Sarah Palin represents an existential threat to some people

September 29, 2008

At least, I think that’s the gist of what is getting at in his latest article. And not just establishment feminists either, who are obviously threatened that a woman who has risen as high, and as quickly, as has could possibly have had five kids along the way, and who are disgusted and vexed by the thought that any woman of achievement could possibly espouse a pro-life viewpoint.

The word “insult” recurs, and not only on my phone messages. As noted by ’s , “insulting” is the word of choice for ’s , the / blog’s , as well as for ’s and The Washington Post’s . Why “insulting”? Here’s one obvious reason. The sickening speed with which the moose-hunting ex-mayor of passed everyone in the queue for Queen Bee made a mockery of any woman who wore out her contact lenses reading books that essentially bored her; or who gave up a sweet guy who wasn’t going places for a nerd or a windbag who was; or who planned her parenthood because a person couldn’t have it all; or one who had it all and could no longer fit into her Dolce & Gabbana.

“Why did I plan all those hideous dinner parties?” cry the subtext of my phone messages. “Why did I read all that Proust and Joyce? Why did I pretend that I had an interest in the Seychelles? Does she even know where the Seychelles are? I bet she doesn’t.

“Why did I make nice to that wet noodle from ? Why was I nasty to that great guy from ? From Alaska, no less! Look where it got me. Three diplomas on the wall, and I’m not even on the A-list. No children — she has five — five! — and can still fit into her Ermenegildo Zegna, even if she can’t pronounce it.”

Dear ladies, thanks for calling. What can I say to ease your hurt? Not much. Remember, you can only prepare yourself for small things. Big ones are usually gifts. You can study business, but not how to be a captain of industry. Resign yourselves to the next inhabitant of the White House having an atrocious hairdo.

There is something in all this “she’s not the right kind of woman” commentary being levelled at Palin that, I think, is quite revealing. It is revealing of the inherent insecurities of many women who have, to one degree or another, bought into modern feminist myths. It is also revealing of just how empty a life modern proposes to reward with, and the way it has distorted the perceptions of many people about even something so normal and so essential as the propagation of the species to the next generation.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Men and Women, Politics, World News
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You stay classy, the Left - round 2

September 12, 2008

I would have thought by now that the media/Hollywood/the Left (but I do repeat myself, and then twice) would have reached a saturation point with regard to hatred directed at …but it would appear that I am very much incorrect in that assumption.

They just can’t help themselves.

First up, there’s (yes, the actor) questioning whether Palin believes dinosaurs existed 4,000 years ago. The reason he’s asking this? Apparently, Mr. Damon cannot sort out fact from parody when reading things on the Internet — the only actual attribution of such a statement to Palin is found in an article that plainly states that it is comprised of FAKE quotes.

But in the pursuit of the election of , any lie is pre-emptively forgiven, it seems. Who cares if it’s fake…is it accurate?

Well, no, it’s not even accurate. From what I’ve read, Palin supports discussion of alternative views about the issue, but doesn’t think that creationism — of any flavour — needs to be a part of the curriculum. In other words, she’s suggesting that a school should be allowed to be a school, and a place where ideas can be fostered and discussed, rather than simply taught and memorized by rote.

Anyhow, let’s move on.

Next, we have professor , who in a moment of fitful anger decided that Palin’s being a woman is just “pretense” (e.g. she’s not a “real” woman):

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party’s cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

I think, for me, it’s the last line that is truly laughable. Sarah Palin — governor Sarah Palin, the woman who took on the corrupt good ol’ boys club in the Republican party in her state and left it bleeding on the floor, the former mayor of who was elected to the governor’s seat over two popular opponents and the opposition of many elements of her own party and who now enjoys an 80% approval rating from her state’s population — has no sympathy for the problems of working class women?

Despite the fact that Palin is a five-time working mother? Despite the fact that her office in Alaska evidently includes a crib for , her youngest? Despite the fact that Palin is all but an archetypical example of the feminist ideal of a working mother who has achieved a position of real power and influence in the world?

Yes…clearly one such as this has no ability to a) speak for women, or b) sympathize with the problems of women, especially women who work.

It really is amazing how feminists will turn on someone who has committed the unspeakable crime of expressing — and living — a ideal. If Palin had aborted Trig, she’d probably be enjoying the same 80% approval rate among feminists that she is currently enjoying from the people of her state.

Of course, some in the media have tired of attacking Palin directly. , columnist for the (a newspaper), has decided that her home town of Wasilla is worthy of his scorn. He describes it as a town still anrgy at the fact that back in 1976, it wasn’t selected to be the new location of the state Capitol…and that this ‘geography’ of Wasilla has infused Sarah Palin’s character with bitterness and resentment, and caused her to seek succor in “Bible-banging” .

Because we all know how those small-town folk are, don’t we? The amazing levels of bigotry being directed against the “heart and soul” of — the down home, small-town folk — by Obama’s supporters leaves one incredulous at the fact that Obama’s poll numbers are even statistically determinable.

Elsewhere, ’s hit-piece against Palin is evidently too profane to be excerpted at length. Good to know.

As a final note, there is ’s interview with Palin which evidently took place yesterday. I gather that it could have gone better, although it certainly doesn’t sound like a disaster either. But that’s not the part which I find irksome. What I find irksome is that Gibson flat-out lied and mis-quoted Palin, morphing an otherwise perfectly sensible statement she had made into something that made her sound hot for a new Crusade.

The original quote:

Palin asked the congregation to “pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

Gibson’s “re-working” of the statement:

“Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

As Ace points out, Palin was referencing with her choice of words, which were a prayer not that God is on the side of America, but that America is on the side of God. Look again at the text: “pray…that our leaders…are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”

That’s not an incitement to a holy war; it’s the earnest question of someone who, faced with the prospect of something ugly — like war — pauses to ask whether the course of action being taken is in line with God’s will. By dropping the first part of the statement, Gibson twisted its meaning into a smear.

Fortunately, Palin managed to deflect his idiocy, for the most part. That probably won’t prevent the Left, in general, from screeching out “OMG! CRUSADES!!!!!!!1111!!one!” at every opportunity, however.

’s sense of humour about the whole affair appeals to me, however:

By the swordstick of ! I wish she had said that had appeared to her in a dream along side , , of , and and demanded the reconquest of the , , , the cities of the Seven Churches in the , and any other spot of ground where Christian saints are buried, or Roman eagles once flew. That would have shut him up.

Kudos to Palin for conducting herself remarkably well through all of this. She never seems to have anything but a smile on her face, in spite of the truly horrible things that have been said about her and her family.

All that hatred will backfire, methinks. Palin has one major advantage: she appeals to the normal, everyday citizen, who works for a living and strives for salvation in . That’s a huge segment of the American population, mind you. And when the Left directs its vitriol and classism against Palin, the average, everyday citizen see that hatred and, being sensible, understands it to mean that the Left’s hatred is not against Palin specifically, but against what she represents and all those who find common ground with her.

That’s not going to work to Obama’s advantage come November.

Posted by Kenneth Filed in Politics, Religion, World News
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,