Page 1 of 1 pages
good god don’t you get it yet. this choice was about the base period. if mccain has any chance to win he has to energize his base which at best has given him lukewarm support. if he picks up disaffected women voters in the process it’s a bonus. I’m a conservative, anyone with half a brain realizes that Palin is not going to appeal to 90% of the women on the left. The pick has done precisely what it was intended to do. that Palin has now become a national star (for how long who knows) is a huge rather unexpected bonus.
Posted by shiftright on Sep 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I think you are missing the point with some Hillary Clinton supporters.
We supported Hillary because she was the most qualified and had the best plans and solutions to accomplish her plans for America.
I will not support Obama because I don’t think he is qualified to be President and his plans and positions change from day to day. I think McCain is very qualified to lead this nation and despite what Obama and company say, McCain will not be another Bush. McCain has been a thorn in the Republicans’ side for years and he put them on notice on Sep. 4, 2008, it will not be business as usual in Washington.
I happen to be an Independent.
Posted by JayD on Sep 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM
The point of this column is that McCain will not get support from feminists by nominating Gov. Palin. Depending upon how you define “feminist”, this point is either asinine or whistling in the dark.
If by “feminist” you mean members of NOW and other hard-core self-identified feminists, then, no, of course, there is no one McCain could have nominated that would have changed their vote. “Feminists” by this definition are left of liberal. They are not voting Republican, under any circumstances. And they are, at most, 5% of the vote. So, no, McCain was not making a play for the sort of person who agonizes over whether to “vote her conscience” by voting for Nader or “sell out” by voting for Obama. It is silly to even discuss this kind of question.
But if by “feminist” you mean the sort of voter—male or female—who would like to see women advance further in American society, then, yes, you can place a large bet on Gov. Palin’s vote influencing them. Why shouldn’t it? She is a bright, touch, articulate, attractive woman. She is the second women on a major party ticket, nominated right after the other party showed great disrespect toward its first woman to come within a cat whisker of winning the nomination.
Bottom line, you are correct that the sort of “feminist” who puts being Left ahead of supporting women, will not be tempted by Palin. But how many such “feminists” do you think are out there? And how many voters are there, who actually would like to see a woman in high office, particularly one who is this attractive, from so many angles?
What you should have written is that your guy Obama dropped the ball big time by not nominating Hillary as his VP, and this is the price that the Left pays for disrespecting women. Instead, you write this drivel about how being a woman makes no difference to anyone; the only thing that matters is being Left. You wish.
Posted by Rick Gibson on Sep 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM
“Vitriol” is the metaphor perpetually used to define the gaunt life-negating feminism of the ERA past, as in “You, professor, are here knee-deep in corrosive vitriol.” So now let me mention some other reasons why women will vote for Sarah Palin: She is a real leader—smart, powerful, attractive, tough optimistic, proven. And above all she is not simply a “trophy Vice President” as she has been called of late, but she is a trophy woman for every family in the United States that struggles to raise their children in the shadow of the diminished so-called feminists who care more about child care than actual children, more about abortion choice than school choice and more about defining marriage than succeeding at marriage. And in 4 or 8 years when Sarah Palin runs for president she will still be a trophy. She will be a trophy president and her husband will be a trophy husband and her family will be a trophy family, and there is no shame in embracing the ability of an autonomous trophy family, with five children and a husband, to stand up against the cold burning green vitriol of the Prozac addled, scarfed, graying, life-negating Steinemites that still haunt our universities, preaching misery to thousands if not millions of young women and men who would love to have families like Sarah Palin’s.
Posted by jdcarmine on Sep 7, 2008 at 1:27 PM
So called feminists out there are really showing who they are. They don’t support women, only LIBERAL ones. NOW has really angered me with their spokesman saying, “She might as well be a conservative man”. Gloria Steinem’s article that she is the wrong women angered me as well. Sarah Palin represents the modern feminist. That women who can believe whatever they want to believe without fear of what anyone thinks. I believe NOW and Gloria should be commended for what they did for women, but it is outdated. The fact is they never gave her a chance and it is sad. It is also disgusting how the media has attacked her w/out giving her a chance. I am an independent that leans conservative. I never agreed with Hillary Clinton’s politics, but I was dismayed b/c I felt she was being railroaded, just as Sarah is now. She gave a great 1st and 2nd impression. She now has to prove herself in the debate, on talk shows, and on the campaign trail. To minimize her candidacy is close-minded and a mistake.
Posted by cuppa jo on Sep 7, 2008 at 1:37 PM
As an ivy league educated female attorney in my 20s, I am thrilled to be voting for Sarah Palin and I know a lot of women who agree with me (none of whom are at the extreme left, although I have heard of them anecdotally).
I am so excited to see a woman who, like me, doesn’t fit the “feminist” label that has been hijacked by the far left. I have been heartbroken to watch as other women have called her an embarrassment, etc. I can’t imagine any woman (or most men) would rather have their daughters grow-up saying “if only I make life choices like HRC, I can have a political voice” than “I want to grow up and be vice president like Sarah Palin.” It’s refreshing to see woman leadership that isn’t the by-product of hanging around men.
Only a small fraction of NOW voters will switch parties for Sarah, but for many americans, McCain’s openness to highlight and help train a promising young women is very attractive.
Unexperienced male with unknown past v. slightly less inexperienced female with reform past—I’ll take McCain/Palin any day!
“The so called
Posted by AsperGirl on Sep 7, 2008 at 1:38 PM
This is why the pick is working so well. It seems to me that every time something new comes up, Obama’s message gets derailed. McCain has reshaped and refocused his message to fit his image. Rally around the red, white and blue. It’s a very effective message that gets underutilized and fits McCain well. Talking about feminism is missing the point entirely. It was indeed about revving up the base, and I think more importantly he has found a kindrid spirit. She is probably the best example, outside of McCain, of someone who has bucked the conventional party line time and time again. You may be able to dig up bits and pieces about dealings with other Republicans, but the disagreements on principle far outweigh those. And hey she’s a woman. If she happens to pick up a few Hillary supporters, great. But that certainly was not reason # 1. McCain managed to rally the base, solidify the maverick image, and create a diversion, all in 1. Brilliant.
Posted by NCMB on Sep 7, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Look, dems could have had your first female president or VP, but they undermined, marginalized & then passed over Clinton, and did so quite intentionally and deliberately, publicly dissing & humiliating her and a former president. The disrespectful treatment of Clintons by their party for a shiny new pop-politician face man, was an appalling spectacle that riveted and fascinated conservatives this year, and actually created empathy and respect for the Clintons among some Republicans. No one forced the dems to waste the historic opportunity that Hillary Clinton offered and that was spurned by the dems.
Sarah Palin has the fundamentals that would enable her to grow into a great leader. She become the first woman president. In retrospect, it’s the conservative women who break executive level glass ceilings. If this glass ceiling will be broken by our generation, it makes sense that it will be a conservative woman who does it for us. Please stop standing in her way as you did Clinton. Or at least if you advance arguments against her, let them be real & meaningful ones. Not ones that condescendingly inform us what she is or is not to us, based on your narrow understanding of what value she offers to women outside your frame of reference.
Posted by AsperGirl on Sep 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Where were all these liberal women when Hillary Clinton was running.
She was treated unfairly by the media and the DNC was without a doubt pro Obama .
Not once did we hear from these so called feminists nor did anybody step up to the plate and called it sheer sexism .
Now suddenly we are inundated with articles from women , such as you , rehashing history about women’s movements and you have the gall to tell us whether Palin is right or wrong for the VP position.
Quite frankly , Obama had lack of judgement for not choosing Hillary , he thought this race was all about him , just couldn’t bring himself to put the country first.
Somebody should also remind you , that women have moved on and there is no longer any need to burn our bra’s.
Posted by Isabelle on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Read this for your daughters!
Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.
Even on the question of whether women should vote!
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.
Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as ‘anti.’
The most influential ‘anti’ lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a wealthy Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915.
Her role in Wilson’s decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other suffragettes will never be fully known, but she was outraged that these women picketed her husband’s White House.
I’d like to share a women’s history learning opportunity…
“The Privilege of Voting” is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote in England and America.
It’s a real-life soap opera! And it’s ALL true!
Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.
There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!
Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!
Exciting, sequential episodes are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html
Posted by VirginiaHarris on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Virginia Harris ,
Wonderful comment and a great reminder to all women to cast their vote .
You said it so well , thanks to the suffragettes , we have voices and choices today.
Posted by Isabelle on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:33 PM
I read Gloria Steinem’s recent article and I agree with her completely. Feminism was never about helping one woman get a job, it was about helping all women. If you were so anxious to elect Hillary Clinton it should have been because you believed in her cause and her platform- to now change political parties and vote for McCain is asinine. Saying you switched because Obama lacked experience is ridiculous, there are a lot of people who have a lot of experience but its more than how many years you have on the job, it’s what you’ve done with your time in it. For the last 8 years McCain has voted with the Bush Admin. 90% of the time and now he claims all that will change and his record for the last 8 years just doesn’t count. Palin is a strong woman, but that is not a feminist. She doesn’t care about women’s issues and social reform, she’s about big business, oil, guns and bringing American into some sort of pseudo-theocracy when religion and government become one in the same. There were always suspicions that there would be clinton supporters who wouldn’t vote for Obama because when the chips were down they didn’t want to vote for a black man- and as a former Clinton supporter who is now voting for Obama I’m sad to see that might be true.
Posted by DaisyJM on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:40 PM
It is certainly clear from the reaction of the 1960s feminist movement to Sarah Palin’s selection as the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party that the women’s movement does not exist as a movement to boost the status of women in our society per se. The 1960s women’s movement has a left-liberal agenda aimed squarely against family life, and that agenda trumps the ascendance of any woman who disagrees with the destruction of the family, even if she is close to breaking a glass ceiling of the American presidency.
So much for Steinem et al.‘s sour grapes.
Many, many women are not enamored with the feminist movement of the 1960s. They do not agree with abortion on demand, they do not agree with mothers sacrificing family life for a scramble for money and a career, they do not agree that men are awful, they do not agree that household work and the domestic arts are drudgery and should only be performed by menial, uneducated labor. Those women will either vote for Democrats on the basis of the party’s policies or will identify with Sarah Palin. To these people, Steinem et al. are irrelevant.
I also note that you have omitted from your historical overview the fact that Susan B. Anthony and others like her also fought against abortion, presenting the argument that if women did not want men to treat them as if they were property, they also could not dispense with their unborn children as if they were property. The Feminists for Life, of which Sarah Palin is a member, has taken up this anti-abortion heritage. See http://www.feministsforlife.org/.
Thank you.
Posted by Lannef on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Daisy JM ,
I don’t agree with your reasoning and you really have to stop interjecting the race card as it doesn’t serve any purpose.
95 % of Blacks vote for Obama , they are excited to elect a black President , nothing wrong with that .
Therefore don’t knock women who would like to see the first woman in office and cast their vote accordingly.
Why don’t you be fair and open minded enough and see what Palin ‘s stand on issues is , before you sit in judgement of her.
Posted by Isabelle on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:53 PM
If these Feminists for Life do not agree with mothers sacrificings family life for the sake of their careers why aren’t they up in arms over a VP candidate with 5 children 4 under the age of 18, one with Down’s Syndrome and one who is a now pregnant? What happened to putting family first? Conservative women have been screaming about he breakdown of the American family and blaming liberal women for it, yet now it’s okay for this one woman to sacrifice her family in the pursuit of power. Nice hypocrisy.
Posted by DaisyJM on Sep 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM
This author obviously believes that only an ultra left wing woman can be a trail-blazer. Her extreme left wing bias comes through loud and clear, as does her fear that her self-appointed left wing elitist community has become irrelevant overnight.
In short, such authors have become cliches. Cliches with a shrill.
Posted by tas13 on Sep 7, 2008 at 4:47 PM
When I see people who are opposed to abortion referred to as “anti-choice” that tells a lot about the author. It is similiar to those in Las Vegas referring to gambling as “gameing”. Just another case of putting lipstick on a pig. Just call it what it is. Question: Since Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion, how can that be anti feminist or a bad thing?
Posted by woody41 on Sep 7, 2008 at 5:41 PM
How can we liberals be all upset about Palin’s CHOICE to have her down child?
it is HER choice and since we all are PRO-CHOICE we should not denounce her because her choice happens to be different than our choice, abortion in these cases.
Her choice is based on her religious believe that live starts with just 1 cell out there. I completely disagree with that, in my humble opinion, an ant has more life that that. But I bet the consequences of her choice will now make her more aware of the fact that others want other choices and should be respected as well. She is from the small-government crowed that does not like government interference in private matters so imposing her believes on others is actually pretty low
Pro-lifers in Alaska are upset with her because she blocked their ballots since she was of the opinion that it would distract to much from REAL issues she was facing, that is that gas pipeline that would prevent gas that comes up out of the ground with oil from being ‘flared’ .
To me this is exhibit #1 that her private choices is not something she puts highest on the agenda but instead corruption and economic issues. Sounds like a welcome change to me.
Posted by Annh on Sep 7, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Woman who supported Hillary are not going to start supporting McCain because he chose a woman, and McCain isn’t silly enought to think they will. However, women who supported Hillary are still furious at the sexist attacks that “The Obama” launched against her. Still furious at his use of the race card against her. Still furious at the vicious attacks against Geraldine Ferraro. Still furious that “The ONE” continued to humilate her with public contempt, not even acting like he might select her for VP. Still furious that he spit on her by sending out his VP text announcement at 3:00AM. Still furious at the threats that were being issued to her and Bill about what kind of speeches they had to give. Still furious that they the incredibly arrogant Obama didn’t sew up the election by choosing Hillary as his VP, and instead went to the Good Ol Boys club in Washington to pick a Good Ol Boy Senator as his VP, And now even more furious at “The Obama” for starting up an even more outrageous round of sexist attacks against her as working woman and working mother. No, feminist and supporters of Hillary aren’t interested in supporting McCain/Palin because they agree with them, but they may well vote for them to insure that the sexist disgusting tactics used by “The Obama” do not get into the White House! McCain/Palin 2008, Hillary 2012!!!!
Posted by valwayne on Sep 7, 2008 at 7:26 PM
valwayne: Amen!
—besides, guess what will happen when McCain wins:
Hillary will be against Palin in 2012. Can you imagine anything more beautiful than something like that to happen? Men are not even in the race any more!.
And of course, Hillary will win in 2012.
But if Obama wins now, in 2012 it will be Obama against Palin. There is a change that Obama fizzles in the next 4 years and is not that great after all so in that case it will be Palin who wins in 2012. And **NOT** Hillary because she is set on track B by loverboy Obama.
Posted by Annh on Sep 7, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Does Susan Levine really not understand that there are lots of conservative, pro-life feminists out there?
Feminism never meant to me that I’d get special breaks. It meant that I wouldn’t be knocked out of the competition from the get-go, just because of my gender. Palin’s my hero, for stepping up to do a job that needed doing, and not letting her gender or others’ perception of her gender role get in the way.
Where in the world did so many people get the idea that a true feminist must support abortion? For women who believe that a fetus is a human being, of course the opposition to abortion trumps the desire to for personal freedom and convenience. In that sense, pro-life feminists just expect women to stand up and assume their adult responsibilities the same way they expect men to. A true feminist doesn’t make excuses for women, as if they were weak victims or permanent children.
It’s not just about “choice.” I saw this quotation yesterday but didn’t note the author, so I can’t attribute it properly: “Blacks didn’t choose slavery. Jews didn’t choose the Holocaust. Babies don’t choose abortion.” There’s someone else’s choice involved, not just the woman’s.
Posted by Texan99 on Sep 7, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Susan Levine does not get it. After the feminist movement has argued for over a 100 years that there should not be a glass ceiling, Susan wants desperately to impose one on women simply because the woman who breaks the ceiling does not believe in her ideals. Sounds pretty pathetic to me. Susan maybe you ought to quit your job and stay home with the kids. Guess those fathers out there don’t have the ability to stay home with the kids.
This is the ultimate hypocrisy and Susan knows it because she wants to set women back to the 1850’s by saying that you can’t handle the job if you have kids.
Posted by tlroberts17 on Sep 8, 2008 at 3:51 AM
It is correct to see a divide in the historical women’s movement. It is very self-serving and incorrect for leftist feminists to view it as dividing women into those seeking just to get votes and women in office versus those concerned about progressive social causes.
You accurately describe the split between Anthony, Paul and other suffrage feminists versus those involved in the “Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, settlement houses, women’s clubs and the YWCA.” However, you go on to define this latter group by reference to purely progressive causes, implying an overlap between them and feminists today, who stress abortion rights above all, political representation and upward mobility for women as individuals. This way of defining this group is wildely off the mark. Moreover, you link Palin with the suffrage-only group, when her affinity is far more with the other one.
The giveaway for your readers ought to be your correct inclusion of Francis Willard’s WCTU in this group.
First of all neither side of this divide was in favor of abortion, except for fringe individuals. More importantly, the women who rejected a votes-only stress on politics were instead defending a view of woman’s unique qualities and the need for protection of her sphere, especially within the family and community. Hence their concern about temperance as a danger to male familial loyalty and support. Yes, they espoused “progressive” causes, but it was a progressivism completely consistent with what today are seen as conservative social and familial concerns.
Sarah Palin as a convinced Christian, prolife, proud and assertive of her family and her duties within it, communal, a woman who asserts her right to a public role as consistent with and arising out of all these things, is a perfect examplar of this older, socialy conservative and politically progressive tradition. I know joining the term “progressive” to Palin feminism will strike leftists as outrageous. It happens to be historically accurate, and if the response to Palin, who took on Republican interests and the oil industry, is any measure, it is going to be making a comback big time.
Posted by jburack on Sep 8, 2008 at 5:56 AM
jburack,
I am a college professor at a women’s university, generally disdained by mainstream ERA feminists since I am an Independent Feminist. But the students love the new feminist message of power over victimhood and fruitfulness over sterility. Feminism is changing and it is leaving most women’s studies department far behind, which is the reason for the vitriolic article above. Loss of jobs for the old guard feminists as they are replaced by optimistic new feminists evokes violent responses. Much of the anti-Obama sentiment of the old guard is also anti Biden as the man who refused to engage in the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas. Cause over truth is falling to Truth over cause. Palin is new, frightening, wonderful. So, if you allow, I shall quote you to my hundreds of students, that YES Palin is the “progressive” whereas NOW is the reactionary and entrenched organization with a silent seething legacy of eugenics, racism and reversed sexism.
jdcarmine
Posted by jdcarmine on Sep 8, 2008 at 7:05 AM
jdcarmine. I would be very happy for you to quote me in part or all to anyone you think would be interested. Send any sort of response you get to me at jbkburack@charter.net. Thanks.
Posted by jburack on Sep 8, 2008 at 7:36 AM
I believe we need to keep our “eye on the ball”. This election should not be about gender or color. It must be about the future of our country. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where we can’t just hope to keep up, we need to CATCH UP. Our position in the world is not what it used to be!
I don’t care who you vote for, but, PLEASE base your decision on your future and the next generations chances to make us the greatest country again.
The idea that anyone would cast their vote based only on the placement of reproductive organs (inside or out), or the pigments in their skin is absolutely absurd.
I know we are better and more intelligent. Remember: Eye on the Ball.
Posted by focus on Sep 10, 2008 at 10:43 AM
As an Arizona soccer mom, I agree with this article and the other article on this website, “McSexist”. John McCain and Sarah Palin do not hold any interest in the rights or well being of women.
Women’s issues aside, John McCain has done little for the state of Arizona in all the years he has kept our Senate seat warm. In addition, he has a reputation for being reckless. God bless him for his POW experience, but many here question how his experience has affected his mental capacity.
I relocated here from Illinois 15 years ago, but have followed Illinois politics closely. I am more impressed with the change Barack Obama has created in a shorter amount of time, than McCain’s lifetime of doing nothing, except for figuring out the number of homes he owns.
If anyone believes McCain has the ability and capacity to understand the challenges of the middle class, I own some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell to you.
Posted by azsoccermom on Sep 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
good god don’t you get it yet. this choice was about the base period. if mccain has any chance to win he has to energize his base which at best has given him lukewarm support. if he picks up disaffected women voters in the process it’s a bonus. I’m a conservative, anyone with half a brain realizes that Palin is not going to appeal to 90% of the women on the left. The pick has done precisely what it was intended to do. that Palin has now become a national star (for how long who knows) is a huge rather unexpected bonus.
I think you are missing the point with some Hillary Clinton supporters.
We supported Hillary because she was the most qualified and had the best plans and solutions to accomplish her plans for America.
I will not support Obama because I don’t think he is qualified to be President and his plans and positions change from day to day. I think McCain is very qualified to lead this nation and despite what Obama and company say, McCain will not be another Bush. McCain has been a thorn in the Republicans’ side for years and he put them on notice on Sep. 4, 2008, it will not be business as usual in Washington.
I happen to be an Independent.
The point of this column is that McCain will not get support from feminists by nominating Gov. Palin. Depending upon how you define “feminist”, this point is either asinine or whistling in the dark.
If by “feminist” you mean members of NOW and other hard-core self-identified feminists, then, no, of course, there is no one McCain could have nominated that would have changed their vote. “Feminists” by this definition are left of liberal. They are not voting Republican, under any circumstances. And they are, at most, 5% of the vote. So, no, McCain was not making a play for the sort of person who agonizes over whether to “vote her conscience” by voting for Nader or “sell out” by voting for Obama. It is silly to even discuss this kind of question.
But if by “feminist” you mean the sort of voter—male or female—who would like to see women advance further in American society, then, yes, you can place a large bet on Gov. Palin’s vote influencing them. Why shouldn’t it? She is a bright, touch, articulate, attractive woman. She is the second women on a major party ticket, nominated right after the other party showed great disrespect toward its first woman to come within a cat whisker of winning the nomination.
Bottom line, you are correct that the sort of “feminist” who puts being Left ahead of supporting women, will not be tempted by Palin. But how many such “feminists” do you think are out there? And how many voters are there, who actually would like to see a woman in high office, particularly one who is this attractive, from so many angles?
What you should have written is that your guy Obama dropped the ball big time by not nominating Hillary as his VP, and this is the price that the Left pays for disrespecting women. Instead, you write this drivel about how being a woman makes no difference to anyone; the only thing that matters is being Left. You wish.
“Vitriol” is the metaphor perpetually used to define the gaunt life-negating feminism of the ERA past, as in “You, professor, are here knee-deep in corrosive vitriol.” So now let me mention some other reasons why women will vote for Sarah Palin: She is a real leader—smart, powerful, attractive, tough optimistic, proven. And above all she is not simply a “trophy Vice President” as she has been called of late, but she is a trophy woman for every family in the United States that struggles to raise their children in the shadow of the diminished so-called feminists who care more about child care than actual children, more about abortion choice than school choice and more about defining marriage than succeeding at marriage. And in 4 or 8 years when Sarah Palin runs for president she will still be a trophy. She will be a trophy president and her husband will be a trophy husband and her family will be a trophy family, and there is no shame in embracing the ability of an autonomous trophy family, with five children and a husband, to stand up against the cold burning green vitriol of the Prozac addled, scarfed, graying, life-negating Steinemites that still haunt our universities, preaching misery to thousands if not millions of young women and men who would love to have families like Sarah Palin’s.
So called feminists out there are really showing who they are. They don’t support women, only LIBERAL ones. NOW has really angered me with their spokesman saying, “She might as well be a conservative man”. Gloria Steinem’s article that she is the wrong women angered me as well. Sarah Palin represents the modern feminist. That women who can believe whatever they want to believe without fear of what anyone thinks. I believe NOW and Gloria should be commended for what they did for women, but it is outdated. The fact is they never gave her a chance and it is sad. It is also disgusting how the media has attacked her w/out giving her a chance. I am an independent that leans conservative. I never agreed with Hillary Clinton’s politics, but I was dismayed b/c I felt she was being railroaded, just as Sarah is now. She gave a great 1st and 2nd impression. She now has to prove herself in the debate, on talk shows, and on the campaign trail. To minimize her candidacy is close-minded and a mistake.
As an ivy league educated female attorney in my 20s, I am thrilled to be voting for Sarah Palin and I know a lot of women who agree with me (none of whom are at the extreme left, although I have heard of them anecdotally).
I am so excited to see a woman who, like me, doesn’t fit the “feminist” label that has been hijacked by the far left. I have been heartbroken to watch as other women have called her an embarrassment, etc. I can’t imagine any woman (or most men) would rather have their daughters grow-up saying “if only I make life choices like HRC, I can have a political voice” than “I want to grow up and be vice president like Sarah Palin.” It’s refreshing to see woman leadership that isn’t the by-product of hanging around men.
Only a small fraction of NOW voters will switch parties for Sarah, but for many americans, McCain’s openness to highlight and help train a promising young women is very attractive.
Unexperienced male with unknown past v. slightly less inexperienced female with reform past—I’ll take McCain/Palin any day!
“The so called
This is why the pick is working so well. It seems to me that every time something new comes up, Obama’s message gets derailed. McCain has reshaped and refocused his message to fit his image. Rally around the red, white and blue. It’s a very effective message that gets underutilized and fits McCain well. Talking about feminism is missing the point entirely. It was indeed about revving up the base, and I think more importantly he has found a kindrid spirit. She is probably the best example, outside of McCain, of someone who has bucked the conventional party line time and time again. You may be able to dig up bits and pieces about dealings with other Republicans, but the disagreements on principle far outweigh those. And hey she’s a woman. If she happens to pick up a few Hillary supporters, great. But that certainly was not reason # 1. McCain managed to rally the base, solidify the maverick image, and create a diversion, all in 1. Brilliant.
Look, dems could have had your first female president or VP, but they undermined, marginalized & then passed over Clinton, and did so quite intentionally and deliberately, publicly dissing & humiliating her and a former president. The disrespectful treatment of Clintons by their party for a shiny new pop-politician face man, was an appalling spectacle that riveted and fascinated conservatives this year, and actually created empathy and respect for the Clintons among some Republicans. No one forced the dems to waste the historic opportunity that Hillary Clinton offered and that was spurned by the dems.
Sarah Palin has the fundamentals that would enable her to grow into a great leader. She become the first woman president. In retrospect, it’s the conservative women who break executive level glass ceilings. If this glass ceiling will be broken by our generation, it makes sense that it will be a conservative woman who does it for us. Please stop standing in her way as you did Clinton. Or at least if you advance arguments against her, let them be real & meaningful ones. Not ones that condescendingly inform us what she is or is not to us, based on your narrow understanding of what value she offers to women outside your frame of reference.
Where were all these liberal women when Hillary Clinton was running.
She was treated unfairly by the media and the DNC was without a doubt pro Obama .
Not once did we hear from these so called feminists nor did anybody step up to the plate and called it sheer sexism .
Now suddenly we are inundated with articles from women , such as you , rehashing history about women’s movements and you have the gall to tell us whether Palin is right or wrong for the VP position.
Quite frankly , Obama had lack of judgement for not choosing Hillary , he thought this race was all about him , just couldn’t bring himself to put the country first.
Somebody should also remind you , that women have moved on and there is no longer any need to burn our bra’s.
Read this for your daughters!
Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.
Even on the question of whether women should vote!
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.
Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as ‘anti.’
The most influential ‘anti’ lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a wealthy Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915.
Her role in Wilson’s decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other suffragettes will never be fully known, but she was outraged that these women picketed her husband’s White House.
I’d like to share a women’s history learning opportunity…
“The Privilege of Voting” is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote in England and America.
It’s a real-life soap opera! And it’s ALL true!
Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.
There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!
Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!
Exciting, sequential episodes are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html
Virginia Harris ,
Wonderful comment and a great reminder to all women to cast their vote .
You said it so well , thanks to the suffragettes , we have voices and choices today.
I read Gloria Steinem’s recent article and I agree with her completely. Feminism was never about helping one woman get a job, it was about helping all women. If you were so anxious to elect Hillary Clinton it should have been because you believed in her cause and her platform- to now change political parties and vote for McCain is asinine. Saying you switched because Obama lacked experience is ridiculous, there are a lot of people who have a lot of experience but its more than how many years you have on the job, it’s what you’ve done with your time in it. For the last 8 years McCain has voted with the Bush Admin. 90% of the time and now he claims all that will change and his record for the last 8 years just doesn’t count. Palin is a strong woman, but that is not a feminist. She doesn’t care about women’s issues and social reform, she’s about big business, oil, guns and bringing American into some sort of pseudo-theocracy when religion and government become one in the same. There were always suspicions that there would be clinton supporters who wouldn’t vote for Obama because when the chips were down they didn’t want to vote for a black man- and as a former Clinton supporter who is now voting for Obama I’m sad to see that might be true.
It is certainly clear from the reaction of the 1960s feminist movement to Sarah Palin’s selection as the vice presidential candidate for the Republican Party that the women’s movement does not exist as a movement to boost the status of women in our society per se. The 1960s women’s movement has a left-liberal agenda aimed squarely against family life, and that agenda trumps the ascendance of any woman who disagrees with the destruction of the family, even if she is close to breaking a glass ceiling of the American presidency.
So much for Steinem et al.‘s sour grapes.
Many, many women are not enamored with the feminist movement of the 1960s. They do not agree with abortion on demand, they do not agree with mothers sacrificing family life for a scramble for money and a career, they do not agree that men are awful, they do not agree that household work and the domestic arts are drudgery and should only be performed by menial, uneducated labor. Those women will either vote for Democrats on the basis of the party’s policies or will identify with Sarah Palin. To these people, Steinem et al. are irrelevant.
I also note that you have omitted from your historical overview the fact that Susan B. Anthony and others like her also fought against abortion, presenting the argument that if women did not want men to treat them as if they were property, they also could not dispense with their unborn children as if they were property. The Feminists for Life, of which Sarah Palin is a member, has taken up this anti-abortion heritage. See http://www.feministsforlife.org/.
Thank you.
Daisy JM ,
I don’t agree with your reasoning and you really have to stop interjecting the race card as it doesn’t serve any purpose.
95 % of Blacks vote for Obama , they are excited to elect a black President , nothing wrong with that .
Therefore don’t knock women who would like to see the first woman in office and cast their vote accordingly.
Why don’t you be fair and open minded enough and see what Palin ‘s stand on issues is , before you sit in judgement of her.
If these Feminists for Life do not agree with mothers sacrificings family life for the sake of their careers why aren’t they up in arms over a VP candidate with 5 children 4 under the age of 18, one with Down’s Syndrome and one who is a now pregnant? What happened to putting family first? Conservative women have been screaming about he breakdown of the American family and blaming liberal women for it, yet now it’s okay for this one woman to sacrifice her family in the pursuit of power. Nice hypocrisy.
This author obviously believes that only an ultra left wing woman can be a trail-blazer. Her extreme left wing bias comes through loud and clear, as does her fear that her self-appointed left wing elitist community has become irrelevant overnight.
In short, such authors have become cliches. Cliches with a shrill.
When I see people who are opposed to abortion referred to as “anti-choice” that tells a lot about the author. It is similiar to those in Las Vegas referring to gambling as “gameing”. Just another case of putting lipstick on a pig. Just call it what it is. Question: Since Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion, how can that be anti feminist or a bad thing?
How can we liberals be all upset about Palin’s CHOICE to have her down child?
it is HER choice and since we all are PRO-CHOICE we should not denounce her because her choice happens to be different than our choice, abortion in these cases.
Her choice is based on her religious believe that live starts with just 1 cell out there. I completely disagree with that, in my humble opinion, an ant has more life that that. But I bet the consequences of her choice will now make her more aware of the fact that others want other choices and should be respected as well. She is from the small-government crowed that does not like government interference in private matters so imposing her believes on others is actually pretty low
Pro-lifers in Alaska are upset with her because she blocked their ballots since she was of the opinion that it would distract to much from REAL issues she was facing, that is that gas pipeline that would prevent gas that comes up out of the ground with oil from being ‘flared’ .
To me this is exhibit #1 that her private choices is not something she puts highest on the agenda but instead corruption and economic issues. Sounds like a welcome change to me.
Woman who supported Hillary are not going to start supporting McCain because he chose a woman, and McCain isn’t silly enought to think they will. However, women who supported Hillary are still furious at the sexist attacks that “The Obama” launched against her. Still furious at his use of the race card against her. Still furious at the vicious attacks against Geraldine Ferraro. Still furious that “The ONE” continued to humilate her with public contempt, not even acting like he might select her for VP. Still furious that he spit on her by sending out his VP text announcement at 3:00AM. Still furious at the threats that were being issued to her and Bill about what kind of speeches they had to give. Still furious that they the incredibly arrogant Obama didn’t sew up the election by choosing Hillary as his VP, and instead went to the Good Ol Boys club in Washington to pick a Good Ol Boy Senator as his VP, And now even more furious at “The Obama” for starting up an even more outrageous round of sexist attacks against her as working woman and working mother. No, feminist and supporters of Hillary aren’t interested in supporting McCain/Palin because they agree with them, but they may well vote for them to insure that the sexist disgusting tactics used by “The Obama” do not get into the White House! McCain/Palin 2008, Hillary 2012!!!!
valwayne: Amen!
—besides, guess what will happen when McCain wins:
Hillary will be against Palin in 2012. Can you imagine anything more beautiful than something like that to happen? Men are not even in the race any more!.
And of course, Hillary will win in 2012.
But if Obama wins now, in 2012 it will be Obama against Palin. There is a change that Obama fizzles in the next 4 years and is not that great after all so in that case it will be Palin who wins in 2012. And **NOT** Hillary because she is set on track B by loverboy Obama.
Does Susan Levine really not understand that there are lots of conservative, pro-life feminists out there?
Feminism never meant to me that I’d get special breaks. It meant that I wouldn’t be knocked out of the competition from the get-go, just because of my gender. Palin’s my hero, for stepping up to do a job that needed doing, and not letting her gender or others’ perception of her gender role get in the way.
Where in the world did so many people get the idea that a true feminist must support abortion? For women who believe that a fetus is a human being, of course the opposition to abortion trumps the desire to for personal freedom and convenience. In that sense, pro-life feminists just expect women to stand up and assume their adult responsibilities the same way they expect men to. A true feminist doesn’t make excuses for women, as if they were weak victims or permanent children.
It’s not just about “choice.” I saw this quotation yesterday but didn’t note the author, so I can’t attribute it properly: “Blacks didn’t choose slavery. Jews didn’t choose the Holocaust. Babies don’t choose abortion.” There’s someone else’s choice involved, not just the woman’s.
Susan Levine does not get it. After the feminist movement has argued for over a 100 years that there should not be a glass ceiling, Susan wants desperately to impose one on women simply because the woman who breaks the ceiling does not believe in her ideals. Sounds pretty pathetic to me. Susan maybe you ought to quit your job and stay home with the kids. Guess those fathers out there don’t have the ability to stay home with the kids.
This is the ultimate hypocrisy and Susan knows it because she wants to set women back to the 1850’s by saying that you can’t handle the job if you have kids.
It is correct to see a divide in the historical women’s movement. It is very self-serving and incorrect for leftist feminists to view it as dividing women into those seeking just to get votes and women in office versus those concerned about progressive social causes.
You accurately describe the split between Anthony, Paul and other suffrage feminists versus those involved in the “Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, settlement houses, women’s clubs and the YWCA.” However, you go on to define this latter group by reference to purely progressive causes, implying an overlap between them and feminists today, who stress abortion rights above all, political representation and upward mobility for women as individuals. This way of defining this group is wildely off the mark. Moreover, you link Palin with the suffrage-only group, when her affinity is far more with the other one.
The giveaway for your readers ought to be your correct inclusion of Francis Willard’s WCTU in this group.
First of all neither side of this divide was in favor of abortion, except for fringe individuals. More importantly, the women who rejected a votes-only stress on politics were instead defending a view of woman’s unique qualities and the need for protection of her sphere, especially within the family and community. Hence their concern about temperance as a danger to male familial loyalty and support. Yes, they espoused “progressive” causes, but it was a progressivism completely consistent with what today are seen as conservative social and familial concerns.
Sarah Palin as a convinced Christian, prolife, proud and assertive of her family and her duties within it, communal, a woman who asserts her right to a public role as consistent with and arising out of all these things, is a perfect examplar of this older, socialy conservative and politically progressive tradition. I know joining the term “progressive” to Palin feminism will strike leftists as outrageous. It happens to be historically accurate, and if the response to Palin, who took on Republican interests and the oil industry, is any measure, it is going to be making a comback big time.
jburack,
I am a college professor at a women’s university, generally disdained by mainstream ERA feminists since I am an Independent Feminist. But the students love the new feminist message of power over victimhood and fruitfulness over sterility. Feminism is changing and it is leaving most women’s studies department far behind, which is the reason for the vitriolic article above. Loss of jobs for the old guard feminists as they are replaced by optimistic new feminists evokes violent responses. Much of the anti-Obama sentiment of the old guard is also anti Biden as the man who refused to engage in the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas. Cause over truth is falling to Truth over cause. Palin is new, frightening, wonderful. So, if you allow, I shall quote you to my hundreds of students, that YES Palin is the “progressive” whereas NOW is the reactionary and entrenched organization with a silent seething legacy of eugenics, racism and reversed sexism.
jdcarmine
jdcarmine. I would be very happy for you to quote me in part or all to anyone you think would be interested. Send any sort of response you get to me at jbkburack@charter.net. Thanks.
I believe we need to keep our “eye on the ball”. This election should not be about gender or color. It must be about the future of our country. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where we can’t just hope to keep up, we need to CATCH UP. Our position in the world is not what it used to be!
I don’t care who you vote for, but, PLEASE base your decision on your future and the next generations chances to make us the greatest country again.
The idea that anyone would cast their vote based only on the placement of reproductive organs (inside or out), or the pigments in their skin is absolutely absurd.
I know we are better and more intelligent. Remember: Eye on the Ball.
As an Arizona soccer mom, I agree with this article and the other article on this website, “McSexist”. John McCain and Sarah Palin do not hold any interest in the rights or well being of women.
Women’s issues aside, John McCain has done little for the state of Arizona in all the years he has kept our Senate seat warm. In addition, he has a reputation for being reckless. God bless him for his POW experience, but many here question how his experience has affected his mental capacity.
I relocated here from Illinois 15 years ago, but have followed Illinois politics closely. I am more impressed with the change Barack Obama has created in a shorter amount of time, than McCain’s lifetime of doing nothing, except for figuring out the number of homes he owns.
If anyone believes McCain has the ability and capacity to understand the challenges of the middle class, I own some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell to you.
register a new account »Posting Security