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.”

She’s the second-most admired woman in the country after Hillary Clinton. Per Politico:

When Gallup asked 1,025 adults nationwide to name the woman they admire most, 16 percent picked Clinton. Palin was the only other woman to be mentioned by at least 10 percent, being selected by 15 percent of those surveyed.

Clinton has been in the public eye for nearly 20 years now, whereas Palin a little over one. Given Palin’s grassroots following, no. 1 book, and unbelievably successful booktour, this is not a big surprise. Honestly, this poll is probably more of an indicator of who’s been in the news the most. Top of the Ticket notes that Clinton has been ranked since 1993, the year she moved into the White House:

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/2009/11/28/the-fragmentation-of-womens-politics/ http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/11/28/the-fragmentation-of-womens-politics/#comments Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:49:24 +0000 Adrienne http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/?p=1362 After finishing Going Rogue, I immediately delved into You’ve Come A Long Way, Maybe by Leslie Sanchez. After reading a few critical reviews of her book on feminist blogs, I was intrigued.

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.

From the Playboy article this summer to the recent comments made by Alan Grayson, to the left it’s ok to use profanity when righ-of-center females are in question. Between all of the feminist blogs, books and articles that I read, I get the picture that the most hate group in the country are women who refuse to be liberal. Tana Ganeva writes:

When Alan Grayson called a female corporate lobbyist a “K-Street whore” — and was attacked as crude and sexist at the same time that he was lauded as gutsy and honest — he played a role in a familiar script: hero of the left (MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher) attacks female villain (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) using sexist language. Progressive feminists soul-search about liberal misogyny. Mainstream media talk about sexism for 5 seconds. Then the media move on, and no one learns a thing. Repeat.

To a certain extent, I get it. The 24/7 news cycle makes ad hominem attacks necessary. When all you have is a :30 second sound bite, do you go for the attack or make a rationale point? The right is just as guilty (albeit without the profanity) as the left. We don’t have time for a lengthy scholarly debate. Civility has never existed in politics, we’re just more aware of it now due to our media-saturated society.

Then there’s PT Barnum’s old expression. When Grayson used the slur “whore,” he drew media attention. When you go for the extremes, the media notices you (i.e. Olbermann, Garafalo, Coulter and Beck). Dog bites man isn’t interesting. Man bites dog is.

However, what I don’t understand is the deep, guttural hatred that feminists feel for women like me. It’s not imagined. The more I read in the “women’s studies” genre, the more I understand how savagely we are despised. It’s almost as if they feel betrayed. They’re shocked, hurt and angered that we don’t applaud the actions they took in the 60s and 70s. We’re disobedient children who are misguided by those evil men in our lives and victims of the sexist society in which we were born. This is ok for the masses of women who are victims of oppression, but those evil women — the Michelle Malkins, Phyllis Schaflys, Ann Coulters and Sarah Palins — they should be vilified. Advocating a differing point of view is the greatest sin you can committ in modern America.

Feminists can’t seem to grasp that women on the right have such a differing fundamental philosophy that we will always disagree. What frustrates me is the lack of respect. I may disagree with you, but you do have a right to those beliefs. Is it too much for me to expect the same attitude in you?

We’re not unenlightened or a tool of the male patriarchy. We simply view the world from a different perspective. Why can’t that be respected?