I know we are all currently focused on the financial meltdown, but I read a brilliant analysis of Sarah Palin's fake-feminist credentials by Caille Millner who is an occasional editorial columnist in the SF Chronicle. This piece was paired with some drivel written by Phyllis Schafley, praising Palin and decrying "negative feminism". Needless to say, I won't link to Schafley.
Ms. Millner concisely said what I have been screaming at my TV and computer screen since the Repub convention.
Check this out:
...consider how the McCain campaign has been shielding her from public scrutiny. Their reasoning is that until the press treats her with "deference," she will not be questioned. But "deference" is a quality that people should reserve for royalty, not democratically elected leaders; a quality that the media should reserve for the public, not the public's servants.
Spot on. Exactly what I said the first time I heard that "deference" bullshit. And why has no MSM reporter challenged that, by the way?
Here's another snippet:
If Sarah Palin is a vice presidential candidate, she should have the mettle to handle a news conference. If Sarah Palin is the governor of a state, then she should be strong enough to handle an unscripted event. If Sarah Palin is a "feminist" woman, she should be able to speak for herself. This concept of her as some kind of delicate flower to be shielded from the bogeymen of the press is insulting to women and to the American people in general.
It should be insulting to her, too, but we do not hear of her complaining. We do not hear of her attempting to rebel against the McCain camp, to clarify her own positions, to set forth her own ideas, to hold her own press conferences. Instead, she defers to the stronger men who have plucked her from obscurity and fashioned her into one of their own. She smiles, she stays on script, and she stays behind closed doors. How retro.
Please take a moment to read the full column. Props to Ms. Millner.