The first video covers the work of a housewife. Modern women are still responsible for these activities and a full-time job. That’s some liberation there. Yeah, those are great choices.

The second video is about women in the workplace…in the 1950s. The 1950s?!? But all women were  dutifully waiting for their husbands to come home for martinis and casseroles in the 1950s. The woman interviewed here has opinions that sound almost like Betty Friedan except that this is a good 10-15 years before The Feminine Mystique was published. During this time Friedan was devoting her energy towards the Socialist Party of America not the terrible plight of bored, rich housewives.

Every so often, I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of the left. For example in 2007, Condoleeza Rice was attacked for not having children. One year later, feminists questioned if motherhood hampered Palin’s abilities to govern.

Palin was also attacked for using a ghost writer for Going Rogue when Hillary Clinton had one for It Takes a Village, and no one on the left complained.

Anyone else confused?

Today, I ran across an editoral by Daved McGrath attacking Palin’s use of the feminist label. While I have my own issues with that movement, try to notice the glaring hypocrisy:

As usual, she talks a different game. In her vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden in the fall of 2008, she identified herself as a feminist, asserting she supports equal rights for women. She pointed to her own experience to prove women can “do it all.”

In reality, women in American have been “doing it all” long before Sarah Palin was born. As early as 1960, 40 percent of women with school-aged children were keeping a house while also working outside the home. The figure is 70 percent today.

This is interesting. According to all women’s movement lore, women did not experience liberation until 1963 when Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique. In 1960, three years before publication, women were still toiling away in their suburban living rooms feeling oppressed. Hmmm…. Perhaps McGrath and the feminists need to get on the same page.

Also note that women “doing it all” is still a very intense debate. Google “Mommywars” if you want a taste. When Palin invoked those words, she showed that she’s like most other American women who are struggling to find balance in their lives.

McGrath continues:

Frontiers for rights for women, as articulated by the National Organization of Women, have extended to abortion and reproductive rights, economic justice, lesbian rights, bringing an end to sexual discrimination, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping violence against women, immigration reform, and public health care.

Palin is anathema to nearly all these goals…

So “frontiers” for women’s rights also happen to mirror the agenda of the Democratic Party? Coincidence?

What happened to other “frontiers?” I thought “frontiers” meant achievements and recognitions of women’s progress not the current progressive platform. What about all the firsts from Republican women? Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court. Condoleeza Rice was the first female National Security Advisor. Palin was the first female governor of Alaska and the first woman on the ticket for the GOP. Jeannette Rankin, a Republican, was the first woman in Congress starting in 1917. Early Suffragists Lucy Stone and Mary Livermore were also Republicans. The Republican Party was also the first party to support the equal rights of women.

When are feminists and the larger left going to get it. You either have it one way or the other. Women were either oppressed by their suburban houses in 1960 or working. When it’s convenient, these issues are rallying cries for more laws to be passed. When conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) are actually doing something productive, these are suddenly non-issues.

When did frontiers for women mean gay rights, multiculturalism, immigration and socialized health care? All of those are liberal issues, not just women’s issues. ]]> http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/12/15/another-day-another-liberal-hypocrisy/feed/ 1 http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/12/09/feminists-heres-your-problem/ http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/12/09/feminists-heres-your-problem/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:04:42 +0000 Adrienne http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/?p=1451 Feminists just can’t get past the shock that women throughout the country view Sarah Palin as a role model. It’s fascinating to watch all of the soul searching, navel gazing, head spinning and venom-spewing. I’m frankly getting tired of writing about it. Can y’all collectively get over yourselves and stop repeatedly asking the same damn questions?

That lovely blog that started the maelstrom against Taylor Swift decided to go interview women waiting in line for the Palin book signing in Fairfax, Va. and incorporate the cover article on feminism in Newsmax this month. The author, Amanda Hess, forgot to mention that the Newsmax article was written by S.E. Cupp, a young female conservative. Since young, female conservatives don’t exist in feminist-land and are only the creation of old, white men in the GOP, she had to  snidely attack the women waiting in line:

In “newer feminism,” every woman’s choices are valued—no matter what those choices mean for other women. Schlessinger isn’t an enforcer of rigid gender roles; she’s a facilitator of women’s choices. Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and comprehensive sex education isn’t anti-feminist; it is her choice to deny reproductive choices to other women. Under this model, Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis isn’t an exploiter; he’s a liberator of women’s breasts.

Umm…no. Joe Francis is a pornographer and will be to the vast majority of conservative women. But ladies — and I sincerely hope that Amanda Hess and her colleagues find this post– let me spell it out for you. Sarah Palin is simply a marriage of conservative values with the watered-down version of feminism that you gals sold in the 90s in order to save a crippled and dying movement. Until Palin appeared, no one on the right had represented a liberated woman “making choices for herself,” successfully balancing the family and a career, and enjoying a modern marriage with her not-so-metrosexual husband. You were operating under the assumption that the Gloria Steinem vs. Phyllis Schafly dynamic still worked.

Despite my staunchly anti-feminist upbringing, I’ve gotten familiar with the f-word. I worked for a quasi-feminist organization. Well, it’s an organization determined to train little feminists, but it gave me a solid crash course in all things liberal women. After I left that job, I decided to get to the bottom of this feminist issue. I had been blogging anonymously for nearly a year but had danced around the subject. After I moved back to the DC area, I dove into reading feminist theory, history and anything from the women’s studies genre. I was determined to understand what feminism was. The only problem was that feminists were asking that too.  Sadly for them, Palin arrived on the scene before they could reach an answer.

To understand it, let’s go back to the beginning. Hopefully, this history is familiar to most of you.

Feminism got its start on the radical left. It grew directly out of the the civil rights movement. However, these weren’t the average people who wanted to see racial equality, but a complete restructuring of our country. Many of them were children of Communist Party of America members and had grown up as “red diaper babies” as Susan Brownmiller lavishes in her memoirs, In Our Own Time.

From the earliest moments, which could be traced back to Simone de Beauvoir, a radical leftist and often-abused significant other of Jean-Paul Sartre, when she penned the Second Sex in 1949 or even when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication on the Rights of Women in 1792, the women’s rights movement was aligned with the political left. A little-known fact about Betty Friedan–when she wasn’t pining away at the “problem with no name,” she was active in Communist Party activities and had been since her student days at Smith. In fact, she joined the party in 1940.

Thus, feminism wasn’t this nice, “lets talk about our click moments and fight for equality” but a movement that desired to reshape our entire culture, society and economic systems into something that eliminated the vague “patriarchy” and the evils of capitalism. Essentially, feminism is the gender version of Marxism.

Almost immediately, the women’s liberation movement started splintering. The radical feminist wanted nothing less than a societal revolution. The liberal feminists were much more content with fighting for abortion on demand, workplace discrimination and liberating those beleaguered housewives. However, they were a rather homogeneous group of females. Anytime someone from the outside tried to join — and  outside being anyone who wasn’t white, middle class,  heterosexual,  bi-coastal, highly educated, professional and with an axe to grind against men due to daddy issues or boyfriends unwilling to commit — ultimately left. Early divisions were painstakingly  marked by African-American women and lesbians starting their own versions of the movement.

Later on when multiculturalism got popular in the 1980s, feminists embraced it because the philosophy fit them so well. It covered a multitude of sins, namely that at no point had they been able to unify all women simply by being women. No women’s movement has ever been able to do that, even suffragists who fought for the 19th Amendment were split across numerous issues. However, issues with identity politics are for another post.

Somehow, small groups of noisy women managed to make policy changes.  By infiltrating the Federal government through the EEOC, academia and the media (a large number of the early leaders were writers and journalists), they made sweeping changes through sheer willpower, litigation and scare tactics.

However, where they failed and continue to fail was winning the hearts and opinions of American women.

When the Equal Rights Agenda failed after the beginning of the Reagan Revolution, feminists were at a loss. Much soul-searching went on. Numerous books were written, including Andrea Dworkin’s Right-Wing Women, which asserted that conservative women were under the thumbs of their men, had no minds of their own and as slaves to their Bibles and kitchens, would advocate against anything Phyliss Schafly described as “anti-family.”

They never stopped to think that conservative women actually believed that they were already equal, relished being mothers and caretakers and were quite happy with the capitalistic system that made America great. The women’s movement never even contemplated that a large voting bloc of women were more concerned liberty and the individual than tolerance and the collective.

Conservative women were lamented and dismissed, not to be contemplated again until the rise of Sarah Palin. Maybe if they had been a bit more intellectually honest and circumspect, today’s problems wouldn’t be going on.

Nevertheless, the feminists shifted agendas and went to work on issues relating to higher education and did some good things with domestic violence and rape issues. However, by the late 80s, the movement had lost steam. Feminist debates were dragged into mommywars, the myth of the Supermom and the wailing of single women with ticking biological clocks.

They didn’t realize that a new generation of women had grown up without gender discrimination and really didn’t identify with the second-wave grand dames. Instead, they had grown up with MTV and decided to somehow merge feminism with raunch culture.

This third-wave that sprung up in the 90s had a lot of public fights with the old school, namely over sexual liberation. Since they wanted to appeal to young women, they watered down the message that their mothers had told them. For example, in Manifesta, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards define feminism as:

Of course the goals of feminism are carried out by every day women themselves. Maybe you aren’t sure you need feminism, or you’re not sure it needs you. You’re sexy, a wallflower, you shop at Calvin Klein, you are a stay-at-home mom, a big Hollywood producer, a beautiful bride all in white, an ex-wife raising three kids, or you shave, pluck, and wax. In reality, feminism wants you to be whoever you are-but with a political consciousness. And, vice versa: You want to be a feminist because you want to be exactly who you are.

The 3rd wavers consisted of sexually liberated women, riot grrls and women who loved to create ‘zines. All political movements– no matter the issue– always lose nuances in the media, and the media was rather silly with third wave women. Images such as the Spice Girls, Ally McBeal and “girl power” came to capture what feminism meant to modern women. The watershed momement of the third wave was the Clarence Thomas hearings that catapulted sexual harassment to the front page. However, when a liberal Democrat with a penchant for oral sex in the Oval Office took over, feminists completely sold out and lost their remaining strand of credibility with Gloria Steinem famously declaring “it was consensual!”

Between the late 90s and now, not much happened. Compared to terrorism, feminism just wasn’t that important. Then John McCain picked La Palin, and the head-spinning started.

You see ladies, what the feminism movement missed was that a lot had changed in conservative politics. Conservative women weren’t doormats, we just never had anyone that espoused our values with the “picture” of feminism before. As Leslie Sanchez notes, women will only vote for candidates who share their own views. The concept that women will vote for another women simply due to shared chromosomes is ridiculous. If Geraldine Ferraro had been conservative in the 80s, we would have supported her. The nice thing about basing your values on invididuality, merit and talent is that you don’t have to promote superficial labels.

For us, Palin was the real deal. By 2008, most women worked outside the home and led very similar lives to the Governor. Again, they were very different from the still white, middle class, highly educated, bi-coastal feminists. When you combine the fact that many of us grew up with thirdd-wave “you go girl!” feminism, it made sense that Palin ushered in a era of conservative or libertarian-leaning feminism.

Is it really that hard to understand that the American women rejected your politics in the 1980s, so you massaged the message in the 90s and now have to live with the consequences? Had the movement not changed its views so much, not many of you would exist, but you’d have some credibility left.