What Does Palin Have to Do With Feminism: Lack of Feminist Support is Not Hyprcritical

UNLV Rebel Yell ^ | November 24, 2008 | Marissa Christenson

[imfrmdixie]

Reading all the attributes of a 'true feminist' one has to acknowledge that Catherine the Great was a solid, true feminist. She had power, she used sex with anything and anyone as a means of control, pleasure, freedom. She was more than equal to any man of her time. She was ruthless and vengeful. She was a model for dear ole Gloria Steinheim.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

"For the record, Sarah Palin was far from the feminist ideal. Seriously. I have yet to come across one feminist-identified individual with an iota of support for the woman. "

The more interesting chapter in the election campaign was when a wacko liberal New York Times writer, after several sinsemilla bong hits on top of too many shots of Tequila and Jägermeister, found a conservative Da Vinci Code in the Paris Hilton celebrity ad pumped out by the McCain campaign staff. At first this seemed a little paranoid, but he may have been on to something with this subliminal sex thing. Paris and Palin stole the show. The subliminal Freudian conservatism is more interesting than the namby-pamby anti-male liberalism. Camille Paglia picked up on this. We haven't seen the last of it yet. Most of the pundits and talking heads have missed this, choosing to focus on the Religious Right and Rush Limbaugh. Especially the sissies at PMSNBC. The female mojo scared them a little. Maybe Ann Coulter and Megyn Kelly could pick up where Camille Paglia left off on this. There's more here that needs to be decoded by anyone who can figure it out. The next conservative woman to find her mojo might just have a job.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I have yet to come across one feminist-identified individual with an iota of support for the woman.

Like the NYT reporters who have no idea what people outside their little clique and their little corner of the universe are like.

[torchthemummy]

What we have, then, is a world that accepts women in positions of power only if they internalize patriarchal qualities and act like socially constructed men.

No...what we have is a liberal world that only accepts women in positions of power if they externalize female preference policies that can only be justified if the inherent uniqueness of men and women's psyche and biological abilities that lead to different choices/outlooks, and thus results, are ignored.

The theory of gender equality for women has morphed into a) supporting educational curricula that tries to make men more like women and, thus, b) pushing an idea of the superiority of women and their choices, thought processes etc.

In issues of preferences - be it gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical ability etc. - the idea is to repress the rights of non-specific individuals (guilty before proven innocent) to the benefit of super-sizing the rights of members of specific groups (innocent without considering any guilt) to the point that if one opposes the latest bill, law, strategy to improve a grievance-specific groups "legal rights" then one must be against said grievance group.

[MIT-Elephant]

“being able to have sex like men with the equal ability to walk away from consequences.”

A spot-on description, but has anyone noticed the weirdness of sexual lexicon? It’s not something you do, it’s something you...have. As a TV show put it, “like a cold...or a Rottweiler.”