Originally posted by Alpha CentauriPersonal religion should not inform objective policy.
-AC
Her personal religion didn't inform any objective policy.
It informed her response to it: "pray that this is a good thing and that we have a plan here." Not, "I'll pray and see if God wants me to invade a country."
As stated in many places, her personal religion didn't change any abortion laws in AL, nor did it change any educational policies regarding evolution or ID.
She believes what she believes, but hasn't used it to enforce/decide policy.
Fail.
Moving on, here's an excellent article about Palin and feminism at RCP:
What Was Feminism?
By Victor Davis Hanson
The media went hysterical over Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and Republican nominee for vice president. She may have appeared to the public as an independent, capable professional woman, but to a particular elite she couldn't possibly be a real feminist or even a serious candidate. And that raises questions about what is -- and what is not -- feminism.
Feminism grew out of the 1960s to address sexual inequality. At an early age, I was mentored on most feminist arguments by my late mother. She graduated from Stanford Law School in the 1940s but then was offered only a single job as a legal secretary. Instead, she went back home to raise three children with my father, a teacher and farmer, and only returned to legal work in her 40s. She was eventually named a California superior court judge and, later, a state appellate court justice.
Hers was a common and compelling feminist argument of the times, and went something like this: Women should receive equal pay for equal work, and not be considered mere appendages of their husbands. Childrearing -- if properly practiced as a joint enterprise -- did not preclude women from pursuing careers. A woman's worth was not to be necessarily judged by having either too many or too few children, given the privacy of such decisions and the co-responsibility of male partners.
In such an ideal gender-blind workplace, women were not to be defined by their husband's or father's success or failure. The beauty of women's liberation was that it was not hierarchical but included the unmarried woman who drove a combine on her own farm, the corporate attorney and the homemaker who chose to home-school her children.
Women in the workplace did not look for special favors. And they surely did not wish to deny innately feminine differences. Instead, they asked only that men should not establish arbitrary rules of the game that favored their male gender.
Soon radical changes in American attitudes about birth control, abortion, dating, marriage and health care became, for some, part and parcel of women's liberation. But in its essence feminism still was about equality of opportunity, and so included women of all political and religious beliefs.
That old definition of feminism is now dead. It has been replaced by a new creed that is far more restrictive -- as the controversy over Sarah Palin attests. Out of the recent media frenzy, four general truths emerged about the new feminism:
First, there is a particular class and professional bent to the practitioners of feminism. Sarah Palin has as many kids as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, she has as much of a prior political record as the once-heralded Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, who was named to the Democratic ticket by Walter Mondale in 1984 -- and arguably has as much as, or more executive experience than, Barack Obama. Somehow all that got lost in the endless sneering stories about her blue-collar conservatism, small Alaskan town, five children, snowmobiling husband and Idaho college degree.
Second, feminism now often equates to a condescending liberalism. Emancipated women who, like Palin, do not believe in abortion or are devout Christians are at best considered unsophisticated dupes. At worse, they are caricatured as conservative interlopers, piggybacking on the hard work of leftwing women whose progressive ideas alone have allowed the Palins of the world the choices that otherwise they would not now enjoy.
Apparently these feminists believe that without the ideas of Gloria Steinem on abortion, a moose-hunting PTA mom would not have made governor. The Democrat's vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said Palin's election, given her politics, would be "a backward step for women."
Third, hypocrisy abounds. Many female critics of Palin, in Washington and New York politics and media, found their careers enhanced through the political influence of their powerful fathers, their advantageous marriages to male power players and the inherited advantages of capital. The irony is that a Palin -- like a Barbara Jordan, Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher -- made her own way without the help of money or influence.
Fourth, most Americans still believe in the old feminism but not this new doctrinaire liberal brand. Consequently, a struggling John McCain suddenly has shot ahead of Obama in the polls. Apparently millions of Americans like Palin's underdog feminist saga and her can-do pluckiness. Many are offended by haughty liberal media elites sneering at someone that, politics aside, they should be praising -- for her substantial achievements, her inspirational personal story and her Obama-like charisma.
This past week we were supposed to learn about a liberated Gov. Sarah Palin. Instead the media taught us more than we ever wanted to know about what they now call feminism.
And a response by a reader that was brilliant in explaining the authtors point:
My mother, a brillant and accomplished woman, wanted nothing more than to be a teacher in highschool. But that was unavailable to her, a woman born in 1908, because she was a) too young; b) a female in what was, in her small town, a male ruled profession and c) because she had an Irish surname, was assumed to be a Catholic. For me, those rules seemed unfair.
When the feminist movement came along, I donned my "A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle" t-shirt proudly. Women deserved to be taken seriously, their worth judged by their abilities, not who the man was that they married. I entered fields that were male dominated (advertising, cable TV construction) because I was just as good at those endeavors as my male counterparts, and many times I was better. I believed in the feminist movement. It was for me.
But it didn't take long to learn that that movement that I had been sold on and bought lock, stock and barrel, was the opposite to what I believed. I was pro-life and that was my choice, but if I was not pro-"choice" I was not in the groove, the only choice with my fellow feminists being abortion. I believed in fidelity to a husband, sex reserved for marriage, and being a mother, guiding the next generation, was the most important thing I could ever do. I quickly learned that I was an outsider, not part of the movement, because I did not agree with everything they were fighting for and every liberal political stand they took.
You see, it was not a movement to allow women to be all they could be and be accepted on an equal level. It was a movement to promote free sex, abortion and the bullying of others by making them seem women "haters". It was a movement that touted Gloria Steinham and not my Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. It was a movement that was based solely on a woman's anatomy, not on her brain. Basically, it was all a lie.
Now we have a woman who is the "real" feminist. She thinks, as she should, that she can have it all; career, children, a marriage that is truely a co-equal partnership. And for that, because she doesn't tow the "feminist" line about abortion, she is hammered by other "feminists". How sad. Now those who believe that woman CAN do it all, have to start all over again.
Gloria Steinham was not a feminist, not really.
Rosie the Riveter was.