Category Archives: Sham of Feminism

Hollywood insiders rip MSNBC, defend Palin

The Intolerant Sexist Leftist-Hollywood
The Intolerant Sexist Leftist-Hollywood

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

 The cable news channel is “completely out of control,” said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

 She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday’s luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed “Hollywood, America and Election ’08.”

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC — and other media — has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

 “We should stop the demonizing,” she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. “It diminishes us,” she said of her fellow Democrats.


1 Comment

Filed under democrats, Feminists, hollywood, Intolerant Left, Liberal Feminist Hypocrisy, News, Sham of Feminism

Revoke my feminist card — I like Palin

Hmmm. Maybe . . . I am not a feminist after all.

Maybe . . . working in a man’s world for 42 years and busting my butt to beat them up the ladder deletes me from the feminist category.

Perhaps . . . struggling to be a good single mom in a very married world — yet meeting my five-day-a-week column deadline — doesn’t earn me a feminist handle either.

Certainly . . . because I’m not appalled or sickened or shocked by Sarah Palin’s stealing the thunder from Obama the orator, I am not a feminist.

Give me a break.

I’m tired of women working hard for a hammer that never breaks the glass ceiling; disgusted when Hillary Clinton, an incredibly capable, brilliant woman, lost the fight of her life; disheartened by other countries throughout the free world being led by formidable women before America is.

Only this time, it was an amazing orator named Barack Obama who was stealing our thunder . . . and I was . . . well, you know. Pissed.

And then along came Palin, a woman of the tundra who could be America’s next best frontier story — and I was pleasantly surprised.

Hell, I was delighted.

So what if she’s a Republican? I tend to vote for Republican presidents.

So what if she didn’t know the definition of the Bush Doctrine? Her performance was a Western draw. Bravery in tact. But no one shot.

So I asked myself — what fault is there in admiring a woman who is against abortion — even though I believe in freedom of choice?

What’s wrong with huge respect for a woman who chose to give birth to a Down syndrome child knowing full well what was in store for her and her family?

And if appreciating a woman who chose a husband who supports her ladder-climbing skill puts me in the non-feminist category, well maybe that’s where I belong.

To be blunt, Palin is like a zephyr blowing across the prairie with a retro hairdo tied back like a sheaf of wheat.

She is real. She is rural. She may not be a brilliant tactician, but she’s got street sense. Palin is so unlike the very controlled Hillary Clinton, who would never be caught dead in red heels.

Thus, it now appears Palin has emerged as “everywoman” to a huge portion of our female population; a woman never really identified with what we thought was our quintessential role model — a highly educated woman who wears tailored suits, whose voice is never shrill and who has a husband who makes more than she does.

I don’t know what perfume Palin wears, but to me she smells of the soil.

Our huge land once had the call of the frontier for a new start — and Alaska became the last of it.

Palin’s kind of grit and savvy is akin to a frontier story: a young woman who was raised in a land of big sky and the midnight sun, a metaphor of sorts for being able to spot trouble a long way away.

In the next two months, Palin may be able to forge a hammer big enough to crack the glass ceiling. Maybe not.

And no Palin moose gun may be powerful enough to pursue critics of John McCain, who — rightly or wrongly — may be tarnished by our economy.

But McCain did choose a tough and savvy woman as his running mate . . . and it is refreshing to think, at least for a while, a little air from the Alaskan aerie wafted through America.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sham of Feminism

Sarah Palin and the Sham of Feminism

In the eyes of the “women’s movement,” the right woman is never a woman of the right.

John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate has energized the right. Conservatives view her as one of their own and are enthralled by her life story. She is a Washington outsider who, unlike the Democratic presidential nominee, impresses as being sincere, fresh, and new. Moreover, in juxtaposition with both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, her deeds suggest that she is an actual reformer rather than a person whose change message is wholly rhetorical. Her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention was a testament to her savvy and appeal. Palin’s inspired talk yielded two of the best lines ever spoken about Barack Obama: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities,” and “The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of ‘personal discovery.’”

The Republican ticket offers the electorate two politicians who possess the courage to act on their convictions, which is something that could never (honestly) be said about the flagships of the left that oppose them; although, to what extent Palin will assist McCain in attracting female voters is a question in open dispute. Hillary Clinton made history this year — garnering 18 million votes and nearly pulling off the comeback of this new century — so one would presuppose that the emergence of “Sarah Barracuda” offered a bit of redemption for those feminists embittered by the results of the Democratic primaries.

Yet such an assumption would be incorrect. A working knowledge of feminism and the fashion by which the original meaning of the word has been irreversibly traduced by radicalism told observers all they needed to know about the stance acolytes would take in regard to Palin. Those of us for whom feminists are deplorably familiar have known for years that the primary reason for their success is their keeping up the pretense that they are “women’s groups” who advance “women’s rights.” However, both of these contentions are wrong. Big Feminism promotes statism, political correctness, misandry, contempt for our country, anti-Caucasian racism, and a host of other evils.

Unsurprisingly, the response of feminist activists and their peers in the mainstream media to the news of Sarah Palin’s nomination was immediate. Their disdain was palpable and their maliciousness readily evident. Peter Hitchens’ prediction proved prescient: “Watch as the ultra-feminist sisterhood back away in horror from Sarah Palin, John McCain’s new running mate. Mrs. Palin is technically female, but she’s enthusiastically married, hates abortion, and thinks criminals should not be the only people allowed to own guns. She’s everything Hillary Clinton isn’t. In short, she’s the wrong kind of woman.”

Indeed, that she is.

Leftist radicals only support those women who mimic their exact manners and beliefs. They no more respect diversity than they do urinals. The president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) derided McCain’s choice shortly after it was made. Specifically, she said, “Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman.” In a follow-up column, Gandy added: “Because we should defeat anti-women’s rights candidates like Sarah Palin based on their merits and their positions, not their gender.”

Perennial agitator and icon Gloria Steinem proclaimed via an op-ed: “Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton.” Gail Collins weighed in, “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.” Obviously she is right. Palin is her own person as opposed to being an appendage of a political party. She possesses a textured personality that greatly surpasses Hillary’s androgenized comet of unwavering ambition.

Oprah Winfrey followed suit and declared that she will not interview the Republican vice-presidential nominee before November 4. She refuses to use her “show as a platform for any of the candidates” even though Oprah has made it such a mechanism in the past. She had Barack Obama on as a guest and has already given him her endorsement. Her excuse is highly transparent because, at the moment, Palin would be a ratings boast for any television host. That Oprah wants nothing to do with her is a result of her own political bias.

She might also fear the impact Palin could have on her audience. Her drones may empathize with a lady who is decidedly not a victim, and who knows where such emoting could eventually lead? Before long her flock may suspect that there is more to the world than their own persons, which could effectuate an examination of the nation’s economy and the value of the free market. Eventually, her wards might meander upon the works of Thomas Sowell, which would be an unmitigated disaster. Newly reconstituted viewers would watusi off the Democratic plantation, and, far worse, stop ordering from her book club. In lieu of this impending debacle, one can understand why Oprah couldn’t take any chances. Like so many other feminists, the celebrity had to denounce Palin because she cares far more about her ego and her politics than she does the lives of her sisters.

Andrew Sullivan declared that the Palin decision was not about feminism, but “a cynical ploy to exploit Democratic divisions over gender.” Personally, I hope he’s right. After all, recent polls attest to the effectiveness of McCain’s pragmatic decision. He has erased Obama’s convention bounce and the Alaskan governor, with her 58 percent favorability rating, is more popular than any of the other principal players in this election. According to Rasmussen Reports, “she earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women.”

If over half of American women approve of her then how can feminists continue with the ruse that their incoherent discourse reflects the interests of 51 percent of the population? They do so because it is their nature. If they dropped the pretense of feminism and “women” being one, they would find themselves devoid of funding and legislative support. Most citizens are too busy making money and improving their lives to notice the fallacies endemic to Big Feminism. For those fortunate enough to be ignorant of their ways, that parasitical movement and its “there ought to be a law” mentality have markedly decreased our constitutional freedoms over the past four decades.

That is why to Kim Gandy Governor Palin can never be the “right woman,” as she is a woman of the right. NOW’s stance, just like those of their socialist conspecifics, exposes the lie that is radical feminism, as feminism is not about women — it’s about leftism. Feminists accrued influence by pretending to be “women’s groups,” but their positions never were indicative of the preferences of your average woman. Their advocates are leftists first, and women somewhere down the road.

The contention that “feminists” equal “women” was a non-sequitur from the beginning. Broken down into parts, its fallacious quality becomes apparent. The line of reasoning — most feminists are women; therefore, all women are feminists — is both circular and risible. Your run-of-the-mill sixth grader could explain the counter-intuitiveness of the proposition — which places such a student upon a higher cognitive plane than Joe Biden. Over the course of his career, Obama’s number two has swallowed their lies hook, ring ding, burnt bra, and sinker. No, Big Feminism does not advance the needs of women. It exists for the purpose of lobbying politicians to enact legislation that enhances the size of the state while penalizing men for being born. Feminists are more addicted to power than Hugo Chavez.

Radical organizations like NOW and the Feminist Majority no more embody “women” than communist associations represent the collective views of men. In both cases, proponents of a particular group are predominantly members of one sex, but this reality fails to justify the extrapolation of their opinions to reflect the outlooks of men and women on the whole. Furthermore, only about 25 percent of the country’s women accept the word “feminist” as a self-descriptor, which is very good news. Perhaps resentment by chromosome is not as easy a concept to sell as it used to be.

Gandy’s condemnation — “But will Palin speak for women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No” — turns on itself because feminists have never spoken for women on aggregate. Their endless emission of politically correct verbalizations helps no one and, unlike the zealots who man their ranks, Sarah Palin has never pretended to be the voice for all women. The next vice president is unique and not a slave to pernicious dogma. What better illustrates her independence than membership in Feminists for Life of America? Yes, radical feminism is a liberty-eating virus within our culture, but, thanks to the audacity of John McCain, we may now possess a cure for it.

Bernard Chapin wrote Women: Theory and Practice and Escape from Gangsta Island, along with a series of videos called Chapin’s Inferno.

Locations of visitors to this page


Filed under Sham of Feminism