Feministing’s reaction to Palin fails to surprise.

I wrote in the last post about how interested I would be to read Feministing’s reaction to Palin. I have now done so and it is pretty much what you would expect.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010705.html

The piece was written by Ann of the fuck you John McCain fame (will we see a “fuck you Sarah Palin”?).

Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman -- one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

Oh I see. So republicans are only interested in one type of woman. One who is.. you know.. conservative!

Since when was opposition to universal health care an anti-woman policy? This statement is the kind of breathless stupidity you can expect from the feministing gals, a mix of lies and non-sequiturs. Its ground I’ve covered in my “feminism and the left” video. Feminism is primarily a left based political movement which has aligned its leftist values with being for women and thus to oppose them is being “against women”.

And what the fuck does “anti-woman” mean anyway? It’s your normal meaningless rhetorical garbage. Basically the leftist cant is “I like the fact that she’s a woman but..”. But what? If you’re a feminists then you should be pretty happy with this, but maybe that “but” betrays something else? That politics is more important than gender to you.

Posted under: Gender Issues, Politics
Posted on: Monday, September 01, 2008 12:28 PM
« A sign to show I'm not dead - thoughts on Sarah Palin | Home | Your daily dose of Islamic evil »
Share this post: email it, bookmark It, digg It, kick It

Comments

  1. Posted by: Archivist on 9/1/2008 4:23 PM
    Gravatar
    Feminism long ago lost its way and its cachet and it's been displaced by a marginalized but fervent devotion to the most extreme left wing policies -- policies not shared by the vast majority of thinking Americans. These are the people who supported Ferraro for VP in '84 in the midst of the biggest landslide in American presidential history.

    In the new feminism, buzzwords have replaced nuanced thinking, and mischaracterization the concoction of straw men have replaced serious and honest consideration of any opposing view.

    As but one example, to assert that Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain are opposed to equal pay for women based on their opposition to extending the statute of limitations for claims based on wage disparity is breathtaking in its dishonesty. That's all they've got? The statute of limitations? A slender reed to rest on, to be sure. This is what feminism has come to? It is laughable.

    The most mind-numbing aspect to this new secular religion is its insistence that a cadre of bloggers know what's best for all women based on nothing more than their serene ipse dixit. Can you imagine a small group of bloggers deigning to speak for all men in a similar manner? You can't because it's not possible. They are disgraceful in their arrogance and in their disdain for the views of most women, and in their generalized hatred for men.
  2. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 9/1/2008 5:41 PM
    Gravatar
    Sure. One opposition to a cause that the left endorses is enought to mark one a pariah. McCain opposed this bill so he is anti woman! What? It's the standard tactic of the left. To mark one with a number of disgusting terms at the drop of a hat in order to shut down debate and to win through thug tactics.
  3. Posted by: The Depressed Doormat on 9/1/2008 10:30 PM
    Gravatar
    I think your anger is slightly misplaced. Of the three things you have quoted from feministing.com, two of them are directly related with women's issues. You could perhaps accuse Ann of being a little over-zealous and not having proof-read her article. But to judge her take on it as baseless based on one mistake is doing the same thing you accuse her of.

    This is not to say that their demands for equality of outcome are rational, but I think the real issue that this person is stating is that the woman candidate chosen by McCain, is just eye-candy as she is against some of the things that the average, rational woman is fighting for.

    Also, I think you have taken a lot from the article out of context.

    "Let me say right off the bat that, overall, I think it's great that Republicans have chosen to elevate a woman to this level -- no matter what their motivations. I want to see more women of all parties involved in politics. But, as we stated over and over in the primaries, a politician's gender isn't everything. It's merely one factor to be considered. And quite frankly, Palin's political views suck.

    First up, she's super anti-choice. The forced-pregnancy crowd is thrilled today! (She recently had her fifth child, who has Down's syndrome.) She's against marriage equality and supports a federal gay-marriage ban, but has made sure to note that she "has gay friends." Though she has signed on to same-sex partner benefits. She believes schools should teach creationism. She's also pretty terrible on environmental issues, and is a huge advocate of drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Plus, she's embroiled in a scandal:"
  4. Posted by: The Depressed Doormat on 9/1/2008 10:33 PM
    Gravatar
    I forgot to add, a woman isn't an ally to the feminist cause just because she is a woman. Just like not all men help the men's right cause!
  5. Posted by: Archivist on 9/2/2008 1:12 AM
    Gravatar
    Thanks for the useless generalizations, Depressed Doormat.

    And thanks for signaling your absolute disdain for persons who believe that life begins at conception. The knee jerk certainty that you and persons like you espouse is what is most astounding. You would assert, with all the certainty of the God you don't believe in, that no one knows when life begins -- and therefore the decision to abort should be left to the woman. OK, let's accept that premise: would you fire a loaded pistol at a bush when you don't if there is a human life behind it? Of course not. Such an act would be considered by every thinking person, of this or any other age, to be so grossly reckless as to rise to the level of criminality. Yet when you don't know when human life begins, you think it is perfectly acceptable that women should have the right to do something at least as criminally reckless.

    Sadly, for you, the U.S. Supreme Court is one justice away from overturning the fabricated constitutional right that allows an abortion. The founding fathers actually developed procedures allowing for the Constitution to be amended -- and having five appointed Justices invent a "right" out or wholecloth doesn't happen to be one of them.

    I'd suggest you slink back to your NOW crowd that assumes the world is full of misogynists and leave the rest of us alone.
  6. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 9/2/2008 3:45 AM
    Gravatar
    To The Depressed Doormat:

    That quote you provided from the article is in line with what I said. Basically they think it’s great that she’s a woman but… if only she wasn’t one of those darn conservatives. Like I said in the title. Feministing’s reaction fails to surprise.

    Basically to not support their politics is to be “anti-woman”. This is their message.

    And have the libels and slanders of the left become so much a part of the background noise that the fact that she lies is ignored. Anti equal pay? That’s a libel and a load of tripe.
  7. Posted by: The Depressed Doormat on 9/2/2008 9:41 AM
    Gravatar
    Let me clarify a few points. I am not a "feminist". My comment was not my "viewpoint" so you wasted a lot of breath arguing about things I really don't care about, and things that don't/won't affect me. I was trying to be fair to try and see what the "feminist" point of view was. In your rage you seemed to have missed out on that.

    As for me showing disdain for the people that believe life begins at conception, I don't think I have done so. I am sure there are two sides to every coin. However, the "popular feminist" movement wants the right to abort. If a woman believe abortion is not "moral" then so be it. The right to abort does not take away from her right to keep the child, if she so wishes. I am still not clear as to why you seem so pissed off.

    I am quite "anti-feminist" myself, but I would like to think I have a good grip on where my anti-feminism is healthy and where it becomes absurd and chauvinistic. For me, in present times, this is a fine line and I try to walk it as well as I can.

    Lastly, I didn't mean any offense to your way of looking at things. Having said that I think I was not being too out of line trying to get a better handle on what was said at the website and your criticisms of it.

    P.S. And pray tell me where did god come into all of this?
  8. Posted by: The Depressed Doormat on 9/2/2008 10:04 AM
    Gravatar
    @Archivist: I seem to have mistaken this as your blog and that comment as your defense of what you have written. I apologize for that. But I suppose my comment still remains valid as it is an attempt to clarify my position based on your critique.

    @Argus: I haven't followed the news much. In fact, it is almost as if I have been under a rock in the recent past. So, if there is factual errors on that website, I would recommend perhaps a snippet or a link, and more importantly clarification of what you say. I hope you take this as constructive criticism rather than something hostile, which Archivist seems to think was my intention.

    My question to you regarding your article is, Isn't the current feminist movement a political one? I think so. So doesn't that mean that your political view is as important as your gender?

    And I would like to clarify a little more in detail, something which I touched upon in my defense. If the conservative women are anti-choice and anti-abortion and get their way, that curbs the freedom of the women that are pro-choice. However, if the women that are pro-choice get their way, how does that really affect the anti-abortion female lobby? I suppose it hurts their religious sensibilities, but then we are veering off political debate and debates about civil liberties and delving into a theistic debate. And to save us some grief, let's not go there. Perhaps if they claimed their religion frowned upon underage pregnant women...
  9. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 9/2/2008 5:27 PM
    Gravatar
    @Doormat: I did take what you wrote as constructive criticism, you were quite polite.

    Yes, the current feminist movement is a political one, this is obvious. My problem is that they are not honest about this fact. They act like they are purely a humanitarian movement, but if they were then they would be open to what is good for women. But they are collectivist leftists and they encourage young women to go down the victim route which will lead to personal misery.

    And religious conservatives oppose abortion because of their religion, but that's the point. They do it because of their religion (which I think is stupid btw) and NOT because they are "anti woman" but the feminists play the simplistic branding game as do most people on the left. There are secular arguments against abortion though, as for freedom, I believe in the freedom to be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't harm others. A fetus is in a woman's body, it isn't her body so she isn't guaranteed those rights as a birth right. Society has to decide what it feels she is able to do about it.
  10. Posted by: beeswil on 9/8/2010 6:56 PM
    Gravatar
    Most of us are aware that go to the top coach factory outlet. Though these juicy couture handbags are from previous seasons and manufacturer of cheap coach bag.

Post your comment




(this will save your form settings for the next time you comment)
Please add 7 and 3 and type the answer here:

The umbrella in particular is remembered as the symbol of the nineteenth century’s disturbing obsession with individualism. In Bellamy’s utopia, umbrellas have been replaced with retractable canopies so that everyone is protected from the rain equally.
“In the nineteenth century,” explains a character, “when it rained, the people of Boston put up three hundred thousand umbrellas over as many heads, and in the twentieth century they put up one umbrella over all the heads.”