Defining the Feminist Culture

Apparently, feminism is a narrow concept.

On a side note, before I get to the meat of this, I am always intrigued when pop-culture submits commentary on politics. I am intrigued by the media who inquires their opinion, the celebs that think their opinions are well formed enough to preach to the wide audience of the American people, and by the wide audience of Americans who give these opinions their credence.

Okay, okay, so perhaps I am contradicting myself a little here by opening up a post about the incredulousness of celebrity politicking and the media's consumption while I obviously care to some degree to dedicate at least several lines to the topic. But what really gets me right now is one particular set of flippant remarks by singer and pop icon Pink.

Speaking of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, Pink unleashes her frustrations towards the first woman to be named to a Republican presidential ticket

"this woman hates women," Pink said. "She is not a feminist. She is not the woman that's going to come behind Hillary Clinton and do anything that Hillary Clinton would've been capable of.... I can't imagine overturning Roe vs. Wade. She's not of this time. The woman terrifies me." click here for source

Pink is absolutely right about one thing: Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton. And why should she be? Hillary Clinton is a lifelong Democrat whose politics and ideas reflect her fundamental core values embedded in social progressiveness and welfare. Sarah Palin, contrarily, is a lifelong Republican, and by definition of party ideology, their core values would likely differ.

So, let's talk about feminism. The biggest complaint of women during the Democratic primaries was that Clinton was unfairly treated by the media who made a joke out of her candidacy and questioned her femininity to a degree that no man would ever be expected to qualify his masculinity. She was a regular punching bag around late night media circuits and suddenly news outlets that credit themselves as fair and/or balanced sources for political coverage confused themselves with Saturday Night Live. The claim that is only lazily disputed (after all, the media is rarely critical of the media) is that the jokes, the unflattering suggestions, and baseless questions were substantiated by just one aspect of Clinton's candidacy: her gender.

If Sarah Palin was not a woman, would it be necessary for Pink and the likes to compare her to Hillary Clinton? If Sarah Palin was not a woman, would it be expected that her view of woman's rights include homage to Roe v. Wade? If Sarah Palin was not a woman, would she be asked to define feminism from the same narrow and aged perspective of 1960's, bra-burning liberalism?

Pink has taken Sarah Palin's political and moral beliefs and used them as weapons against her progressive career and accomplishments as both a woman and a mother. Are only liberal women allowed to reap the benefits of the struggles of all women? When they gathered at Seneca Falls and marched on the streets of Washington, D.C., did they only protest for some women? The open-mindedness that launched a feminist society some fifty years ago has now become so narrow and exclusive that it's forgotten its founding principles.

And Pink believes that it's Sarah Palin who hates women... My question is, whose views are more damaging, Palin's or Pink's?

Revolutions

Ron Paul today made an announcement that he will not be endorsing McCain or Obama and rather is throwing his support to 3rd party candidacies. 

This puts a little dent in the plans of the McCain camp, who were hoping that an endorsement from Paul might bring upon his legions of young "conservatives" eager to engage in the political party.

Only one problem. These conservatives are not today's Republican party.

I was fortunate enough to attend Ron Paul's "Rally for the Republic" in Minneapolis, Minnesota last week, while another event loomed in the nearby twin city of St. Paul. While a passive supporter myself, one could not deny the static energy that buzzed through the Target Center as the likes of Barry Goldwater, Jr., Jesse Ventura, and the man himself, Ron Paul, spoke of the kind of conservatism that used to be the backbone of the Republican Party, not a mere afterthought that many are too young to remember. Ron Paul's mission is so much bigger than the Republican party and our two-party electoral system. Paul's mission is to shatter it.

It's about time that someone stand up for their ideals, rather than conforming to what has become the norm after election upon election: Embattled candidates campaign for party nomination, one loses, and ultimately concedes and endorses rival candidate, the issues that once stood between them apparently no longer viable concerns. Isn't this right, John McCain, circa 2000? Of course they would like to get the support of Paul because his message is one that terrifies them. It threatens to shake the foundation of American politics and renew the sense of purpose in elections and legislating. 

Good luck, Ron Paul. With the years of party politicking and media stamping already carrying away this campaign season, you'll need it. But if you listen, there's a faint but growing hum in the distance. It's the voices of Americans who are starting to wake-up and see this system for what it's worth and realizing that it doesn't chummy up to the millions spent in political ads and television plugs. 

Your endorsement is one of the few out there that can't be bought or sacrificed for your future ambitions. And maybe that's what this country needs... A champion who has nothing to lose and thus is willing to risk it all. You've got my vote. 

The Angrier Right

For five minutes, he held my full and undivided attention.

I, like so many who have lived through what perhaps will one day be the most historically significant segment of our generation, was curious to see what President George W. Bush would have to say about maverick and Republican nominee Senator John McCain.

In many ways, President Bush is a maverick in his own right. After all, it was President Bush that  proclaimed independence from the international community and surged troops into Saddam Hussein's Iraq, firm in his belief that the threat to American soil was not only present, but inevitable. Depending on the spin and ideological compass, this was either the most heroic preservation of national security and moral ingenuity or the most foolish and ill-conceived attempt at permanent global dominance and international aggression.

Regardless, the United States has been a battleground for the last eight years. The weapons of mass destruction (or perhaps mass intimidation) have come in many forms, from political attack dogs to legislation erroneously promoted as patriotic. The country that we hail as the bastion of ideals and the promotion of liberty and prosperity is an assault hub of the left vs. the right, the black vs. the white, born-agains vs. the damned, the middle class vs. the elite class, and those who love their government vs. those who love their country.

But despite the wavering extremism that is conditional upon a free society, there is one position within our government that serves as the iconic unifier of not only partisans, but of all countrymen. I watched President Bush with earnest as he addressed the delegation and country via satellite at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. I was not expecting him to address the last eight years—in many ways, he is a victim of the times with which he served. But I was hoping for some kind of hope that it was the will of the American people that he honored and would express himself not as a Republican, but as the President of this country… as my president.

He had me for five minutes… until he threw out the term that made my blood boil—"the angry left".

In that moment, perhaps more fitting than anything I had hoped he would profess, George Bush proved why his presidency has become one of the most divisive and controversial leaderships in the history of free, democratic states. Evidently, the administration has failed to notice that it is not just the left that is angry, but so are the right, and black, and the white, and the born-agains, and the damned, and the middle class, and the elite class, and those who love their government, and those who love their country. The lowest approval rating in the history books is evidence that something within the last eight years has gone amiss, so much so that even the Republican Party realizes that the greatest threat to November will be the classification of a McCain presidency as George Bush's third term.

And it's the Republicans who have every right to be angry.

There was once a time when compassionate conservatism wasn't about impositions, it was about propositions. Conservatism used to be the movement of liberty, freedom, responsibility, accountability, and yes, peace. The reality is that the Republican Party has been hijacked by pompous religiosity, interventionist foreign policy, and the largest, most pervasive government since Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Bush has been the final bolt in the reassignment of party values and the relinquishment of political and government discipline. President Bush and his administration of meddling cowboys have collectively destroyed the credibility of the United States and the American people, to whom they claim patronage and subservience. While they were busy asserting American values across the globe, the value of the American dollar, American liberty, and yes, even the American name has fizzled at home and around the world.

Yes, people are angry and it's more than just the left. But the tide can turn and it will. There is hope in truth seekers from the left in Dennis Kucinich and the right in Ron Paul. There can be a coming together not of partisans and party coffers, but of citizens and leaders who collectively believe in the value of the Constitution and the office of the Presidency as the uniter of the American people and our American ideals.

But hope is not going to come in the form of party politics or disillusioned rhetoric and assaults on the left and the right. It comes from you. When you go into that voting booth on November 4^th, you will have the undivided attention of pundits and politicians. Will you choose the lesser of the proverbial evils or will you stand-up in recognition of your voice and reject the status quo and state of complacency? The power vested in you is greater than that in our government leaders because as unrestrained as they appear, it is you who has the power to stop them.