Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Liberal Logic

Major premise: All women are Democrats

Minor premise: Sarah Palin is not a Democrat

Therefore . . . On Tuesday, the chair of the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee confirmed beyond cavil her group's name is a lie:
It is with great enthusiasm that I announce today, on behalf of the nation's oldest and largest women's rights organization, that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States.

It is no coincidence that I am joined in this announcement by so many allied organizations that collectively represent a broad and diverse cross-section of U.S. women. From teachers to social workers, from business owners to college students, women in this country are lining up behind the candidate who is out there every day standing up -- clearly and consistently -- for women. Women of all ages, races and ethnicities are coming together in support of Sen. Obama and his pledge to fulfill this country's promise of equal opportunity for our daughters as well as all our sons.

Although it is very unusual for us to endorse in a presidential election, this is an unprecedented candidate and an unprecedented time for our country.
As John Hawkins of Right Wing News observes:
NOW exists not to further the interests of women; it exists to further the interests of the Democratic Party.
Rush Limbaugh concurs:
I've got some of the most outrageous stuff written about Sarah Palin by feminists. It's just delightful. They're over the top. They're imploding. They can't believe what has happened here, and as such, they are revealing who they really are. Some of these women who are writing -- and they have newspaper columns, San Francisco, Chicago, and so forth -- it's just fascinating to watch. It is making my day because they are proving to one and all everything that I have ever thought about them as feminists. It's not about women, it's about certain women. It's about liberal women. It's about things other than women's rights and women's issues and women cracking the glass ceiling. Nothing about that. It's all about just extreme liberalism.
Which makes NOW "irrelevant."


Geoffrey Britain said...

A historical perspective allows one to see that the days of feminism being defined by allegiance to liberalism is ending.

There will continue to be much wailing and gnashing of teeth and Palin will be followed by others but Palin's popularity is driven by her embodiment of the premise that a woman can simultaneously be strong, like men and embrace her femininity.

Women like Palin have always been around though relatively rare. Katherine Hepburn comes to mind as just one example.

There have been many, it is just that now the public is ready to embrace the archetype as a role model of what a woman can be.

OBloodyHell said...

> Women like Palin have always been around though relatively rare. Katherine Hepburn comes to mind as just one example.

Hell, the current generation doesn't need the bitch-feminist model to use as an archetype.

They've got Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton, and more recently Kate Beckinsale and Michelle Yeoh in movies, and Sarah-Michelle Gellar and Eliza Dushku on TV (along with lots of lesser models, like Erica Durance, The three sisters on Charmed, etc.), which all manage to be strong and capable without being ball-busting bitches from hell...

The idea that women need to be like Hillary to play on the same field as men is fading fast... and not a moment too soon.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to male candidates for President, I think looks are far more important then brains, experience and everything else that actually qualifies them for office so it's only fair that women like Palin and Clinton get the same treatment.