Why Liberals hate Sarah Palin - lack of clear thinking

 In 2008, Sarah Palin entered the political fray igniting a liberal and conservative firestorm.  Conservatives loved her fresh face while ace feminist Gloria Steinem fumed.

  In an article for the Los Angeles Times, Steinem claimed that Palin is unqualified (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/04/news/OE-STEINEM4).  Watching Palin in debate, I felt she needed a bit more seasoning and so I agree with her on this point, but that is not the main substance of Steinem’s criticisms.  Her problems with Palin are more ideological because Palin, she believes, doesn’t support what women support and hence is a slave to patriarchy.  Steinem says:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

   Let’s take this paragraph point by point.  According to the gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx) and common experience derived from merely stepping into a church, it would be incorrect to state that women as a rule do not support the teaching of creationism.

   Steinem links gun control with the control of women’s wombs by prohibiting abortion.  Here the logic gets ridiculous.  What is the connection?  As gallup shows, it is not true that women necessarily support abortion on demand (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx).  Even if they did, the abortion debate is concerned with when the right to life begins, what the fetus is, and what responsibilities we have toward it and others.  The gun debate is concerned with the right to control a weapon for either self defense or sport.  There is no overlap between the two issues and one can legitimately argue that one can own a gun because the constitution allows it and it is necessary for self defense and killing the unborn is immoral since unborn children have a right to live just as others.

   As far as global warming, again there is no logical reason to suggest women would or would not believe the Earth is warming because of man-made causes.  Of course Al Gore is one of the more prominent proponents that humans are causing the warming, but the opposite case should be looked at also. (See the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, for instance.)

   As far as abstinence and stem cells, there seems to be some good information that useful research is derived from adult stem cells, not fetal ones (http://www.lutheranscience.org/2005-EmbryonicStemCell1.html).  The reason the use of fetal stem cells is so important to her, I think, is abortion.  If liberals can suggest that more fetuses can be destroyed to produce positive effects, then the case for abortion is strengthened (which is what she wants).

   Her comment on abstinence reveals common liberal thought.  Notice that she attributes sexual diseases, abortion, and unwanted births to abstinence programs.  Such programs do not cause these problems; such problems would not exist were it not for sexual intercourse.  Apparently it is not abstinence teaching that causes the problems but the inability to abstain! (Following Steinem’s logic, if someone buys a gun and shoots a person despite proclamations to limit gun use, we blame the anti-gun message rather than the person who shoots the gun.)

   We see here the common liberal desire to wish Americans held liberal beliefs as they fail to admit such ideologies are out of step with Americans.  Steinem should be seen for what she is:  an old liberal hag who wants all women to be what she thinks they should be.

   Speaking of patriarchy, an interesting book I picked up years ago was Rene Denfeld’s The New Victorians.  Denfeld is no conservative but does poke holes in the modern feminist movement partly because it does not deal with modern issues important to women and hence most women today do not label themselves “feminists.”  These feminists are more concerned with their battle against “patriarchy” – however loosely defined.

  For example, Anne Merkelson, a production coordinator whom Denfeld quotes, suggests many in the new feminist movement look at things negatively as if a giant conspiracy exists to keep women down.  Life is not that simple. “For me,” Anne says, “it’s much more natural to look at individuals. When it starts getting blanket, I think that’s also why I’m not involved.  I can’t look at things that broadly.  It just doesn’t work for me.”  Denfeld sums up that “feminists have found something to lash out against, and that’s the patriarchy. But instead of venting frustration and then moving to change things, they have sunk into the miasma of their own theory.  They have created a straw man to condemn.”  Contrary to patriarchy, these feminists have proposed a utopia that promises peace, but this is based on bad science and sexist stereotypes that threaten to undo many hard-won victories and plunge the movement into a quest for an unattainable goal.        (p. 154-155)

  We see that Steinem is exactly the type of feminist that Denfeld is describing.  Steinem also, according to Peter Schweizer in his book Do As I Say (Not As I Do), doesn’t practice what she preaches.  She has criticized women who put so much stress on their looks, but she herself has given herself an occasional “touch up.”  She has promoted the view that men are not needed by women and merely an appendage, but has been in numerous romances herself.  Steinem should be cheering Palin for her popularity, but she can’t.  Palin is simply not Steinem’s kind of bigoted woman.

Jeff Stueber

jstueber@charter.net