I have a cousin who is a feminist of the deconstructionist, postmodern variety. Years ago, while we were discussing world events, she lamented the total absence of women playing in the Big Game. I was surprised: what about Maggie Thatcher, at that time one of the most powerful persons in the world?
My cousin snorted at my naivete. “Thatcher isn’t a woman,” she explained.
Some things don’t change. The sudden rise of Sarah Palin has had an effect similar to poking a stick in the cage of the unhinged left — lots of wild noises and clawing at the air in the MSM, slapstick comedy to entertain those who have the stomach for it. The ruling theme seems to be that Palin, having failed to stop reproducing at the catch limit of 1.5 children, is the moral equivalent of the Evil Stepmother.
But there’s also this, via Politico:
A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women, noting Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and support of other parts of the social conservative agenda, told Politico, “She’s more a conservative man than she is a woman on women’s issues.”
No wonder she’s the worst mother ever: she’s a cross-dressing man — just like that female impersonator, Marvin “Maggie” Thatcher, who my cousin thought was the worst British man ever.
Usually, I am completely confused about what feminists want. Is it equality of opportunity? Of outcomes? To be treated with dignity, as equals? Protected and supported by a powerful government, as befits frail, helpless victims?
At moments like this, though, matters become clearer.
Feminists — at least the professional “advocates” who roar from the NOW corner of the zoo — are concerned about the fate of women only in a tactical sense. Big picture, they want to overthrow our moral structure, which everyone knows is a patriarchy allowing men to pinch women with impunity, and to impose even crueler humiliations on them, such as false eyelashes and cosmetic surgery.
What would New Pie America look like? What would be different? How would men and women get along?
Such questions hold little interest to feminists. Most are cultural pessimists, who believe the future will resemble The Handmaid’s Tale. In practical terms, they want to increase greatly the power of the government, and to manipulate that power to change our behavior. But despite Steinem’s brave talk of “too many of us for that,” they don’t believe the revolution is going to happen. Americans, they feel certain, are too stupid to allow it — and in the nomination of Sarah Palin, the Alaskan man-woman, they have all the proof they need.
Strangely enough, this suits the professional feminists just fine. Their New Pie future is like Osama bin Laden’s caliphate, a fairy-tale used to justify vandalizing reality. It’s the vandalism they enjoy, the crashing and smashing of the status quo without a thought about alternatives.
Normal women, I would guess, want normal things: happiness, success, a loving family, an interesting job. To the degree they fullfill such desires, they — like Palin, who seems to embody normality — will be howled at, cross-dressed, and morally vandalized by the Abbie Normal ideologists at NOW.
UPDATE: From neo-neocon, who despite the surrealist green apple is a psychologist, an attempt to understand the feminists’ derangement over Sarah Palin’s nomination. Read the whole thing, but pay particular attention to the bizarrely sexualized feminist comments cited in the post. These are people whose entire worldview flows from the belief that American society, being exploitive to the core, can only treat women as sex objects. And that is precisely what they do to Palin — in rather grotesque, unacademic language, calling her, for example, the conservatives’ “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.”
Why do the feminists rage on about Palin’s sexuality? Neo-neocon’s prognosis: “I don’t think the hatred of Palin would rise to its present level but for one simple fact: Palin is beautiful.”
The distance between radical ideology and high school cattiness seems remarkably small.