I've been brushing up on my feminism lately, and have come to the fairly obvious conclusion that there are two kinds. This kind whose supporters say things like this:
"As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances."
And the kind whose supporters say things like this:
"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage.... When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."
Is it not possible for the kind from the latter quote to fundamentally disagree with someone's political beliefs without all the head-exploding, incandescent-anger-boiling histrionics? So because Palin's not in lockstep with the militant feminist ideology, then she has no business having career, family, fame, and power? Or is it because she went to U of Idaho instead of Vassar?
You say, "It might be funny if it was less true," but you do not take into account those who are personally anti-abortion, but are libertarian enough to live and let live. Are you any less a Catholic because you disagree with some of the church's doctrine (as it seems you do with regard to abortion, for example)? Or do you agree to disagree and reconcile your beliefs that way? I don't know whether that's Palin's perspective or not, but you seem to be implying that, if she becomes VP, it's back to the days of back alleys and coat hangers. The last time I checked, the executive branch couldn't change Supreme Court decisions. "But, but, but, they'll appoint another conservative judge, and then teh Bushitler clones will legalize rape and force the victims to have the babies!!!11!!" Please.
1 comment:
I've been brushing up on my feminism lately, and have come to the fairly obvious conclusion that there are two kinds. This kind whose supporters say things like this:
"As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index1.html
And the kind whose supporters say things like this:
"What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage.... When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull."
http://jezebel.com/5045934/why-sarah-palin-incites-near+violent-rage-in-normally-reasonable-women
Is it not possible for the kind from the latter quote to fundamentally disagree with someone's political beliefs without all the head-exploding, incandescent-anger-boiling histrionics? So because Palin's not in lockstep with the militant feminist ideology, then she has no business having career, family, fame, and power? Or is it because she went to U of Idaho instead of Vassar?
You say, "It might be funny if it was less true," but you do not take into account those who are personally anti-abortion, but are libertarian enough to live and let live. Are you any less a Catholic because you disagree with some of the church's doctrine (as it seems you do with regard to abortion, for example)? Or do you agree to disagree and reconcile your beliefs that way? I don't know whether that's Palin's perspective or not, but you seem to be implying that, if she becomes VP, it's back to the days of back alleys and coat hangers. The last time I checked, the executive branch couldn't change Supreme Court decisions. "But, but, but, they'll appoint another conservative judge, and then teh Bushitler clones will legalize rape and force the victims to have the babies!!!11!!" Please.
Post a Comment