The Conservative Feminist Sisterhood
April 9, 2010
MARKYMARK WRITES:
I clicked on your link to the Politico piece on Michele Bachmann & Sarah Palin. If not for the conservative terminology, I’d have thought I was listening to a couple of feminists! What’s sad is that the big, conservative commentators (Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al) lionize Bachmann & Palin; why, they’re The Second Coming! When Palin made her crack about having a woman do something you want done, I could see no difference between her or any of the NOW Gang. If this is what conservatism has morphed into, we’re done; as a people, a culture, and a nation, we’re done.
Such women have to make things especially hard for traditional women like you. If you haven’t heard it already, you’ll no doubt hear the refrain that Sarah can have it all. Really, how is that any different than what the feminists have always pushed? Sorry, but I don’t see any difference, other than the pretty faces now fronting feminism (Bachman, Palin, et al). It’s as if they’re saying, “See, feminism isn’t all bad! We’re your woman next door!” And with that pretty face, feminism will become more entrenched in our society. Silly me, I thought conservatism was about FIGHTING feminism! I guess not.
Laura writes:
This is a disturbing example of what I discussed yesterday, of how women transform politics. Unless they consciously adopt a manly style, they trivialize and Oprah-ize politics, making personality first and foremost. You are exactly right. Bachmann and Palin put a pretty face on feminism. They are duping conservative women.
This event was embarrassing. I can’t imagine a man praising another male politician for his “extraordinary fortitude” unless he had been a war veteran. What is this extraordinary fortitude Palin has displayed? The ability to withstand criticism? The fortitude to leave her elected position and her family to become a TV star? Imagine a male politician remarking on how handsome another man is, calling him “drop-dead gorgeous.” And, why did the heavily female audience break out in cheers when Bachmann said Palin was gorgeous? Palin’s remark about how it takes a woman to get a job done was just out and out insulting. A man would be run out of town if he said anything comparable about women.
I also was struck by how much both women used feminine and emotional inflections, attempting to persuade not by their words, which were sheer pap, but through charming gestures, the rise and fall of their voices, their gesticulating hands. They seemed ultra-conscious of their loveliness and its power to seduce. I found Palin’s outfit entirely inappropriate, including the gaudy crucifix among her pearls. Her black lace dress was tasteless, something you would wear to a cocktail party not to make a political speech.
— Comments —
Clayton writes:
I appreciate your comments on this phenomenon that we are witnessing on the political scene with these women politicians. I believe we are witnessing the absolute decline and degradation of the culture of this country. Through the medium of the internet we are able to engage other people with the same ideas and thusly not feel so alone. I feel fairly certain that as the Roman Empire began it’s decline there were groups of people who were astounded and disturbed by the unfolding events that they were experiencing but totally unable to freely exchange their views with many others.
I have for the longest time cast a somewhat jaundiced eye at Palin. I have seen pictures of her with the occasional world leader sitting with her thighs exposed up to above the knees and the exposure of her cleavage, and wondered about her behavior. Maybe, more succinctly put, is this the way that this country would want a president to look and behave. Sadly, I would answer my own question in the affirmative. Sex has become the highest liturgy of this materialist/nihilistic/hubristic religion that now informs a huge majority of this country.
I was brought up with a start when I first saw and heard Palin in her introduction as the VP choice by McCain, when she extolled the accomplishments and “virtue” of Hillary Clinton. That was the first sign of feminism on parade with this woman.
I am in my eighth decade and the chances are that I will not live to see the utter disaster of what is most certainly approaching, but hopefully there are enough people as you about, that might give this country a chance of recovering itself.
Keep up the good work!
Clayton adds:
Sarah Palin has a young child with Down Syndrome. As a retired physician, I have to say that there is no way that this women is able to give to that child what is necessary because of her continuous gallivanting around the country ( even if she carries the child with her which in itself is abominable). No better example is this of a mother denying her duties to this child that she brought into the world and pursuing this hollow ideology, feminism.
Jesse writes:
I’m a regular listener to the Rush Limbaugh program and on November 17th, 2009, practically the whole show was about gender issues. Rush Limbaugh interviewed Sarah Palin as part of the show; the interview took place on the day Palin’s book “Going Rogue” was released. On another program, on another day, I remember Limbaugh mentioning how the Republican Party really has some attractive women in it, saying something to the effect of, wow, the Republican Party sure has some hotties, just compare some of our women with what the Democrats have to offer.
I thought that was an interesting observation. I remember being impressed with the beauty of Sarah Palin when I first saw her and being impressed with the beauty of Michele Bachmann when I first saw her. On the other hand, the two most prominent women in the Democratic Party are Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. It is true, isn’t it, that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann beat out Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in the looks department.
I think this says something about Republican voters, that Republicans put a higher premium on beauty in their Republican female representatives than the Democrats do.
On the issue of substance there seems to be developing among Republicans an outright preference for women in positions of power. In the family sphere a preference for women exercising power has been evident and developing for quite some time. In the political sphere however the desire for women leaders seems to be a new thing, especially among Republicans. It does seem to me that the frenzy over Sarah Palin does seem to be exaggerated and extreme. It is oh so wonderful to have a strong, beautiful, rock rib conservative woman leading the country, the mere thought of it makes many Republican hearts tremble and palpitate.
Would so much hype and hoopla accompany the emergence of a new male Republican leader? I don’t think so.
There seems to be an idea that a woman leader can give us both the best of traditional masculine characteristics and the best of traditionally feminine characteristics in one package. The idea of a woman leader seems to add spark and pizzazz combined with some passionate love for those of the male persuasion. Ultimately however, if a true preference for female leadership in government becomes entrenched I think it will end up harming the ability of the political system to function just like the similar preference for female authority in the family has led to a breakdown in the functioning of family life.
Below is an excerpt from Limbaugh’s program illustrating some of my points:
The Rush Limbaugh Program, November 17th, 2009, Hour 2, 25:52 to 27:58. Denise is referring to Sarah Palin’s decision to resign from the Alaska governor’s office:
Denise (in Charlotte, NC): I like the fiery part of it, I like that she was pissed off about it, and she almost said to these people, “Oh, you wanna mess with me, I’m not going to give you someone to mess with. I’m willing to step down in order to weaken you, in order to overcome you.”, and I like that, that shows a lot of strength and a lot of empowerment. It isn’t about her, it was about Alaska as well, but it shows that she’s fighting spirit, that. I guess it’s in the context of Barack Obama being so painfully weak, and this coming from someone who’s from Camp Lejeune, and I go home and I see these guys going off in the military. I’m sorry; this is very personal to me.
Rush Limbaugh: You know, you, um, you raise an interesting point or you remind me of an interesting point, and that is that some of the strongest people in Republican Party politics today are women.
Denise: Absolutely they’re women, and we need a woman, and we need this woman, we need a strong conservative woman, we need someone who’s going to stand up and look other people in the eye and say, “I’m willing to sacrifice in order to succeed. I am willing to quit”, which seems to be quitting, “in order to fight. I’m willing to protect instead of taking care of people.”, and there’s a difference there, and I saw that especially in her interview talking about the baby of her son-in-law, or not son-in-law but the baby’s father. She always put the baby first. She put protecting first rather than tearing other people down, and we need that, our men in the military need that. They don’t have someone who wants to protect, they have someone who wants to cover his own butt, and they want someone who wants to say he’s taking care of everybody when he’s not, he’s stripping them of their self-esteem and of their strength, and I’m tired of it, and in Sarah Palin we have someone who is compassionate, who’s wise, who’s strong and who is a fighter, and I want people to know that; and she is not what these stupid liberals are saying about her. They’re stupid and they’re biased, and they’re going to use her quitting the governorship as something to, flag her with, when really I think it’s a banner of strength.
Laura writes:
Part of this preference Republicans are showing for women is a desire to beat liberals at their own game. I think that’s obvious and that’s why McCain picked Palin in the first place despite her lack of experience. “We’ll beat them with our own affirmative action pick. We’ll show we’re not a bunch of stuffy white guys hostile to progress.” It’s the obscene tendency by conservatives to try to beat liberalism by conceding to it.
Brendan writes:
It’s not just imitating the affirmative action pick, it’s also actively trying to play the sex appeal card. The Democrats did this shamelessly with Obama, especially among younger women, but not only — I remember the interview he did with Barbara Walters during the campaign where she leaned over and squeezed his leg and told him “You’re hot!”.
Sex sells, also in politics. The Democrats “pimped” Obama to women in 2008. It should not be surprising to see Republicans trying to pimp attractive women to the mostly male GOP base as well.
It reflects a continuing degradation of our electoral politics to be certain, but only one of many, sadly.
Elizabeth Wright writes:
From the Politico article:
Palin says: “2010 is shaping up to be the year that conservative women take over…and Michele is leading the stampede.”
When you think of it, the Bachmann-Palin fighting duo is really pitiful for what it says about conservative male leadership. The men have imbibed the liberal Kool-Aid as thoroughly as the women. In another forum, a so-called conservative, religious male expressed delight about the emergence of Palin, because there have been no serious women candidates for the Presidency. It’s about time this has happened, he claimed.
I wanted to know why on earth there is any need to promote women, just because they’re women, as heads of state. But, of course, he had no answer because, after being subjected to years of propaganda, he, too, is as much a believer in the multicultural-race-gender stuff as any wild-eyed liberal. He, too, has been browbeaten to accept, or else. After years of keeping the peace with the women in their lives, “conservative” men are conservative no longer.
I wonder if men like the above voted for Obama for the same reason — just to give a chance at leadership to a mixed-race personage.
Laura wrote:
“It’s the obscene tendency by conservatives to try to beat liberalism by conceding to it.”
Yes, this is at the heart of it, and on almost every issue, conservatives have totally conceded. Who needs them, when you have the real McCoy in the Democrats? Why vote for the wannabes?
