The emergence of conservative women is invigorating on the right and baffling to the left. A.C. Kleinheider’s piece in the Nashville City Paper would be funny if it didn’t capture the begrudging puzzlement of the larger media as to why the conservative movement suddenly looks so female:

Beyond a steady rightward shift and an increasingly reactionary rhetoric, conservative leadership is taking on another characteristic — it’s becoming more female. Both nationally and in Tennessee, the most beloved and vocal conservative leaders these days seem to be women.

Memo to Kleinheider: conservative women have always been here.  His comments confuse me. Does he not closely follow Tennessee and national politics? The existence of women on the right is hardly new:

Women need to be embraced as leaders — but not out of fear or necessity. It should happen the right way, or else the Right will merely be seen as a bunch of weak-willed reactionary little boys sending their women out to do their fighting for them.

Michele Bachmann was elected before Sarah Palin. Marsha Blackburn’s been involved in Tennessee politics for a long time now. Robin Smith was chairwoman of the TN GOP before Palin was on the scene. In order to have so many women running in 2010 means that women have been working up the ranks of the party and active in their communities for many years. It takes a long time to build up the name recognition, fundraisers and social capital to run for office. I’m surprised that he failed noticed that.

In fact, Republicans and conservatives have seen many of the “first” women across a number of categories. Labels and identity politics are just not as important to us. Just because the media suddenly noticed that women were in the conservative movement, doesn’t mean that we weren’t always there. Most of my political viewpoints come directly from my mother, who became a staunch conservative in the early 80s.  We’ve always been here. Now we’re getting the recognition that we deserve.

Palin is the catalyst not the movement.

Ironically, we owe it to the feminists and liberals in Congress for galvanizing all of the suddenly-visible conservative women that are shocking! Kleinheider.

This movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. Palin was the catalyst and should be analyzed, but the media, liberals and bloggers need to look at the bigger picture. Conservative women have always been in the movement, but Sarah Palin was the first woman to resonate with us. Prior to Palin, I always admired Elizabeth Dole. However, she was a DC insider with an Ivy League education. I could admire her (and the struggles she faced at Yale) but couldn’t identify with her. When Palin arrived, we had someone who reflected us.

Had the media and feminists said, “Great. The conservative movement is finally acting on what we’ve been preaching for 30 years,” I doubt that conservative women would now be so vocal. It was the the angry reaction of the feminist movement and the media that attacked Palin,  her family and her education. Suddenly liberals questioned if a woman could work and raise a large family. Her state education was ridiculed and her middle class existence was mocked. Those were the strengths that Palin represented. She was conservative and lived a very different lifestyle from the career politicians and bi-coastal elites, who are constantly telling us how to live.

By mocking Palin and what she represented, the media and feminists were collectively slapping the faces of every conservative woman in the country. This outrage is what motivated the  conservative women’s movement to come together, and what I’ve been writing about for over a year now.

This anger motivated countless numbers of bloggers. My friend, Tabitha Hale,  started her blog directly because of Palin. It led Teri Christoph to start Smart Girl Politics. It motivated a number of women who are now running for office.

Palin wasn’t the only factor though. Conservative women, just like conservative men, are angry at the government and our free-spending Congress. Women are just as involved as men in the Tea Party. The policies and activities of the Bush Administration and now the liberals in power are motivating men and women alike to stand up. Perhaps it’s a combination of our “traditional values” and anger that have caused women to be visible.

My dad told me this week, “I’m just as conservative as your mom, but I don’t have time to go to Tea Parties.” Ironically, the traditional values and roles that conservatives have long defended are what free women up to be active in the Tea Party movement. If Congressman Blackburn noticed that Tea Parties are largely female, it’s because there are more housewives on the right. My mom has always been a conservative activist because she had the time. If women control most of the purchasing power in this country, is it surprising that we’re actively protesting the wasteful actions of our government? Tea Parties are a reflection of the masses of Americans waking up to what Congress is doing, not a sudden pink-wash of the right.

Kleinheider, and others like him, should try to do a little research.  Again, this movement didn’t start with Sarah Palin nor will it end with her. My advice to reporters and academics would be to widen your angle beyond Palin, Bachmann and Blackburn. Palin was the catalyst and deserves to be analyze.  It is shortsighted to say that the conservative movement suddenly turned pink. You’re just now noticing us.

Much of the fault lies with academics. As Ronnee Schreiber notes in her book, Righting Feminism, hardly any academic study has been conducted on conservative women…ever. There was a small amount of research done after the failure of the ERA, but they assauged their failure by concluding conservative women are no different than conservative men. Since the 1980s, they’ve assumed that conservative women view politics indentically to men. Since we’re barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, we vote as our husbands and fathers do. They fail to see that conservative women are independently conservative because that’s the political movement they agree with. Since liberal feminists created the field of gender studies and created cushy jobs for themselves, it makes sense that they wouldn’t research areas that could potentially harm the movement and their sources of income.

To be concluded in Part 2.

Holy cow. Hell must have frozen over at Huffington Post. One of the writers actually read Going Rogue…and liked it!

According to Stephen H. Dinan:

What I found is that it wasn’t really that hard, actually, simply by taking the time to meet her on her own turf rather than through sounds bites, spin, and polarized media battles. Reading someone’s personal memoir is an intimate journey into their inner sanctum, and I developed a real appreciation for Sarah in reading the book. Aspects of her that seemed coarse, simplistic, or combative during the campaign were revealed to be a product of frontier values and growing up in a culture that is faced with subzero temperatures and constant tests of survival.

What! Palin isn’t an imbecile who totes a gun to everything? A liberal grasps the thought that she acts differently because she was raised in an environment far away from the East Coast. Dinan also notes  she’s not a Bible-thumping, Christian crazy:

For example, while her belief in God is deep and sincere, she wasn’t fanatical about it or dismissive of others. I found a real appreciation for the spiritual depths she went to when first faced with having a Down’s syndrome child. Her ultimate celebration of the beauty and perfection of that child, a child that 90% of people would have aborted according to statistics, was profoundly moving and it led hundreds of thousands of special needs children to feel championed through her campaign.

Perhaps if bi-coastal, urban liberals took a few minutes to actually talk to a Christian, they’d discover that most of are like this. Most Believers are genuine people who are facing their own struggles. Very few people are like the parodies that the left and media believe. Perhaps more leftist assumptions are wrong:

On other fronts, her pro-development views on energy and oil did not exclude a deep love for the environment and even an appreciation for alternative energy and reducing our carbon footprint. She wrote in moving terms about her husband’s indigenous ancestry and connection with the natural world, as well as the devastation wrought by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite being pro-business she was heroically willing to face down the oil industry when it was corrupting the government of Alaska, a kind of bravery we need more of on both sides of the aisle.

OMG! It’s possible to be pro-environment and pro-business? Seriously. Where do liberals get their talking points. Its as if they take The Colbert Report at absolute face value and don’t try to get past the satire of what most conservatives represent. Diden also gets an angle that most members of media failed to see:

In reading the book, I started to see a lot more of myself and my upbringing in Sarah. I too had grown up in a frozen land – Northern Minnesota – a place of unpretentious, middle-class, hardworking people who believe in personal responsibility and straight-talking integrity. We, too, had our sled dog races, subzero temperatures and a spirit of camaraderie to make it through. I began to see her political values as a natural extension of those tough-minded virtues, enabling her to take on daunting tasks and succeed at each level of life.

This is perhaps the most telling paragraph. Not many people are willing to admit having a middle class background. I think that the urban elite vs. middle class difference is the biggest division in our country. Something happens to people when they live in big cities. The urbanites just can’t understand that to Middle America, our political views result from how policies should be practically implemented, not some philosophical rationale written by a bureaucrat or academic. Dinan also realized that SNL is probably not the best place to learn about a politician:

Reading Going Rogue makes me understand that Sarah is not the ruthlessly ambitious and cutthroat caricature we feared; she is a woman who has befriended Democrats personally and professionally, shown real leadership in fighting corruption, and taken a more nuanced position on several issues in which she seemed far more polarizing. She seems quite sincere in her desire to serve in whatever way the universe calls for that service.

Again, hell must be freezing. You mean Sarah Palin isn’t that superficial characterization from SNL? Sarah Palin doesn’t equal Tina Fey? Say it ain’t so.

Is it too much to ask that liberals understand that a person usually has more depth and character than portrayed in the media? Sadly, the McCain campaign made some mistakes and allowed the SNL frame to represent Palin. But did people really believe that’s how she is? Seriously?

I enjoy satire, but the images created by outlets like SNL, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are meant to entertain. They don’t adequetely represent the position or person. If Dinan is correct, liberals are lot more stupid than the most redneck Wal-mart shopper.

Dinan closes his column with a call to action:

I come away from reading Going Rogue feeling that it would be a useful act of citizenship for all those who feel prejudice towards her to read her book and meet her on her own turf in order to heal the lingering prejudices. I feel more balanced for having done so. I would also urge conservatives who hate or fear Obama to read his autobiography to better understand the man behind the political leader and thus heal their own biases.

What a novel idea! Read the book written by the person that you attack endless. At least Dinan did more than most people at HuffPo. That’s a start.

After finishing Going Rogue, I immediately delved into You’ve Come A Long Way, Maybe by Leslie Sanchez. After reading a few critical reviews of her book on feminist blogs, I was intrigued.

Bottom line, this is a definite read. Sanchez takes a much more nauanced view of feminism and modern electoral politics. As a Republican Latina and DC insider, she has a unique take on the role of women in politics and examines the quest for getting a woman in the White House. Unlike many other conservative books, she doesn’t waste half of it continuing the “feminists are the cause of all that is evil in this world” mantra. Instead,  she analyzes Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the effect of Sarah Palin and compares Michelle Obama to other First Ladies. She also asks key questions that I’ve been wondering, such as why do feminists hate conservative women like Palin who represent views such as mine and what will it take to get a woman elected POTUS?

Throughout the book, I scribbled and highlighted notes. She provided some perspectives that I’ll be thinking about for a while. She wrote a grownup book that doesn’t take potshots at disagreeing sides. I rarely find books like that. While she does disagree with liberal policies that feminists take, she doesn’t demonize them.

I spend a lot of time attacking feminism on this blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with some of their positions or value what they’ve done for women in society. I am thankful that I had an opportunity to play sports in high school, vote, pursue my education and a career, and I don’t fear being a victim of sexual harassment. I’m thankful that I earn the same as my male peers and didn’t find my job under the “female jobs wanted” section. I appreciate that I can sit in a meeting with other men working in politics and my opinions and talents will be respected. Those are the positions of feminism which I agree. What I don’t understand and what I spend so much time writing and Sanchez devotes a significant part of her book questioning, is “why do feminists hate conservative women?”

After examining a number of polls and surveys, interviewing advisers and pundits from all across the spectrum, Sanchez wrote a statement that deserves further study and gets at the essence of the women’s movement problem:

However deep into Clinton’s psyche these voters may have wanted to go, what I am taking away from all the polls and comments is that women want to vote for other women who reflect their own life experience — perhaps a bit chillingly — are suspicious of a woman who has opted to follow a path too far departed from the one they themselves have chosen. And they are particularly unforgiving of a candidate who would go so far as to disparage the lifestyle that they  themselves have chosen: it’s my contention that Clinton has never really been forgiven in some quarters for the “cookie” comment. It lost her the support of women who actually had stayed home and baked cookies –and enjoyed doing it.

(more…)

One unfortunate side of the punditry and blogosphere is the endless dissecting of pop culture for deeper spiritual, political and societal meanings. It happens every time there’s a blockbuster movie, hit song or TV show. Among Christians, Harry Potter has been a divisive issue. Apparently, New Moon of the Twilight series is that way to feminists. Is Twilight that bad, or is it targeted because the author is a conservative Mormon? When compared to other examples in Vampire lore, the feminists are on shaky ground.

Over at Fourth Wave Woman, I’ve written about the left’s attack on Stephanie Meyers and how it seems to be a front for an attack on conservative Mormonism. Then, I ran across a post by Sarah Seltzer at RH Reality Check on how to get over Edward Cullen in four easy steps. Seltzer compares Twilight to other vampire series, namely Buffy and Sookie Stackhouse.

Unlike most of the articles about Twilight that I’ve read, I agreed with a few points, especially the first one. However, the author fails to note that all of the romantic interests of the highlighted vampire series have major issues. As a fan of all three, I deeply disliked the main love interests. Angel (Buffy) and Vampire Bill (Sookie Stackhouse) are just as creepy and controlling as the despised Edward Cullen from Twilight.

Years after the series ended, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the paramount modern feminist heroine. This is despite her weakness for a controlling and domineering vampire boyfriend  in the case of Angel. I loved Buffy because she was a short, blonde who kicked butt and wore cute clothes. I always hated that she was so entangled with someone like Angel.

In all three examples,  I always preferred the alternate love interest (Spike in the case of Buffy, Eric in Sookie Stackhouse and Jacob in Twilight). Unlike the romantic lead, these men/vampires/werewolves respected the heroines and proved steadfast. Angel, Vampire Bill and Edward Cullen all leave the main characters in the lurch. It’s up to the other guy to always pick up the pieces and inevitably rescue the heroine in her time of need. In fact, if feminists are going to fault Twilight, they need to fault the wider vampire oeuvre. Within the pages of fantasy and vampire lore, sexism is rampant, and the heroine is generally in love with a dark, handsome…jerk.

(more…)