Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

[Wretched Excess]

I suppose it's an open question as to whether or not feminism, as currently constituted, will even survive Sarah Palin.

Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.

In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

More

[miskie]

Im going to speak plainly about this.

Like the NAACP, NOW seems to have gone from being an organization to help the people it was created for, and instead has adopted the message of 'Perpetual Victimhood' - They have both gone from a message of "how can WE help YOU" to "What have you done for me lately ?" (The government, that is)

Sarah Palin has done everything that NOW wanted - she has shown that women can be a force to be reckoned with.She has shown that she can enter and win in an environment that has always been dominated by men. Sarah has proven that she can do all of this while maintaining a family. Also, the McCain campaign has created an environment of equal pay for women (actually the women out-earn the men by .04 cents on a dollar)

Yet the feminists claim she isn't one of them. The only reason I can see is that Sarah refuses to play the part of the victim, and refuses to expect big government to give her cash because of her unfortunate biology. What a sad group the feminists have become.

[Chris_]

I suppose it's an open question as to whether or not feminism, as currently constituted, will even survive Sarah Palin.

Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.

In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles." Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

More

The goals of organizations like NAACP and NOW should be that they are no longer needed and can be dissolved when their goals are reached.  Sara Palin running for VP is a reminder to the NOW hags that they are much closer to being irrelevant than they want to be.

[MrsSmith]

OK, so to be a "liberated" woman, we have to be willing to murder our children, we have to demand government-sponsored day-cares and pre-K programs, we can't get by with the support of our own family or just make it on our own, and we certainly can't have a supportive husband...

Why would anyone want to be "liberated" by these self-centered standards??   

Are they really saying that "liberated" women are supposed to be dependent on the government instead of standing on their own two feet?  Are they saying that "liberated" women have to be as cold, selfish and grasping as they think white men are? 

Why would anyone want to be "liberated" by those whiny standards?   


Sarah Palin is truly a liberated woman, not a fake adolescent male depending on "Uncle Sam" for everything.

[DixieBelle]

She nullifies their whining and the existence of NOW. I love it.

[USA4ME]

NOW showed themselves to be hypocrites a long time ago, but still the most glaring example was when they defended Clinton against the allegation by Paula Jones.  Everyone with half a brain knew that had Clinton been a Republican and been accused of the same things, NOW would have jumped his case.  As it stood, they did nothing.  They put their politics and their desire for power ahead of what they claimed they wanted to be, which is pretty typical of all these lib organizations.

.

[DarkHalo]

The problem that Democrats have with Sarah Palin is the same that they have had with Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and many others. They achieved success without..and this is the ultimate sin...WITHOUT the help of the Democrat party. In other words they proved wrong the Democrat meme of being unable to succeed without their help.

"The soft bigotry of low expectations..."

A truly profound line that perfectly explains liberalism.

"You can not excel without....US" (said in my best Borg voice).

And anyone that dares to stray from the Democrat reservation, again mentioning Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell, will be branded as 'house ******s' or worse. Sorry for the N-word but i felt it necessary to make a point. But how many times have we all seen that exact term at DU or Daily Kos? Many many times. How many times have we already seen DUmmies call Sarah Palin a whore or worse?