This t-shirt sums up most younger feminists views on abortion. (Sorry for the language. As Lori Ziganto notes, feminists delight in the crude.)

Forget the moral objections that devoutly religious people hold against abortion. Forget the racial targeting that the abortion industry aims towards the black community. Ignore the serious health risks that the actual procedure of abortion poses or the rights of the conceived to experience life. These are not legitimate arguments.

Because people like me are too stupid or dogmatic to agree with the enlightened writers like Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti and her crazed team of bloggers at Feministing, we should F–k off!

For years, conservatives and independents have lobbed this point at feminists, and that leftist group of women have always responded that it was “just about sex” or “Monica was a consenting adult.” In fact, some groups use Monica as a champion of advancing the sexual revolution and opening the door for women to assert themselves through use their bodies or sexuality.

Katha Pollitt’s comments on Journolist effectively prove that feminists did sell out to the Democrats in order to protect Clinton, and they knowingly did it:

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

Pollitt proves that feminists do not have the best interests of women at heart. They care more about advancing the causes of their political party. Put her quotes in perspective of the current debate going on over conservative women and feminism. If they distract us or try to “refudiate” the issue by making fun of certain Mama Grizzlies or issuing mandates that we’re not good for women because we don’t support progressive causes, they’re pulling a Jeremiah Wright.

How can this ideology group be trusted? How do you know when they are working to advance the cause of women and when do you know that their working to protect a slimy politician because he has the precious D after his name? From this point forward, everything, and I mean everything, that feminists say should be viewed from this perspective.

If they previously sold women out over the likes of Bill Clinton, what happens when a true threat comes their way? What happens when conservative women –the apparent blood enemy — are closer to achieving the goals that they’ve never been able to reach in the past five decades?

Things get vicious. Oh, sort of like their coverage of a certain figure from Alaska….

Two weeks ago, SarahPAC released the now famous Mama Grizzlies video. Within hours, there were hundreds of blog posts, articles and tweets examining the video. Almost all of it was positive. There was even begrudging praise from left-wing pundits that it was good.

For the most part, the fem blogs were silent. Most of them mentioned it in their daily wrap-up posts. I guess if you can’t figure out what to say, you just link?

Nearly two weeks later, the gals at Feministing FINALLY have a response. Only, did it come from internal discussions? As the leading feminist blog on the web, you’d think they would be looking for some angle to criticize. After all, these are the next generation of feminist leaders. The future of all womankind rests in their gender-neutral, leftist hands. If they can’t get one good put down of conservative women out each day, haven’t they failed?

Who finally came up with the response? A woman named Kathryn Ruud from Middletown, Md. wrote a letter-to-the-editor in the Washington Post yesterday:

In watching Ms. Palin hugging her supporters and handing out flowers, I saw something else. I noticed only one slightly off-white face among the many people she was reaching out to. And Ms. Palin pointedly says that conservative women are “mama grizzlies,” more formidable than “pit bulls.”

Of the deeply feminine women I know, none of them exclude people of color from her personal embrace. And a claim to be nastier than a pit bull degrades, rather than elevates, the relational power women bring to politics.

I saw this letter earlier today in my Google alerts and rolled my eyes. Honestly, I was surprised that no one inferred racism earlier.  However, following the NAACP’s proclamation, it must be so.  Forget how staged “multiculturalism” is more important than the message. Scores of conservative women getting involved in politics isn’t important because…there’s no discernible minority present in the video. Isn’t this a slap in the face of all the diverse women that support Sarah Palin, a number of whom I’ve met? However, because Ms. Ruud from Middletown, Md. didn’t see any of them in the final SarahPAC video, they must not exist.

Ms. Ruud appears to be mighty busy in the Frederick, Md. area fighting for green jobs, so I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest she’s not ambivalent to Sarah Palin. However, I am surprised that it took a random letter to the editor to give the fem writers a talking point. Really, ladies? Usually, you’re up for race-baiting the right. Going soft, aren’t we?

Watch out! Other lefty sites will likely pick up on this meme: The NAACP declares Tea Partiers racist. Sarah Palin has supported the Tea Party movement. Her video appears to lack any visible minorities in it. Therefore, SHE’S RACIST.

I’m also happy to know that Feministing seems to have the same Google alerts set up as me.

In Sarah Palin’s recent video, she talks about “a lot of women coming together to get things done for our country.” I also know a lot of women coming together and enacting change — but I don’t think we’re talking about the same group of women.

The women I know — Republicans, Democrats, and Green Party members — are fighters for women’s equality and defenders of reproductive health choices. They’re diverse, like our country. They believe in giving women freedom to make decisions about themselves and their family. They trust women.

Sam Bennett, who happens to be the executive director of the Women’s Campaign Forum, decided to issue her decree that conservative women aren’t real women. Now, if Ms. Bennett managed to know every. single. woman. in. the. world., her argument may have some legitimacy. Per her logic, all fans of football must love the Tennessee Vols because the football fans that I know are supporters of the Volunteers.

This is a tired argument. When will liberals get over it? You aren’t real or legitimate if you deviate from the prescribed position of your identity group. If you’re a conservative woman, you deviate from feminists and are some type of faux-woman. If you’re black and attend Tea Parties, you’re an Uncle Tom. As Michelle Malkin notes today, liberals are oddly obsessed with her race since she’s a conservative of Filipino descent. She doesn’t fit their existing frame of Asian women, so she must not be a real one.

Since their liberalness gives them supreme authority over the universe, we must adjust to fit their definitions of “right.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Bennett continues:

I would love to live in a world where all female politicians support these same values. However, given the recent rise of socially conservative and anti-choice women candidates such as Carly Fiorina, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin herself, we know this is not true.

When will feminists drop the ridiculous notion that women need to vote together as a single bloc because we all have ovaries? That’s a sexist and demeaning view. It expresses a belief that women aren’t complicated, intelligent or capable of making their own decisions. We need to overthrow the patriarchy and obey the whims of the matriarchy.

Honestly Ms. Bennett, get over yourself and realize that no one made you or your liberal elite feminist cronies the queen of all women. I’m sick of being told how to react to the media, politics or fashion through your jaded, bra-burning lenses. I’m sick of being told that abortion is the absolute end-all political issue because I happened to be born with a uterus. I’m sick of being told that because I’m socially and fiscally conservative, something is wrong with me. SHUT THE F*!&$ UP, AND STOP TELLING ME HOW TO ACT. I’M CONSERVATIVE AND PROUD OF IT. DEAL WITH IT.

Ironically, Ms. Bennett starts having issue with her own skewed version of logic.

Luckily, Palin’s band of ‘Mama Grizzlies’ is just a small faction of women. But you wouldn’t guess that based on her overly-generalized video or vague talk of women’s collaboration. And that’s why I want to be clear:

Although most, if not all, of Sarah’s followers are Republican, that doesn’t mean they speak for all GOP women.

I’d love to know how Ms. Bennett knows exactly what percentage of women in the GOP are “Mama Grizzlies.” As far as I know, no poll has asked this question. It’s a number I’m curious to discover, but no one will conclusively know until after the election in November.

Given polling, I’d say my estimates are more accurate than Ms. Bennett’s. A record number of GOP women are running. More Americans identify as conservative than any other ideology group, more Americans are pro-life (including younger generations), a near majority of Americans are opposed to Obamacare and the recent DOJ lawsuit against Arizona, about half of the country disapproves of Obama’s job performance, and a whopping 66% of Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction. I’d like to know what evidence she has to back up her claim.

Oh, it’s a nice little poll from her Women’s Campaign Forum, a “nonpartisan” group supporting women, which happens to link to only left-wing sites, and supports only liberal women (see a lot of political diversity on this list?). Her amazing statistic, upon which her entire column rests, is likely one of those generic polls that group three or four data points together in order to get a wow statistic that absolutely proves whatever policy point they’re trying to make.  What is her basis of logic for this data point? Per her HuffPo column:

In fact, since 81% of Americans believe that individuals, not politicians or the government, should have control over their own important life decisions, Palin’s staunchly anti-choice beliefs are in direct contradiction of the majority of not just her party, but everyone.

81% of anything, particularly all Americans, should be suspect. What exactly is the question? Only the highlighted finding is published.

A large majority (81%) believe that regarding these important life decisions, individuals, not politicians or the government, should decide which option is best for themselves and their families, according to their own circumstances and values.

I apologize for my language today, but what the hell does that mean? What are important life decisions? That’s a pointedly leading question. When you drill down, that quote doesn’t necessarily just reflect abortion issues, but contraception and sex education. Those are complicated issues, and ones that reflect a myriad of views even among conservative, pro-life communities. For example, I’m staunchly pro-life, but I have no issue with the use of contraception. The two issues can’t be lumped together.

The question originated in a Harris Interactive poll from 2006. Hmmm….what year is it? Who was president in 2006? What was the rate of unemployment in 2006? Furthermore, that exact question is not mentioned anywhere in their limited findings, which backs up my assumption. It’s a nice little statistic designed to be a pull quote in marketing materials but is statistically inaccurate. Also, current polling data conflicts with yours.

The time frame on the poll is also questionable.

While it generally takes a bit of time for organizations to release polls, it never takes…four years.

What happened here?

It looks like–in an effort to be relevant given the success of the Mama Grizzly speech–that the WCF dusted off an old poll and tried to make it appear current.

Even if this poll did not ask leading questions, which by all accounts it does, the world is a radically different place in 2010 than 2006. In 2006 most people thought Hillary Clinton would currently be president or lose to a Republican in 2008. Not many people anticipated the housing bubble bursting or the failure of Lehman Brothers. Even fewer people had heard of Sarah Palin, who was just beginning to serve as governor in Alaska. Polling data relating to women’s issues can’t be translated over the course of the last four years. Too much has changed.

Ms. Bennett, next time you decide to write a little op-ed, perhaps you should realize that women should be free to decide political views for themselves–whether they are liberal or conservative. You may run a nice little liberal group, safe in your left-wing enclave of feminist sisters, but America is far more politically diverse than you’re willing to admit.

You may also want to find a more current poll next time, too.

According to Post Politics this morning:

Rep. Janis Baird Sontany (D-53) said of female Republican state legislators, “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote!”

Rep. Sontany is reported to have said this at a Davidson County Democratic breakfast this weekend.

I hope Rep. Sontany’s remarks were a bad joke, but they hint at a pervasive attitude that permeates the groupthink known as feminism on the left.

Women on the left have determined that they decide the correct attitudes and opinions for all women. The rest of us should just follow them and issue fealty to the Democratic Party. They are the Voice of Women,™ and it is not our place to question it or diverge from the sorority.

I guess all of the conservative women who are now running for office or engaged in the political process missed this memo.

Rep. Sontany’s remarks and this general attitude are incredibly condescending. All morning I’ve searched for the appropriate word. Sexism? Perhaps. What’s the definition of women-on-women hate?

These types of remarks are wrong. They are wrong regardless of whatever party said them. Sexism directed towards a conservative woman by fellow Republicans is wrong. Sexism (or whatever it is) directed towards women by other women over political difference is also wrong.

Women have the right to decide for ourselves what political positions we want. Even if you disagree with those views, you should respect my right to hold them. Despite what liberals and feminists think, they are not the authoritative Voice of Women,™ and it’s clear that many other women across the country agree with me on this issue.

I’m sick of the whole debate revolving around abortion. I’m unequivocally pro-life and will always be. Do I agree with you if you support abortion? Absolutely not. However, I respect your right to hold those views as a fellow American and a voter. I will never challenge or question your right to hold those views.

Isn’t this a type of McCarthyism from the left? Women are only allowed to express “acceptable” views that align with what the Feminists™ and  Voice of Women™ proclaim? Those that dare speak out will be savagely attacked in the media?

More at Red State and Michelle Malkin.

The subject of conservative women emerging in politics is one that I’ve covered for more than a year. Since the infamous Mama Grizzly remarks by Sarah Palin, I’ve refrained from commenting* and watched the debate evolve. The role of conservative women in feminism is another, much-needed blog post, but I’m excited to see the discussion. On the right, this is a subject that no one has ever wanted to discuss. On the left, it engages a decades-old debate on how to exactly define feminism. Among feminist circles, this is still a messy internal argument. In the coming months, expect a lot more from me on this subject.

With a number of upcoming primaries with female Republican candidates like Robin Smith in my home district of TN-03 or Pamela Gorman, the game continues.

Update 6/10/10: Even more stories via Google alerts.

WaPo: Can Sarah Palin Claim Credit for Last Night?

New York Daily News: GOP primaries: Sarah Palin helps South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and Calif.’s Carly Fiorina win big

CBS: GOP Women Dominate in Tuesday’s Primaries

The round-up so far today. First the feminists.

Jezebel has a fair round-up posted. Well, as fair as Jezebel (i.e. Gawker) folks get. Since two Democrats were on the list, they couldn’t do hatchet jobs on the rest.

Double X gets a few points wrong about the Mama Grizzly endorsements. Orly Taitz is a birther. I don’t know if even the radical fringes of the Tea Party would accept her. To use her as an example of a Palin loss is inaccurate since Palin never even touched that race. Claire Grossman wrote:

Though they’re just as extreme as their female counterparts, male candidates affiliated with the Tea Party like Rand Paul are shown (in a far less head-scratching spirit) as Ayn Randian, spear-carrying individualists. Whatever you think of their political beliefs, mama bears don’t deserve to be hit with the tired “hysterical woman” stereotype.

I agree with Grossman’s sentiment. Women should be discussed and debated on the same terms of men. If you’re going to do a fashion story, look at male candidates too or refrain from style all together. However, I wish Grossman had used better examples. Birthers are crazy and deserve to be ridiculed.

Debra Medina also waded birther territory. She also ran against an incumbent with high name ID who ran a stellar campaign in Texas. Palin also endorsed Perry, Medina’s opposition. Birthers are so far to the extreme of conservative politics, that pushing them aside and calling them crazy is the only option. To given them any serious consideration would only hurt the entire movement. Grossman doesn’t look at coverage of male birther candidates. They’re viewed just as nutty as the women are.

This cycle does prove that women are treated differently. Much of the coverage of these women did result in mud-slinging and name-calling. Haley’s campaign should enter the record books for new lows in public life, but the race in Nevada also got ugly at times. The California race was largely fair. Neither Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina seemed to be attacked or held to double-standards, despite Fiorina releasing the most bizarre campaign commercials ever. I’m disappointed in Fiorina’s victory,* but both women held their own in a tough state while running against men who were positioned further to the right.

EMILY’s List is scared of Carly Fiorina, which is a silver lining for me personally. Bwhahaha!

Stephanie pointed out that Fiorina is already going on the attack against Barbara — no great shock, since she’d been lobbing attacks on TV at Barbara before she even won the party endorsement. Already, choice is becoming a top issue in this race, and we can’t afford to lose Barbara’s leadership on women’s rights in the Senate.

Fiorina’s got a war chest filled with money from the $21-million golden parachute she received after being fired from her job at HP. We’ve got to help Barbara fill her campaign coffers now and make sure she’s ready to fight back!

Given EMILY’s List struggle to adapt to younger feminists and raise money, good luck with that one.

The Right-of-Center Folks:

Independent Women’s Forum. (Great post, which I completely agree with!)

Regardless of their reasons for running, and regardless of the outcome of the November elections, in my book the primary results have at least one absolutely terrific outcome. Women and girls have a great new set of role models to look up to who aren’t afraid to step up and speak out for what they believe in – and that kind of positive encouragement is good for the whole country. For too long, sitting officials have overlooked the wishes of their constituents in order to advance their own agendas – and the American people have had enough.

Susan B. Anthony List (I encourage them to not use “conservative feminism.” That’s a loaded label, but that’s another blog post.)

What an amazing night for pro-life women across the country! Without a doubt, last night victories were the greatest affirmation of the Susan B. Anthony List mission since our organization’s founding and truly telling of the resurgence of authentic, pro-life feminism–feminism true to our foremother’s belief that the rights of one group can never be advanced on the broken backs of others.

Hot Air via Ed Morrissey:

Why so many women in the GOP? One has to give at least some credit to the Tea Parties. In my experience with the activists behind Tea Party events, most have been women who have become determined to steer the course of the American political agenda back to the Right. The two national politicians most associated with the Tea Party movement? Powerful Republican women: Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN).

I agree with Morrissey here. Tea Parties are largely driven by women. Also, consider the fractured state of the GOP since 2006. With incumbents out of favor, and voters angry at “establishment” politicians, this opened the door for women. There’s a larger post here, but the media doesn’t recognize a trend until a figurehead emerges. Love or hate Palin, she motivated a lot of women who identified with her.

It also takes a much bigger commitment for women to run. Dee Dee Meyers explains in her book that it takes asking a women 5 or 6 times before she’ll consider running. With the GOP out of ideas and fresh blood, they were much more willing to woo female candidates than in previous years.

Red State via Erick Erickson

The Republican Establishment is declaring this their year of the woman. There are five in particular that I want to aggressively support: Nikki Haley running for Governor in South Carolina, Karen Handel running for Governor in Georgia, Sharron Angle running for the Senate in Nevada, Robin Smith running for Congress in Tennessee, and Pamela Gorman running for Congress in Arizona.

More from me on these awesome women later.

Other media:

Blogher: Don’t Get Mad. Get Elected.

I mean, really — isn’t it time to change the all-male South Carolina state senate or the Ohio state senate’s GOP male-female ratio (19-2) (Dems total of 11 are split 6-5)? The SC senate doesn’t even have an election until 2012 — plenty of time! Come on, ladies. Don’t get mad — get elected.

Christian Science Monitor: Women Shine in Tuesday’s Primaries, Especially GOP

The GOP still has plenty of catching up to do in recruiting women candidates – even if many of those candidates play down their gender. (Palin herself refers to an “emerging, conservative, feminist identity” in the party.) These latest primary victories for women show that the party is gaining ground and perhaps that will help bring gender equity in US politics closer to reality.

Politico: Palin’s Backing Pays Off for Pals

Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.

Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.

Palin served different roles for each candidate – sometimes spotlighting conservatives not well known to the national scene while at others validating conservative credentials to an unsure grassroots and even stepping in to deflect nasty attacks.

Fox News: Tea Party Candidates, Women Roar on Primary Night

The primary elections Tuesday amounted to a night of messages — from the Tea Party, from female candidates and for the Democrats.

With hundreds of primaries held across 11 states, a number of candidates made history while others pulled out come-from-behind wins. The elections helped set the stage for a November general election
in which incumbents are girding for a series of hard-fought battles.

Hannity’s Great American Panel will discuss this topic tonight as well.
*Disclosure: I worked on the Chuck DeVore campaign, which opposed Carly Fiorina in California.

Note the Jezebel‘s headline, which is the only fem outlet to cover this story the entire time, “Nikki Haley Refuses Polygraph.”

An article on The Daily Beast makes my skin crawl. This is exactly the type of journalism that propels me to fight feminists:

Granted, Haley has a hypocrisy problem: Like Mark Sanford, the adulterous and love-sick Republican governor she’s trying to replace, Haley is one of those preachy “family values” conservatives who seem to think the rules apply to everyone but themselves. In a May TV ad, Sarah Palin is seen describing Haley as “a strong pro-family, pro-life…conservative reformer.” A campaign flyer announces that Haley “supports traditional, family values,” and in her latest TV spot, produced after the sex scandal broke, Haley introduces her silent and slightly dorky looking husband, the possibly cuckolded Michael, in what might be termed a Spitzer reversal. Watching the ad made me cringe; it’s uncomfortable to see Michael standing there next to Nikki, just as it was uncomfortable to see Silda standing by Eliot. “What are they thinking?” you wonder. “Why aren’t they mad as hell?”

Given that the allegations are likely false, and South Carolina has the political machine that would make Huey P. Long sick, how can feminists do this? They aren’t taking the high road or waiting for evidence. They’re sitting with baited breath waiting for clear proof to come out against Haley. They’re dying to bring her down.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is exactly the same hypocrisy that feminists demonstrated with the womanizing Bill Clinton. This is one of the few times that feminists could have transcended party lines and fought for a true pro-woman cause. Every feminist blog, magazine, spokesperson and pundit should denounce the sexist operation going on in South Carolina. This type of campaigning should not be allowed to exist.

By primly sitting back, feminists are silently endorsing this sleazy behavior.

Is it too much for feminists to take a few minutes each day and read right-wing blogs? If they only read Red State, they would have seen the post penned by Lori Ziganto, a South Carolina voter, on the state’s corruption.That was the focus of the Haley campaign. Nikki Haley took on establishment corruption. Shouldn’t all women respect that regardless of political affiliation?

Hanna Rosin at Double X likens Haley to Riot Grrl, an early third-wave feminist movement. That’s a silly comparison because Haley has campaigned on her record for demanding accountability and transparency in a state that nearly operates under a cloak of darkness. Riot Grrl was a small under-the-radar movement that gave us the conflicting and ambiguous third-wave feminist definition of “as long as you’re empowered to make choices, you’re a feminist.” But through their actions over the past year, that’s proved hollow.

I wish the Dana Goldstein, the sleazeball masquerading as an editor at The Daily Beast, and Hanna Rosin, sadly one of the more reasonable writers at Double X, would wake up and see how futile this quote is:

Weathering a scandal of this magnitude would help conservatives see modern women as we really are: complex, sexually liberated, and free to make our own decisions about what we do with our bodies.

No Dana and Hanna. Perhaps feminists should understand how silly and marginalized your movement is now? Modern women are far more complex and view politics through a wider lense than just abortion. That’s why your movement is decreasing in size. That’s why fewer and fewer women identify as feminists. That’s why pro-life PACS are out-fundraising the old dinosaurs like EMILY’s List and NOW. That’s why more and more Americans are identifying as pro-life. And that’s why mostly conservative women won primaries across America tonight.

Feminists, you had one last redeeming chance to prove that your movement was legitimate. I’d say you failed…miserably.

What surprised me was the ageist angle that the gals took.

We definitely need to worry about protecting the sanctity of straight marriage–otherwise how could family values men like Rush Limbaugh get married four times, the most recent to a woman 26 years his junior?

What’s it to Feministing to pick on the age difference? This is an organization that embraced a woman live-tweeting abortions, cannonized Dr. George Tiller, the murdered abortionist, and took Palestine’s side in the flotilla situation, since Feministing’s opinion is so crucial in that issue.

Katheryn Rogers, Rush’s new wife, is a 33-year-old woman. She is old enough to decide for herself if a 26-year-old age gap is a big deal. The Feministing nags lost any shred of credibility a long time ago, and they have absolutely no right to take an ageist bent on their union. Not surprising but tacky and shallow, like most of their writing. Who are they to judge? Don’t they believe that all women should be empowered to make their own decisions? That applies to women who marry conservative talk show radio hosts.

When combined with the news that Elton John played at the festivities, should I be surprised that they went with that angle?

I wish Feministing and other outlets like Jezebel (Broadsheet and Double X, I”m pointing at you too!) would do something as simple as perform a Google search to verify facts rather than just read TPM, Kos, HuffPo or whatever source the talking points gods sanctioned that day.

Had they searched, they would have found this interesting exchange on Mediaite that described the evening with Megyn Kelly, who was a guest.

Sheesh, Mediaite is even on their side. How much lazier can those women get?

Secondly, Allahpundit makes a valid point. Elton John has a history of performing with people who disagree with his views.

First, Kelly quotes Elton as having said that he’s “all about tearing down walls and building bridges,” which is true to form. Remember when he teamed up for a Freddie Mercury tribute with Axl Rose, whose most notorious song for Guns ‘n Roses sneered about “immigrants and faggots”? Remember when he dueted at the Grammys with Eminem, who has his own share of gay-baiting lyrics? He has been to known to bridge-build from time to time.\

Plus, factor in that it was his wedding day. Since the women at Feministing are so opposed to that patriarchal sign of female oppression, I’m sure few of them have experienced many weddings. Newsflash, the groom is generally pretty busy. Plus, who cares about politics on your wedding day? All that matters is the person you’re saying “I do” with.

While the author could have used better semantics in describing the woman’s body language (obedient is always a bad way to describe a woman), is this overtly sexist? Sexism is typically hard to define and is based on interpretation. Feminists have blatantly ignored the way that Nikki Haley was treated in the press and threatened by a scummy blogger, but they have time to dissect an article about women’s body language on a website geared towards guys? Guess it’s all about priorities.

I found the article funny in the “this is really how guys perceive us?” sense. Do you expect more from a site that posts video footage from a lightsaber duel in NYC and goes to Russell Brand for relationship advice? I’m not going to click on Feministing and expect to see a story on how awesome Michele Bachmann is. Why would Feministing expect to see an insightful article on male/female relationships at Asylum?

Wouldn’t feminist organizations rush to the aid of the woman? Clearly she’s taking on the good ole boy network and the patriarchal status quo doesn’t like it.

As the allegations of Nikki Haley, (R-candidate for governor in South Carolina) reverberate across the web, I’ve noticed one segment of the media and blogosphere that’s been strangely quiet.

The femblogs have barely mentioned the story.

Unlike previous situations when conservative women called out feminists, this story  has been all over the news: Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, CNN, Talking Points Memo, Mediaite, and Daily Kos have covered every second. Since the right-wing blogs have fixated the story, there’s really no excuse for why they haven’t mentioned it.

Could they be purposely ignoring it because it puts feminists in a sticky corner that got them in trouble for defending the actions of Bill Clinton in the 90s for political gain? Or, do they have a reason to stay quiet and watch this situation unfold, hoping that it drags out as long as possible?

By calling out Nikki Haley, which you know they want to do since she was endorsed by the “evil one” (aka Sarah Palin), they would have to side with a guy that has a guilty record for domestic violence, a history of making jokes about beating up women, and a paper trail that veers closely into creepy stalker territory. This video alone should cause feminists to lead the charge that whatever the truth, Will Folks is up to no good.

What’s a left-wing gal to do? Completely ignore the story and hope that it goes away or make the difficult job of defending a (gasp!) conservative female candidate from allegations by an extremely questionable source?

At this point, the evidence is unclear. The released text messages are hardly a smoking gun. Haley very likely could have engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Folks. If so, she should come clean and face the potential consequences. However, as Allahpundit pointed out, Folks is making everyone feel sympathetic to Haley by his sheer creep factor.

Even if Haley is guilty and had some type of affair with the then unmarried Folks, shouldn’t feminists call him out for his blatant misogyny, intimidation tactics and threats towards her physical well-being?

Quite the opposite. Their silence implies agreement. Jezebel, the only fem-outlet to cover it, all but called her guilty. As Erickson stated at Red State, they’ve all but called her a whore. By not defending her, they’re perpetuating stereotypes and the virgin/whore dichotomy that they so detest. But since Haley is a conservative, it doesn’t matter.

The concept of a women having affairs isn’t new to fem blogs. Last year, Politico ran a story on the absence of female candidates and electeds from sex scandals. Reports show that women cheat, but few female politicians have been caught. Either they are sneakier, or they don’t commit adultery while trying to balance a family and career. In April, The Atlantic and Yglesias asked the same question.

You know that feminists have to be salivating over this story. In their quest to show that there are no differences between men and women, especially regarding sex, they would love it if a conservative woman was the first one to make major news over a sex scandal. Wouldn’t it be sweeter for them if it was a Palin endorsee, particularly a pro-life Christian woman?

If definitive proof emerges that Haley did have an affair, how quickly will the smirked cries of “hypocrite!” emerge?

By keeping silent and not bringing up the questionable motives of Folks allegations, the feminists are allowing this story to drag on. With less than two weeks before the primary, it’s in their best interest to make this stick. Even if the allegations are proven false, by keeping quiet, they can potentially damage a Palin endorsement. If the allegations prove correct, they can jump in and yell, “hypocrite!”

Feminists are quick to call out guys for street harassment (and rightfully so) and search for signs of sexism in politics and pop culture, unless it involves conservative women. Remember when Arlen Specter was disrespectful to Michele Bachmann, or the countless crass sexual innuendos aimed at Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin or any other prominent female conservative? Feminists never defend women on the right in those situations. (They are quick to attack a respected 73-year-old black economist though for making sarcastic comments.)

Red State claims to have evidence that this was a set-up to bring down Haley. If this is true, will the feminists finally go after a guy for intentionally using sex and intimidation to continue the good ole boys network in South Carolina? Will they actually stand up for the women that they claim to represent and exclaim that this is not acceptable?

Once again, they have an opportunity to prove that they aren’t just shills for the Democratic Party. Will they do the right thing?