Dana Loesch: Sarah Palin and the rise of the Feminist Right
By: Dana Loesch
OpEd Contributor
August 22, 2010Liberal women have their panties in a bunch over the media's recent characterization of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a "feminist."
I have some news for you, Dana! Many Liberals and Conservatives (some of which are Christian Conservative) HATE Sarah Palin due to the fact that she is an incompetent moron who thinks we should have the Bible instead of the Constitution as the law of the land, and as an inexperienced politician at the national level.
Sarah Palin approval ratings:
| AP-GfK | 8/11-16/10 | 1007 A | 41 | 54 | - | 5 | - | 1 -13 |
Here's the rest of her screed-based innuendo and lies:
You see, that job is patented by liberal feminists who, for the past 30 or so years, have turned the term for "belief and advocacy in and for equality between the sexes" into a vote-manipulating, moneymaking shtick of an oxymoron. They get upset whenever anyone attempts to co-opt the unofficial trademark of the female left and dilute their commodity.
Popularly defined feminism is no longer about liberating women from the patriarchy but about beholding them to a political party whose policies clearly affect women negatively.
This past month, liberal feminists made more hay made over Palin's "mama grizzlies" talk than the matter of the Food and Drug Administration jerking Avastin off the market. Avastin is a drug used to treat late-stage breast cancer and has been shown to extend the life of some breast cancer patients by five months, but was deemed "cost-prohibitive" by the government.
Emily's List cared enough about women to make a video criticizing Palin, but apparently not enough about breast cancer patients to make a video criticizing the FDA's move.
Liberal feminists made more hay about Palin's chest than I saw them make over the nine women who were recently stoned to death in the Middle East. Those same liberal feminists were also silent when Alle Bautsch was beaten in the street for being a conservative woman.
Liberal feminists talk of choice, but refuse to take the liberated, independent responsibility for their choices and instead press Uncle Sam to subsidize their abortions and birth control.
Liberal women complain about unemployment, yet promote policies which stifle the free market, suppress economic growth and shrink their wallets.
Liberal women rage about education, but help put a man in the White House who worked to kill educational equality by destroying the school vouchers program.
Liberal advocacy for equality between the sexes is a myth; through second- and third-wave feminism, equality became about lowering the bar and demanding that everyone sink to meet the expectations. Case in point: Title IX, wherein boys' welfare and achievement was suppressed so that girls could catch and match them.
Equality is not met by comparing oppression or mediocrity, but by comparing potential and excellence; nor is it met by tearing down the opposition or suppressing ability. Liberal women are quick to ignore their strengths and unique qualities and measure their success by masculine standards in the workplace, in sports or in the home.
It should surprise no one that many conservative women are bucking the notion that liberalism owns the patent on "feminism" and controls whether a woman can or cannot call herself a feminist.
These past two years we've seen the rebirth of feminism: "The face of the tea party is female," said a March 2010 Quinnipiac poll, which detailed who's driving the grass-roots movement.
The year 1992 was billed as the "Year of the Woman," with 222 women on the ballot for congressional seats; this year Rutgers University counted 239 women on the ballot heading to the 2010 midterms.
Conservative women are active because the liberal idea of feminism has failed. An entire generation of berated men have been hog-tied by the chick card, and conservative women are tired of the liberal stereotype that they're all simpletons who only raise their voices to sing in church.
Conservative women are rebelling against this false advocacy used as a political ploy to tether women to The Man.
Say hello to conservative feminism.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sarah-Palin-and-the-rise-of-the-Feminist-Right-534655-101265274.html
This nutcase is lying to her listeners. You are playing the "Liberals hate Pretty Conservative Women" card, Dana! We Liberals do NOT hate the fact that the Fixed Noise females are good-looking, but their rhetoric ruins it. This woman is a vile sexist hypocrite who is, by Rush's definition, a Feminazi. So the next time that you see Dana Loesch harp about "Liberals hate women," (or anything related to politics) remember that she is a bomb-throwing loon and should NOT be trusted. Shame on you, Dana! I heard there's a room in a mental asylum next to Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and Sarah Palin for Ms. Loesch to check herself into.
Momocrats has this rebuttal of her lies:
Does Dana Loesch think or is she just a Luntzian robotron?
I am not a feminist. I am a woman who has assumed I have the same right as anyone else to choose my own course, make my own future, and do so on equal footing with men. I believe the government exists to serve citizens, not to act as an authoritarian axe or discriminate against one class of citizens over another. I really don't care if moms stay at home or work. I've done both, both have advantages and disadvantages, and I'm not out to overturn patriarchy. I actually like men. I'm married to one. I get along well with them. Those who act like idiots don't get any attention from me.
Now that you know a little about my perspective...
I debated about whether to take on the latest turd Dana Loesch dropped on SFExaminer.com in the form of an op-ed column or ignore her. Other than being the latest Ann Coulter wannabe, she hasn't said much original for the past year or so. (Yes, I snark. It serves as a reminder not to take her too seriously.)
The Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, and other members of the "feminist right" can always be counted on to echo the newest Luntz talking points through the echo chamber. Now that Betsy McCaughey, Pamela Geller and Dr. Laura have been thoroughly discredited, they just pick up some other woman looking for her five minutes of fame and hackery. Dana is the newest candidate. Not the first and she won't be the last.
Do conservative women -- especially intelligent ones (yes, they do exist) -- ever wonder why the party faithful finds the dumbest, most extreme groupies to deliver their message? Republican cynicism at its best -- pay lip service to women's equality but find the ones dumber than a rock to deliver it. Bachmann, Foxx, Palin, Angle....need I say more?
At any rate, this little litany of smashes against "liberal women" is classic Luntz/Rove framing, and deserves a thorough debunking.
Let's begin with her assertions about Avastin, a drug originally developed to treat colon cancer.
This past month, liberal feminists made more hay made over Palin's "mama grizzlies" talk than the matter of the Food and Drug Administration jerking Avastin off the market. Avastin is a drug used to treat late-stage breast cancer and has been shown to extend the life of some breast cancer patients by five months, but was deemed "cost-prohibitive" by the government.
Liberal feminists made more hay about Palin's chest than I saw them make over the nine women who were recently stoned to death in the Middle East. Those same liberal feminists were also silent when Alle Bautsch was beaten in the street for being a conservative woman.Actually, it was Hollywood rags. I had to go check because I hadn't heard anything much about it, and what I heard was silly. I wouldn't waste a two-sentence blog post on it. Not even a tweet. But now I'll say this: I couldn't care less what Sarah Palin's bra cup size is, and neither should anyone else. It's irrelevant. But then, I'm not a feminist.The case of Allee Bautsch (psssst! Dana, it's always nice to verify spelling of a person's name) is a sad one. I'm sorry she and her boyfriend were assaulted and beaten by a couple of punks. But having read the police report, it's unclear that they were connected at all to the earlier protestors outside the restaurant, and as sad as it is to say, punks beat up people all the time. It's not national news, but it is indeed sad and sadder still that people are acting out in a criminal fashion, regardless of their motive.
Liberal feminists talk of choice, but refuse to take the liberated, independent responsibility for their choices and instead press Uncle Sam to subsidize their abortions and birth control.
We're just going to disagree on abortion. That's a fundamental issue, a wedge issue at that, and we won't agree. I wonder though, why she isn't similarly outraged at those old men receiving federally subsidized Viagra.
Liberal women complain about unemployment, yet promote policies which stifle the free market, suppress economic growth and shrink their wallets.
That "free market" collapsed before any of the so-called liberal policies kicked in, Dana. That 'free market' is what gave license to fat cats nationwide to loot, pillage and strip the middle class of their homes, jobs, and retirement plans.
When millionaires walk away from their mortgages and turn the housing market on its head, something is clearly wrong with the 'free markets'. Anyone over 50 -- especially women over 50 -- can attest to the difficulty of finding a job, and if they actually do find one, they're forced to accept less pay for more hours, especially if they fall into the unfortunate group of "99ers". No, we're not complaining. We're living it.
Here's a question for Dana: How does she feel about Glenn Beck's pronouncement that 99ers 'live off their neighbors' wallet', and they 'aren't regular people'?
Liberal feminists are more compassionate than that. For all the demagoguery coming from conservative women about being holy and pure for Jesus, they fall a little short on the "doing of the Word" part. (Note to Dana: It's James 1:22) On the other hand, liberal feminists understand that we are all interconnected, that the least of us is as important as the wealthiest among us, and we promote policies which permit those who are in need not to starve, or be sent to poorhouses.
Liberal women rage about education, but help put a man in the White House who worked to kill educational equality by destroying the school vouchers program.
This is because we believe all children deserve an education, not just the children of white folks who have the means and the money to send their children to overpriced private schools. Vouchers are worthless to people who have no means to transport their children to the suburban pricey schools. Worthless.
Liberal advocacy for equality between the sexes is a myth; through second- and third-wave feminism, equality became about lowering the bar and demanding that everyone sink to meet the expectations. Case in point: Title IX, wherein boys' welfare and achievement was suppressed so that girls could catch and match them.
Without support for these statements, I simply call bullshit and move on. I've raised two boys and have one girl in high school. They have not been treated inequally, nor has my daughter received any particular privileges, nor were my sons' accomplishments underplayed in favor of girls' accomplishments. This is, of course, only my experience.
It isn't much different than my own school experience. I graduated in 1976. My class was the first one where a girl was elected student body president. We had two valedictorians, one male and one female. Before that, valedictorians were male.
Saying something happened doesn't make it so, Dana.
Equality is not met by comparing oppression or mediocrity, but by comparing potential and excellence; nor is it met by tearing down the opposition or suppressing ability.
Yes. I agree. Equality isn't granted. But what Dana refuses to understand is that it is also not assumed. We still live in a time where a man and a woman can do the same job, work the same hours, perform to a standard of excellence, and the woman will earn 78 percent of what the man will earn. This is not equality. It is discrimination. If a man and a woman perform equally, they should be paid equally. That is all.
Is there irony in the "tearing down the opposition" comment, given that Dana's entire op-ed is nothing more than a ripping, renting, tearing-down of her opposition? You be the judge of that.
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2010/08/does-dana-loesch-think-or-is-she-just-a-luntzian-robotron.html
No comments :
Post a Comment