Why Conservative Women Hate Feminists

9 Responses to “Why Conservative Women Hate Feminists”

1. GoldnI writes
   October 23rd, 2009 2:50 pm

   Why feminists don’t like socially conservative women–because they DO NOT truly believe in individual liberty, at least not for anyone but themselves.

2. Mark Rogers writes
   October 23rd, 2009 11:35 pm

   Goldni,

   I disagree. My thought is that feminists dislike socially conservative women because socially conservative women are more interested in new opportunities while feminists (particularly ’second wave’ Gloria Steinem, Susan Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin-influenced feminists) cannot stop fighting the patriarchy, even when they have to invent it.

3. GoldnI writes
   October 24th, 2009 12:39 am

   “New opportunities”? Like getting to be the Vice Presidential candidate solely because you’re a socially conservative woman? I believe the more PC term for that is “affirmative action,” something I thought conservatives opposed. Socially conservative women want the government out of their own lives but have no problem with it interfering with the lives of others.

   And the patriarchy? So it’s not patriarchal to demonize women you disagree with not for their policies but for their looks as a way to minimize them? It’s not just that they do it to Democratic women, look what they have to say about Meghan McCain, or check out some of the upstate New York blogs for the ugly things they have to say about Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election.

4. Mark Rogers writes
   October 24th, 2009 2:19 am

   Goldni,

   Palin’s attraction had little to do with affirmative action and more to do with being someone that many politically active conservative women could identify with in the way she was demonized by the faux liberal elites.

   Both sides demonize other women for things like their looks and other things. Remember the accusations from the Left that Palin’s daughter was the mother of the last baby.

   Anyway, that is not patriarchal. The attacks on looks and such are just the dark side of human nature. That low grade scumbag Corzine is doing the same thing to his male opponent in New Jersey.

5. Emmy Lou writes
   October 24th, 2009 6:39 am

   It’s fascinating that anti-feminists would now pick up the rallying cry that it’s somehow wrong to effect change through laws; how on earth could that be a successful meme in America?

   “Oh, you mean feminists, always relying on those LAWS to protect your interests!”

   Yeah, that’s what laws DO. They protect interests. Like the interest of not being discriminated against because you’re a woman. Radical and crazy, I know, but sometimes laws really can be useful in this, a society not of men, but of laws.

6. Slartibartfast writes
   October 24th, 2009 9:34 am

   Emmy Lou, I think you’re really close to the truth of the matter.

   As defined when the nation was founded, the federal government exists to protect rights, not interests.

   However,state and local governments, so long as they don’t try to circumvent constitutional rights, can protect whatever the heck they want, including interests.

   If I wanted to live in a society where politics consisted of competing interests fighting over attention from a matriarchal government, I’d move to Europe, where they are at least honest about it, and have beter food.

7. ned writes
   October 24th, 2009 11:37 am

   Well, I don’t think Emmy Lou is tracking with you SBF. I think the point of the linked post is “new/more laws” rather than simply “laws.” It follows the line of reasoning that Socialism results in diminished liberties–a downside of Big Government lost on many Liberals.

8. Eleanor A writes
   October 24th, 2009 1:09 pm

   Hm. To quote MLK, who wrote this as he sat in prison in Birmingham, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed…For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

   Hm. So this fool thinks that rich people, white men, others with inordinate amounts of power are going to hand it over by dint of a few people hand-lettering signs and sitting around singing ‘kumbaya’? Exactly how are folks to “change perceptions” other than by demanding legal protection for rights that should have been theirs to begin with? If there are concrete suggestions, I’m all ears.

   What a load of claptrap. Social conservatives are just as likely to lobby for laws and government protecting their interests as anybody else. More so, to judge from the amount of cash flowing into the pockets of legislators from the likes of National Right to Life, Dobson, the NRA, etc.

   Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Pot, meet kettle.

9. Mark Rogers writes
   October 24th, 2009 1:32 pm

   Eleanor,

   “We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

   Please define ‘Justice.’ Are you simply talking about some form of consistent application of Principle or Law? Or do you mean an aspiration to an Idea that we cannot completely understand but know is vital?

   I alway find it interesting that the same leftists who feel they are the only people who can determine what ‘feminism’ is are so wildly incensed by the idea that others presume to define ‘morality’ and other terms.

   “So this fool thinks that rich people, white men, others with inordinate amounts of power are going to hand it over by dint of a few people hand-lettering signs and sitting around singing ‘kumbaya’? Exactly how are folks to “change perceptions” other than by demanding legal protection for rights that should have been theirs to begin with?”

   According to whom? Again, you speak as if it is within your power to define things that you object to others defining.