. . . on the Palin vs. Schlafly (and McCann vs. McCain) “what does feminism mean?” issue.
My take is in the comments there; for Schlafly to say that she “made her own way”–after feminists before her had secured the vote, and broken into institutions of higher learning–is ahistorical and monstrously ungrateful. I agree that American women are very, very lucky–but, come on: what’s happened to Palin because of her plumbing (and because she conservative and charismatic, and therefore considered a threat to the left) is just wrong. Wrong.
And of course to say that feminists are “against mariage,” as she does on the video at Stacy’s blog, is an outright lie. Most of my conservative-feminist friends are married. Most of my liberal-feminist friends are married. The plain-vanilla feminism I grew up with was not against marriage; rather, it was about empowering life options so that you didn’t feel like you had to get married if it wasn’t in your nature, and so that if you did, there was the option for the man to stay home with the kids (which many conservative men do, these days, for a variety of reasons).
These days, the decisions about divisions of labor within the home are made by the couple, rather than the larger culture, and we have feminism to thank for it. That facilitates the careers of Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein, Sarah Palin, Moe Lane . . . and many more. That modern flexibility frees up conservative talent in several different ways.
And here’s Roxeanne, from my last thread on this topic:
There are differences between Gov. Palin and Mrs. Schlafly. For example, when I heard Mrs. Schlafly speak, she said that she disagrees with Title IX and feels that girls are not as into sports as men are. (Now, as a former 9-time varsity athlete, I disagree with that!) Gov. Palin is an ardent supporter of Title IX and credits it with her achievements as captain of the Wasilla Warriors basketball team. Palin accepted the VP nomination after consulting her family; Schlafly expressed reservations about a mother of such a young child as Trig taking on that role. Both are powerful women who are succeeding in a male-dominated field and are recognised as leaders on the national level; one calls herself a feminist, one does not, and they do express different opinions about some topics that are quite important to (in Joy’s words) high-octane women.
But Stacy is at The American Spectator site, explaining that women’s history began in 1960, which is rather like Virginia Woolf writing that “on or about December 1910, human character changed . . . ”
The difference is, Woolf was partially joking.
The photo above is of Sojourner Truth, a former slave from New York who spoke at a Women’s Rights Convention in 1851. She made her own way.
UPDATE: Yes, I know that there have been abuses of Title IX in some school districts. My personal feeling is that it should be reformed very slightly. But that’s not quite the point, here–the overarching point is that Governor Palin probably knows her mind on any number of women’s issues, and should be trusted to tell us what it is.
; ?>/images/user.png)
; ?>/images/email.png)
; ?>/images/feed.png)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Our Delicate Little Flowers… at War.
Little Miss Attila,
Who along the spectrum of feminists is Mrs. Palin’s target? The same question goes for Mrs. Schlafly.
My guess of target is the group of influential women who espouse man-hatred for the purpose of gaining personal power. By generating buzz, they are essentially pulling the teeth of the most extreme group of feminists in advance of the 2012 election. The only way they could do more, and better, would be to seize all college campuses.
The various discussions on feminism, its Mendicants, and the goals of feminism is excellent! I do see the usual slide into a balkanized state of hyphenated-feminists. Unless there is unity of effort, the feminist vote will go to the more handsome male candidate promoted by the most hateful of men-haters.
“come on: what’s happened to Palin because of her plumbing (and because she conservative and charismatic, and therefore considered a threat to the left) is just wrong. Wrong.come on: what’s happened to Palin because of her plumbing (and because she conservative and charismatic, and therefore considered a threat to the left) is just wrong. Wrong.”
What has happened to Palin?
She quit her job and went on to make millions of dollars.
Poor, poor, Sarah Palin.
Weep for her.
I sort of agree, but having read Ann Coulter’s articles on Phyllis Schlafly, I do admire her toughness and tenacity. Plus, she’s is amazingly bright and tough as hell.
I am an male ex-varsity athlete myself (UT/Austin – Track and Field) and am raising another one, albeit an 11 year old girl, so I have some interest in that.
What happened to Sarah Palin was sickening, well-scripted and very well-orchestrated, as was everything related to Obama’s ascension to the White House.
Phyllis Schlafly made political hay fighting mostly against the Equal Rights Amendment. Now call me a liberal, but I think that would have been a good amendment. It is simple enough.
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. (section 3 is the new version, not what was defeated in the 70s.)
Schafly fought against this saying that if it passed, then women would forced to enter the armed forces (the draft) and fight for their country. (She also had elaborate theories about same-sex bathrooms, which is one reason I think they were lampooned so heavily on the old “Ali McBeal” series.
At the time, it was easier for a man to divorce his wife in about half the states. There were more controls on the inheritance of property (without a will) in several states. The lists of rights that men had that women didn’t have was legion. Probably not so different today.
So exactly what rights do you think men should have that women shouldn’t have? Maybe Phyllis can clue me in.
In terms of the history of the feminist movement, the ERA (That’s not a baseball statistic) was first proposed in 1923. But then Americans really suck at anything that requires study.
As for “feminism always being strictly Leftist..” That also misses a bit of history. Wyoming passed suffrage in the 1840s. It let women vote and serve on juries. (Which they were barred from in the rest of the country.) I guess that Wyoming place just must be a hotbed of liberalism. (Who knew?)
Some of my favorite quotes on feminism.
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union…. Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a door mat or a prostitute. ~Rebecca West, “Mr Chesterton in Hysterics: A Study in Prejudice,” The Clarion, 14 Nov 1913
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler
I’m tough, I’m ambitious, and I know exactly what I want. If that makes me a bitch, okay. ~Madonna Ciccone
Stacy just keeps digging. However, usually in the conservative world I face the exact same tactics alone because they are used against gays and very seldom do our families or friends take up our cause, present company excepted. What tactics? First, deny that a group of people with a trait in common that is used to define them as being intrinsically unworthy of equality have a legitimate grievance about that. Sneeringly call them “grievance groups.” Second, ignore that sociopaths ALWAYS tell idealistic people whatever they want to hear in order to get power over them. Third, insist that the ideological trap of totalitarianism these idealistic people then find themselves in is actually what they intended all along.
Palin quit her job, walked into massive overexposure, and made herself a joke. I think this happened quite independently of any feminist perspective and it is a shame, as she is charismatic and once appeared to have something to say. But it will be awhile before America views Palin as a serious leader, if at all.
Parts of this conversation about feminism seems to be taking place some time in the past. Maybe 1972: “My guess of target is the group of influential women who espouse man-hatred for the purpose of gaining personal power….The only way they could do more, and better, would be to seize all college campuses.” What’s next? Burning bras?
As for Phyllis Schlafly, I remember her from way back when. She was very jazzed about Madame Nhu’s wanting to provide mustard for a “barbecue” of burned-alive communists. Too much about hate for me, I’m afraid. Don’t like it on the right OR left.
The snark about Palin is a dead giveaway to your bs.
Here’s the thing, though: I disagree with the Palin-snark, but I agree with the rest of the comment.
Yeah, Communism Before Ebriection is da bomb.
I remember when the current crop of Democrats were very jazzed about Pol Pot’s wanting to provide Tuk Meric for a “barbecue” of Cambodian
standins to implement Great Leap II. Barry was baked at the time and Year Zero had a different meaning in his life.