Posted on 08/29/2010 11:26:50 AM PDT by Mongeaux
Hard on the heels of Sarah Palin’s stellar speech at yesterday’s D.C. rally, Feministas Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister have published an Op-ed in today’s New York Times bemoaning the left’s lack of a similar charismatic female leader. It is a stunning admission of political failure, or it would be if they were talking about anything other than Feminism, which hasn’t chalked up a single genuine victory since the 70′s.
Palin is a political Dreadnought – she’s withstood two years of constant assault from the left and yet refuses to sink. Libs have thrown their entire arsenal at her but she continues on, even picking up speed. She’s now on the verge of appropriating one of their most cherished issues – Women’s Rights – and it’s driving them crazy.
That Feminism came into being at all is proof it was needed, but its impending appropriation by Conservatives shows how badly the left bungled it. Holmes and Traister recognize mistakes were made, but the lay the blame entirely at the feet of the left, citing the raw deal Hillary Clinton got in the primaries:
But the sad truth is that Democrats often prefer their women fulfilling similarly diminutive models for behavior. Consider how Hillary Clinton has been treated, at times, by those in her own party: Democratic leaders never really celebrated Mrs. Clinton’s nation-altering place in history as the first female candidate to get so close to a major party’s presidential nomination. Indeed, she is most appreciated when she plays well with others in the Senate or the State Department; when she behaves like a fierce competitor, she is compared to Glenn Close’s bunny-boiling virago from “Fatal Attraction.”
Progressives, they tell us, aren’t feminist enough. Progressives only like women pols who are non-confrontational and “play well with others”. This is probably true, but it also shows why the right is on the verge of hijacking the Women’s Rights movement. Conservatives don’t mind strong women (like Palin) who fight for their beliefs and are willing to confront opponents. Does that make us more Feminist than the left? Maybe so - since Palin’s appearance on the political scene the libs have thrown one misogynistic Grand Mal seizure after another, criticizing her in most unfeminist ways. She’s a bad mother because she’s leaving her kids to run a campaign. She’s stupid because she’s hawt and dresses nice. All this anti-woman (or anti wrong-kind-of-woman) rhetoric makes conservatives look feminist by default.
Nobody should be surprised the left has failed to live up to the feminist ideal; feminism itself was born out of frustration with the libs, when female members of student radical groups rebelled because the boys put them in the role of Hippie USO; fetching coffee and dispensing Bong Hits and BJ’s as needed. Has anything really changed? One could argue that by the end of the 70′s, Feminism devolved into just another lefty interest group lined up with others under the Progressive banner to be trotted out when the (male) leaders needed to torpedo conservative enemies like Clarence Thomas. Feminism wasn’t about moving women forward, it was about pushing liberalism forward. And if the girls played nice they’d get the scraps.
Politics, like Nature abhors a vacuum. Leave a void and somebody’s bound to step in to fill it. But where did the void come from? The authors of this piece lay the blame on everybody but themselves. The Generals and their fellow soldiers have failed them. But nowhere is there the slightest suggestion that maybe feminists failed themselves. Attacking the Patriarchy wasn’t enough – they had to attack their own as well. The movement that presumes to speak for all women really only speaks for certain kinds of women. Those who don’t live up (or down) to that ideal are worse than on their own – they’re targets. Anita Hill? Sexual harassment victim. Monica Lewinsky? Bimbo hussy. Hillary Clinton? Victim. Sarah Palin? Villain.
Will the Progressives ever get their own Sarah Palin? Unlikely.
I know--there's a serious ICK factor with liberal men. Grayson, Waxman, Weiner...all make you wince just to look at them.
How about Bawney Fwank or Chris Dud?
The major difference difference between Democrat women and GOP women is that GOP women look like women and are attracted to men.
What’s a BJ?
What’s the point of your question?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.