Headlining Anti-feminism

Perusing LifeNews can be great when you need a laugh (or a cry). Or in this case, when you need a good reminder of why anti-feminism is so effin’ ridiculous.
The title of Joan Swirsky’s article really says it all: Some Feminists Love Abortion on Demand But Hate Governor Sarah Palin
The whole article is priceless, chock full of old anti-feminist standards like calling feminists hysterical, full of rage, and blaming the divorce rate on the women’s rights movement. But it’s the sub-headers that slayed me.
Swirsky’s history of feminism, in sub-headlines: DOMESTICITY BAD, MISS & MRS. BAD, UNEQUAL PAY BAD, VALUING HUMAN LIFE ESPECIALLY BAD, SHRIKES ON PARADE.
Feminist shrikes (?) have been bad, bad, bad! Reading these articles make my head hurt. Seriously.

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

26 Comments

  1. BROWN TRASH PUNK!
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    lame. So fucking lame.

  2. Danyell
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Is it just me, or did the article itself have very little if nothing to do with Sarah Palin?

  3. Roja
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I was listening to Talk of the Nation on NPR last night, they had an anti-feminist, kathleen parker, on the show, who apparently after publishing 5 op-ed pieces cheerleading for Palin, now has turned against her (because I guess she is really messing up):
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95177403
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE
    Ms. Parker did mention in the beginning that she loves palin because “she has turned the feminist idea of a woman candidate on its head.” This pissed me off so much, when did feminists describe what a “female” candidate should be like?! I never remember reading anything to that effect. They did say what a female candidate that we could support should be like; she should be PRO woman’s rights, and not against it. That seems very simple and I don’t understand why there is so much confusion.
    And on Ms. Parker changing her view on Palin: I guess when you are always looking out for number one you will support someone today and be against them tomorrow. Being controversial gets you more readers I guess.

  4. Chickensh*tEagle
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, feminist shrikes. Like Shakespeare — Taming of the Shrike, wasn’t it? :-)

  5. SarahMC
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    :snarf!:
    That’s just verbal (written) diarhea of the anti-feminist variety. No rhyme or reason required!
    And Parker needs to STFU. Palin sure has turned the feminist idea of a woman candidate on its head! We wanted a capable, intellectually curious, progressive candidate with experience, knowledge and integrity, and with Palin we get the complete opposite! What a maverick!

  6. Misspelled
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Great article, Joan! Really stuck it to those liberal whores. Now, let’s see if we can come up with an accurate headline:
    FEMINISTS PRO-CHOICE, ANTI-PALIN
    No, wait… nah. That sounds waaaaaay too reasonable.
    FEMINISTS PRO-ABORTION, ANTI-PALIN
    Better. We’re certainly approaching a logical absurdity here. But is there a way to make it sound more ridiculous?
    FEMINISTS LOVE ABORTION, HATE PALIN
    Whoa! Look at that. Those crazy bitches. Where do they get their priorities?
    I bet if we really dig our heels in, we can make them even more repulsive to our readers…
    FEMINISTS LOVE ABORTION ON DEMAND, HATE GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN
    Oh, God! What are they on? Abortion on demand? Any unworthy, disease-ridden slut who wants an abortion should be able to get one? Not just chastely pure Christian maidens who’ve been defiled by slavering sodomites? And they oppose Governor Palin? Even though she’s an empowered modern gal with a title? And a name? A lady name? A godly, fertile, baby-making lady name?
    Imagine.
    Well, this’ll certainly put those heathen babykillers in their place. Thanks, Joan, I’ll send you an email when it goes up on the site…
    Oh wait.
    Shit. That Palin lady. Doesn’t she also call herself a feminist? She does, doesn’t she? Shit. Shit, shit, shit. And we want to have some cred when we call them sexist for not liking her, too. Oh well. Nothing else for it. We’re all about accuracy, after all.
    SOME FEMINISTS LOVE ABORTION ON DEMAND AND HATE GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN
    Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is a headline!
    (BTW, anybody notice that she thinks The Feminine Mystique was called The Feminist Mystique? Here’saquarterbuyaclue.)

  7. Danyell
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    Misspelled, that was fantastic.

  8. Jen
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    shrike (plural shrikes) – Any of various passerine birds of the family Laniidae which are known for their habit of catching other birds and small animals and impaling the uneaten portions of their bodies on thorns.

    Wiktionary
    I can’t say that I’ve ever seen shrike used as a term to denigrade feminists… But, if it’s the best Ms. Swirsky can come up with, I’ll take it!

  9. amenfro
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Yarp.
    Why is it that when anti-feminists write about the “good ol’ days,” we’re all rich and privileged?
    Back in the ’50s, I suppose my grandmother “chose” to leave the home to teach, and my grandfather “chose” to work two full-time jobs, in the sense that the other option was starving in the street with four kids.
    But, of course, economics are solely the province of men, and a women’s sole responsibility is having the kids and taking care of them. With what money, I wonder.

  10. penny rose
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    I am a stay at home mom and wife. I have experience my children milestones first hand and yes it has been rewarding and all that. We agreed as a married couple that I will stay home while my husband work his ass off to pay the bills because after child care,summer camp, transportation we realize that both of us working does not mean we will bring more money into the home.
    My Husband is a feminist( at least to me),he is loving and he is soo patient that he makes Obama look McCain.He comes home take care of the kids, wash the clothes and makes me breakfast in bed every Sunday and you know what? I STILL ASK, IS THIS ALL? It has nothing to do with my husband or kids! When you do not live your life to its FULL potential,you are bound to question some of the choices you make.We decided,but I choose to raise my kids at home, many women do not have this choice.For this woman to pretend that it is such a great thing to stay home and to many it probably is, but maybe she can explain to me why every other stay at home mom and housewife I know is on VALIUM?

  11. amenfro
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    And did anyone notice the “equal pay” section? Is it true that the Obama staff has such a wide pay disparity? Is the disparity across the board or for persons in equal positions with equal experience? I checked the link cited in the article, but it lacks any mention of the methodology for calculation.
    Also, if staying at home is all well and good, then Governor Palin should stay home too.

  12. herong
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    This article actually (perversely) delights me! Why? Because they are right! It’s NOT that she has children and a successful career. We don’t hate the fact that she is well-dressed and (arguably) well-spoken. We aren’t jealous of her at all!
    We don’t like her because she’s ANTI-CHOICE!! YES! Thank you for finally trusting us feminists to distinguish one vagina from another based on their POLITICS, not their family life.

  13. Matt
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    If someone’s going to try to do a five-second rundown of feminism in the second half of the twentieth century in order to build straw men to rip apart, you’d think they’d at least want to get the names of iconic texts right. It’s “The FEMININE Mystique” not “The FEMINIST Mystique” dumbass.

  14. rachelk
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    Why are the retro-feminists in the left-wing media, the National Organization of Women, and the abortion lobby, among other hysterics, militating so violently against Sarah Palin? It’s because they value abortion-on-demand over every other subject on earth.
    Hmmm… I know of a lot of hard-core anti-choicers (I went to a Catholic high school full of them, yes, it sucked) who value no-abortions-ever over every other subject on earth, and only vote for a candidates who are pro-life.

  15. stronggirl18
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    I think we should be supportive of Joan. She is a woman and has a point of view just like we do.
    She has a different opinion, so lets not be discriminatory and judgmental toward her, we wouldn’t want that done to us .

  16. Rebecca
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    It’s LifeNews.com, what do you expect?
    (I actually cited one of their articles in a civics paper last month. As an opinion piece.)

  17. Rebecca
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    …is there no way to block that IP, mods of loveliness?

  18. marilove
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    You are not a very convincing troll, stronggirl18.

  19. Danyell
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    You’re right, “stronggirl18″, we should all be fwiends.
    Let’s invite Joan & Sarah Palin and, what the hell, Ann Coulter, we’ll hold hands in a circle and sing about the fact that we have the same sex organs.
    (That being the only common ground amongst a good deal of us. And some Feministing members have NOTHING at all in common with those women!)

  20. Danyell
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    Amenfro- I was wondering that myself. Anyone know of a reliable source for the info of Obama’s pay roll?

  21. Elsewhere
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    Misspelled – you are my new hero!!!! I just wante to say that!

  22. Roja
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Amenfro,
    I have noticed that the right is really trying to spread this rumor. The links try to mislead people by summing all the salaries of women and dividing them by the number of the female employees, and doing the same for men. This does not take into account the different job titles!
    they numbers only suggest that McCain has more women in a few higher-paying jobs. Obama does not pay women less than men for the same job. And those women who have high-paying jobs on McCain’s campaign, work for a platform that OPPOSES equal pay. Just like Palin.
    the comments on this thread discuss this issue more:
    http://www.blogher.com/fighting-equal-pay#comment-59499

  23. ShifterCat
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

    @Amenfro: here is an article debunking the “Obama pay gap” lie.
    @stronggirl18: “[Joan Swirsky] has a different opinion, so lets not be discriminatory and judgmental toward her, we wouldn’t want that done to us.”
    Wrong. If I spouted an opinion as shockingly ignorant as Ms. Swirsky’s, I’d want someone to call me on it, not go easy on me out of some misplaced sense of sisterhood. How else am I supposed to learn?
    Well, I’m off to go impale some zygotes on thorns.

  24. Rosie
    Posted September 30, 2008 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    Did you know that “women on [Obama's] staff earn a paltry 77-cents on the dollar compared to the men, who receive 100 cents on the dollar”? Yep! Men get 100 cents to every dollar men earn! Uh-huh!
    How is this woman employed as a columnist?

  25. Posted October 1, 2008 at 12:19 am | Permalink

    Shrikes?
    With all due respect to Sharkfu, I’ve been sort of ambivalent about reclaiming words. Not against it, mind you, just never happened to come across it at the right time. But I’d get behind “shrike”.
    I mean- shrikes go out tackle prey that is fequently too large for them (being smallish birds), then use their environments (thorns, rusted nails on fence posts, etc) to tear them down to size. I think thats pretty fantastic. Though they do waste a lot.
    Anyway, unlike “chick” but like “bitch”, “shrike” sounds like a verb.
    Sometimes people need a good feminist shrikeing.

  26. Fash
    Posted October 1, 2008 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Swirsky and her ilk would have no viable argument against abortion rights if someone would be brave enough to state the real reason women support abortion and put that reason out into the mainstream media.
    The reason is equality.
    Its not about when life begins. Its not about “personhood”. Its not about the right to choose. Its not about control over one’s body. Its not about privacy.
    It IS about equality. Equality to men. Men are the benchmark and we want to be equal in all spheres. We want to be equally sexual and sexually free and therefore equally without the burden of pregnancy and childbirth as men.
    Because it is about reproductive equality to men, economic equality to men, social equality to men, and sexual equality to men. Access to safe, convenient, ubiquitous, and fully funded abortion services assure and preserve our equality.
    So, Swirsky, what do have to say now?
    .

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

199 queries. 0.504 seconds