My Response to An Editorial in the Chicago Tribune
Please read Kathleen Parker's editorial about Sarah Palin.
And here is my response that I sent in to the Tribune. I've been published once. Let's see if they publish me again.
Ha! I am glad I happened upon Kathleen Parkers entertaining editorial Who Needs Feminists? She is trying to get women to buy into the fact that Sarah Palin is worthy of womens votes, while trying to dismiss the efforts of feminism. Her argument comes across silly and not well thought out-much like McCain's 'strategy' to choose a female candidate.
I'd like to counter, on behalf of us "feminists" (however you'd like to define an intelligent think-for-herself type of woman), some of Kathleen's points:
#1 Yes someone would challenge a male over the moral dilemma concerning his daughter. Ahem, Dick Cheney.
#2 Did someone switch the Koolaid? No the Republicans are just trying to make the same flavor as the Democrats. But theirs is the generic brand.
#3 (emphatically) Palin is NOT what liberals have wanted for women: her shot at top ranks is merely to propel a man to higher power. She was not chosen for her feats nor her accomplishments.
#4 Feminism today is not about advancing a certain kind of woman. Feminism isn't really even about advancing a woman OVER a man. It's about equality and the freedom to choose someone who represents their values and beliefs. And I'm sorry her daughter is in the limelight, but liberals aren't the ones that claim to be holier than thou by chastizing young girls for sex before marriage.
#5 Kathleen, feminism doesn't curtsy these days. We bow. It is only because the feminists and Hillary took a chance and did well, that the Republicans are taking a chance on a woman at all.
Regards,
Jessica Hardy
And here is my response that I sent in to the Tribune. I've been published once. Let's see if they publish me again.
Ha! I am glad I happened upon Kathleen Parkers entertaining editorial Who Needs Feminists? She is trying to get women to buy into the fact that Sarah Palin is worthy of womens votes, while trying to dismiss the efforts of feminism. Her argument comes across silly and not well thought out-much like McCain's 'strategy' to choose a female candidate.
I'd like to counter, on behalf of us "feminists" (however you'd like to define an intelligent think-for-herself type of woman), some of Kathleen's points:
#1 Yes someone would challenge a male over the moral dilemma concerning his daughter. Ahem, Dick Cheney.
#2 Did someone switch the Koolaid? No the Republicans are just trying to make the same flavor as the Democrats. But theirs is the generic brand.
#3 (emphatically) Palin is NOT what liberals have wanted for women: her shot at top ranks is merely to propel a man to higher power. She was not chosen for her feats nor her accomplishments.
#4 Feminism today is not about advancing a certain kind of woman. Feminism isn't really even about advancing a woman OVER a man. It's about equality and the freedom to choose someone who represents their values and beliefs. And I'm sorry her daughter is in the limelight, but liberals aren't the ones that claim to be holier than thou by chastizing young girls for sex before marriage.
#5 Kathleen, feminism doesn't curtsy these days. We bow. It is only because the feminists and Hillary took a chance and did well, that the Republicans are taking a chance on a woman at all.
Regards,
Jessica Hardy
Comments