in favor of a "women's right to choose":
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Michelle Obama: Mommy
Personally, I find it reassuring that Michelle Obama says her first priority upon getting to Washington will be taking care of her children. Needless to say that statement has rankled a number of feminists as Dr. Albert Mohler explains.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Feminists and McCain
One of the big questions in this election is what was going to be the combined effect of Senator Barack Obama's snub of Hillary Clinton (18 million plus votes, remember?) and Senator John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be on female voters who, incidentally, make up a majority of registered voters. Based on this article by Tammy Bruce, it appears that there may be a huge swing of voters that previously would have voted for the Democratic ticket to the Republican ticket:
So, in other words, gender matters more than party among female voters. By rejecting Hillary Clinton, Democrats were not just rejecting her and her candidacy but women in general.
Ms. Bruce has some more harsh words for Democrats:
And for all the "appearances" of unity at the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Bruce was not fooled.
Democrats were saying at the end of their convention how unified they were. Senator Hillary Clinton's voters were going to fall in line and vote for Senator Obama. If Ms. Bruce's article is any indication, Senator Obama has his work cut out for him trying to heal the wounds he has inflicted upon the women of his party.
As William Congreve famously wrote in his play The Mourning Bride, "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.
Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.
So, in other words, gender matters more than party among female voters. By rejecting Hillary Clinton, Democrats were not just rejecting her and her candidacy but women in general.
Ms. Bruce has some more harsh words for Democrats:
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It's that simple.
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
And for all the "appearances" of unity at the Democratic National Convention, Ms. Bruce was not fooled.
The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman. (Emphasis original)
Democrats were saying at the end of their convention how unified they were. Senator Hillary Clinton's voters were going to fall in line and vote for Senator Obama. If Ms. Bruce's article is any indication, Senator Obama has his work cut out for him trying to heal the wounds he has inflicted upon the women of his party.
As William Congreve famously wrote in his play The Mourning Bride, "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)