Sarah Palin Brings Out the Hypocrisy of Jessica Valenti & the Feminist Left

Next post

Sarah Palin Brings Out the Hypocrisy of Jessica Valenti & the Feminist Left

My inaugural post at David Horowitz’ Newsreal:

Sarah Palin is the feminist Left’s favorite target. It seems strange to anyone not entrenched in a radical, extremist feminist agenda. Feminists once fought for equality between the sexes — the right for women to vote, giving women a fair chance to go to college and get a job without fear of discrimination, and the choice to either stay at home with her children or work full-time. Fighting for equality has long since fallen by the wayside though, and the leftist agenda has fully set in. Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin, therefore, cannot be feminists.

Daring to call Sarah Palin a feminist will make radical modern feminists’ heads explode. Currently screeching with rage is Jessica Valenti, angry that someone might think that Sarah Palin is indeed a feminist.

Seriously, y’all – how many times does it have to be said? Sarah Palin is not a feminist. I thought we had covered Palin’s gross appropriation of feminism and feminist rhetoric during the election, but media coverage of Palin’s recent speech for the anti-choice PAC the Susan B. Anthony List has reignited the debate. (Incidentally, the whole thing about Anthony being pro-life has been debunked.)

So, simply declaring oneself a feminist is all that it takes to be a feminist? Methinks not. Under this standard of feminism anyone – a racist, a misogynist, etc – could be a feminist just because they identify as such.

Sarah Palin’s crime against modern feminism is that she is a political conservative who is pro-life. This makes her anti-woman, because all conservatives are apparently anti-woman. Valenti writes:

[W]hile I’m sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn’t be a litmus test for feminism – I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist – there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women’s rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist.

The line about being “personally pro-life” is meant to mislead. You can’t be personally pro-life and still support abortion, and Valenti knows it. This is exactly why Valenti phrases it this way. It comes across as a much more moderate position, yet still argues that all feminists must support abortion. The feminist Left believes it isn’t good enough to just believe in equality between the sexes. You have to toe the “progressive” line, as Amanda Marcotte recently showcased in an interview, saying that real feminists are devoted to a very specific set of issues.

Interestingly, Valenti’s screed against Palin is so extreme that not all of her readers could get behind her. Feministing usually serves as a leftist echo chamber, but several commenters actually disagreed that all feminists need to think a certain way in order to be considered feminists. Valenti had to jump in to defend herself five times before closing commenting on the post.

Perhaps it’s because she isn’t following her own rules of feminism. In her book, Full Frontal Feminism, Valenti had this to say about people defining what feminists should be:

[L]ike many feminist authors before her, Valenti quickly expands feminism to include a wide array of liberal pet causes. If you don’t agree with them, guess what? You’re not really a feminist — you’re an anti-feminist. According to Valenti, feminists demand government-funded preschools and universal childcare, think American culture “breeds a society where rape is expected and practically okayed,” and proudly wear shirts that say “I don’t f*** Republicans.”

Valenti vents that she’s “so f***ing sick and tired of people telling [her] how to be an appropriate feminist.” Maybe so, but Valenti is happy to dish out a feminist litmus test herself.

So it isn’t OK for someone to tell Jessica Valenti what makes an appropriate feminist, but it’s OK for her to tell other people what makes an appropriate feminist? Quite the hypocrite, I see.

Here are some more quotes from Full Frontal Feminism in whichValenti defines what women should and shouldn’t do when it comes to marriage:

You may not like me for saying this…but engagement rings piss me the hell off. It’s a frigging dowry! …the only purpose of an engagement ring is to show that you “belong” to someone, and that your man makes bank.

For the life of me, I will never understand why a woman today would change her last name. It makes no sense whatsoever. You want future kids to have the same last name as you and your hubby? Hyphenate, bitch! Or do something, anything, but change your last name. It’s the ultimate buy-in of sexist bulls***. It epitomizes the idea that you are not your own person.

And here we get to the heart of “progressive” feminism. Today’s feminists like Jessica Valenti are the least “pro-choice” people on the planet … and I don’t mean when it comes to abortion. They want to dictate everything about the lives of American women. If you don’t live exactly the way they want you to live, then you’re “anti-woman” and an “anti-feminist.”

Change your name to your husband’s when you get married? You’re a slave to the patriarchy and an anti-feminist. Personally and politically pro-life? Anti-woman! Believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, and the free market? ANTI-FEMINIST! Believe in closing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws? Don’t believe in universal health care? Think global warming is all a fake? These all make you an anti-feminist, too.

Sad, isn’t it? A movement that once fought for equality for women now doesn’t want women to think for themselves. Someone like Sarah Palin, who quite literally has it all, should be a perfect example of a feminist. She’s got a loving marriage and a wonderful family. She is the breadwinner in her family and is one of the most powerful women in the country. But she doesn’t wallow in patriarchal victimhood; she’s a conservative, she’s pro-life. She doesn’t toe the Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte line, and therefore, she can never be considered a feminist. If you need an example of how hijacked the feminist movement has been by radicals, this is it.

Cross-posted at The Green Room, Stop the ACLU, and Liberty Pundits.

Written by

22 Comments
  • DavidL says:

    The views of the gender feminists are anti human. To be a feminist traditionally meant equity. Today gender feminists are interested in little beyond killing unborn babies. Which is way aside from the MSM, there so few true believers in gender feminism.

    The gender feminist feel threatened by Sarah Palin, and well they should. As I see it, Mrs. Palin is builing what I would call the Clan of the Momma Grizzly. There a lot more women in whom Mrs. Palin message resonates. Mrs. Palin cou;d do for feminism, the old-fashioned variety, that Rush Limbaugh did for conservatism, to wit to give voice to those people who have been here all along.

    My sense, as poor inept forty-seven percenter, that is male, is that Mrs. Palin’s Momma Grizzly message is resonating and growing. The growl could become deafening. Marcotte and Valenti might have learn sign language in order to scream.

  • dirk says:

    Jessica is similar to Sarah Palin, she is married and also having a baby

  • Smithwick says:

    Odd that being a feminist basically boils down to abortions. Seems there are more important issues, or at least other issues.

    But no, that is the litmus test: pro-choice = feminist, pro-life = anti-feminist.

  • You may not like me for saying this…but engagement rings piss me the hell off. It’s a frigging dowry! …the only purpose of an engagement ring is to show that you “belong” to someone, and that your man makes bank.

    Here I was, thinking that engagement rings were a symbol of love, respect, and commitment. It is a man’s way of backing up, with deeds, his desire to make a life with this woman – to not lead her on, to waste her youth, not to father children with her but not wed her. Far from saying “You are my property”, an engagement ring says, “I am hers and willing to give my life, my soul, and my body to this woman”.

    But Valenti is a fool, so that is lost on her.

    [W]hile I’m sympathetic to the idea that abortion shouldn’t be a litmus test for feminism – I believe, for example, that one can be personally pro-life and feminist – there is simply no way that you can advocate for the limitation of other women’s rights and access to health care and call yourself a feminist.

    My pro-life views arise from my feminist leanings. As a woman, I fully believe that I do not need to kill my unborn child in order to be equal to a man and am disgusted by women who think that “health care” encompasses murder (well, for women; not for men). Abortion is rooted in the idea that our potential for pregnancy makes us inherently inferiour to men, who cannot get pregnant; therefore, according to the anti-lifers, the only way to rectify the inequality is to allow women to make their bodies’ like men’s bodies. Never in their brains would it occur to them that deamonising pregnancy is the most anti-feminist move of all.

  • mj says:

    Ms. Valenti mixes both the folksy (“Seriously, y’all”) and Shakespearian (“Methinks”) affectations this time.

  • Jessica Valenti is married.

    Usually, I read her rancid drivel and think to myself…okay, open mind, the dude might very well be a rough-and-tumble, know how to drive a stick shift, have hair on his chest, cut his own firewood with a gas powered chainsaw.

    And then she rights more sick shit like this. Now I can make some educated inferences. H’s sck, gldd, frl crtr, prbbl cn’t vn wrt hs wn frst ntl n th snw. Lives a life I wouldn’t wish on my very worst enemy, and yet I can’t muster up any pity. You just can’t feel sympathy for people who don’t stand up for themselves.

    “Hyphenate, Bitch!” That’d be a fantastic bumper sticker.

  • rights==writes.

    Phew, this is some good wine. And my womyn went and bought it for me. 😀

  • Mat says:

    Morgan,

    ctll, th Jssc’s “hsbnd” lks lk lttl lftst mngn. Sh hd pctrs p f hm whn sh wrt bt hr mrrg thng whl bck. ctll lghd t ld. Hll, sh lkd mr lk mn thn h dd.

  • Mat,

    You can tell I’m not surprised. Statements like “How many times does it have to be said?” and “I thought we had covered Palin’s gross appropriation of feminism” just fill me with bad memories of difficult and unworthy ex-girlfriends skilled in the We’ve-Discussed-This control freak game.

    And the engagement ring thing…has anybody managed to pin down some of these unpleasant creatures about his engagement ring? Are they even pretending to be consistent there? Or does Jessica not even realize they’re typically purchased in pairs, there isn’t (usually) a many-to-one relationship, it can’t be like a male dog taking a leak on a tree. I suppose there’s an exception to everything but as far as I know, engagement rings have been done this way for a very long time, she must understand her view of things doesn’t hold up.

    Is she plain stupid, is she smart but blinded by her own hateful passions, or is she just trying to fool as many people as she can?

  • Oh dear, Wikipedia disagrees with me. Another mea culpa and I can’t blame this one on the wine. Learn something new every day I guess.

    My engagement was twenty years ago; I had a ring. Looking back, and in view of the statement that this is not the usual practice, this might have had something to do with the fact that my betrothed was a ball-busting bitch…not that the same is true of all women who purchase engagement rings for their intendeds. But certainly, the option was open to Ms. Valenti. Something tells me she wouldn’t mind being a BBB. Just picking up the vibe.

    Just get him a ring to go with the one he’s giving you. Not all problems in life have to be solved by getting a good frothy hate brewin’. Mama and Papa Valenti apparently neglected to teach her there are lots of alternatives to this.

  • Montzilla says:

    “Jssc’s “hsbnd” lks lk lttl lftst mngn.”

    Tht’s fnny, y nld t t: http://www.andrewgolis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/picture.jpg

    • Cas says:

      I have had to disemvowel three comments on this post. I do not like it when people make baseless attacks on me about my looks. You guys usually jump in to defend me, which is great. But if you don’t think it’s appropriate for people to attack me for the way I look, why is it OK to attack a liberal for the way they look? Let’s keep things on topic and stick to the post at hand. No personal attacks, please, or your commenting privileges will be revoked.

  • Thank you for that, Cassy.

    Also, there’s many, many bad things that can be said about Ms. Valenti, her moral system, and her thoughts; there’s no reason to resort to attacking her looks.

  • I disagree, but it’s your space. And it’s a decision you’re making out of personal decency, you deserve credit for that.

    Ms. Valenti is actually pretty easy on the eyes when she’s smiling. Her thoughts about marriage are downright ugly:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/24/feminist-wedding-jessica-valenti

    From time to time I grouse about people who own dogs, who don’t see the dogs as pets to be maintained, but more like fashion accessories. This is how Valenti & husband see marriage, I think, based on what I’ve read there. Just a communication pipeline by which they can make some kind of statement. Not healthy, not even close. I feel really badly for all the parents involved.

  • Smithwick says:

    Morgan: from her article “But we will head into the wedding, and the marriage, as equals.”

    I don’t know if it’s funny or sad that she thinks this is some new idea she’s hit upon, or a uniquely feminist one. I think in most marriages and pretty much all the successful ones each person views the other with respect and equality.

    Maybe they really believe in the mythical patriarchy that they have invented (that apparently controls every aspect of every other womans life).

  • Badger Nation says:

    I have to disagree with Roxanne on this point:

    “Here I was, thinking that engagement rings were a symbol of love, respect, and commitment. It is a man’s way of backing up, with deeds, his desire to make a life with this woman – to not lead her on, to waste her youth, not to father children with her but not wed her. Far from saying “You are my property”, an engagement ring says, “I am hers and willing to give my life, my soul, and my body to this woman”. ‘

    Symbolic engagement rings are cool and everything, but the contemporary American engagement ritual is steeped in consumerism and female entitlement. The idea that a man has to make a financial investment (seriously – three months’ salary?) to even be allowed to ask for marriage subjugates the man to the woman before the marriage even begins.

    I know women want to say things like Roxanne, that it’s backing up a “commitment.” My answer is, if you have examined family law in America, you understand how incredibly dangerous it can be for a man, so simply getting involved in marriage is evidence of serious commitment.

    But I think I know what’s really going on – women want a symbol, a down payment, that he will continue to pay for her material desires.

    Spouses are supposed to support and provide for one another – but not to keep the other in a certain “lifestyle,” a lifestyle whose parameters are set by a man’s financial obligations before he is even married. If generosity and gratitude are the operative mores, things can work out OK. When it is expected and entitled, it is a poison.

    To dispense with the simplest rebuttal, blowing a load of cash on a bauble does not show good financial planning ability – it merely shows the ability to spend money, that can be better spent on other things.

    I have considered another rebuttal, that it is traditional for the bride’s family to pay for the wedding, and rejected it – because guys are not really that concerned with the terms of the wedding. The modern American wedding is typically an orgy of the bride’s wedding fantasies; men are just not that concerned (although you can be darn sure I’m going to be having a top-choice ribeye and the best red wine at my wedding dinner).

    Now, if your response is, “I’m not like that! I don’t have material demands!” That’s good. Thank you! But realize that there are enough glittery, SATC-fied young women that we guys have to worry about it and screen for it.

    Valenti is deluded about rings meaning “I own this woman,” except in a certain sense – in the circles I run in, women are ecstatic to show off their engagement rings as a symbol of how high-quality a man they’ve been able to snag. So in a sense, they are celebrating that they are “kept.”

    Valenti can’t understand this, and makes it a male-centric misogyny issue, because she is incapable of understanding a real partnership with a man that doesn’t involve ball-busting.

  • Badger: if you are looking for me to trash women, you’ve come to the wrong place.

    If you are looking for me to coddle you because women have hurt you or tried to use you, you’ve come crying to the wrong woman.

    If you don’t want to get a woman an engagement ring, go right ahead, but don’t cry when you can’t find a quality woman who accepts that proposition, or if that woman rightly reads your commitment-phobia and lack of trust in her and acts accordingly.

    If you want a woman who isn’t looking for a meal ticket, find one with her own earning power and sign a pre-nup – and be well-aware that she might out-earn you and might be the one to stand to lose from this deal.

    If none of that appeals, grow a set. Seriously, there is little more pathetic out there than men whining about how those women are so strong and evil.

    By the way, I took family law – in law school, in order to get my JD. I am the WRONG person to snit to about that, m’kay?

  • Badger Nation says:

    Roxeanne,

    “Badger: if you are looking for me to trash women, you’ve come to the wrong place.”

    Your words make me weep from every pore. I’m not trashing women nor asking you to – I just oppose the kind of women who want to show off their baubles and demand conspicuous consumption. You must admit that they exist in today’s society.

    “If you don’t want to get a woman an engagement ring, go right ahead, but don’t cry when you can’t find a quality woman who accepts that proposition”

    I never said anything about not getting an engagement ring; I agree with you that it’s symbolic of commitment. I just don’t agree with the demand that a man blow a huge load of money on one. If you truly love the man, shouldn’t any symbolic bauble he gives you (along with the proposal of marriage itself) hold the same priceless value?

    Silly me, I thought engagement was about love and romance, but now I’m told it has a price tag. We must have different value systems – in my experience, the MORE largesse a woman demands, the LOWER her quality. Surely you know that the source of the “diamond engagement ring” custom is a midcentury ad campaign by DeBeers, which operates a price control cartel that makes plentiful and cheap diamond stocks expensive on the market.

    “or if that woman rightly reads your commitment-phobia and lack of trust in her and acts accordingly.”

    You aren’t making any sense. How is not wanting to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on a cooked-up status symbol, or not wanting to marry a woman whose first act as a wife is to demand a payment in the form of gems, a sign of “commitment-phobia”? Is it OK if a man doesn’t want to “commit” to the role of yoked ox?

    “If none of that appeals, grow a set. Seriously, there is little more pathetic out there than men whining about how those women are so strong and evil.”

    I’m not sure you have any idea what men’s lives are like. We’re taught that women are equal, but that we are supposed to provide for them. We’re told to “grow a pair” but also told to kowtow to emasculating social conventions. Feminism is absurd, but pedestalizing entitlement syndrome is just as crazy.

    “By the way, I took family law – in law school, in order to get my JD. I am the WRONG person to snit to about that, m’kay?”

    Since you are a lawyer, I think you ARE the right person; this stuff needs to be changed and that should be clear to you. If you care about good relations between the sexes (which I gather you do, since you oppose unbalanced people like Valenti) you should be very alarmed at how the family law system can be and is used to wipe out men. The bias in the system drives men away from marriage and destabilizes the American family. (Prenups are no real protection since they can be tossed at will, as you also should know.)

  • For heaven’s sake, Badger, GET A GRIP.

    Are you just trying to pick a fight with me? I wrote something against what Valenti said; you then said that you “disagree” with me (your own word), and then wrote, according to my word count, five hundred and three words to back up the fact that you “disagree” with me.

    I defended myself, and you then decided to write ANOTHER missive, this time directed at some women in general, although perhaps not me, but sort of me, because you parked my name right at the top of it. Then you complain that it’s soooo hard to be a man these days and that “[prenuptial agreements] can be tossed at will”, which is actually factually untrue.

    So, either send me your address so I can mail you a set, STFU, or aim your snark at someone who deserves it. Clear?

  • What should have been the penultimate paragraph: life is not easy for anyone. This is not Heaven on earth; you were never promised a glorious existence, one that you would be enjoying if women would only stop having spinal columns, no more than Valenti could make her life perfect by emasculating men. As a woman engineer, I shed tears for no man about how hard his life is; if I could tell people to screw off when I was 18 and insecure and immature, surely, a grown man can do the same. That you would join her in crying about how oppressive engagement rings are is just pathetic.

  • Badger Nation says:

    Roxeanne,

    Pick a fight? Please. I disagreed with your argument, not your personality; then you claim you have to “defend” yourself. Why not instead defend your argument, instead of trotting out tired old saws like “you must have burned and are afraid of commitment”?

    “if women would only stop having spinal columns”

    All I’ve said is that women should not value themselves by how much money their man spends on them. You may not know this type, but they are everywhere I’ve ever lived.

    If my arguments against expensive engagement rings as a down payment on a lifetime of entitlement are “snark”, you are just playing into a stereotype of women as unable to argue a logical point and instead taking it personally.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead