Why Feminists Hate Palin

[The_Basseteer]

I had been net surfing and stumbled across a blog I hadn't read before, Hat-Tip to Cynthia Yockey at "A Newly Conservative Lesbian" (http://www.aconservativelesbian.com/).

Reclusive Leftist and Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin (http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sarah-palin/), a very good read... be sure to take the time to read through the discussion following.

Sarah Palin’s surprise resignation has brought out the crazy again, and reading through the blogs I’m reminded of how much pure bullshit has been said and believed about her and continues to be said and believed. I’m reminded of how so many feminists seem possessed of a wholly irrational hatred for this woman.

This isn’t going to be the kind of post where I sketch out a pattern and then give you The Key To Understanding It All. This is going to be more like a stream-of-consciousness tiptoe through the violets of my reclusive thought processes. I’ve been puzzling over this stuff since last August. One reason I’ve written as many posts as I have about Palin is because I’m so baffled by the reaction to her. I can’t figure it out. It’s like quantum entanglement or dark energy: I make myself sick trying to understand it and worry that I’ll die before I get it sorted. (I know: Xanax.)

Of course, the first answer you’ll get if you ask feminists why they hate Sarah Palin is that “it’s because she ____” — and then fill in the blank with the lie of choice: made rape victims pay for their own kits, is against contraception or sex ed, believes in abstinence-only, thinks the dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, doesn’t believe in global warming, doesn’t believe in evolution, is stupid and can’t read, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But none of those things is true. None of them.

Which brings me to my first puzzlement: why don’t people bother to find out what Sarah Palin really believes? I don’t mean people as in the usual sexist freaks; I mean feminists.

Sarah Palin is only the second woman in the history of this country to run on a major party’s presidential ticket. That alone makes her, to me, a fascinating figure worthy of serious investigation. When McCain announced Palin as his choice for VP, I immediately tried to find out as much about her as I could. I wanted to know who she was, what she believed, what her politics were. It never occurred to me that this interest would make me in any way unusual among feminists, but apparently it did. Apparently most feminists — at least the ones online — are content to just take the word of the frat boys at DailyKos or the psycho-sexists at Huffington Post. That amazes me. Aren’t you even interested in who she really is? I want to ask. She’s only the second woman on a presidential ticket in our whole fricking history!

But even weirder is what happens when you try to replace the myths with the truth. If you explain, “no, she didn’t charge rape victims,” your feminist interlocutor will come back with something else: “she’s abstinence-only!” No, you say, she’s not; and then the person comes back with, “she’s a creationist!” and so on. “She’s an uneducated moron!” Actually, Sarah Palin is not dumb at all, and based on her interviews and comments, I’d say she has a greater knowledge of evolution, global warming, and the Wisconsin glaciation in Alaska than the average citizen.

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

The only thing Palin is commonly accused of that is actually true is her anti-abortion stance, though, as I’ve pointed out several times, her political position is that “the will of the people” should decide the law. She has also expressed sympathy for women choosing abortion and has said that she is totally opposed to any woman ever being criminalized for it. I’m not pretending she’s anything other than what she is (an adamant “pro-lifer”), but I am trying to be as clear and honest as I can be about her actual stance.


The great quote from the article
These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.

But please, be sure to read the entire post..comments included..it's long but well worth it.

[Laura Cereta]

This isn’t going to be the kind of post where I sketch out a pattern and then give you The Key To Understanding It All. This is going to be more like a stream-of-consciousness tiptoe through the violets of my reclusive thought processes. I’ve been puzzling over this stuff since last August. One reason I’ve written as many posts as I have about Palin is because I’m so baffled by the reaction to her. I can’t figure it out. It’s like quantum entanglement or dark energy: I make myself sick trying to understand it and worry that I’ll die before I get it sorted. (I know: Xanax.)

Of course, the first answer you’ll get if you ask feminists why they hate Sarah Palin is that “it’s because she ____” — and then fill in the blank with the lie of choice: made rape victims pay for their own kits, is against contraception or sex ed, believes in abstinence-only, thinks the dinosaurs were here 4000 years ago, doesn’t believe in global warming, doesn’t believe in evolution, is stupid and can’t read, etc., etc., etc., etc.

But none of those things is true. None of them.

Which brings me to my first puzzlement: why don’t people bother to find out what Sarah Palin really believes? I don’t mean people as in the usual sexist freaks; I mean feminists.

I feel the author's pain. I, too, am perplexed at the Palin hatred. And I don't agree with many of her positions. She does not strike me as corrupt, though, or unethical, or someone who doesn't care about wasting her constituents money, or someone who believes that government is the answer to everything. And those are things I like.

I want to speak to Palin's specific views versus the lies. I think, contrary to what the article says, that she probably is a creationists who thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. And??? That is a typical evangelical view; my parents take that view. The real issue is, has she tried to make creationism the only thing taught in schools? No.

I'm not concerned about someone's personal believes unless they're pushed on others. She's pro-life. Has she tried every legal maneuver in the book to make abortions almost impossible to get in Alaska, as some other pro-life governors have done? No.

Just recently, when she the chance to appoint a person to the Alaska Supreme Court, she appointed a Democrat, a woman, who didn't share her views. She announced her decision was based on choosing the most qualified person. How often do we see that?

I am tired of the insults and lies hurled at Palin. By all means take issue with her positions if you disagree, (as I, too, disagree with many) but in fairness, shouldn't her total record be studied?

If my biggest concern is what she personally believes as opposed to what she chooses to implement as policy, regardless of her personal beliefs, then I am a hypocrite. Period.

[Alces95]

I had been net surfing and stumbled across a blog I hadn't read before, Hat-Tip to Cynthia Yockey at "A Newly Conservative Lesbian" (http://www.aconservativelesbian.com/).

Reclusive Leftist and Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin (http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/2009/07/04/feminists-and-the-mystery-of-sarah-palin/), a very good read... be sure to take the time to read through the discussion following.






The great quote from the article


But please, be sure to read the entire post..comments included..it's long but well worth it.

Good read from the article. Thanks for find and posting it.

For me, first impression and yes, style matters. Palin lost me at the convention. I found her speech to be so abrasive that I simply couldn't fathom her as the leader we need now. I was looking for someone who was a bit more parsed and appeared worldly. She came across as someone who was angry and overly aggresive. I voted for the primary version of McCain because he was a true diplomat; hard nosed when he needded to be and fair minded always. I found Palin to just be an attack dog. True or not, that is how she came off to many including in the media. I think all of the MSM (including Fox) said her speech was the 'red meat' for the crowd.

After 2000-2008; I thought I needed to vote for something different.

In truth, however, her abilities seem ok. Not great but not bad either. What is unfortunate is that she may have or is losing her abilty to be on a national spotlight.

Just my 2 cents. Its her image that is the problem, not any one thing. That issue is gender neutral.

[sojourner]

I want to speak to Palin's specific views versus the lies. I think, contrary to what the article says, that she probably is a creationists who thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. And??? That is a typical evangelical view; my parents take that view. The real issue is, has she tried to make creationism the only thing taught in schools? No.

In case anyone is interested, there is a genealogy in the Bible with a string of begats from Adam to Jesus that adds up to 4000+ years which would put the creation of Adam 6000+ years ago. It doesn’t say how old the earth is or when dinosaurs appeared. The order of creation in the Bible is much the same as the order of evolution with man coming last.

I used to have a friend that was a Baptist minister. He didn’t believe in the 4000+ year theory or that the seven days of creation were actual 24-hour days. I don’t think many Christians do or many creationists.

That 6000 year Sarah Palin quote started here: Fake Sarah Palin Quotes (http://unbearablebobness.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/08/governor-sarah-palin-quotes/comments/page/2/)

[TheTaoOfBill]

The right for a woman to do what she wants with her body is a feminist right.

That's why I completely disagree with the notion that you can be feminist without a pro choice view. Pro-choice is as essential to the feminist movement as making sure women are making as much money as men.

Because if a woman doesn't have the right to her own body she might as well have no rights at all.

[RichardMZhlubb]

I want to speak to Palin's specific views versus the lies. I think, contrary to what the article says, that she probably is a creationists who thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. And??? That is a typical evangelical view; my parents take that view. The real issue is, has she tried to make creationism the only thing taught in schools? No.
I don't think anyone has advocated removing evolution from public school curricula entirely, but she has advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools along with evolution, and that's a big part of what makes her unacceptable for national office in my opinion. It's not just the creationist sympathies. It's the willful ignorance of scientific evidence, whether opposing the addition of polar bears to the endangered species list or making fun of basic genetic research. We just experienced the most anti-science administration in our lifetimes and look where that got us. Indeed, I'd argue that the Bush administration's fundamental reliance on faith and belief without regard for logic, science and evidence is what led us into Iraq.

[Laura Cereta]

I don't think anyone has advocated removing evolution from public school curricula entirely, but she has advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools along with evolution, and that's a big part of what makes her unacceptable for national office in my opinion. It's not just the creationist sympathies. It's the willful ignorance of scientific evidence, whether opposing the addition of polar bears to the endangered species list or making fun of basic genetic research. We just experienced the most anti-science administration in our lifetimes and look where that got us. Indeed, I'd argue that the Bush administration's fundamental reliance on faith and belief without regard for logic, science and evidence is what led us into Iraq.

I'd love to have a debate about evolution, creationism, faith, belief, reason, logic, and scientific evidence, and yes, they are all intertwined. However, this thread is not about that. If you would like to present your views on evolution, please start a thread about it.

I see nothing wrong with Palin advocating that textbooks present all sides. I wish more of my textbooks throughout my education had done so. Besides, back to the feminist hatred of Palin, many, many social conservatives take this stance... why would they get so angry at her and not spew that same anger at others? There must be other factors at work.

[TheTaoOfBill]

I'd love to have a debate about evolution, creationism, faith, belief, reason, logic, and scientific evidence, and yes, they are all intertwined. However, this thread is not about that. If you would like to present your views on evolution, please start a thread about it.

I see nothing wrong with Palin advocating that textbooks present all sides. I wish more of my textbooks throughout my education had done so. Besides, back to the feminist hatred of Palin, many, many social conservatives take this stance... why would they get so angry at her and not spew that same anger at others? There must be other factors at work.

I don't mind science classes debating different theories that replace evolution. But they need to be based on the scientific method. Creationism and intelligent design are not and as such it belongs in religion/philosphy class. Not science class.

If creationism appeared in my kids science textbook I would imediately take them out of school. If you want creationism in your science text book then go to a catholic school.

[Alces95]

I don't mind science classes debating different theories that replace evolution. But they need to be based on the scientific method. Creationism and intelligent design are not and as such it belongs in religion/philosphy class. Not science class.

If creationism appeared in my kids science textbook I would imediately take them out of school. If you want creationism in your science text book then go to a catholic school.

Catholic schools are some best educational centers in the country. What was Gregor Mendel's day job again?

And be careful; creationism can be taught using scientific methodology. Lots of flat out wrong things can be; even science.

In college chem, we learned to scientifically (Using equations) prove this theory to be true!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

I don't want creationism in science either but be careful for what you wish for!

(I bet you would like this book. I loved it...
http://books.google.com/books?id=83p-OMrNalYC&dq=Daniel+Quinn&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=HxFSSsbZGt6Mtgen6ICqBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10)

Sorry for the hijacking- Back to Sarah

[Suzan]

But after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate. That’s why they keep reaching and reaching for something else, until they finally get to “she winked on TV!” (And by the way: I’ve been winked at my whole life by my grandmother, aunts, and great-aunts. Who knew it was such a despicable act?)

This is such a strong point!

I wish however that the author hadn't lumped all feminists together. I've been a feminist since my college days in the late seventies, which wasn't too long after the movement started, and I don't hate Palin. Tens of thousands of Hillary supporters switched to the McCain/Palin ticket. I suspect many of them call themselves feminists and they didn't appear to hate Palin, either.

I understand that the author is talking about a certain set of feminists, but why didn't she define that set? The implication is that if you have feminist sensibilities, you must be a reactionary liberal and therefore, you hate Palin. Some feminists are more open-minded, resilient and flexible than that.

[sojourner]

I understand that the author is talking about a certain set of feminists, but why didn't she define that set? The implication is that if you have feminist sensibilities, you must be a reactionary liberal and therefore, you hate Palin. Some feminists are more open-minded, resilient and flexible than that.

We are guilty of the same thing here, complaining about liberals, conservatives, Christians, etc, as if they are homogeneous groups, when the actions we are complaining about probably apply to a small segment of the group we are attacking.

It takes some effort to better define the people we are complaining about but if we don’t it makes “searching for common ground” discussions more difficult.

[Suzan]

We are guilty of the same thing here, complaining about liberals, conservatives, Christians, etc, as if they are homogeneous groups, when the actions we are complaining about probably apply to a small segment of the group we are attacking.

It takes some effort to better define the people we are complaining about but if we don’t it makes “searching for common ground” discussions more difficult.

genericstamp! Well said!

[NativeSun]

Feminists (or should I say those claiming to be feminists) hate Sarah Palin because she is Republican, Christian, Pro-Life, and most importantly because she gets more media coverage than they do.

[cindyb]

The right for a woman to do what she wants with her body is a feminist right.

That's why I completely disagree with the notion that you can be feminist without a pro choice view. Pro-choice is as essential to the feminist movement as making sure women are making as much money as men.

Because if a woman doesn't have the right to her own body she might as well have no rights at all.


When you turn into a woman, then your view regarding this subject will mean something. Not trying to be rude, but you have no right to say the above.

You can be a feminist and be pro life.

[LadyLazarus]

Again, I have two sisters. All three of us self-identify as feminists. One of us voted for Palin and thinks she’s the answer to the problems that plague politics. The other hates Palin with such passion that she and I can’t bring up the subject without getting into an argument. I feel completely neutral about her, but I often find myself defending her just to play devil’s advocate. So it gets really annoying when pundits try to throw the label “feminist” around as if it is completely homogenous group of individuals who all subscribe to group-think.

As I said in a thread like 6 or 7 months ago, there are numerous types of “feminism.” The problem is that we always associate the word with a stereotype that no longer, if it ever did, exists . My sister doesn’t think a woman can be pro-life and be a feminist. I’m not so sure about that. Second-wave feminist theory posited that women were historically held back by their reproduction—especially before birth control. Third-wave feminism is more open-minded about this issue. So the issue is very complex, but I do think that for some women protecting their reproductive power, i.e., the power to give life, might be seen as profoundly feminist. I’m clearly pro-choice, but I do try to understand why other women self-identify as pro-life. The feminist movement has been unable to gain the momentum it needs to make serious changes for women, and my theory is that it hasn’t evolved enough to include more women into its fold. Until we begin to understand, for example, why so many women are pro-life, we won’t be able to make any more progress.

[CGP]

So it gets really annoying when pundits try to throw the label “feminist” around as if it is completely homogenous group of individuals who all subscribe to group-think.

Thank you for pointing this out. I think the title of this thread is very sensationalistic and a gross generalization about a very diverse group of people. Where is this homogenous group of "feminists that hate Palin"?!? Some feminists may like Palin, some feminists may loathe her, and some feminists may have nothing to say about her.

[CGP]

Feminists (or should I say those claiming to be feminists) hate Sarah Palin because she is Republican, Christian, Pro-Life, and most importantly because she gets more media coverage than they do.

Another gross generalization...

[cinnamongirl]

When you turn into a woman, then your view regarding this subject will mean something. Not trying to be rude, but you have no right to say the above.

That doesn't make his view automatically wrong. Dismissing him out of hand because he's male is dangerously close to sexism.

[Meg]

Feminists (or should I say those claiming to be feminists) hate Sarah Palin because she is Republican, Christian, Pro-Life, and most importantly because she gets more media coverage than they do.

What about those male, democrats, independents, who are possibly athiest, pro-life, or pro-choice. Do they fall under the feminist category too. Or are women only allowed to feel that way?

Oh and what about those Repub males and females who get less media coverage than her? Aren't they at all jealous?

[NativeSun]

What about those male, democrats, independents, who are possibly athiest, pro-life, or pro-choice. Do they fall under the feminist category too. Or are women only allowed to feel that way?

Oh and what about those Repub males and females who get less media coverage than her? Aren't they at all jealous?

I'll explain it this way: we all know that feminists aren't that keen on the beauty pageant thing. Now, if beauty pageants had the same popularity as reality TV and there was one taking place all the time, I think you could say that the feminists would be very vocal in their opposition to these. However, if beauty pageants were a dying breed (like a 70's game show), then you probably wouldn't see them coming out in opposition to them that often, if at all.

[TheTaoOfBill]

When you turn into a woman, then your view regarding this subject will mean something. Not trying to be rude, but you have no right to say the above.

You can be a feminist and be pro life.

I have a right to whatever opinion I choose. I may not be a woman but I have a mother and 2 sisters whose rights are extremely important to me.

You can personally believe abortion is wrong and still be a feminist.

But the second you call to take away a woman's right to her own body you are no longer fighting for women's rights. You are fighting for a mostly male government control over a woman's uterus. That is definitely NOT feminism. And I'm not afraid to say it.

[TheTaoOfBill]

That doesn't make his view automatically wrong. Dismissing him out of hand because he's male is dangerously close to sexism.

The reason too many feminists these days aren't taken seriously anymore is because a good portion of them have become sexist against men.

[NativeSun]

The reason too many feminists these days aren't taken seriously anymore is because a good portion of them have become sexist against men.

They kind of had that label put on them right out of the box. They weren't accepted with open arms by main stream America back in the sixties. And I actually find them to be more hostile towards other women more than men.

[Horizon]

They kind of had that label put on them right out of the box. They weren't accepted with open arms by main stream America back in the sixties. And I actually find them to be more hostile towards other women more than men.

Ya think?? Believe me, there has been no bigger target for them than women of my age, and younger. It's kinda sad.

[NativeSun]

Ya think?? Believe me, there has been no bigger target for them than women of my age, and younger. It's kinda sad.

I don't understand what they stand for anymore. I thought that their original purpose was to elevate the status of women in society. To level the playing field between genders in the workforce. It just seems like they're now more focused on politics and ideology. Which kind of defeats their purpose because it segregates those women who disagree with them.

[Horizon]

I don't understand what they stand for anymore. I thought that their original purpose was to elevate the status of women in society. To level the playing field between genders in the workforce. It just seems like they're now more focused on politics and ideology. Which kind of defeats their purpose because it segregates those women who disagree with them.

It really does. While I am totally 100% pro CHOICE, I don't think you have to be to be considered a feminist. However, I do think you have to be about the advancement of ALL women, regardless of race, religion or political ideology. It seems to not be that way though.

One of my BFF's is a conservative. She is more feminazi than most liberals I know. She refuses to get married, or ever have children. She and her bf have lived together for years, with his understanding that her money is hers, his is his, and there will never be children. She is all about the advancement of ALL women. NOW would never accept her though! It really frustrates me to see that we are so confused about this. And we wonder why a woman can not get elected to the highest office?? You can't shut out ANY woman.

[LadyLazarus]

The reason too many feminists these days aren't taken seriously

It depends upon what sector you're in, but in academia feminists are taken very, very seriously. And as such, they continue to influence the core curriculum at colleges and universities across the nation. The reason most colleges now have degree-granting programs in Women's Studies is thanks to the blood, sweat, and tears feminists put in over a span of 30 years. Most entry-level courses in the humanities now dedicate units if not entire courses to feminist theory. In fact, feminism is so integral a component at the university, that most male scholars readily profess to being feminists themselves.

So I hardly think that feminism isn't taken seriously. It has had a massive influence on a major area of our public life.

[Laura Cereta]

The reason too many feminists these days aren't taken seriously anymore is because a good portion of them have become sexist against men.

The academic view:


"Any person-- male or female, gay or straight-- who believes that both sexes should have equal political, educational, economic, and other rights is a feminist, even if he or she refuses to identify with this 'label'."


Benokraitis, N. V. (1999). Marriages & Families: Changes, Choices, and Constraints. (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson. (p. 38).


Feminists theories-- Theoretical perspectives that analyze socially constructed expectations based on variables such as gender roles, social class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.



"The word 'feminism' originated in France and was introduced into this country in the early 1990s after efforts to expand women's political rights had been flourishing throughout the world for many decades."



"U.S. historians often refer to the movement that began in the nineteenth century and culminated with the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the right to vote, as the first wave of feminism."



"In the decades after women won the right to vote in 1920, the organized women's movement in the United States dissipated, and the word 'feminism' fell into diuse and ill repute. In the 1960s, a new generation revived the fight for what they now called 'women's liberation' and a vision of a world free of domination and subordination. This movement struck a responsive chord for countless women. The feminist movement grew rapidly throughout the 1970s, permeating every aspect of social, political, and cultural life."


Kesselman, A., McNair, L. D., and N. Schniedewind. (1999). Women Images and Realities: A Multicultural Anthology. (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. (p. 12).