Green Room

Sarah Palin Brings Out the Hypocrisy of Jessica Valenti and the Feminist Left

posted at 9:07 am on May 25, 2010 by

My inaugural post at David Horowitz’ Newsreal:

Sarah Palin is the feminist Left’s favorite target. It seems strange to anyone not entrenched in a radical, extremist feminist agenda. Feminists once fought for equality between the sexes — the right for women to vote, giving women a fair chance to go to college and get a job without fear of discrimination, and the choice to either stay at home with her children or work full-time. Fighting for equality has long since fallen by the wayside though, and the leftist agenda has fully set in. Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin, therefore, cannot be feminists.

Daring to call Sarah Palin a feminist will make radical modern feminists’ heads explode. Currently screeching with rage is Jessica Valenti, angry that someone might think that Sarah Palin is indeed a feminist.

Seriously, y’all – how many times does it have to be said? Sarah Palin is not a feminist. I thought we had covered Palin’s gross appropriation of feminism and feminist rhetoric during the election, but media coverage of Palin’s recent speech for the anti-choice PAC the Susan B. Anthony List has reignited the debate. (Incidentally, the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked.)

So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not. Under this standard of feminism anyone – a racist, a misogynist, etc – could be a feminist just because they identify as such.

Sarah Palin’s crime against modern feminism is that she is a political conservative who is pro-life. This makes her anti-woman, because all conservatives are apparently anti-woman. Valenti writes:

[W]hile I’m sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn’t be a litmus test for feminism – I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist – there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women’s rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist.

The line about being “personally pro-life” is meant to mislead. You can’t be personally pro-life and still support abortion, and Valenti knows it. This is exactly why Valenti phrases it this way. It comes across as a much more moderate position, yet still argues that all feminists must support abortion. The feminist Left believes it isn’t good enough to just believe in equality between the sexes. You have to toe the “progressive” line, as Amanda Marcotte recently showcased in an interview, saying that real feminists are devoted to a very specific set of issues.

Interestingly, Valenti’s screed against Palin is so extreme that not all of her readers could get behind her. Feministing usually serves as a leftist echo chamber, but several commenters actually disagreed that all feminists need to think a certain way in order to be considered feminists. Valenti had to jump in to defend herself five times before closing commenting on the post.

Perhaps it’s because she isn’t following her own rules of feminism. In her book, Full Frontal Feminism, Valenti had this to say about people defining what feminists should be:

[L]ike many feminist authors before her, Valenti quickly expands feminism to include a wide array of liberal pet causes. If you don’t agree with them, guess what? You’re not really a feminist — you’re an anti-feminist. According to Valenti, feminists demand government-funded preschools and universal childcare, think American culture “breeds a society where rape is expected and practically okayed,” and proudly wear shirts that say “I don’t f*** Republicans.”

Valenti vents that she’s “so f***ing sick and tired of people telling [her] how to be an appropriate feminist.” Maybe so, but Valenti is happy to dish out a feminist litmus test herself.

So it isn’t OK for someone to tell Jessica Valenti what makes an appropriate feminist, but it’s OK for her to tell other people what makes an appropriate feminist? Quite the hypocrite, I see.

Here are some more quotes from Full Frontal Feminism in whichValenti defines what women should and shouldn’t do when it comes to marriage:

You may not like me for saying this…but engagement rings piss me the hell off. It’s a frigging dowry! …the only purpose of an engagement ring is to show that you “belong” to someone, and that your man makes bank.

For the life of me, I will never understand why a woman today would change her last name. It makes no sense whatsoever. You want future kids to have the same last name as you and your hubby? Hyphenate, bitch! Or do something, anything, but change your last name. It’s the ultimate buy-in of sexist bulls***. It epitomizes the idea that you are not your own person.

And here we get to the heart of “progressive” feminism. Today’s feminists like Jessica Valenti are the least “pro-choice” people on the planet … and I don’t mean when it comes to abortion. They want to dictate everything about the lives of American women. If you don’t live exactly the way they want you to live, then you’re “anti-woman” and an “anti-feminist.”

Change your name to your husband’s when you get married? You’re a slave to the patriarchy and an anti-feminist. Personally and politically pro-life? Anti-woman! Believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market? ANTI-FEMINIST! Believe in closing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws? Don’t believe in universal health care? Think global warming is all a fake? These all make you an anti-feminist, too.

Sad, isn’t it? A movement that once fought for equality for women now doesn’t want women to think for themselves. Someone like Sarah Palin, who quite literally has it all, should be a perfect example of a feminist. She’s got a loving marriage and a wonderful family. She is the breadwinner in her family and is one of the most powerful women in the country. But she doesn’t wallow in patriarchal victimhood; she’s a conservative, she’s pro-life. She doesn’t toe the Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte line, and therefore, she can never be considered a feminist. If you need an example of how hijacked the feminist movement has been by radicals, this is it.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I love Sarah Palin. She pisses off all the right people!

rockmom on May 25, 2010 at 9:46 AM

I’ve known for a long time that “feminists” are nothing more than liberal shills. These women blather on about the rights of women, yet say NOTHING about honor killings overseas or right here in the U.S. They say NOTHING about little girls having acid dumped on them for going to school. They say NOTHING about women being stoned to death for being in the company of a male not a blood relation.

Anyone who TRULY believed they were a fighter for the rights of women would be SCREAMING about the American Academy of Pediatrics coming out in favor of U.S. docs performing ceremonial “nicks” of little girls genitalia to appease certain cultures needs for female genital mutilation in the name of cultural appeasement. Have you heard a WORD from these “feminists?” Nope. Why? Because coming out against any of these things goes against the liberal party line. And these things are just the horrors committed against women (mostly) in Southwest Asia and across the African continent. That list doesn’t include what happens to girls in China and other Asian countries. But then THAT is typical for liberals as well. Just look at the Obama folks’ reps in China apologizing for Americans protecting their border.

It’s disgusting, hypocritical and just plain ridiculous, yet these “feminists” get away with it every day. I wish I was physically able to go to a few of these “feminist” rallies and ask them about these issues. I’d bet not a one would come out publicly against any of this. After all, liberals are oh-so concerned about Islamists having freedom of religion. They’re only against folks who believe in Christ being held back. Let a Christian put his/her daughter in a religious school and they want to take the child away from her parents.

And you’re right. This was, yet again, a fantastic post. They hate Sarah because she had the moral cojones to keep her Down’s baby and to be proud of being conservative. And having had a Down’s baby, she doesn’t hide him from public view. She loves him, loves her other children and *gasp* loves her husband, whose name she is PROUD to share.

She scares them to death because she’s made it ok to be a career woman, Christian and pro-life, even in the most difficult circumstances. Can’t have that you know. Gotta get out there and hammer Sarah because it’s too scary and improper for a liberal to come out against the REAL horrors that face women around the world.

Mad Mad Monica on May 25, 2010 at 9:54 AM

Sarah is fully female. That’s what irritates some.

publiuspen on May 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Sarah is fully female. That’s what irritates some.

publiuspen on May 25, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Of course. Modern feminism is founded on the premise that women have to act like men and be treated like men in order to achieve “equality” with men. Beauty, monogamy, fidelity in marriage, and childbearing are all to be rejected.

Women have two sources of real power, and always have: The power to grant or withhold our sexual favors, and the power to bear children and provide heirs to the male family line. Feminists have gone about trying to convince women that giving up those powers somehow empowers them. It never made sense to me.

rockmom on May 25, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Feminism: It’s not just murdering your baby anymore.

Pablo on May 25, 2010 at 11:11 AM

My takeaway from the whole original article:

That “Feminist” is a really horrible, miserable person!

aeroplane on May 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM

One of your best posts in some time, in my opinion, Cassy.

Abby Adams on May 25, 2010 at 11:15 AM

the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked

Hmmm – I’d like to know where.

Godefroi on May 25, 2010 at 11:23 AM

rockmom on May 25, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Agree. Women are the more powerful of the two genders.

publiuspen on May 25, 2010 at 11:25 AM

You want future kids to have the same last name as you and your hubby? Hyphenate,

Do they realize how ridiculous this would be in practice?

Hi, I’m Vera Jones-Smith-Brown-McFarland-Harvey-Duncan.

Liberals just don’t think. Ever.

Vera on May 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Snicker, hyphenation didn’t even last a generation. But imagine if it lasted three generations:

Smith-Wilson-Drucker-Conrad marries Kennedy-Martin-Santiago-Forbes.

the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked

Riight. See Susan B Anthony’s publication The Revolution 4(1):4 July 8, 1869

“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

Abortion was referred to as “child murder.”

LarryD on May 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market? ANTI-FEMINIST!

That’s me. Suffragists largely rejected the efforts of feminists who tried to rewrite the Bible in order to fight the patriarchy.

Connie on May 25, 2010 at 12:08 PM

What I’d love to ask movement feminists is how dependence on the government is in any way superior to dependence on the patriarchal family?

Because you’re not independent if the government is picking up the check. You just changed Big Daddy from Big Daddy to Big Daddy Government. Big Daddy loves you. Big Daddy government is using you for votes.

Sekhmet on May 25, 2010 at 1:20 PM

And yet……these “feminists” walk by the mosque in their liberal, democratic-party ruled urban cities and accept the confining dress of Islamic women as “cultural expressions”.

As…….those women file into segregated worship areas where they cannot even look at a man while services are taking place.

That’s progress?

Opposite Day on May 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

This needs to be promoted to the front page….

TeresainFortWorth on May 25, 2010 at 5:40 PM

This woman proves she’s an idiot by calling an an engagement ring a “dowry.” A dowry is money the *bride* brings into the marriage. Traditionally, it’s given by her father to her new husband. Its opposite is the bride-price, paid in some cultures by a suitor to his prospective father-in-law. In both cases the intent is to give the new couple enough resources to get started in married life.

An engagement ring is neither dowry nor bride-price. It’s a gift given to the engaged woman herself, not to her “possessor” as Valenti sees it, and it becomes her own property, to do with as she sees fit. (It is both polite and morally right for the woman to return the ring if she breaks off her engagement. In some cases she may keep the ring if her fiance is the one to break off the engagement, though it is much more polite to return it; the laws on the subject vary from state to state in the U.S.).

Valenti’s bile-colored glasses prevent her from seeing that, far from being a degrading symbol of ownership, the engagement ring, over which the woman herself has control, is a much more liberated successor to both dowry and bride-price.

Mary in LA on May 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM

I should add here that maybe the fact that we mostly marry as adults now means that we don’t (or shouldn’t) need the “seed money” to get started in life. The engagement ring is not a transfer of wealth in the same way — I imagine that most of us would sooner have our fingers cut off than sell our engagement rings, unless there were some dire necessity (e.g. child needs life-saving medicine).

Mary in LA on May 25, 2010 at 6:12 PM

Or do something, anything, but change your last name. It’s the ultimate buy-in of sexist b*******. It epitomizes the idea that you are not your own person.

Right. You look much more independent if you keep your dad’s name all through life.

Bobbertsan on May 25, 2010 at 8:25 PM

proudly wear shirts that say “I don’t f*** Republicans.”

About which Republicans aren’t exactly heartbroken.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:08 AM

About which Republicans aren’t exactly heartbroken.

ddrintn on May 26, 2010 at 9:08 AM

She neglects to mention that it’s because Republicans never try to get her into the sack.

Bobbertsan on May 26, 2010 at 9:40 AM