A Feminist view?

Or simply a gender based view? You decide.

Whether this seems just generalisation or not – I don’t want the topic to go that way, but, with many things feminist, it will be bogged down with the same feminist dogma we see so much of emanating from within the US.

Let me be very clear – the feminist movement has done a great deal to break down the barriers for women in the world. Many of those women have forced a new horizon for other women to be who they want to be, and they have brought equality where, at one time, there was none.

But even I, yes me – have to say that I fear, not just for feminists, but the whole movement when the feminist agenda is hijacked for political manipulation.

I have spoken to many of my feminists friends – both the radical kind and not – who are startled and loathsome of the McCain pick for VP. They, rightly so, feel he picked her for one reason only, to get the female vote that he needs to win the US election. And, by some bizarre reasoning, so-called gun-toting feminists are agreeing with his choice.

But, when I read the post above – it mirrors exactly what Palin and McCain are saying – or NOT saying as the case may be.

It is rhetoric about Hillary Clinton – and does not confront the issues. It says that women should vote for McCain because he has a woman on the ticket.

Is that sensible? Is it reasonable that a woman, and so-called feminist, vote for a man because he has a woman as his running-mate? The fact that she has the prospect of running for president in 4 years is the right reason to vote for John McCain now – take the hurt for 4 years, and then – and this is where I find it unbelievable – vote for another 4 years of Bush policy because Palin will be the lead on another Republican ticket?

Does that make sense to women in general or feminists? Please, please comment because I for one want to know.

No where in that post does the speaker tell of policy – which is exactly what the Republicans want, they have no policy – so make it about anything else.

Sarah Palin is not a feminist in any way. She is not – though I dislike(ed) her with a passion – a Margaret Thatcher, Thatcher had policies to put to the people. Palin just says she is a pitbull with lipstick.

But I have never, ever, ever seen any feminist I know back away from an argument about what she stands for and her agenda or her political policies or issues. Sarah Palin, a feminist of the lowest order does as men tell her to do – she won’t even speak to the press without it being scripted!

If that is a feminist – then so am I.

How can a feminist vote for John McCain because he has her on the ticket, just because she is a woman?

McCain has no policy – and the fluffy issue he will admit to – is totally against women.

If this feminist view takes hold and women vote for McCain because of Palin – it then becomes quite obvious that the feminist movement do not want equality between men and women, they just want a woman, any woman because she, like they, share the same body parts. They will put women’s issues back to the dark ages in the eyes of many who want a better society and fairness in it, true feminists included.

I can see, if McCain wins because of this feminist vote, many Americans weeping when the election is called.

If Hillary Clinton is going to do anything for the feminist movement and women’s issues – she has to come out and tell it like it is and show McCain up for the hypocrite that he is – and the dire prospect of Palin as VP.

That isn’t breaking the glass ceiling – that is sealing the glass for another 20 years!


Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Blah!, Blogroll, Blogs, Christianity, Comment, Conservatives, Democrats, Feminism, Liberal, Liberal Democrats, Personal philosophy, Political correctness, Politics, psychology, Sociology, Technology, WTF! Moment and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to A Feminist view?

  1. Ridgeliner7 says:

    The hypocrisy has been breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman’s right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism.

    One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.

    The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a “small state,” as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.

    Had she been a man with similar political views, the left’s opposition would have been strong but less personally vicious: It would have focused neither on a daughter’s pregnancy, nor on the candidate’s inability to be a good parent if the job was landed. In its panic, the left was indicating that to be a female running for office these days is no hindrance but an advantage, and admitting that there is indeed a difference between mothers and fathers that cannot necessarily be resolved by having daddy doing the diaper run.

    Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of American feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation’s consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist left—a political movement/business not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakable—those of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.

    And because of that, only because of that, the left is hell-bent to destroy her. Only when feminism accepts all political POV’s will it truly be free, come of age.

  2. ReyMac says:

    Thank you for asking the questions: is Sarah Palin to be supported just because she’s a woman? and does opposing her “red-blooded, right-wing principled” positions make one sexist?

    I think that Governor Palin’s views on Iraq (“the United States is doing God’s work”), abortion (“Never.” though she’s glad her daughter made that choice), earmarks and federal pork(now she’s against them, when she was Mayor of Wasilla she hired a lobbyist to get them), and Fannie May and Freddie Mac (she doesn’t know how they work – see today’s Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/08/palin-makes-her-first-gaf_n_124792.html) show that she is not a qualified person to be running for vice president.

    Those are issues that I feel she lacks perspective or integrity on. Not to mention the ongoing ethics investigation into her personal abuse of power, or her attempt to censor the library in the town she governed. Politically, I just don’t like where she’s coming from or where she’s trying to go. That doesn’t make me sexist, does it?

  3. Ridgeliner7 says:

    ReyMac, your arguments would carry more intellectual weight if you sourced from credible sources. Nowhere in academic or journalistic circles is the Huffington Post or Daily Kos considered to be credible.

  4. Will Rhodes says:

    Rigeliner –

    The hypocrisy has been breathtaking.

    You do speak some truth – McCain’s hypocrisy is indeed breathtaking – the fact that you call yourself a feminist and you back her, it leaves me almost lost for words.

    You are no more a feminist than I am.

  5. Ridgeliner7 says:

    Wow.

    Another hater in the blogosphere. Who would have thought?

    Thanks for your opinion, based upon your vast knowledge of my lifes works.

    Enjoy the hits my posts give you, for they will be the last from me, now that you have tipped your hand.

  6. Will Rhodes says:

    Really? I’m a “hater” for calling you out on what you are?

    Reasonable response from one such as yourself. Your life’s works don’t come into it – whatever they are, what does is your opinion, and please do remember – you posted here not me there.

    Please feel free to spread the word.

  7. Kurt says:

    Will, you should know by now that reasonable discussion is not possible with those kind of people; I’m sorry to say.
    Every word you wrote in this post is fair and accurate.

  8. Will Rhodes says:

    Thanks, Kurt – I thought it was.

  9. thebeadden says:

    I am torn here. After reading Ridge say this:

    “The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a “small state,” as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.”

    I kind of agree. If it was a man, I honestly believe that it wouldn’t be as big an issue. As for the speech, we can say that for every politician in every party. That’s all they do, read the script.

    I have to admire her for stepping into the political world when there are so few women doing so. As for her daughter, come on, this happens everyday, even to Mothers that stay home and raise their children. Should she start going out on her 16 or 17year old childs dates? Do you?I Does anyone? To use that against her is wrong.

    As much as I have said they are using her to deflect McCain from media spotlight, and agree that we should focus on him. It is not far-fetched given his medical history and age, to think she may actually step into his position.

    While she may have (or have not) been a great mayor and governor, I do not think she is ready to be the President of a super power like the United States. Now that she is in the spotlight, maybe her political career will soar from there. Give her more years with the big guys and she just may run herself.

    To vote for someone just because she is a women, it isn’t right.

    I have to admit I spent the last few days looking up everything I could on her. Reading some letters she wrote. And I thought she was right in many cases. I thought she made valid points and did not seem to be the type of person (man or woman) to cave in to other people. And I admire that. I am not saying I agree with what she believes in, or her platforms, I am just saying if she wants something she won’t back down like most do.

    Having said that:
    Vote for Ron Paul! 🙂

  10. Will Rhodes says:

    Why Ron Paul, Bead?

  11. thebeadden says:

    I can go off-topic? hehehe.

    I’ll try and make this to the point. I admire him as a politician because he is standing firm on issues he believes in. He doesn’t cave. He knows he won’t win. He knows his platform is not popular, and might very well make life a hard for Americans in the short term but in the long term it would be better. He isn’t going to prostitute himself for a vote.

    2nd – he is against the SPP. So am I. And that is a big issue with me. I can overlook certain policies because of that. You can’t please everyone all the time, it is impossible.
    http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2008/pr042108.htm
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article3598.html

    3rd – Just read these. How can you not admire him?
    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/ron_paul.html

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s