Gloria Steinem: "Palin: wrong woman, wrong message"

[PunkinPi]

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
LA Times

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

More here: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story?track=rss

[livetohike]

1. Great article

Thanks for posting it :hi:.

[PunkinPi]

2. I thought so too

and your welcome! :hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Great editorial!

I really enjoyed reading her remarks today!

And there were two other editorials on that same page in today's LA Times...

All three were articulate, well-thought-out, and pro-Obama/Biden!

:woohoo: :woohoo:

[knixphan]

4. K&R

[aikoaiko]

5. Well done Gloria.

[mzmolly]

6. Great article. K and R this please!

"Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger."

[genna]

7. One quibble with author: Shirley Chisholsm is like the first astronaut on the moon

Shirley Chisholm compared to Hillary Clinton?


She is up there with Sojourner Truth as one of my she-roes. Sojourner Truth asked people whether or not she was a human being after 13 children into slavery, many of whom she never regained custody of.


Shirley Chisholm broke all kinds of barriers when it was not safe to do so. First in Congress and first in running for President while it was still dangerous and life threatening.


HRC did break a lot of barriers and showed exactly what she was about in this primary. No woman has gotten as close to running for a major party Presidential nomination prior to her, but I don't think her physical life was on the line like Sojourner Truth or Shirley Chisholm.

I will concede her professional reputation has hung in the balance, but she had no fear of her life.