Feminism's Leap Forward

Conservative though she may be, I felt that Palin represented an explosion of a brand new style of muscular American feminism. At her startling debut on that day, she was combining male and female qualities in ways that I have never seen before. And she was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist. In terms of redefining the persona for female authority and leadership, Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.

In the U.S., the ultimate glass ceiling has been fiendishly complicated for women by the unique peculiarity that our president must also serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. Women have risen to the top in other countries by securing the leadership of their parties and then being routinely promoted to prime minister when that party won at the polls. But a woman candidate for president of the U.S. must show a potential capacity for military affairs and decision-making. Our president also symbolically represents the entire history of the nation -- a half-mystical role often filled elsewhere by a revered if politically powerless monarch.

As a dissident feminist, I have been arguing since my arrival on the scene nearly 20 years ago that young American women aspiring to political power should be studying military history rather than taking women's studies courses, with their rote agenda of never-ending grievances. I have repeatedly said that the politician who came closest in my view to the persona of the first woman president was Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose steady nerves in crisis were demonstrated when she came to national attention after the mayor and a gay supervisor were murdered in their City Hall offices in San Francisco. Hillary Clinton, with her schizophrenic alteration of personae, has never seemed presidential to me -- and certainly not in her bland and overpraised farewell speech at the Democratic convention (which skittered from slow, pompous condescension to trademark stridency to unseemly haste).
 
I would say she represent pro-family feminism. The first wave nazi ballhaters cast family as an instution of imprisonment for women, when really it's just how people are created and survive best, through families.

But I hate her for getting on board with the fascists.
 
I would say she represent pro-family feminism. The first wave nazi ballhaters cast family as an instution of imprisonment for women, when really it's just how people are created and survive best, through families.

But I hate her for getting on board with the fascists.

Its how people are created, but its not always best.

And for centuries it WAS an institution of imprisonment for women.
 
Maybe people can be raised by the state to form a fascist army of non thinkers. You'd like that, wouldn't you, you freak.

Oh, so you think that MAKING a woman stay home and pop out babies and cook and clean is the right way?

Maybe you think that forcing women to be nothing more than servants to their husbands is an acceptable practice?

Maybe you agreed with the rules that meant women who were teachers, nurses or had other careers could not date or be married? If they got married they were fired?



Maybe you think thats the way the world ought to be?
 
Oh, so you think that MAKING a woman stay home and pop out babies and cook and clean is the right way?
Many women want babies and to take care of them.

Should men still be FORCED to go to work? A lot of this is specialization of duties and not OPPRESSION.
Maybe you think that forcing women to be nothing more than servants to their husbands is an acceptable practice?
Many women want families and husbands. It's only mentally ill lesbians and nihilists who view families like you.
Maybe you agreed with the rules that meant women who were teachers, nurses or had other careers could not date or be married? If they got married they were fired?
Maybe you suck cock. we'll never know for sure.
Maybe you think thats the way the world ought to be?


Or maybe your favorite food is poo.
 
Oh please, your argument is so weak as to be laughable.

No one is even hinting at MAKING women stop being homemakers, if that is what they want.

But in the (not so distant) past, women were FORCED to be homemakers. It was the only thing they were ALLOWED to do.

In my lifetime there have been court cases that were considered ground-breaking that ruled that forcing your wife to have sex was considered rape.

Women have been physically beaten for centuries without any manner of protection other than to try and capitulate with their abusers.
 
Oh please, your argument is so weak as to be laughable.

No one is even hinting at MAKING women stop being homemakers, if that is what they want.

But in the (not so distant) past, women were FORCED to be homemakers. It was the only thing they were ALLOWED to do.

In my lifetime there have been court cases that were considered ground-breaking that ruled that forcing your wife to have sex was considered rape.

Women have been physically beaten for centuries without any manner of protection other than to try and capitulate with their abusers.

You're arguing a lost cause. Asshat is one person here (there might be one or two others) who I believe truly hates women. I know it's sounds cliche, but sometimes cliches really do live themselves out - I think it's because he's suffered a lot of rejection, in fact, it's very likely that rejection, probably beginning with his mother, is all he has ever experienced from women.

You'll get nowhere.
 
You're arguing a lost cause. Asshat is one person here (there might be one or two others) who I believe truly hates women. I know it's sounds cliche, but sometimes cliches really do live themselves out - I think it's because he's suffered a lot of rejection, in fact, it's very likely that rejection, probably beginning with his mother, is all he has ever experienced from women.

You'll get nowhere.

Yeah, you are probably right. Its just one of those topics I get worked up about.
 
Oh please, your argument is so weak as to be laughable.

No one is even hinting at MAKING women stop being homemakers, if that is what they want.
Just as nobody here is talking about FORCING women to be in families.
But in the (not so distant) past, women were FORCED to be homemakers. It was the only thing they were ALLOWED to do.
Men had fewer options too. And there was no law women had to get married, it was just a social norm. There have always been people who lived outside the usual pattern.
In my lifetime there have been court cases that were considered ground-breaking that ruled that forcing your wife to have sex was considered rape.

Women have been physically beaten for centuries without any manner of protection other than to try and capitulate with their abusers.

And men have been manipulated and abused as well. Go cry me a river, nutless wonder.
 
You're arguing a lost cause. Asshat is one person here (there might be one or two others) who I believe truly hates women. I know it's sounds cliche, but sometimes cliches really do live themselves out - I think it's because he's suffered a lot of rejection, in fact, it's very likely that rejection, probably beginning with his mother, is all he has ever experienced from women.

You'll get nowhere.

I don't hate women. I merely cricizing man hating automatons like you, who are unable to think.
 
Im a stay at home Mom by choice.

Women can work and have everything I have (well except the extra time to do whatever the hell they want for hours a day).

This movement has freed up Men to make the choice to stay home too.

There are alot of stay at home Dads who probably face the same mild scorn I do every day.

The freedom is worth the petty scorn.

Choice is what this is all about.

I suggest the scornful turn their eyes on their own lives and leave my choices the fuck alone.
 
Back
Top