Some random musings for the evening

I was going to write something about that bogus letter making the rounds of the far left blogs from the “concerned Alaskan” who’s known Palin “since 1992″ and is “afraid” of what might happen to her, so she’s slinging accusations anonymously.  Then I figured it wasn’t worth the time to do a detailed critique, because:

1.  Anonymous accusations do not carry weight.  If you really believed it, and were willing to have your facts checked, you’d put your name on it.

2.  Governor Palin was not elected unanimously to either mayor or governor.  Therefore, logically, there are people who fought against her candidacies, including in her home town.  (Including her mother-in-law, who is pro-abortion and ran against Sarah Palin for mayor of Wasila.  Can’t imagine the MIL is too thrilled about her son and his wife’s decision not to abort Trig, in spite of the Downs Syndrome diagnosis.  Might be why she put herself out there, announcing that Sarah Palin is unqualified for governor or VP.)  And some of them are not happy about losing.  Which leads to some, shall we say generously, skewed opinions that do not represent most of the people Sarah Palin led as mayor or governor.  “I’m an Alaskan, and we all think…” just doesn’t hold water, especially with the approval ratings Governor Palin has enjoyed.

3.  The letter writer’s explanation of why she wishes to remain anonymous?  Her fear that Palin could hurt her… or something.  No actual threats or incidents were cited, no inexplicable traffic tickets or strangely high property tax assessments, just that Palin “hates” the writer, ever since the writer was one of the 100 people who fought the librarian removal (100 people out of Wasila’s 5500 or so residents… that means that 54 out of 55 Wasila residents either didn’t care enough to do anything, didn’t care at all, or agreed with Palin; that’s a pretty ok approval rating).  This was a common excuse in the Navy, as in, “I didn’t complete my required qualifications on my first ship because my captain didn’t like me.”  No, usually, it was because the speaker was a terrible officer and hadn’t earned the qualifications.  Occasionally, it was true, but very rarely.

 

So, instead, go check out this reply to another anti-Palin letter that’s circulating.

Over at Townhall.com, Michelle Malkin is understandably miffed at feminists participating in sexist attacks on Palin (and other conservative women).  To help clarify things, she’s broken the usual attacks down into four easy steps.

The American Thinker says it better than I ever could in “Sarah Palin and the Two Americas”: the Left needs to understand that some of us *gasp* don’t agree with them.  And Reagan was right.

 

And, finally, another comment on the sexist attacks on Governor Palin.  In response to being called “sexist” when they’d rather have the “we speak for women” mantle, the left is shooting back with, “Hey, Republicans always say women are too quick to cry, ‘Sexism!’, so how dare they use it to defend Palin?  How hypocritical!”

Actually, it’s pretty simple.

If someone questions Governor Palin’s actions as Wasila’s mayor, asks for clarification on her positions on the Bridge to Nowhere, or delves into her record as the governor of Alaska, that is not sexism.  Those are legitimate, normal questions we should be asking of a candidate.

When people questioned if Hillary’s status as the wife of a politician actually gave her any qualifications and she cried, “Sexism!” that was the kind of “crying wolf” thing that Republicans are talking about when they complain about candidates using race or sex as a shield from questions they don’t want to answer.  The more people who cry wolf on sexism or racism, the less likely that legitimate complaints will be addressed properly.  We should all be careful when throwing around those kinds of allegations for just that reason.

If someone questions Governor Palin’s qualifications as a mom, complains that “serious women” wear short haircuts, repeatedly refers to her as a “beauty queen”, calls her a “traitor to her gender” for being pro-life, say that a “good mom” would’ve turned down the nomination because of her daughter’s unplanned pregnancy, mocks her for being “ignorant of birth control” (hello?  plenty of us want big families, thank you very much), or says that she belongs at home with her kids… well, that’s sexism. 

The people pushing these attacks are trying to put her (and all women) back in the “proper” box of expected behavior for women.  Funny, but I thought that letting women out of the box of proper, expected behavior was part of the point of the early feminist movement?  The early feminists wanted the vote and protection for women in the law; they wanted more opportunities opened in the workplace and education.  They also wanted respect for women in the role most of us will fill at some point or other: mother.  Elizabeth Cady Stanton took great pride in the birth of her children, flying a flag in front of her house whenever she’d given birth, in a society that dictated that “proper” women shouldn’t be seen when they were showing their pregnancy, much less celebrate that they’d given birth.

The modern feminist movement claims it speaks for all women but has totally abandonned all the women who choose, briefly or long-term, to be out of the work force for the sake of our children and homes.  The modern feminist movement began to lose all of its arguments the day it decided that women’s success should be measured purely like men’s successes (and stereotypical ones, at that), where success is measured primarily by the paycheck and childbirth is a disgraceful subject that shouldn’t be celebrated.

I was watching a biography on Governor Palin by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News tonight.  Towards the end, there were a few shots of the Palin family in their kitchen, presumably at the governor’s mansion.  It occured to me that, hey, this should be the feminists’ dream.  Here was a strong, talented, successful woman who had her marriage, her family, and her career.  Her husband gets the kids out the door to school in the morning, including, we were told, braiding Piper’s hair for her.  Her husband helps around the house and doesn’t seem to be the least bit threatened or offended by the fact that his wife is much more famous and politically powerful than he is.  They seem to have a very happy marriage and fulfilling lives.

Wasn’t that what the original feminists were aiming for?