The Culture and Media Institute at Media Research Center put together a top ten list of attacks against conservative women. They write:

Much of the criticism was the worst sort of misogyny with a dose of violence and disgusting adolescent sex references thrown in for good measure. The media outlets in question ranged from Playboy magazine to MSNBC to Sirius XM radio and included comments from both men and women.

The message that rang through loud and clear was that perspectives from conservative women were not appreciated or welcomed, and if a woman stepped out of line, she deserved whatever treatment she received.

Aside from the Playboy incident, which only made news because of the overwhelming outrage on the right, how many of these stories did you hear about? NOW conveniently issues press releases when it suits their political interests, but where were they in attacking Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, Frontline or the Toronto Star?

Had someone tweeted a death wish for Gloria Steinem or written about violently attacking Katie Couric or Rachel Maddow, there would have been marches through the streets of Washington.

Feminists are always yammering about double-standards in our society. Why don’t they focus on the double-standard of not defending conservative women? That’s something they can realistically fix without involving the word “patriarchy.”

Politico covered an event where Sanford urged conservative women in South Carolina to run for office:

“Women understand the conservative issues as well as any man. We run our households and our families, and we don’t live beyond our means,” Sanford said to a room full of the state’s most powerful Republican women, according to the first lady’s notes of the speech, which were obtained by POLITICO.

“We balance our checkbooks as we seek balance in our lives. We care about our security, health and well-being, quality education for our children and hope for their future,” she added. “We need more women and more true conservatives involved in all levels of government to bring common sense and efficiency to our big, bureaucratic government.”

Beyond a steady rightward shift and an increasingly reactionary rhetoric, conservative leadership is taking on another characteristic — it’s becoming more female. Both nationally and in Tennessee, the most beloved and vocal conservative leaders these days seem to be women.

Memo to Kleinheider: conservative women have always been here.  His comments confuse me. Does he not closely follow Tennessee and national politics? The existence of women on the right is hardly new:

Women need to be embraced as leaders — but not out of fear or necessity. It should happen the right way, or else the Right will merely be seen as a bunch of weak-willed reactionary little boys sending their women out to do their fighting for them.

Michele Bachmann was elected before Sarah Palin. Marsha Blackburn’s been involved in Tennessee politics for a long time now. Robin Smith was chairwoman of the TN GOP before Palin was on the scene. In order to have so many women running in 2010 means that women have been working up the ranks of the party and active in their communities for many years. It takes a long time to build up the name recognition, fundraisers and social capital to run for office. I’m surprised that he failed noticed that.

In fact, Republicans and conservatives have seen many of the “first” women across a number of categories. Labels and identity politics are just not as important to us. Just because the media suddenly noticed that women were in the conservative movement, doesn’t mean that we weren’t always there. Most of my political viewpoints come directly from my mother, who became a staunch conservative in the early 80s.  We’ve always been here. Now we’re getting the recognition that we deserve.

Palin is the catalyst not the movement.

Ironically, we owe it to the feminists and liberals in Congress for galvanizing all of the suddenly-visible conservative women that are shocking! Kleinheider.

This movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. Palin was the catalyst and should be analyzed, but the media, liberals and bloggers need to look at the bigger picture. Conservative women have always been in the movement, but Sarah Palin was the first woman to resonate with us. Prior to Palin, I always admired Elizabeth Dole. However, she was a DC insider with an Ivy League education. I could admire her (and the struggles she faced at Yale) but couldn’t identify with her. When Palin arrived, we had someone who reflected us.

Had the media and feminists said, “Great. The conservative movement is finally acting on what we’ve been preaching for 30 years,” I doubt that conservative women would now be so vocal. It was the the angry reaction of the feminist movement and the media that attacked Palin,  her family and her education. Suddenly liberals questioned if a woman could work and raise a large family. Her state education was ridiculed and her middle class existence was mocked. Those were the strengths that Palin represented. She was conservative and lived a very different lifestyle from the career politicians and bi-coastal elites, who are constantly telling us how to live.

By mocking Palin and what she represented, the media and feminists were collectively slapping the faces of every conservative woman in the country. This outrage is what motivated the  conservative women’s movement to come together, and what I’ve been writing about for over a year now.

This anger motivated countless numbers of bloggers. My friend, Tabitha Hale,  started her blog directly because of Palin. It led Teri Christoph to start Smart Girl Politics. It motivated a number of women who are now running for office.

Palin wasn’t the only factor though. Conservative women, just like conservative men, are angry at the government and our free-spending Congress. Women are just as involved as men in the Tea Party. The policies and activities of the Bush Administration and now the liberals in power are motivating men and women alike to stand up. Perhaps it’s a combination of our “traditional values” and anger that have caused women to be visible.

My dad told me this week, “I’m just as conservative as your mom, but I don’t have time to go to Tea Parties.” Ironically, the traditional values and roles that conservatives have long defended are what free women up to be active in the Tea Party movement. If Congressman Blackburn noticed that Tea Parties are largely female, it’s because there are more housewives on the right. My mom has always been a conservative activist because she had the time. If women control most of the purchasing power in this country, is it surprising that we’re actively protesting the wasteful actions of our government? Tea Parties are a reflection of the masses of Americans waking up to what Congress is doing, not a sudden pink-wash of the right.

Kleinheider, and others like him, should try to do a little research.  Again, this movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. My advice to reporters and academics would be to widen your angle beyond Palin, Bachmann and Blackburn. Palin was the catalyst and deserves to be analyze.  It is shortsighted to say that the conservative movement suddenly turned pink. You’re just now noticing us.

Much of the fault lies with academics. As Ronnee Schreiber notes in her book, Righting Feminism, hardly any academic study has been conducted on conservative women…ever. There was a small amount of research done after the failure of the ERA, but they assauged their failure by concluding conservative women are no different than conservative men. Since the 1980s, they’ve assumed that conservative women view politics indentically to men. Since we’re barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, we vote as our husbands and fathers do. They fail to see that conservative women are independently conservative because that’s the political movement they agree with. Since liberal feminists created the field of gender studies and created cushy jobs for themselves, it makes sense that they wouldn’t research areas that could potentially harm the movement and their sources of income.

To be concluded in Part 2.

Earlier this week, I posted a link to the firestorm that Amanda Hess set off by attacking Swift’s wholesomeness. Other bloggers have picked up the theme and continue attack her for wearing sparkly dresses, the frequent use of the Cinderella theme in her videos, and the lack of man-hating in her lyrics. Now, I like Taylor Swift. I don’t identify with her music since I’m long past high school, but it’s fun and catchy. It’s great for road trips when I amuse myself by singing to my iPod.

I don’t understand the debate. Unlike Britney or Jessica Simpson who  made a big deal over their values and virginity, Swift hasn’t said anything. She hasn’t made any proclamations about her faith or values. She hasn’t leveraged her purity to sell more records, and her dad hasn’t made creepy comments about her.  She isn’t beating any sensitive, politically correct liberals over the head with Bible verses or being “intolerant.” In fact, all she’s done is put out catchy music and wear lots of formals in her public appearances. The closest thing to being “offensive” was  dating a Jonas Brother, who have made a big deal out of their faith.

I don’t know the motivations behind Swift’s image. Her parents are extremely wealthy and moved to Nashville in order to pursue her music career. Most up-and-coming singers  don’t have their own recording studios at home. Her image could be a ploy to be the good girl and then take the path well-traveled by Christina, Britney, Lindsay and Miley Cyrus once she’s solidified her fan base.

Or, perhaps Taylor Swift could just like romance and pretty dresses. What’s wrong with that?

Thus far, Swift has conducted herself with poise and dignity. She has not used sex or her body to fuel record sales. In most career paths, we would call that mature and professional. As a society, are we so desensitized to raunchiness  that when a young woman conducts herself as a lady, we question her motivations?

Are feminists attacking her because Swift is nearing 20 and not “exploring her sexuality” by putting out raunchy videos? Or, is the media getting tired of her wholesome image and trying to manufacture her downfall since Swift seems to be mature and happy? Is there not enough drama for tabloid fodder? Jezebel puzzles over this:

She’s completely non-threatening to some because she doesn’t rely on overt sexuality to sell records, and yet she’s incredibly threatening to others because her image seems to rely on the suppression of sexuality in order to sell records. Taylor Swift, in short, is confusing the hell out of everyone. As Amanda Hess of The Sexist writes, “I don’t know if Taylor Swift is a feminist role model, or a palpable pop princess sent from the Christian right to corral the youth of America into antiquated gender roles.”

These types of posts truly disgust me. Why are they giving Taylor Swift the Palin treatment simply because she doesn’t adhere to established stereotypes and frames? Not many women set out to disprove the Cinderella story. In fact, most women never quite give up the princess fantasy. Watch a few episodes of Say Yes to the Dress if you disagree.

Taylor Swift is not surreptitiously forcing old-fashioned values or “anti-feminist” ideals on anyone. She’s boldly writing music about her own perceptions and experiences in life. The fact that she’s so successful shows that she resounds with most people, particularly tweens and teenage girls. She has guts to attack ex-boyfriends by writing songs about them.

Why do women in the media spotlight have to ascribe to feminism and be feminist role models? Why do self-proclaimed “feminists” get to decide who deserves the label and attack those they deem unworthy? Taylor Swift  is another example of  a strong, independent woman who doesn’t quite fit within the narrow stereotype of the women’s movement. Unlike Sarah Palin, who was brave enough to call herself a feminist and stand for pro-life values and marriage, Swift is simply an entertainer. What has she done to deserve this backlash?

Swift isn’t a trailblazer nor is she courting the “religious right.” She’s merely being a feminine woman, something which most liberal women will never understand.  She’s like Palin in the sense that the vast majority of women identify with her. Women like to be treated like princesses and look pretty. Most women remember having their heartbroken as teenagers or experiencing unrequited love. She’s popular because most people go through those things. Most women don’t exploit their sexuality as “power” and get ticked off when treated like a $2 hooker. Most women, including myself, like men to be chivalrous. They aren’t going to propose or ask guys out like Amanda Hess complains.

The Chaliceblog does point out a hypocrisy that I noted a few weeks ago:

*It says something that when Buffy the Vampire Slayer slept with a boy who literally TURNED EVIL, this was regarded as more or less symbolic truth and I don’t recall any feminist critiques of the matter.

Women out there should be offended by these attacks on Taylor Swift. Attacks on Swift — like attacks on Sarah Palin — are attacks on women like myself. These bloggers are trying to destroy any media images of traditional values or femininity and be the sole voice for young girls and women. There’s a pattern here, Palin, Twilight and now Taylor Swift. Through these articles and blog posts, liberal women are trying to shut down any image counter to the one they support. If feminine and traditional images like Taylor Swift are allowed to succeed, that’s one more blow to their fragile movement. They simply can not allow the idea to continue that some women like the idea of Prince Charming, acting like a lady or dressing feminine. That negates all of their work, going back to Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique. In order to be successful and survive, Taylor Swift, Sarah Palin, Twilight and any other varation of tradition, romance, femininity or Cinderella must be systematically destroyed. Images of successful, happy women who choose traditional roles or even traditional ways of dressing prove that feminism is not the answer for women and exposes the movement for the fraud that it is.

Bottom line, this is a definite read. Sanchez takes a much more nauanced view of feminism and modern electoral politics. As a Republican Latina and DC insider, she has a unique take on the role of women in politics and examines the quest for getting a woman in the White House. Unlike many other conservative books, she doesn’t waste half of it continuing the “feminists are the cause of all that is evil in this world” mantra. Instead,  she analyzes Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the effect of Sarah Palin and compares Michelle Obama to other First Ladies. She also asks key questions that I’ve been wondering, such as why do feminists hate conservative women like Palin who represent views such as mine and what will it take to get a woman elected POTUS?

Throughout the book, I scribbled and highlighted notes. She provided some perspectives that I’ll be thinking about for a while. She wrote a grownup book that doesn’t take potshots at disagreeing sides. I rarely find books like that. While she does disagree with liberal policies that feminists take, she doesn’t demonize them.

I spend a lot of time attacking feminism on this blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with some of their positions or value what they’ve done for women in society. I am thankful that I had an opportunity to play sports in high school, vote, pursue my education and a career, and I don’t fear being a victim of sexual harassment. I’m thankful that I earn the same as my male peers and didn’t find my job under the “female jobs wanted” section. I appreciate that I can sit in a meeting with other men working in politics and my opinions and talents will be respected. Those are the positions of feminism which I agree. What I don’t understand and what I spend so much time writing and Sanchez devotes a significant part of her book questioning, is “why do feminists hate conservative women?”

After examining a number of polls and surveys, interviewing advisers and pundits from all across the spectrum, Sanchez wrote a statement that deserves further study and gets at the essence of the women’s movement problem:

However deep into Clinton’s psyche these voters may have wanted to go, what I am taking away from all the polls and comments is that women want to vote for other women who reflect their own life experience — perhaps a bit chillingly — are suspicious of a woman who has opted to follow a path too far departed from the one they themselves have chosen. And they are particularly unforgiving of a candidate who would go so far as to disparage the lifestyle that they  themselves have chosen: it’s my contention that Clinton has never really been forgiven in some quarters for the “cookie” comment. It lost her the support of women who actually had stayed home and baked cookies –and enjoyed doing it.

This makes sense. Older, second wave feminists supported Clinton because they identified with her politics and struggles. They saw themselves represented in her. They came of age in the 70s and 80s and fought a very different battle than young women, who overwhelmingly supported Obama. Similarly, conservative women finally saw a role model in Palin. Conservative women, by and large, have drastically different demographics than Hillary supporters. They’re more likely to be married with larger families, churchgoers and either not as educated or educated at state schools. They’re middle class whereas Hillary supporters are going to be much more affluent elites. Ask any Palin supporter why they like her and they’ll echo, “Because she’s just like me.” They would never dream of voting for Clinton just because she had two X chromosomes. Why would liberals or moderates do the same with Palin?

It also reflects how deeply women view politics on the personal level. Sanchez’s opinion works both ways. Women on the right were antagonized by Clinton way back in 1992 and have never trusted her. Women on the left were antagonized by Sarah Palin and made all kinds of noise about how she did not represent feminism. This was after they spent the ninties telling women in their teens and twenties (my generation) that a feminist was anyone who made choices for herself. There had never really been anyone on the right to challenge their assumptions, and it wasn’t very pretty when it happened. Turns out they lied to both themselves and the entire world. As Sanchez notes in an interview that Rep. Tom Cole did with Politico:

…to be a leader in the women’s movement, you have to be a liberal. This is clearly a very liberated woman [Palin] who is not a liberal. And I think there is some tension with that because again, she breaks a lot of stereotypes and molds.”

Sanchez continues on why the feminists did not defend Palin from sexist attacks:

In the case of Palin, it was a bit of the opposite: if you don’t support the “right” policies, you forfeit your right to our indignation — no matter the treatment you recieve.

And on Gloria Steinem’s comments:

In Steinem’s view –and one in which she was unfortunately not alone — Palin’s own issue positions and beliefs are so heretical to the rights of women that they simply cannot be for real. They are only politically expedient. This points to a fundamental problem, as Paglia and others have discussed — namely, that the feminist movement has become, more than a movement for change and the promotion of opportunity and fair treatment for all, a collection of policy stances to which all members must dogmatically conform. And to me, this doesn’t feel right.

Amen! I’ve often complained that modern feminists have lost credibility by selling out to the Democratic Party for short-term victories. They no longer represent (if they ever did) the equality of all women but only the equality of liberal women. However, this fragmentation problem is hardly a second or third wave issue.

Sanchez also captures a historic problem regarding women in politics– we’re too fractured to ever be one sizable voting bloc. The first wave feminists- Stanton, Anthony, Paul and others saw this. Every time a women’s organization got off the ground, it fractured again. Even when Alva Vanderbilt put her considerable fortune and social clout behind the fight to get the vote, women were in disagreement over the methods and strategy. Paul created the National Women’s Party because she believed that once women got the vote, they would vote together as a single sex. That proved to be a naive view.

If Sanchez is right — women will not just vote for a member of their own sex but only for a woman who represents her own walk in life — we’ll never solve the “feminist” issue. Women will always be fractured and hateful on both sides. Conservatives will never trust liberal women, and liberal women will never trust conservatives. Trying to find someone with middle ground, such as a pro-abortion Republican like Christine Todd Whitman, just doesn’t seem worthwhile. Pro-life women would only reluctantly vote for her, if they did vote. Many would choose to sit it out.

On a smaller level, we’ve seen this at play since the 1970s through mommywars. Both sides have dug in their heels. Women who choose to work are supposedly wracked with guilt or are judged by women who stay at home. Women who do stay at home are judged for wasting their education or not “contributing” to society. While I’m not a mother, I’ve seen both sides. I’ve found myself judging women for not working, and I’ve seen the judgement on other women’s faces when they talk to my mom.

After reading this book, it’s doubtful that we’ll find an answer. However, Palin’s popularity does show that conservative women should be represented and vocal. Sanchez also makes another point: it’s highly unlikely that a Boomer will be the first female president. Now that Millenials are voting, it’s far more likely that the first female POTUS will come from the Xers or Millenials. That puts an even more interesting spin on feminism. Second wave feminism will likely never reach the Oval Office. Third wave, and possibly the fourth wave that we’ve entered, will determine the future of women’s issues. Given the sad and whiny state of third wave feminism, I’d say we have the upper hand.

Update:  Kathleen McKinley at Right Wing News also has a review of Sanchez’s book.