The Four Stages Of Conservative Female Abuse And How The Left’s Hypocrisy Has Impaled Sarah Palin

You gotta love Michelle Malkin. She simply tells it like it is with no sugarcoating and uses facts to back up her assertions. Her latest column deals with the hypocrisy of the leftist movement, which includes the Democrats and their media allies, as they attack Sarah Palin.

This new “Palin Derangement Syndrome” comes in four stages. Here they are:

1. Infantilization:

Right-wing women can’t possibly believe what they say they believe about the sanctity of life, self-defense, free markets or foreign policy. They must be submissive little dolls of the White Male Hierarchy. Or, as a far-left (Is there any other kind of left in San Francisco?) San Francisco Chronicle columnist wrote of first lady Laura Bush, they must be put in their place as “docile doormats” with no brains of their own. True to form, no sooner had John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his veep pick than jeers of “Palin = neocon puppet” sprouted across the Internet.

2. Sexualization:

A conservative woman is not merely a sellout. She is an intellectual prostitute. Unable or unwilling to argue with them on the merits, detractors resort to mocking the physical appearance of their ideological opponents in skirts and denigrating them with vulgar epithets. MSNBC hosts insulted former GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s accomplished wife and mother of two, Jeri Thompson, as working the stripper pole. Newspaper cartoonists Ted Rall, Pat Oliphant and Jeff Danziger have caricatured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, including as a mammy, thick-lipped parrot and a Bush “House nigga” armed with “hair straightener.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd derided former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, a Republican, for applying “her makeup with a trowel.”

3. Demonization:

When the left tires of hurling whore insults, it turns conservative women in the public eye into nefarious creatures. Bill Maher called Laura Bush “Hitler’s dog.” George Carlin attacked Barbara Bush as “the Silver douche bag.” A Huffington Post website member wrote of Nancy Reagan: “Like her evil husband, she has lived far too long. Here’s hoping the hag suffers for several weeks, then croaks in the tub.” Another commenter added: “I feel no pity for the bitch who took delight in watching thousands die of a horrible disease and watching the poor having to eat out of dumpsters because of her husband’s political beliefs.”

4. Dehumanization:

Conservative women aren’t real women according to the liberal feminist establishment’s definition. Remember when Gloria Steinem called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator”? Or when curdled NOW leader Patricia Ireland instructed Democrats to vote only for “authentic” female political candidates? Or when Al Gore’s fashion consultant Naomi Wolf described the foreign-policy analysis of Jeane Kirkpatrick as being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body”?

Funny how Sarah Palin is everything the leftist National Organization for Women says a woman should be, but instead of hailing her as an inspiration, they try to destroy her.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Four Stage Of Conservative Female Abuse
Michelle Malkin
September 3, 2008

And Kathleen Parker asks a direct question about the Hypocrisy of the left on the issue of Sarah Palin as Vice-President:

Were it not for the pain of a teenager who didn’t deserve to be exposed and exploited, the left’s hypocrisy in questioning Palin’s qualifications to be vice president against the backdrop of her family’s choices would be delicious. Instead, it leaves a bad taste.

Would anyone ever ask whether a male candidate was qualified for office because his daughter was pregnant?

Some also have questioned whether Palin, whose son Trig has Down syndrome, can be both a mother and a vice president? These questions aren’t coming from the right — so often accused of wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen — but from the left.

I wonder how a Democrat would answer that question about a male candidate. But I doubt anyone in Old Media has the courage to ask.


Palin is everything liberals have always purported to want for women — freedom to choose, opportunities for both career and family, a shot at the top ranks of American political life. With five children and an impressive resume, Palin should be Miss July in the go-girl calendar.

There’s just one hitch: She doesn’t believe in abortion except to save a mother’s life.

There may yet be reasons to find Palin an unacceptable vice presidential choice, but making pro-life decisions shouldn’t be among them. Her candidacy, meanwhile, has cast a bright light on the limitations of our old ideological templates.

Should Palin and McCain prevail come November, feminism can curtsy and treat herself to a hard-earned vacation. The greatest achievement of feminism won’t be that a woman reached the vice presidency, but that a woman no longer needed feminists to get there.

I think Kathleen Parker hit a certain nail right on the head without intending to do so. We can classify the attacks against Sarah Palin as “knee-jerk” and “reactionary” in their character. Why would that be?

Because Gov. Palin is a woman who “no longer needed feminists to get there.” In other words, her nomination to the GOP Presidential ticket threatens to make NOW and other leftist organizations who claim to be for promoting the power of women insignificant and irrelevent. Hence, the almost frenzied, half-cocked and frantic attempts to attack her for any reason that presents itself, whether rational or not.

But it will be to no avail. The more the Dems attack, the more popular the McCain/Palin ticket will become and even more attention will be drawn away from Barack Obama. Somehow, I have a suspicion that John McCain planned it that way.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Palin The Impaled
Kathleen Parker
September 3, 2008


2 Responses

  1. We all know that Palin isn’t the first successful and pretty woman in the history of the world, right? If you can show me that liberals have a trend in hating successful pretty women, then you’ve got an argument!

    At the end of the day, what I think is happening here is that radical conservatives like you are confusing dissent with jealousy. Oddly, that never happened during Bush’s term.

    Just because one if for equal rights for women, does that mean that we have to AGREE with every single thing that any woman in the world does? Your argument holds ZERO water!

    Just replace Sarah Palin with Barack Obama, and we could all easily call you racists for not supporting HIM. We could use the argument that conservatives believe in the ideals that this nation was founded on in that “all men were created equal”. Yes, two can play at that game. Christianity teaches tolerance. Vote for Obama. See, how that works?

    But I am one liberal who doesn’t use the “sexist card”, the “feminist card” and the “racist card” just because someone happens to have a different opinion and is vetting out another candidate. It is actually only the lunatic fringe on both sides that resort to such baseless accusations.

  2. Sorry, virgomonkey, but it is your arguments that don’t hold water when compared to the facts of reality.

    Disagreeing with policy is one thing. That leads to civil discourse and debate. But I saw very little of that during the campaign.

    Instead, the majority of what I saw coming from the left was directed at Sarah Palin specifically because she was a woman and not because of her stances on the issues. As an example, you can find pictures of liberals wearing tee-shirts that read “Sarah Palin Is a C*nt” all over the Internet. Those tee-shirts have absolutely nothing to do with any policy that Gov. Palin supports. It is directed at her simply because she is a woman. The other name-calling and personal attacks are equally devoid of any substance.

    As for the racist thing, I have been called a racist simply because I oppose the socialist policies of Barack Obama even though I never once invoked anyone’s skin color. There is nothing radical in opposing the economic disasters that socialism brings. It is simply economic common sense to do so. Thus, you’re assertion that we are racists for not supporting Barack Obama is completely devoid of any logic.

    Thank you for taking the time to read my blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: