DIANA writes:

Witness this cringeworthy piece of verbal incontinence from Sarah Palin (my comments in brackets):

I grew up hunting, fishing, playing sports, plowing snow, and chopping wood just like the guys. [Sarah, you may have done all that, but you didn’t chop as much wood or plow as much snow as a guy.] My parents raised my sisters and me to never consider gender an unequal element in anything…

[When you were a basketball player, did you play against boys, or girls?] My daughters have participated on football, hockey, and wrestling teams just like the guys. [But not against them.] .…It’s accepted up here because the environment is rugged and real, and our Alaskan elements are a great equalizer. [Flat out false, a rugged environment discriminates brutally between male and female. Put equally matched men and women in a brutal environment that is not a reality show, and let’s see what happens.] Women and men are equals in every way in the Last Frontier, and real men are not threatened by strong women. Real men don’t insult women with gross sexist comments meant to demean and objectify them.” [This is the only thing she said that I agree with wholeheartedly but for different reasons than Sarah. A real man knows and cherishes the differences between men and women, and does not use obscenity in a difference of opinion with a woman.]

Opposing the rampant misogyny of the boy playing in the sandbox is a tactic doomed to failure. The only way that a woman can fight back against a man is by being a lady. In a physical fight, this won’t work, which is why women – smart women – have always devised ways of blunting, forestalling, or not provoking, male violence in the first place. A woman cannot win in a direct physical confrontation against a man, no matter what Hollywood sells us.

In a verbal fight, it’s different. Margaret Thatcher had this down pat. You win by firmly standing your ground, and never rolling in the mud, which is what Palin in effect advises us to do here.   She’s all wrong about everything. Women aren’t the equals of men in a physical fight. She’s selling a fantasy as destructive and ruinous as Hollywood ever did.

Women who support Palin are not conservatives although they think they are. They are sad and deluded fools, just liberals who believe in lower taxes. People who sincerely consider themselves conservative have adopted the core tenets of radical feminism. If that’s not crazy, what is?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: American has gone crazy, and when a country goes crazy, there no limit to how far it can sink.

                                                       — Comments —

Alissa writes:

Sarah Palin has always been a pseudo “conservative.” A sizeable proportion of Christians and conservatives realize how Palin neither takes her faith seriously nor is she a traditional conservative at heart. People who automatically protect Palin (e.g. Palinbots) or hate her (e.g. feminists obsessed with Palin) do so out of a misconception: that she’s an orthodox Christian. Both of these are lies and huge illusions. Her life path, her decisions, her speeches all point to the other direction. She’s more of a classical liberal or more properly termed a fusionist (google “Edward Feser fusionist” and read his article about fusionism). You know what really made me laugh during the contraceptive debate? Going to Facebook and seeing images of banners against “The Catholic war on women” with pictures of Sarah Palin (hint: she’s for contraception and not Catholic).

Inez writes:

Given Diana’s comments about Sarah Palin’s article, I wonder what her thoughts are on guns, and how, if at all, they equalize the strengths of men and women. After all, a woman familiar with guns and shooting, like Sarah Palin, is more capable of protecting herself, whether against the frontier dangers or other people, than 90+ percent of the men in America.

Personally, I always thought NOW ought to be constantly praising the great equalizing power of the 9mm handgun!

As I said, I am just very curious to read your thoughts on this, as well as the thoughts of your readers.

Diana writes:

Some wit once called guns “the best in feminine protection.” Amen to that.

Of course, a gun depends on the skill of the person wielding it.

And I’m not discussing champion marksmen, most of whom, I understand, are men. Women can be very good shots.

I am 100 percent in favor of rational self-defense. That could include guns – or not. The best way for a female to deal with a violent male is to get away from him as soon as possible. If she can’t, then anything goes. Don’t fight fair. The odds are stacked against you, honey.

The fact that Palin has said a few good things here and there doesn’t vitiate her basic illogical radical feminist stance, which is that “anything you can do I can do better.” (Taken from Annie Get Your Gun, on purpose!)

That is simply false. The average woman is at a terrible disadvantage compared to the average man, in physical strength, especially upper body strength, punching ability, and running ability. It is foolhardy for a woman to challenge a man physically. Every day, in every way, our popular culture is saturated with images of “butt-kicking babes” doing exactly that. It is 100 percent false.

Regarding NOW, I regard it as a huge waste of time to say the words “NOW should.” NOW is never going to say anything sensible. So forget about it.

Laura writes:

How about: NOW should retract every lie? That will take a long time, but it could start.

Buck writes:

I imagine, there’s a poster of Sarah Palin, displaying her substantial gun collection, on Tammie Bruce’s bedroom wall. Bruce and Palin are soul sisters when it comes to guns and gay marriage.

Lawrence Auster writes:

Diana makes good points about Sarah Palin, but I disagree with her on one point. She says: “People who sincerely consider themselves conservative have adopted the core tenets of radical feminism.” The notion of a bad, radical feminism which conservatives ought to oppose implies that there is a good, moderate feminism which conservatives ought to support. No such moderate feminism exists. Feminism is a single continuum of badness. Conservatives who oppose only “radical” feminism are like conservatives who oppose only “radical” Islam. In reality, Islam itself, without modifiers, is the problem, just as feminism itself, without modifiers, is the problem.

Laura writes:

Yup.

There’s no such thing as moderate feminism. Similarly, there’s no such thing as moderate Communism. Some Communists favored slave labor camps and some abhorred brutality, but there was an ideological continuum between the two. Some feminists are more moderate in their means or less strident in their attitudes. But feminism is not an attitude. It’s a coherent set of principles, assumptions about reality and ultimate objectives. These are inherently radical.

Please follow and like us: