September 4, 2008
Left-wing feminist masters to Sarah Palin: How dare you try to leave our plantation!
I wish I could find an old political cartoon I recall from the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearing days which showed Ted Kennedy as the plantation master talking about how blacks weren't allowed off the left-wing plantation.
Well, today's plantation masters are left-wing feminists like Gloria Steinem.
Catch the irony here:
Roughly a decade ago, Steinem excused Bill Clinton's bad behavior with women, essentially declaring he was entitled to one free grope of women as long as he stopped after that.
But today Steinem writes an editorial about Sarah Palin entitled Palin: wrong woman, wrong message - Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
What did I already tell you? The leftists are saying a woman can't be an authentic female unless she believes what the Left believes. But, as long as a man believes what the Left believes, then he is entitled to a free pass at abusing women. And that's liberation? This is enough to make your head spin!
Steinem says:
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president...But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie...
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality...
Yep, gotta love the Left's tolerance for diversity. And what condescension! LOL.
(Another example here from Mark Steyn: What was it the feminists used to say? "You can have it all." Sarah Palin is a mom, and the first female governor of her state. But the enforcers at the National Organization of Women dismiss her as "more a conservative man than she is a woman." Golly. These days, NOW seems to have as narrow and proscriptive a view of what women are permitted to be as any old 1950s sitcom dad.)
Reminds me of the final words of a 1984 WSJ editorial - my favorite of all time - entitled Liberal Fundamentalism: Who are the intolerant extremists?, highlighted in this 2005 post:
...It could be that a great many voters have taken a good look at the fundamentalists on the religious right and the fundamentalists on the political left and made up their own minds about which pose the greater threat to their own private and public values.
Will Palin be effective in articulating a coherent message, at highlighting the incoherence and intolerance of the left-wing fundamentalists between now and November 4? Who knows. But her nomination has drawn them out and caused the public spotlight to turn back onto the left-wing political fundamentalist plantation masters. So, even if Palin slips up, the country at least knows what world view plays a large part in animating the Obama alternative.
Gotta go now, back to clinging bitterly to my guns and religion. That's all for now, folks!
"It's about baking a new pie..."
Can we know what kind of pie before we all run into the kitchen and start baking?
"She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality..."
... uh, okay. So by somewhere between 1% and 99%.
"The leftists are saying a woman can't be an authentic female unless she believes what the Left believes. But, as long as a man believes what the Left believes, then he is entitled to a free pass at abusing women."
Awesome point, Donald.
Gloria Steinem and many other supposed pro-women commentators and activists were willing to overlook Bill Clinton's many transgressions. So in actuality, for them, women (certain women - how right was George Orwell?) are second to The Agenda.
Posted by: Monique at September 4, 2008 2:11 PMSarah Palin is to women and the Vice presidency as Clarence Thomas is to blacks and race relations.
OldTimeLefty
Steven Hayward, quoting a "very experienced and savvy friend" in DC:
The left has to destroy her, just like Clarence Thomas, because of the threat she represents to them.
Like I said.
Posted by: Donald B. Hawthorne at September 4, 2008 5:52 PM But hey, we can't have Barack Obama in the White House, either. After all, we can't let one of THOSE people near power.
Takes one to know one.
OTL-how like the left-skin color/ethnicity as a determinant of political philosophy-you need to get over that attitude because it treats people as part of a herd instead of as individuals
Posted by: joe bernstein at September 5, 2008 7:27 AMJoe,
They left IS a herd.
When their arguments fail, they'll introduce the race card(see rhody's post) or simply try to diminish opposing views by suggesting that the person with an opposing view isn't a "real" woman or isn't "really" black (see OTL's post).
It's the epitome of hateful hypocrisy.
Posted by: Anthony at September 5, 2008 9:27 AMJoe,
Clarence Thomas is a black man who does not come close to representing the values of the majority of the black community which is much further to the left than Mr. Thomas. Most black people are in the economic underclass. Mr. Thomas' decisions rarely, if ever benefit the underclass. The analogy seems apt to me as I consider Mr. Thomas a black man who has done little in his position to advance relations between the races.
You threw the racist term around, now you might like to tell me what compelled you to do so.
Anthony,
You are doing what you accuse me of doing. You know nothing about me or my personal history, but have conveniently filed me with a "herd".
You both need to think a bit deeper.
OldTimeLefty
Posted by: OldTimeLefty at September 6, 2008 1:49 AMDonald The cartoon you're looking for is under your hood.
Posted by: phil at September 6, 2008 4:59 AMHmm. Clarence Thomas doesn't "advance relations between the races" because he doesn't contribute to the notion that being black means having a certain delimited slate of beliefs and behaviors. Interesting!
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 6, 2008 10:37 AM"Sarah Palin is to women and the Vice presidency as Clarence Thomas is to blacks and race relations."
You have it half right. Sarah Palin is to women as Clarence Thomas is to blacks.
He isn't the activist YOU think he should be but in my view, he has shown more commitment to advancing racial equality than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Ready to debate that?
Posted by: msteven at September 6, 2008 10:40 AMIt's almost as if leftists aren't as interested in having people of different races realize that they're all the same as in having whites capitulate to whatever financial and economic demands can be squeezed into the box of "race relations."
Posted by: Justin Katz at September 6, 2008 10:48 AMI threw what racist term around OTL?I'm a little tired of you leftists always trying to put people on the defensive when it comes to debating.It doesn't work with me.I have seen the left constantly deal in group dynamics to explain behavior rather than recognize individuality.
You cannot out people in boxes based on race or ethnicity.Religion is a little different since following a religion generally involves some actual decision making.
After reading some of the earlier comments, I am reminded of what we used to end our mathematical proofs with in college:
Q.E.D. ("quod erat demonstrandum," which literally means "that which was to be demonstrated.")
In other words, it is always amusing when people, who think they are arguing against you, prove your point.
Even if they don't realize it.
Which makes me think of another concluding comment for this time and place:
L.M.A.O.
Posted by: Donald B. Hawthorne at September 8, 2008 12:52 AMOTL,
You're correct. I don't know anything about your personal history, but I don't have to know anything. I'm responding to the logic of your thoughts as posted, not to your "personal history".
And yes, your statement about Clarence Thomas uses the same logic that the left-wing establishment uses to dismiss intelligent African-Americans with whom it disagrees, whether the black person be Clarence Thomas, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, etc. And yes, the logic is predictable and "herd-like".
You say:
>>Clarence Thomas is a black man who does not come close to representing the values of the majority of the black community which is much further to the left than Mr. Thomas. Most black people are in the economic underclass.
Yet Clarence Thomas was born into the economic underclass in rural Pin Point, Georgia. He grew up speaking Gullah, a form of creole spoken by the descendents of slaves. His father left his mother when he was two years old. Thomas went onto form his college's Black Student Union.
It would seem to me that it might be more beneficial to consider how Thomas moved from the economic underclass of Pin Point, Georgia onto the United States Supreme Court rather than dismissing his thoughts so casually.
Now that would be "thinking deeper".
Posted by: Anthony at September 8, 2008 9:12 PM