The White House Project in the Age of Sarah Palin and the Mama Grizzlies

Mata, I'm disappointed, in a fact based debate, we cite our sources. That is what you are asking us conservatives to do, I would expect you to do the same. Where are you getting this 88% from, and when did Palin say all this stuff about "rads". Show me an article where someone else said that was a good thing. I'm sorry that you were called a "baby-killer" and that hurt your feelings, but bringing it up is off topic and tangential to this conversation.

Women, like myself, are conservatives, whether you like it or not, and so is the majority of this country. As a matter of fact, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, as of Sept. 7th, 68% of Americans favored a smaller government that offered fewer social programs (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol... ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol... )), I think that of the people interviewed for the survey there were probably a few women in there, don't you think?

Another interesting Rasmussen poll released on Monday, September 6th, stated that in a generic congressional ballot 48% would vote for Republicans and only 36% would vote for Democrats (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol... ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/pol... )). I think there were some women in that poll, too.

Finally, from Rasmussen, 55% of those surveyed are not in favor of the second round of stimulus payout (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/bus... ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/bus... )). That's a majority of people wanting the government to be more fiscally conservative.

It is possible for me, as a woman, to think of something other than what will happen to me if I am totally reproductively irresponsible and become pregnant. I can use the other parts of my brain, while being personally reproductively responsible for myself, to think about things like the national deficit, the war on terror, and other lofty issues.

Morality and other convictions aside, women are conservatives for as many reasons as women are progressives. With all of your "open-minded" liberal views, you should know that.

Claire F. came from intergenerational debt and is transitioning into wealth. She lives by the motto: Life is easy when there is buck in the bank and a boy in the bed! Follow her at www.buckinthebank.blogs ( http://www.buckinthebank.blogspot.com )

Women like you and me and Sarah Palin herself have benefited greatly from Title IX. If it were not for governmental oversight and enforcement on such issues as hiring discrimination and athletics, Sarah Palin may have never been known as "Sarah Barracuda" on the basketball court. She would have been relegated to cheering the boys team on from the sidelines. Women's participation in college athletics is up 450% since the enactment of Title IX (Linda Jean Carpenter and R. Vivian Acosta, Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal National Study Twenty-Nine Year Update 1977-2006 (2006)) and it is well documented across the board what participation on athletics provides to girls and young women on numerous fronts.

There are issues of feminism that apply across the board to all women - and there are others that the conservative bloc refuses to recognize. Its one thing to open dialogue about how feminism benefits us all - and it does - but I'm not going to support your intention to remove mine and my daughter's reproductive choices. Women who can choose when or whether to procreate have more opportunities, period, end of story.

Mary a/k/a BarnMaven blogs at http://www.barnmaven.typepad.com about single parenting, living with ADHD, too many animals to count and dealing with ADHD/Bipolar kids.

Bingo for me, what you wrote here:

"And sometimes it’s not clear what makes most sense from a feminist perspective. If a weak female candidate with shaky feminist values is running against a strong feminist male candidate then it’s clear we go with the one with strong feminist values.

"But if it’s a woman with a thin résumé and generally progressive stance on issues vs. a guy with a longer résumé and more explicit progressive stance what do we do? Not so easy to decide."

TOTALLY!

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Reason I'm commenting is that it was coming across the White House Project (and then its affiliation with BlogHer) that got me interested in this intriguing website.

That sentence, "turns out Thatcher has supporters too" and participation of women doesn't equate with progressive (or something like that) is both patronizing and naive.

If you say men and women are equal, follows they are also equally capable of overweening ambition, ruthless self-promotion, and being on the take for money (being bought off by lobbyists) -- once elected.

I read the comments with bemusement. I guess I identify most with the 84-year old mom one comment mentioned -- I'm 90 -- always a political junkie since 12, so help me. Then, I (with my formerly Republican parents) were ardent New Dealers (they converted because they rightly believed we would have lost our house if it were not for Roosvelt's earthshaking changes).

Stayed pretty much a Democrat until 60s drove me out--too far left. Lasted there until 90s by which time NEITHER party was worth voting for, and I became a Perotian -- a fan of Ross Perot and his prescient and pungent comment about what NAFTA would do to America--that "giant sucking sound" as jobs would move to Mexico.

PLEASE quit the anti and pro-abortion debate, neither side is ever going to change. Anecdotally I think I'm about where the broad middle is -- the idea of multiple abortions, or abortion after 2 months is repugnant-- but if I had a daughter who had been raped I'd damn well get her an abortion whether it was legal or not. The law now is probably one of few Supreme Court decisions that got it about right IN A DIVERSE COUNTRY. [Notice how many ardent conservtives are getting more amenable to accepting gays, including Cheney? Same principle, when there's one in the family, suddenly views change.]

Instead, I want to know what Palin conservatives and the Tea Party as well as Progressives plan to do about our trade deficit.

Ross was RIGHT - what we're living thru now is the natural result of that insane and suicidal trade policy that elites in BOTH parties still hold onto like a religion (or else corporations have threatened to withhold campaign contributions and they've sold their souls to them).

In the first place we haven't HAD a free market economy they breastbeat about as if it were God-given truth, since corporations were granted personhood by the Supreme court (I think in the 1880s). The argument that big business WANTS a free market competitive economy is ludicrous and contradicted by what they do--buy up, destroy, do whatever so that they have total market share. That's how we got "too big to fail."

What big business wants is NO competition for THEIR niche, an ever-increasing supply of cheap labor (illegal immigrants) so they don't have to bargain with American workers. And no regulation! Regulations are GOOD for actual people, but not for corporations even though they have legal personhood. That's what they want, that's what they do and have no moral, ethical or patriotic qualms about doing it -- including shipping our entire industrial base to China.

And stop talking about founding fathers and the constitution unless you also tell me how your concern equates with the loss of sovereignty, violation of constitutional principles, that came about with the passing of NAFTA and joining the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Both political parties are a collection of special interests having little to do with the welfare of the country as a whole. The multi-nationalcorporations own the Republican Party (and many Democrats), the trial lawyers own the Democratic Party.

AND both parties have sold us out in their deliberate non-enforcement of immigration law. For different reasons--Republicans want cheap labor; Democrats are looking for adding to their voter pool--but they are equally guilty and responsible for our open border and millions of illegals.

Jill,
You are so right about conflicting feelings re. women in politics.

I want to see that critical mass of women who as Kathryn said would totally change the dynamic, BUT I don’t want to do this by supporting women who do not share progressive/ liberal values.

And sometimes it’s not clear what makes most sense from a feminist perspective. If a weak female candidate with shaky feminist values is running against a strong feminist male candidate then it’s clear we go with the one with strong feminist values.

But if it’s a woman with a thin résumé and generally progressive stance on issues vs. a guy with a longer résumé and more explicit progressive stance what do we do? Not so easy to decide.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

What I love about your post is that, for me at least, it says that we each possess conflicting feelings and even aspirations - they are not mutually exclusive and they don't have to invalidate our hopes for what we'd like to see evolve. I hope that doesn't sound too opaque but I guess in more clear language: I can talk the talk and walk the walk about getting more women into office, but I do NOT have to support every single solitary woman to whom it occurs to run for office, just because she is running for office. Now, some groups do kind of do that (say that we must hold our nose and just vote for any and every woman, but I don't believe that at all). But as I think you make clear, it does not have to be that way if we're not comfortable with it (and I know I sure am not).

I also think your post gives us permission to laud Sarah Palin or Nancy Pelosi to the extent any one of us feels we can (I know what it is to run, no matter who you are - so it's easy to give credit to these women for that accomplishment) but then also critique them for whatever it is - substantive only of course!! - that we find worthy of critique.

I honestly don't care much about whether a person embraces or rejects the label of
"feminist" - it's only within the last few months of my 48 year life that I even came to understand what one or two of the upsides might be of belonging to a group with a label like that, on a more generic level (a group of like-minded people to which you can go for support when you think others don't get you, for example).

I personally don't feel a need to put a label on the collection of thoughts and acts that people pursue that demonstrate a compassion for eliminating barriers - wherever they are, whatever they are - that keep women from being treated as humans. To argue over what we should call these people and who can't be called that and how we should change it and all the permutations of it? Meh.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

In The Arena: Jill Miller Zimon, Pepper Pike City Council Member ( http://jillmillerzimon.blogspot.com )

Like Mata, I find philacluw’s post very helpful—a clear statement of the feminist agenda and a cogent analysis of the state of the feminist movement.

Yes, there’s unfinished business but the gains have been enormous—although not shared equally. The rich white men who run corporate America have been willing to open doors for their daughters but are not willing to support policies and fund programs which would provide opportunities for less privileged women and their families.

And although like Mata, I relish the irony that (some) right wing women are now eager to lay claim to the feminist banner, I agree with Philacluw that:

"But if feminism is being co-opted by those who don't believe we still need governmental and judicial intervention to eliminate discrimination, and an active base to demand that intervention,then it's time to take back our name and our movement."

Words have meanings. “Feminism" has a history, a long association with specific policies. (Some) right wing women seem to think it’s okay to ignore this history and make the term “feminism” mean whatever they want it to mean.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

She's spitting on it.

There is not a shred of evidence in your post, or anywhere else, that women reject pay equity, or contraceptive equity, or an end to domestic violence, or any of the other issues I listed.

What people are unhappy about now, for the most part, is our tanking economy and the failure of Obama or the Congress to revive what eight years of Republican tax cuts for the rich and waging war on a credit card held by the Chinese drove into the toilet.

Thanks to a vast disinformation campaign, led by Palin, Bachmann and others of their ignorant ilk (remember "death panels?" - what a crock), most Americans have no idea what the health reform bill calls for or what it would do for them. That will change as the cost savings and coverage expanding provisions kick in.

The tea party movement accounts for 30% of Republicans, not Americans.

Welfare programs have kept people alive, housed, and fed for decades, when the job market failed them. Meet me in North Philly and I'll introduce you to hundreds of people for whom welfare provided a safety net until they could get back on their feet. It saved my family from being homeless for a few months in the 1970s when my husband got laid off.

There is nothing about feminism that is antithetical to balanced budgets. You're making that up. A trillion dollars for unwarranted invasions, occupations and war with no end in sight is the main reason we've sunk to these severe depths of deficit spending. We're at more than 51% of our budget now, not counting supplemental appropriations in the hundreds of billions, spent on military operations. Show me the Republican leaders who even mention this as a deficit driver, much less argue against it. The number of Democrats talking about this is woefully inadequate as well, but it's growing, and there are those who raise it constantly and loudly. The Republicans just go blithely along, pretending we can out-spend the rest of the western world combined on defense, continue to cut taxes, especially for the richest, and blame the deficit on the lazy unemployed, like the Republican candidate in PA is doing.

Government intervention and the nannystate are exactly why the country is in such a nightmare right now with the economy!

If it worked, Obamacare would be radically popular, unemployment would be below 5% because Keynesian economics worked, and Nancy Pelosi would enjoy record-setting approval ratings.

The Democrats have taken pages out of the feminist playbook and pushed for bigger government intervention and spending programs that the left has lobbied for decades to achieve.

The results? Utter and complete failure.

What welfare programs have worked? What subsidies have helped women? There are solid cases against Title IX. Health care is viewed highly unfavorably by 45% of America ( http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8093.cfm )

PPP, a Democratic pollster, found that Bush is now more popular in Ohio than Obama (50-42%). Ohio is always a battleground state and a good measurement for the tone in America.

The Tea Party movement, which accounts for approximately 20-30% of Americans (incidentally the same % of women who considered themselves feminists in 2005) started because Americans are fed up with government intervention.

The feminist movement is in trouble because American women and men don't want your agenda!
We're increasingly pro-life (see the Gallop polling), and want balanced budgets. Americans have overwhelmingly rejected health care, the holy grail of feminists policies.

If America (and American women, the most likely voters out there) wanted your brand of feminism, the country would be enamored by our Messiah president. As it stands now, Obama is making Jimmy Carter look popular, and the GOP has the largest lead going into a mid-term election since pollsters started tracking.

In short, by picking up the feminist platform, Democrats royally screwed up. Remember James Carville's declaration that Dems would have a 40 year rule? How about that now.

Feminists should be thankful that Sarah Palin is rejuvenating the brand. If left to your own devices, you'd go to the wayside of failed political movements and absolute rejection by American voters.

I do not hate you or anyone else. I just disagree with many of your opinions. That is why I cherish democracy. I have opinions, as do you.

And the memory of "old school" feminism, back in the days before your birth, did have me laughing. There were women who almost ran from the world "feminist" -- now people are fighting for the right to use it. I laughed out of irony, not hate.

And I also really would be sad to see the term co-opted to a narrow definition, as so many others have been. I found the comments below by "philacluw" quite helpful.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Actually, you raised the abortion issue 4 times before I even mentioned it. You are right that neither side will adopt the other's position, so even inviting me to debate it (as you did) seemed fruitless to me. My point is, that given the fact that both perspectives are absolute -- either a woman may choose or a woman may not choose -- what is the best solution? You have said that you do not wish to be forced -- well, neither do I. I do not wish to debate abortion, as I have said -- I wish to address how to best proceed when we disagree so profoundly when real legal issues need to be addressed. And -- when NEITHER side holds a monopoly on women's views.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

But not hateful. Interesting debate here. I won't rehash all these arguments, but want to respond to the last couple posts.

Feminism has long been associated with a political agenda consisting of the major elements that self-proclaimed feminist activists, going back to the 1970s, knew were necessary to achieve equality in the workplace and society. These were/are pay equity, reproductive rights (not just abortion rights but contraceptive equity in insurance plans, access to safe birth control and gynecological services, etc.), child care supports, elimination of glass ceiling barriers, gender parity in health/disease research, domestic violence services and prosecution of perpetrators, to name a few.

We've made progress over the past 40 years on these issues, but we've suffered setbacks as well, and we still have a long way to go before we achieve equality. The gains we've won have often been through legislation or the courts. The idea that the market is a fair and neutral arbiter and will cure all discrimination ills has not panned out for women's equality. And so understandably, those who sought to advance this agenda supported politicians who were willing to fight for it as well.

Generally, Democrats have been more supportive of this agenda, though there have always been exceptions. And the major women's groups have given support to those Republicans who support these ideas. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of those moderate voices in the Republican Party. Yes, Olympia Snowe is one of them, as is Susan Collins. That's about it for the Senate, especially now that Arlen Specter will be gone.

My 84 year old Mom always considered herself a feminist and for decades voted Republican. But there are few current standard bearers of the Party she would consider casting a ballot for now, and none beyond the local level, though she retains her R party affiliation. She looks in bewilderment at the Tea Party crowd, and the radical right turn the Party has taken, and she's glad her conservative banker father isn't alive to see it.

I too find it interesting that Sarah Palin now considers herself a feminist, but I have no idea what she means by the term.

For a long time, women who claimed to be feminists were jeered as men-haters, anti-family, whores, unattractive, and either incapable of snaring a man or lesbian. These were crass ways to marginalize us as a wacky minority, dismiss our issues and aspirations, and make us seem unworthy of being taken seriously.

As a consequence, a whole generation of young women didn't want to be termed feminist. No wonder! What we stood for was lost behind the packaging we were put in. Though many of those packages were designed by the right wing, we were well aware that plenty of Democratic men viewed us this way too.

If that's turning around and feminism is now viewed as standing for something substantive, great. But if feminism is being co-opted by those who don't believe we still need governmental and judicial intervention to eliminate discrimination, and an active base to demand that intervention,then it's time to take back our name and our movement.

How refreshing to hear "feminists" acknowledge that their agenda is not to get women elected but rather Democrats elected. Those of us on the right have known this for years. Those who claim to champion women's rights sold out to big government.

Sarah Palin may not speak for all women and neither does Emily's List. I don't a give darn about gender when voting. I care whether or not a candidate shares my values.

Thanks for a great dialogue!

Dear Adrienne,

I referred to the ERA because you brought it up. My only point was that at that time, it was possible to support the ERA and still be considered moderate to conservative politically.

Similarly, I only made reference to things that happened to me because you wrote about having been attacked for your beliefs and asked Mata whether she had experienced anything like that. My statement that I wouldn't wish that on anyone was a statement of empathy, my friend. I am not sure where the miscommunications was.

I did not say that men are not nurturers. I said that one of the goals of feminism - specifically, second-wave feminism - was to free men to be nurturers. If the idea of nurturing men seems natural to you, Gloria Steinem is glad.

As for the rest, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

One last thing - the folks at Blogher actually encourage us to express our political views and they try to bring a range of political perspectives to the table. The recent Carly Fiorina interview is one of many examples where conservative women have been given the floor. I happen to be more interested in how politcal debate is framed than in advocating for my particular political beliefs. The folks who run this joint are open like that.

Peace.

Kim Pearson
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

Wow. That's not hateful or partisan or anything.

Glad to see editors at Blogher rise above partisan bickering.

Good job, ladies. Way to build up the team!

Good point, Mata. This is part of a pattern.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

I am laughing here -- you are SO right - "back in the day" some women couldn't tell you fast enough "It's not like I am a .......feminist....or anything.."

And the right does seem to be good at grabbing a term and trying to lay claim to sole or best ownership -- terms like "patriot", "Christian", "true American". I would be very sad to see "feminist" also come under that turf grab.

Mata

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

When I wrote this post, I was thinking primarily about a debate going on among feminists: how much should we focus on electing women in order to get that critical mass of females in power IF the unintended consequence of our message is the election of women like Palin, Bachman, Angle etc.

As Kim said:

So, I suppose for the feminist voter and activist, it's a matter of deciding which candidates and policies reflect your values. Sometimes the most feminist candidate (in the second sense) is a man.

The comments have moved in another very interesting direction: who can legitimately claim to be a feminist?

Palin’s appropriation of the term tends to make many of us older feminists crazy, but I like to think of it as a victory of sorts.

Not so long ago many women were running away from the term—-now women on the right are trying to claim it.

Karen Bojar

http://www.the-next-stage.com/

Mata,

Why do all debates about conservative and liberal women have to be hashed out over abortion. Can't we discuss something else? Health care, daycare, work, tax cuts, the valuation of SAHM work? The options are endless.

Those issues are far more reflective of what actually matters to women. I'm more than my uterus. As pro-life as I am, fiscal issues are far more important to this country currently. Will the abortion debate even matter if we can't afford the massive government spending going on?

As a Millenial, fiscal issues are far more important to me. As I've written earlier, why aren't personal finances, investments, retirement, and work options discussed? Even defense and security are far more pertinent to most women than abortion.

Let's focus on these issues rather than abortion. Nothing new can be discussed there and it only keeps old wounds open.

It seems to me that no matter what our political stances, we should all be able to agree on a couple of things. Rape threats on twitter: bad. Electing people solely based on gender: bad.

I work on electing women candidates because right now there's not a level playing field.

We should be able to live in a world where Barbara Boxer's hairstyle is never news. Where when two women experts argue on TV it's never billed as a catfight. And where Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are vehemently criticized for their voting records, their policy positions and their promises, but never for their ambition, voice modulation, child-rearing choices or fashion sense.

Kim,

I'm only 28, so I was a baby during the tail end of the ERA debate.

Just because you're a Republican doesn't make you a conservative. Having the R after your name means nothing. Conservatives did not gain control of the Republican party until roughly 1980, so having a R sign onto the ERA means nothing. In fact, the fight against the ERA helped mobilize the social conservatives enough to take over the party.

I used that example because it was the only test of feminism and electoral politics until 2008. There are liberal Republicans (i.e. Olympia Snowe,) still in existence.

Debates on the "patriarchy" are nothing more than applying Marxist arguments to gender roles. Men care just as much about education and health care as women.

The "patriarchy" excuse is just a lie to hide Big Government programs such as health care and nationalized day care. If limited government and freedom are patriarchal, sign me up! At no point have free market approaches been evaluated by feminists. What would happen if stay-at-home moms were given credits for child care? Fewer women would have to work. Phyllis Schafly has been advocating tax reform for SAHMS since the 70s. What if restrictions were taken off of health care and the free market was allowed to dictate policies?

Men and conservatives care about these policies, they just have different approaches.

When I worked in fundraising for a nonprofit working explicitly with girls, we focused on female business owners. The theory was that they wanted to support future generations of girls.

We were completely wrong. The best and most dedicated donors were men. Why? Because they had daughters and sisters and wanted to help younger women succeed. They didn't want them to go through some of the same challenges they witnessed with their mothers and co-workers.

The idea that men aren't nurturers is ridiculous. By your definition, Sarah and Todd Palin are far more progressive than Barack and Michelle Obama and Hillary and Bill Clinton. In the case of the latter marriages, both wives quit their jobs to take care of children and be the official hostess. In the case of the Palins, they shared the responsibilities equally and took turns. Which marriage reflects "feminist" values more?

I typically prefer to follow traditional gender roles and was raised in an extremely conservative family. However, my dad did most of the ironing and a lot of the laundry. He did and continues to do the dishes almost every night of the week. In my family, whoever was capable of doing the work, did it. My mom was more talented at cooking and sewing and my dad at fixing cars, so they stayed in the traditional realms, but they also swapped duties when needed.

In my experience, conservatives homes follow these paths far more often than what feminists cause you to believe. Why perpetuate the stereotypes?

You should also not assume that just because I'm younger and conservative, I haven't been attacked for my beliefs. Just this weekend, I was yelled at for simply volunteering at the Beck Rally. I've also been threatened for my beliefs both in real life and the web. There's hate on both sides. I was featured in the documentary, Indoctrinate U, because a Sikh friend of mine faced death threats for being a conservative. We all have political battle scars. No one is more special or more of a victim.

I would love to see more feminists agree that the movement should present a variety of voices and experiences. However, you need to share that message with your own members, starting with the most prominent ones (Katha Pollitt, Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, Hana Rosin, Gloria Steinhem).

Every day, I read countless articles attacking conservative women such as myself and politicians just because we're pro-life or pro-family. I could flood you with exmaples if you wish.

Until the movement accepts us and is open to political and intellectual diversity, nothing will change.

Sarah Palin does say some inaccurate things. Believe me, I wish she didn't. However, so does Barack Obama (Summer of Recovery anyone?) and Joe Biden. You could write a book about his inaccuracies, plagiarism and gaffes. Which is worse? A right-wing pundit or the Vice President of the U.S.?

It's interesting that you bring up the ERA. One of its biggest advocates was a congresswoman i used to cover, BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|KimPearson.net ( http://kimpearson.net )|

I think it's important to remember that people of all parties exist...and have equal rights...and that there are pieces of every party in each of us.

None of us are going to get very far if we continue to allow and join in the bashing of yet another female...because...she stood up for her beliefs.

One Friday night, I loaded up my life and headed out... ( http://isledance.blogspot.com )

Sadly, pollsters haven't focused solely on women. The few polls I have seen are partisan groups trying to push an agenda.

In 2005 (the last poll I could find), CBS found that only 24% of women considered themselves feminists. That was prior to this latest debate when this issue was hardly in the news. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/...

So the right isn't civil, yet when prominent writers use words such as "c--t," as I previously wrote, and hope that right-of-center women get raped, it's ok? Somehow sarcasm seems to be the lesser attack here.

To claim that feminism should have a prevailing mindset or ethos, such as the right or left, makes it a separate political movement. History has shown that women have NEVER agreed on one political party. From the time of Alice Paul on, no one has ever united all women. However, this is a straw (wo)man that feminists seem determined to pursue. Why? If it hasn't happened before, why would it happen now when our country is more divided than ever before?

Women never will vote for the sake of being a woman. I'm all about supporting conservative female candidates, but when I enter the voting booth, I'll choose the strongest conservative on the ballot, male or female.

For many, many years, feminists assumed if they could get big enough plurality, women's issues would coast by. One small problem, not all women agree with "what benefits women."

In the 1970s, the radical women's movement sold out to the Democrats. Susan Brownmiller's memoirs document the the dissension that Gloria Steinhem's leadership caused by aligning with the DNC. The movement never left that cozy relationship. After the failure of the ERA, scholars and leaders briefly analyzed their mistakes and then established a pattern of demonizing conservative women for the next 30 years.

Why does one side of the political aisle get to decide what is "right for women?" For example, your pro-abortion stance is a direct violation of my religious views. If you get to decide what women should believe, your values come between me and my moral values. No one party and political philosophy should be allowed to speak for all women.

Feminists have a terrible track record of treating conservative women badly. From the early 80s on forward (read Ronnee Schreiber's book Righting Feminism for background). Why shouldn't Palin try to bring balance to the field and still point out the hypocrisy of the movement?

As I stated earlier, either feminism needs to publicly decide to ONLY speak for liberal women, or it needs to not be so monolithic. Women in this country reflect beliefs all across the political spectrum. Why should we not respect that? Why should one party dominate and mock the other simply for holding different values?

Women are more than abortion. Women deserved to have a debate about what health care reform meant for them. Women deserve to have debates about how the stock market affects their lives since women live longer than men and need retirement benefits for a greater period. Women need to discuss how changing technologies alter the job market and change the very definition of work.

Most conservative female leaders have achieved a successful balance of motherhood and career, yet they aren't applauded. Michele Bachmann was a successful tax attorney who also fostered 23 kids in Minnesota. How many feminist icons have done that?

We're ready for the debate. The Susan B. Anthony List held a panel discussion on this very topic.
http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=71764

The liberal feminists are the ones deciding what the "ethos" of feminism is? We're ready to hold discussions. Where's your side?

http://jessicavalenti.com/?p=569

Sadly, for the last two years, your side has been telling us to shut up. If Ms. Valenti's piece isn't enough, just look up anything on Jezebel, Feministing or anything by Amanda Marcotte.

In order for the "mutual snarking" to end, liberal feminists need to acknowledge that you don't hold a monopoly on women's issues. You need to respect our right to hold differing views. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, and nor do most conservative women. We just want options and our values reflected out there along with the liberals.

Adrienne, Much of the research that you provide offers statistics from groups composed of both men and women, so that is not particularly useful. Or it points to guesstimates from within the 88% white Tea Party movement, which is equally disenchanted with the right and the left, so that is also less than helpful. That there are a lot of women in the Tea Party does not surprise me. But we were not discussing that, were we?

On the one hand, the right wants to lay claim to the term "feminist" for Palin, but they also applaud her when he says, as she did recently:""Who hijacked term:"feminist"?A cackle of rads who want 2 crucify other women w/whom they disagree on a singular issue; it's ironic (& passé)".

A cackle of rads? I could look that up in a list of civil expressions all day and not find it.

I believe that what you may be trying to say, if I understand, is that feminism should not limit the range of a woman's beliefs -- but why should feminism not have a general spirit that one can apply to it? After all, the words "conservative" and "liberal" each certainly have their own ethos.

Re rape threats on twitter -- nope, I haven't. No one should. But I have had threats of harm in the earlier days of feminism that included rape. And I have been called (at loud volume) a filthy baby-killer because I support choice. But that is not a credential or a proof text for anything but the savagery of the political climate.

How do we begin, as two women of different mindsets, to establish civil discourse instead of mutual snarking?

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Mata,

Have you seen the generic ballot? (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedente... ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/142718/GOP-Unprecedente... )) (RCP averages: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35094.ht...

Have you seen the polling on abortion? (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-p... ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-p... ))

Had feminism ever represented the masses of women in this country, the ERA would have passed in the early 80s. Despite extending it twice, it still failed.

Oh, and you may want to check this out about women and misogyny. (http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/11/03... ( http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/11/03... )) Somehow, I don't think it was Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin calling other prominent women c--ts. The attacks against conservative women have been so bad, there's a top ten list compiled by the Media Research Center. (http://www.cultureandmedia.com/articles/2010/20100...

Plus, there's the large presence of women in the Tea Party movement.(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35094.ht...

Next time you accuse a conservative of using "unsubstantiated" claims, try googling what it's like to be a conservative female blogger. Have you ever gotten rape threats on Twitter because you were pro-life? I have.

No one using tired old salvos but the feminists.

I'd be interested in seeing where you got the validating statistics for the following assertions:
"Feminism does not and never has spoken for a majority of women in this country. Current polling shows that women align more closely with conservatives." Majority? Statistics please. Polling by whom? What were the questions?

Your comment --which is Right Wing Boilerplate by now --"The worst cases of misogyny for conservative women has been at the hands of liberal feminist writers!" is of course, just another standard and unsubstantiated piece of spin-sparkle -- For example, if someone does not like Palin's absurd remarks, are they then misogynist?? I think they are just people with good judgment. America is a big and wonderful place -- there is plenty of room for disagreement. But let's use facts instead of the same tired old salvos.

And in response to your question:
" Doesn't that mean that Sarah Palin speaks for more women?" NO, it does not mean that.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Why is feminism monolithic? Why should women only run and support progressive issues? Why does having a uterus only mean I can vote for Democrats? Isn't that limiting women and exclaiming that we're too stupid to independently arrive at our own political viewpoints? Shouldn't true feminism support my right to run as a conservative or only support conservative candidates -- male or female -- because they reflect the views that I hold as a free-thinking and educated adult woman?

Feminism does not and never has spoken for a majority of women in this country. Current polling shows that women align more closely with conservatives. Doesn't that mean that Sarah Palin speaks for more women?

When will feminists wake up and realize that gender is not enough to encourage a voting bloc. Furthermore, your own kind has proven that "kinder, gentler" politics won't happen when women are in charge. The worst cases of misogyny for conservative women has been at the hands of liberal feminist writers!

When a woman is elected to the White House, it won't be because of her gender. It will be because her values and beliefs reflect the majority of the country. Had feminist outlooks reflected what most women believe, Geraldine Ferarro would have been Vice President a long time ago.

Wow -- I really loved this post. I have been feeling squeamish about the constant message of electing women, even though I want women in office. By which I mean, I want the best people in office. And frankly, there are a lot of women who are running in this upcoming state election who I wouldn't want in office. And as much as I hear that message, I am one of those people who SHOULDN'T run for office. It would be a terrible fit for me. So, yes, I'm glad to read this and see that others are considering the message too.

Melissa writes Stirrup Queens ( http://stirrup-queens.com ) and Lost and Found ( http://lostandfoundandconnectionsabound.blogspot.c... ). Her book is Navigating the Land of If ( http://thelandofif.blogspot.com/ ).

To disagree is not always to bash. And you are right, Ms Palin does bash a great deal -- but we do not have to join her. I am having a sign made for my front law that says "America 1st -- Political Parties 2nd"

I believe it is important to stick to actual facts. Well stated, Kim!!

Re the quote above "Why does one side of the political aisle get to decide what is "right for women?" For example, your pro-abortion stance is a direct violation of my religious views. If you get to decide what women should believe, your values come between me and my moral values. No one party and political philosophy should be allowed to speak for all women.

So, to take your words seriously -- what do we do? Impose your views on all who believe differently? I am not pro-abortion. I am pro choice. I would not have an abortion myself, but I do not feel (nor did the Supreme Court) that the government has the right to legislate that decision for others. That is why I am pro-CHOICE. There is a difference. So given the fact that we disagree, what is the best American solution to issues such as this where we disagree? Let's try to keep the focus on the solution, not on trying to tug-of-war the issue of abortion.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )