|
Greetings,
 Let me see if I have my facts straight:
We now have an independent, hardworking woman nominated as candidate for Vice President of the United States.
She's a sitting governor and an accomplished policymaker who has introduced transparency and accountability to government.
And she also happens to be the mother of five children.
So shouldn't feminists be celebrating? Isn't this a time to cheer about a woman who really "has it all"? A woman who has balanced career and family and has made a rousing success of both?
They should be, but they're not. Instead, they are questioning whether a working mom like Sarah Palin can be a good mother! Liberal pundits like Washington Post journalist and working mother Sally Quinn wrote that Governor Palin's children would be simply too great of a distraction for the job of vice president. What's going on here?
I'll tell you.
Liberals have proven what we at the Independent Women's Forum have been saying all along: their brand of militant, man-hating "feminism" is a sham. It's not about promoting women but about promoting liberalism. Time and again, they have tried to advance their statist, big-government agenda by painting men as oppressors and women as the victims.
Now that their hypocrisy has been exposed, they are fighting back with personal attacks and more misinformation.
This is a critical time for people like you and I who believe in the principles that have made our nation free and prosperous. Less government. Lower taxes. Individual freedom.
Let me now share with you what IWF is doing and how you can help.
In this election season, we need the American public and policymakers focused on substantive issues that matter to women. And the Independent Women's Forum is the best-equipped organization to get this message out. Since 1992, our female scholars have promoted:
- Education reform that puts parents, not the government, in charge of our children's education;
- Health care policies that respect patient needs and open the door to free-market competition; and
- Economic policies that truly help women and families through lower taxes and less regulation.
We are redoubling our efforts to expose liberal distortions and counter feminist attacks by appearing on television shows across the country and by releasing a new, online report: The Female Factor. This regular update from our top experts will highlight the leading policy debates and what IWF is doing to defend free-market principles.
You can help IWF by:
- Reading our updates and sending them to friends and family
- Making a tax-deductible contribution to IWF today. We will put your gift to use right away in getting our message to the American public.
If it's possible for you to give $100 or more, I will send you an autographed copy of my book: Women's Progress: How Women Are Wealthier, Healthier, and More Independent Than Ever Before.
But please don't be put off by my request. A gift of any amount will help us educate Americans on what it really means to be an independent woman.
I hope you will join us by making a contribution online or by mail today.
Thank you for your support.
|
19 Comments
Leslie | September 9, 2008, 5:07pm | #
This is one perspective that you might consider...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jASl6AQTVUw
Anne | September 9, 2008, 10:44pm | #
I've been a big fan of Michelle over the last few months and I am shocked and disappointed to see that she is in fact a talking head for the right masking as a concerned African American woman.
Sad, Michelle you are talented, oh yes that A word, articulate, blah blah. Sorry to see you attack NOW's efforts and not support the issues you had us all fooled into thinking you supported.
You know Palin is not qualified to be VP. You suggesting because she wears a skirt women should rally behind her is as silly as your statements about womens rights. Come out of the board room and march for something. I'm assuming you want to have a choice in your reproductive rights, that is what a Palin win would remove. YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE, NOT JUST OURS. Want your daughter or son not to have a choice, stay RIGHT where you are.
MW | September 9, 2008, 11:04pm | #
Independent women, conservative women, liberal women-why are we attacking each other when we ultimately want the same thing? We want respect--not because we are women--but because we are smart, strong, and we deserve it as much as men.
I am a female and a liberal voter, and I am giving you a shout out when you say that the charge that Palin cannot be both VP and a mother is ridiculous. While I disagree with the credit you give to her record (simply because I, like most Americans, am just learning about it), I agree wholeheartedly when I say that no one can say what good (or bad) Palin would do in office.
I will say, however, that as women of different political leanings, our lines have gotten crossed somewhere.
When you hear liberal women question Palin's ability to fulfill dual roles, the majority, like me, are not asking this sincerely-not at all! They are trying to expose a major crack in conservative ideology (and yes, every kind of thinking, liberal included, has its flaws). The crack is this-It does seem fishy and rather hypocritical that the party that has long celebrated the woman's place in the home and traditional gender roles is suddenly celebrating its embrace of a working mother-now that a candidate needs independent female voters in a close election. Is this about embracing a competent woman, or is it simple strategy to get "chicks to vote for chicks?" If the answer is the former, I'm all in. If the answer is the latter (as the proof suggests), I am offended.
I am a liberal female voter, and I don't hate men by any stretch. I also do not want to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I want to vote for the ticket that I believe has the best approach to the issues that affect us all. Whether women choose to vote McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden, can't we agree that as smart, thinking women, the issues matter more than the media spectacle we're seeing now?
Although I know this response is long and my perspective may not be a welcome one, much love to all my sisters who read this.
Laura | September 9, 2008, 11:48pm | #
You are simple another fake wanna be. You are offending me when you mention Sarah Palin, she is no way a roll mother, she is simple a person who wants to advance her political career by putting her children first, she is using her down sindrome baby to trick parents with similar disabilities to vote for her thinking she is going to help them. She is portraying herself as a "hottie" so as white eyaculating guys will vote for her. Please, who do you think you are fooling with your right wing agenda?
Lisa J. | September 10, 2008, 1:06pm | #
I am absolutely pissed about Obama. I think Mr. Matthews' research has shown a pattern. I will not be voting for Obama come election day.
Why the "Lipstick on a pig" quote is important
By now everyone has heard Obama's "lipstick on a pig" quote. Those who are for McCain and Palin have chimed in that it is obviously a sexist remark made about Palin. Those in the Obama camp point out that he has used the phrase before and that even McCain has used the phrase. So who is right and who is wrong? Let's look a bit deeper.
It is absolutely correct that both Obama and McCain have used this relatively common phrase before. McCain admits he has used the term numerous times. Obama used it to describe Bush having given General Patraeus an impossible mission. I don't think anyone is in disagreement that it is an often used phrase in Washington.
So what is all the hubbub about? In law you can help prove a crime or criminal mindset by showing a propensity to do that crime over and over. If I go out and get drunk on the town, I may or may not be an alcoholic. If I go out and get drunk on the town repeatedly, I probably am an alcoholic. The underlying question then is whether or not Obama is sexist. While some people have said that his "lipstick on a pig" comment is not worthy of much attention, it certainly could not be said that his being sexist is not worthy of attention. So is Obama sexist or not?
Having researched the topic, there is no doubt in my mind that he is. Not wishing to make such a broad statement without proof, I submit to you that Obama has a history of making sexist statements which can only lead me to believe, he is a sexist.
Indeed Geraldine Ferraro, a Democrat that has the honor of being the first female Vice President nominee called Obama sexist. She has since thrown her support behind him, picking party over gender now that Hillary is not an option. But let us look to Hillary herself who continually alleged that Obama and his starstruck media was sexist.
Then you have the numerous little jabs that Obama has taken at women. If you come to the conclusion that Obama is not sexist, then surely you cannot say he is not chauvinistic. While in Allentown Mr. Obama said to a woman at the Tama Manufacturing plant that "you look like you might be a dancer. "You're big time. You are gorgeous." Then while in Scranton Obama tried to convince a Hillary supporter to change allegiance by suggesting "I'll give you a kiss." At an address at Tulane University Obama stated, "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out" when referring to attacks aimed at him by Clinton. Finally, when asked a question by a female autoworker, Obama said "hold on sweetie" avoiding the question so he could go pose for a photo shoot.
While none of these jabs in and of themselves constitute blatant sexism, when viewed in light of the totality of the evidence, they show a pattern. This coupled with the fact that Sarah Palin had already taken personal possession of the lipstick comments with her "lipstick on a pitbull" comment makes Obama's use of the phrase very questionable. In fact, right after making the comment, Obama began to talk about Sarah Palin. This leads to the conclusion that either Barack Obama is a reckless unintelligent person who does not have a good mastery of the English language, which is not the case. Or, he is sexist. You have the information, you decide. One way or the other, the "lipstick on a pig" comment is more important than some are letting on.
Niki | September 10, 2008, 6:01pm | #
Obama is no sexist. Michelle would not allow him to be.
What I HATE is that Palin can walk around and throw jabs at Obama, degrading his work and service, but when ANY inkling of concern is thrown her way, the Republicans shield her with the "it's sexist" fence.
This woman is a pitbull in lipstick, by her own words. She doesn't need Republicans coming to her defense with the "it's sexist" argument. She can handle her own, without every other answer to the Democrats being "it's sexist."
Is that how they plan to win? Just using "it's sexist" every time a legitimate concern comes up? Palin used funds to pay for her family trips: it's sexist. Palin supported the bridge to nowhere: it's sexist. Palin is the governor of Alaska: it's sexist.
"Lipstick on a pig" referred to how McCain tried to dress up his policies as something other than the same Bush policies he's been following. You can put lipstick (i.e. a new name/face) on the policies and they will still be a pig (i.e. Bush's failed policies).
I'm so embarrassed to be a woman now.
Niki | September 10, 2008, 6:03pm | #
And one more thing, the story regarding the boy who cried wolf comes to mind with this election and the Republicans. They are going to wear sexism out so much with Palin that if something sexist really does occur with a woman, people will tend to ignore it. Cause they've heard it all before.
T Lee | September 10, 2008, 8:09pm | #
"Education reform that puts parents, not the government, in charge of our children's education"
What about parents who IGNORE their children's education, focusing only on religious ideology and NOT on science, or health. What about parents who can't afford to take charge of their children's education. Are those children just sh*t out of luck? That appeals to women...
"Health care policies that respect patient needs and open the door to free-market competition"
Are you kidding me??? "free market" is code for let the rich get richer while corporate insurance companies stand in the way of patients and their treatments. Any company that is LEGALLY required to make a profit off denying healthcare to patients is not acting on the behalf of women OR mothers.
"Economic policies that truly help women and families through lower taxes and less regulation."
According to Snopes.com Obama's tax plan will benefit the vast majority of Americans much more than McCain's. McCain's plan focuses only on MORE corporate tax breaks and CONTINUING the Bush tax cuts (look it up Women). How have those worked out for everyone these last 7 years? Big Oil has made record profits, how are most other people doing?
Also, the DEregulation of the banking industry is the SOLE reason for the current housing crises. Even if you are still able to make payments on your home, the value of that home(most people's prime investment) has fallen and continues to fall because of DEREGULATION!!! WAKE UP AMERICAN WOMEN!!!!!!!!! Don't fall for this crap!
Kelly | September 10, 2008, 8:10pm | #
Michelle,
I just saw you on hardball and while I admire that you agreed on the lipstick non-issue, I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to start another non-issue...I have already stated that I would not watch MSNBC and watched for only a few minutes, but you, right here, are a large part of why I will not stand it. I do believe the role of the media should be to get out the facts and then get out of the way. As a professional woman myself, I had much respect for you during the conventions, but this is "ENOUGH" as a woman in an EEOC claim myself right now, it's just what the last post states - thanks for setting us back.
White Soccer Mom | September 10, 2008, 9:07pm | #
I am just a mom. I have voted for candidates from both major political parties in the past, and considered voting for Ross Perot. This shows that I am not given to one point of view.
Unemployment is over 6% and 10% of homeowners are in danger of losing their homes. My grandkids will be paying Bush's bills. The policies of the last 8 years can NOT continue. I am voting for a real change. Not a new face spouting the same old policies, whether male or female. Gender, personalities, and high concepts are unimportant when I have to feed my kids.
I am voting for economic security, healthcare, and education. I am voting for my kids.
jackieoh | September 11, 2008, 3:58am | #
ms. michelle bernard -
i'm disappointed in your characterization of the "liberal feminist" contingent being the ones accusing sarah palin of not being able to "do it all." perhaps you have been derailed by the rt-wing talking point that "they" equals the LIBERAL media. i notice every time "they" is used, is never defined.
so now, "they" are attacking palin along these lines. could you bother to reference this? can anyone? haven't seen it. i respect you - so i expect more from you. make it a concrete affair. quote - and show - that this is coming from the left in any meaningful way, or back away from the accusation. it's only fair.
as a liberal feminist, i can assure you - the only way women like me are talking about this in the frame you stated, is in the total hypocrisy of the right to somehow claim feminist cred with palin after decades of restrictive pushes of women back to those good ole' barefoot, pregnant, subserviant days. other than that - i am hearing a lot more about Alaska rape victims *being charged for their OWN rape kits*, against abortion in cases of rape... you know, things that really matter in terms of what a mccain-palin future could look like.
Glo | September 11, 2008, 6:03am | #
I'm not suprised that a black woman is taking pot shots at white feminists, and the vast majority of the women who worked so hard for women's rights were white. Of course this woman owes these hated white women every opportunity that has come her way. I never understood the racism that black women felt toward the very people who gave them the right to a safe abortion and a decent job.
L.O'Neal | September 11, 2008, 10:46am | #
Michelle,
I have been paying absolute attention to every detail of this political circus and have had about as much as I can stand. Obama has had to endure severe attacks on his character and intentions of change, which I truly believe are heartfelt. He has been roasted without the party. Then you tout this rhetoric as if J. Mc Cain had intentions of change and new innovative concepts for our future all along. When clearly he changed his message in mid-stream because Obama's address during the DNC scared the living crap out of him. He knew that he had to provide SMOKE, MIRRORS and SLIGHT OF HAND in order to win.
I will speak no ill of Sara Palin however, the American people know that she was chosen to fool us into believing that the Republicans want change when we know that holding on to their IN GOD WE TRUST $ bill. As the public and media vet Gov. Palin's (which was J. Mc Cain's responsibility and duty before presenting her to the american people) it is becoming increasingly clear to me she is just one of the GOOD OLE BOYS in a dress!
Go ahead and make a case for her Michelle. Do your best to sell all women out for this magicians trick! I won't be fooled! I will continue to stick with the true issues that are affecting my life like the economy and the future/safety of my children. Alaska is footing the bill for her kids.....
Nina | September 11, 2008, 4:25pm | #
Dear Ms. Bernard,
I am so shocked by your comments. Let's be honest, McCain had many more qualified conservative women to choose from. He chose Palin purely to appease the base of the party (a base he disagrees with) to get elected. Ms. Palin is not qualified for this position and it's an insult to me (and should be to you) that he put himself first and his country second with this pick. I hope women will look at the issues and the motivation behind this pick and vote accordingly.
Nina Sughrue
Bobbi | September 12, 2008, 7:48am | #
Kudos on the article! I've been wondering the same thing about the so-called feminists.
Go Palin!
Marjorie | September 12, 2008, 4:25pm | #
Whenever someone calls classic feminism "man-hating," you know that person is just an ignorant or a disingenuous right-wing shill. I don't see any evidence that Palin is any more man-loving than, say, Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Gloria Steinem, all of whom seem to like men just fine.
Personally, though I think it's great that the women-belong-in-the-home-crowd (like Dobson and Perkins) are eating their words and endorsing Palin. I think Palin WILL be inspiring to girls brought up in right-wing, patriarchal homes, because they will see their own parents endorsing this accomplished professional woman. So that is a great thing.
But that doesn't make Palin some kind of feminist. After all, if she could, she would force you to undergo an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, even if it resulted from a rape, regardless of your opinion in the matter. But somehow in the right-wing imagination, it is the feminists who want to force their will on other women.
Marjorie | September 12, 2008, 4:34pm | #
Despite my strong disagreement with Ms. Bernard's post, I also have to protest Glo's comment. Black women have always been involved in the fight for women's rights from the suffrage movement to the Second Wave to the present. The freedoms we enjoy are benefits fought for by women of all sorts of races, ethnicities, and backgrounds.
I don't think black women need to be especially grateful to white feminists. But I do think all women owe a debt to our feminist foremothers in general.
SteveM | September 16, 2008, 9:21am | #
Wow! Who knew so many SEXIST liberal feminists read Independent Women's Forum.
You're all so disappointed in Michelle exposing facts about liberal feminism and it's anti-male, anti-father, anti-boy agenda?
You're sexists.
You perpetuate attitude that encourages "woman victim, man predator" thinking.
I'm disappointed to see so many sexists reading IWF.
When you think it about it...it makes absolutely no sense.
IWF is cram full of articles outlining left wing LIBERAL agenda, and it's taxpayer-raping policy that's been manipulated into place.
Tell me...how is it you're readers and yet haven't noticed the exposure of liberal agenda?
And of liberal gender-feminist agenda and what it's done to fathers/men/boys? To schools? To family? To men's respect towards women?
As Michelle stated "as we at IWF have BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG".
I'll assume you're lib feminist trolls with an agenda.
Thankfully most IWF supporters are aware of what IWF represents and advocates.
Every word of this article is right on.
The rest of you, doing your best to insult Sarah Palin, KNOWING her children will ultimately read, see, and hear it: Men find women like you repulsive.
It's not as you say, "men just can't handle a real woman" No...men don't like shallow women.
"Men just can't handle a real woman" women = die alone in their house with 80 cats clutching their "I hate men" coffee cup.
Anonymous | December 2, 2008, 5:50pm | #
I want to rape you from behind and snap your neck when I come. Fuck off you stupid feminists you are only good for pieces of meat