So Gloria Steinem thinks Sarah is "the wrong woman with the wrong message?" She thinks the only thing she shares in common with Hillary Clinton is a chromosome? (News flash to Steinem: This is a good thing.) And then she calls Sarah nothing more than a younger Phyllis Schlafly? (Again: this is a great thing.)
My husband asked me a few years ago if I had always been interested in conservative politics or if it was a recent development. I've never leaned left and as a matter of fact, my husband jokingly says I'm just to the right of Darth Vader. I suppose it's safe to say that like Sarah, I also have a bit of the pit bull in me, too.
The first book that made an impact on me politically was Phyllis Schlafly's The Power of the Positive Woman, which I found in my high school library. When I read about her accomplishments without any help from the government, I was hooked. It resonated in my own independent heart. One of the toughest things I've ever had to do is ask for help. I'd much rather muddle through on my own than ask anyone for help, but sometimes help is needed. Phyllis Schlafly didn't ask for anyone's help to get her into Washington University's Law School, where she earned her J.D. In addition, Phyllis Schlafly went toe-to-toe with the feminists and helped prevent the ERA from being ratified.
So if Steinem thinks she's minimizing Sarah Palin when she compares her to Phyllis Schlafly, she couldn't be more wrong.
Part of the fun of having my own blog is to print my response to liberal pieces, which all to often decide not to print my comments. Here is a portion of what Gloria Steinem said:
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."
And here is my response:
Unqualified? What executive decisions has Hillary had to make? Zero. She's never been in charge of a shopping cart, let alone a PTA club. She knows nothing about making the hard decisions that are made daily from the Governor's desk.
I am proud of Palin. She is tough. She knows how to gauge competition. She's smart - able to outwit Big Oil, which is one of the Dem's favorite targets. She exudes such a realness that it makes Hillary look like like a Madame Tussauds' wax figure. Next to her, Hillary has all the intrigue of lint.
I'm thrilled with Palin and not for one New York nano-second do I believe she's not capable. She is.
Gloria Steinem and her ilk seem to be unable to tolerate a strong woman who is pro-life. And they are going to try their dead-level best to destroy her for it.