Sarah Palin and the feminist movement: an observation

[Pistis]

I'm not a big fan of Palin, especially her thoroughly confused take on US foreign policy painfully highlighted by her ABC interview.

However on a personal level, I'm impressed with the apparent pride she takes in her roles as a wife & mother ahead of her political achievements, how she feels comfortable being all skirted up (compared, for example, to Hillary's I'm-just-like-the-men trouser suits) and the way she defers to her husband. She illustrates what being feminine is all about and this stands in stark contrast to what the so-called 'feminist' movement advocates.

They advocate that power be transferred from men to women but when you do this, men become emasculated, women no longer cultivate their feminine charms and both sexes become neutered. This destroys the patriarchy, undermines family and women have been the main losers with the phenomenom of the single mum on social welfare now a permanent feature of American society. The feminist movement has failed women!

True femininity is defined by love, masculinity by power and both are exchanged most effectively in a married relationship -- a woman empowers her husband, male power is transmuted into love and the two people become one. A woman can pull her own chair out in a restaurant but when the guy does it, both sexes are affirmed. In healthy societies, women willingly serve the men and children they love. The men project a strong positive spirit by asserting their personal vision and responsible leadership; the women embrace it and both become whole. This is what women instinctively look for in a man and it is the essence of heterosexuality. Generally speaking, couples who ignore this truth will argue a lot about who's got the upper hand in every given situation and they will not find happiness in their relationship until both willingly accept their roles.

And as Sarah Palin shows, femininity doesn't mean the woman sits at home baking cookies and looking after the kids. When both sexes are secure in their identities, roles can be flexible. You can have Sarah Palin be the famous neo-con politician strutting the global stage invading Russia & bombing Iran while her husband tows along in the background. However I'm pretty sure they both know who rules the roost at home.

 

[SnappleLlama]

I think the 1950's are calling...

 

[LiveFree79]

I'm not a big fan of Palin, especially her thoroughly confused take on US foreign policy painfully highlighted by her ABC interview.

However on a personal level, I'm impressed with the apparent pride she takes in her roles as a wife & mother ahead of her political achievements, how she feels comfortable being all skirted up (compared, for example, to Hillary's I'm-just-like-the-men trouser suits) and the way she defers to her husband. She illustrates what being feminine is all about and this stands in stark contrast to what the so-called 'feminist' movement advocates.

They advocate that power be transferred from men to women but when you do this, men become emasculated, women no longer cultivate their feminine charms and both sexes become neutered. This destroys the patriarchy, undermines family and women have been the main losers with the phenomenom of the single mum on social welfare now a permanent feature of American society. The feminist movement has failed women!

True femininity is defined by love, masculinity by power and both are exchanged most effectively in a married relationship -- a woman empowers her husband, male power is transmuted into love and the two people become one. A woman can pull her own chair out in a restaurant but when the guy does it, both sexes are affirmed. In healthy societies, women willingly serve the men and children they love. The men project a strong positive spirit by asserting their personal vision and responsible leadership; the women embrace it and both become whole. This is what women instinctively look for in a man and it is the essence of heterosexuality. Generally speaking, couples who ignore this truth will argue a lot about who's got the upper hand in every given situation and they will not find happiness in their relationship until both willingly accept their roles.

And as Sarah Palin shows, femininity doesn't mean the woman sits at home baking cookies and looking after the kids. When both sexes are secure in their identities, roles can be flexible. You can have Sarah Palin be the famous neo-con politician strutting the global stage invading Russia & bombing Iran while her husband tows along in the background. However I'm pretty sure they both know who rules the roost at home.

Sarah Palin wears the pants in their marriage. That much is obvious. You don't f#@K Sara Palin........She does the f#@king in the marriage! LOL.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Sarah represents the dark side of feminism, where women regard the responsibility of bearing children as some sort of shackle placed on them by men...AFTER they've already decided to have kids

 

[angelatc]

This whole thread, as well as the Palin nomination, just proves that the feminists still have a long, long way to go to get people past their stupid 19th century mindsets.

The feminist movement has failed women only because women failed women. Women are largely reluctant to support women who make choices like having a career, and stay home Moms tend to view themselves as martyrs.

IN the overall scheme of things, Palin's kids will achieve an education most of us can't even dream of. They'll meet world leaders, visit other nations, and experience a side of life that most people would love to expose their kids to.

But we're supposed to berate her because her husband might be the one wiping snotty noses?

I don't hear anybody bitching because Obama won't have enough time to spend with his kids. I mean, everybody knows that absentee fatherism is a huge problem in the black community, and girls who don't get enough attention from their Dads, especially in their teen years are very likely to have promiscuous sex.

I think people should shut up, raise their own families, and support choices that other make.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

This whole thread, as well as the Palin nomination, just proves that the feminists still have a long, long way to go to get people past their stupid 19th century mindsets.

+1

Racism may be in decline, but it appears that sexism is still alive and well in the U.S.

 

[angelatc]

+1

Racism may be in decline, but it appears that sexism is still alive and well in the U.S.

Historically, women's rights always trail racial rights. At least in the US. Black men could own property before women could. Black men could vote before women could...and it appears that a black man will probably get elected as PResident before a woman will.

 

[Pistis]

This whole thread . . . just proves that the feminists still have a long, long way to go to get people past their stupid 19th century mindsets.

We don't need to go back to the 19th century. Let's just go back forty years to the 1960s and the beginning of the Gloria Steinem led feminist movement: since then, the marriage rate has declined by a third, the divorce rate has doubled, more than 50% of all first-born children are conceived out of wedlock and about 33% of American children are living apart from their biological fathers.

Yeah, the feminist movement still has a long way to go!

 

[angelatc]

We don't need to go back to the 19th century. Let's just go back forty years to the 1960s and the beginning of the Gloria Steinem led feminist movement: since then, the marriage rate has declined by a third, the divorce rate has doubled, more than 50% of all first-born children are conceived out of wedlock and about 33% of American children are living apart from their biological fathers.

Yeah, the feminist movement still has a long way to go!

So let's see.....it is somehow the fault of the women that the men are abandoning their children.

Letting women actually be less dependent on men is bad for men, so it is bad?

It is the woman's responsibility to take care of everybody else before herself?

Women aren't incubators and nannies. They are people. I stand by my original post.

 

[Pistis]

Don't get me wrong; the "feminist movement" I'm against is not about the right of women to vote or to work or to be treated equally with men based on merits. I'm 100% for these.

The "feminist movement" I'm against is the fraud perpetrated by the likes of Steinem, Greer and Frieden that says women were routinely exploited and oppressed before the women's liberation movement came along in the sixties. That's a lie. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted but because a man's income alone could provide for the family and because society validated the very, very important role of wife and mother, most women chose to stay at home.

But back to the present, the feminist movement is no longer about equal opportunity for women. It is now about the lie that men and women are identical so in the name of 'equality', they tell women to express their independence by being as aggressive as males. If a women wants to pursue a career, she's lauded as being a liberated feminist but if she wants to build and nurture her family, she's looked down on as an oppressed house-wife. By undermining the goodness inherent in the traditional family role of a woman, feminism has robbed many women of their natural identity (i.e. wife, mother).

Men are defined by deeds, while a woman's natural instinct is to love and nurture. The feminist movement undermines a woman's natural instinct by telling them that self-fulfillment lies in a successful career and not in a husband and family; that sex is not reserved for love & marriage and women can be just as promiscuous as men; that men cannot be trusted and women are basically victims. What ends up happening is that many women become torn between reconciling their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. On the flip side, many men act like jerks, they don't take responsibility and they take advantage of women who believe the feminist lie. When these two meet, it's like a train wreck and the inevitable result is broken families and dysfunctional homes.

 

[angelatc]

Men are defined by deeds, while a woman's natural instinct is to love and nurture.

Collectivism. (Not to mention simply nonsensical.)

Actually, Steinem wrote a scathing piece on Palin and her ascension. So you actually are agreeing with her at the end of the day.

And you're reiterating my point, albeit in a rather longwinded manner. Feminism is a failure largely because women choose not to respect and support the choices of other women.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Don't get me wrong; the "feminist movement" I'm against is not about the right of women to vote or to work or to be treated equally with men based on merits. I'm 100% for these.

The "feminist movement" I'm against is the fraud perpetrated by the likes of Steinem, Greer and Frieden that says women were routinely exploited and oppressed before the women's liberation movement came along in the sixties. That's a lie. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted but because a man's income alone could provide for the family and because society validated the very, very important role of wife and mother, most women chose to stay at home.

But back to the present, the feminist movement is no longer about equal opportunity for women. It is now about the lie that men and women are identical so in the name of 'equality', they tell women to express their independence by being as aggressive as males. If a women wants to pursue a career, she's lauded as being a liberated feminist but if she wants to build and nurture her family, she's looked down on as an oppressed house-wife. By undermining the goodness inherent in the traditional family role of a woman, feminism has robbed many women of their natural identity (i.e. wife, mother).

Men are defined by deeds, while a woman's natural instinct is to love and nurture. The feminist movement undermines a woman's natural instinct by telling them that self-fulfillment lies in a successful career and not in a husband and family; that sex is not reserved for love & marriage and women can be just as promiscuous as men; that men cannot be trusted and women are basically victims. What ends up happening is that many women become torn between reconciling their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. On the flip side, many men act like jerks, they don't take responsibility and they take advantage of women who believe the feminist lie. When these two meet, it's like a train wreck and the inevitable result is broken families and dysfunctional homes.

I was going to argue, but then I realized you're not worth my breath. Do you have daughters?

And for the record, I have no problem with a woman who wants to stay at home and raise her children on her own accord, but no man should be forcing me to stay at home when my heart is out in the world.

Honestly, even in college I see the sexism, and I am getting really fucking fed up with it. No wonder a lot of women in sciences, engineering, etc, etc have a high suicide rate.

that sex is not reserved for love & marriage and women can be just as promiscuous as men

I'm putting a lot of what you said in my sig so I can feel empowered to do my very best each and every day in my studies to become a Doctor.

 

[Pistis]

I'm putting a lot of what you said in my sig so I can feel empowered to do my very best each and every day in my studies to become a Doctor.

Thnx, i'm glad to be of help . . . but you've totally read me wrong.

I wish you the best in your studies btw. My younger sister is a medical doctor specialising in paediatrics and I know its very hard with the massive amount of reading involved.

 

[brandon]

Don't get me wrong; the "feminist movement" I'm against is not about the right of women to vote or to work or to be treated equally with men based on merits. I'm 100% for these.

The "feminist movement" I'm against is the fraud perpetrated by the likes of Steinem, Greer and Frieden that says women were routinely exploited and oppressed before the women's liberation movement came along in the sixties. That's a lie. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted but because a man's income alone could provide for the family and because society validated the very, very important role of wife and mother, most women chose to stay at home.

But back to the present, the feminist movement is no longer about equal opportunity for women. It is now about the lie that men and women are identical so in the name of 'equality', they tell women to express their independence by being as aggressive as males. If a women wants to pursue a career, she's lauded as being a liberated feminist but if she wants to build and nurture her family, she's looked down on as an oppressed house-wife. By undermining the goodness inherent in the traditional family role of a woman, feminism has robbed many women of their natural identity (i.e. wife, mother).

Men are defined by deeds, while a woman's natural instinct is to love and nurture. The feminist movement undermines a woman's natural instinct by telling them that self-fulfillment lies in a successful career and not in a husband and family; that sex is not reserved for love & marriage and women can be just as promiscuous as men; that men cannot be trusted and women are basically victims. What ends up happening is that many women become torn between reconciling their natural instincts with constant exhortations to do the opposite. On the flip side, many men act like jerks, they don't take responsibility and they take advantage of women who believe the feminist lie. When these two meet, it's like a train wreck and the inevitable result is broken families and dysfunctional homes.

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

I'm fucking sick of the status quo. If I ever try talking to people in real life about this I am ridiculed as being a close minded jerk. And if I ever tell a girlfriend that I would like to marry a woman that desires to be a full time mom, it never ends well.

 

[brandon]

And for the record, I have no problem with a woman who wants to stay at home and raise her children on her own accord, but no man should be forcing me to stay at home when my heart is out in the world.

I think you misread his post. No where did he say he supports forcing anyone to do anything.

Honestly, even in college I see the sexism, and I am getting really fucking fed up with it. No wonder a lot of women in sciences, engineering, etc, etc have a high suicide rate.

What kind of sexism do you have to deal with?

 

[NewEnd]

Historically, women's rights always trail racial rights. At least in the US. Black men could own property before women could. Black men could vote before women could...and it appears that a black man will probably get elected as PResident before a woman will.

Black men were being denied en masse at the polls as late as the 50's.

And what about black women? they got the double whammy.

And lets talk a bit about white women. White women were waited on hand and foot by slaves.

And what about justice? White women fared much better in the courts than black men ever have.

 

[wizardwatson]

While I agree women struggle for equal treatment, the whole movement that pretends to be centered around owning property and working, succeeded in getting both husband and wife working, which allows an increase in the tax base by lowering total average take-home pay. With both working the family on the whole breaks down more. Your kids are more likely to be government schooled, food quality suffers, more tv time as both are tired, etc.

A simple take on the subject, but I've always thought that perhaps that is where a lot of the true motivation was coming from, to increase the taxable base.

 

[Pistis]

While I agree women struggle for equal treatment, the whole movement that pretends to be centered around owning property and working, succeeded in getting both husband and wife working, which allows an increase in the tax base by lowering total average take-home pay. With both working the family on the whole breaks down more. Your kids are more likely to be government schooled, food quality suffers, more tv time as both are tired, etc.

A simple take on the subject, but I've always thought that perhaps that is where a lot of the true motivation was coming from, to increase the taxable base.

Good points wizardwatson, and if you read William H. McIllany's book, The Tax-Exempt Foundations, your point is made in detail. It documents how our tastes and attitudes have been formulated and guided by the tax-exempt foundations -- Rockefeller, for example, financed the development of contraception and the promotion of depopulation and promiscuity.

And if you believe Aaron Russo (make up your own mind); Nick Rockefeller explained to him that the two main reasons why the tax exempt foundations bankrolled the women's liberation movement:

(1) so that they could go from taxing half the population (i.e. majority of the workforce were men) to taxing the whole population

(2) it allowed them to get children into school earlier, to accept the state as family and to break up the traditional family model.

Whether you believe Russo or not; it's clear that these two things are already happening

 

[sratiug]

Stone age. Man. Woman. Men hunt, women gather. They cooperate, serve and complement each other. They answer only to each other. They play for the same team at different, and sometimes the same positions.

Now. Man. Woman. Man is employed. Woman is employed. They cooperate, serve and complement each other when their bosses allow. They answer to their bosses. They are not on the same team at different positions, man is on one team, woman is on another, playing a different game in a different place against different teams.

The end of family owned business is the end of the family. Corporations are killing America.

 

[sailor]

The feminist movement has failed women only because women failed women.

Perhaps it is telling that saying something like that about any other group that needed liberating or thought it did would end up looking mightily comical?


"The Irish National Liberation movement failed only because the Irish failed the Irish." - Yepp, would sound ridicilous.

"The civil rights movement failed only because the blacks failed the blacks." - Yepp, sounds ridicilous.

"The American revolution failed only because Americans failed the Americans." - Yepp, ridicilous.


Maybe the reason "women failed women" then is that women are generally different from men and simply generally find career pursuing less fullfiling? Maybe the reason the feminist movement failed was because it pursued something most of women never truly wanted and never will? Maybe women did not fail women, only the feminists?