Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Time
The claws come out quickly and Steinem proves she can be every bit as catty as your average third grade girl:
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.
She criticises Palin as an affirmative action pick, apparently completely unaware of the irony. Usually, it is conservatives opposition to affirmative action that liberals use to label them as racist of sexist. To be fair to Steinem, she does acknowledge the sexist slant to the liberal criticisms of Palin:
I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father.
However, Steinem displays a curiously lopsided notion of women's liberation when she spends most of her column smearing Palin as a tool of the "right-wing patriarchy" for holding conservative views. Apparently, it is inconceivable that a liberated, free thinking woman might sypathise with the socially conservative view.
Palin's main offense against Steinem's particular feminist sensibilities seems to be that she is pro-life. Steinem drips venom when she writes, "she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs." I don't completely agree with Palin on the abortion issue, myself, but I think it is disingenuous to characterise her views as supporting government control of women's wombs -- just as it would be unfair to claim that Steinem supports killing babies. No one advocates government mandated womb control or infanticide. The abortion debate centers around competing fundamental rights of two distinct individuals: the fundamental right of the unborn baby to live versus the equally fundamental right of an adult to control their own body. How you think these two rights should be balanced determines whether you call yourself pro-life or pro-choice. To say that pro-choice is the only feminist option is absurd.
Equally absurd is Steinem's claim that disbelief in anthropological global warming is somehow an anti-feminist view point:
Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming.The creationism bit is pure MSM fabrication. When Palin's comments on the subject are taken in context, she supports a teacher engaging the class in a scientific discussion if a student should bring up the subject of creationism -- rather than telling the poor kid to shut up. Otherwise, she supports the typical libertarian sentiment that school curriculum should be determined by locally elected officials. Furthermore, one's opinion on global warming is based on their knowledge and interpretation of scientific facts. How, by any stretch of logic, does holding a different scientific opinion from the majority of women qualify as anti-feminist?
According to our feminist masters, if a woman rejects the Democratic party platform, she is not liberated. Conservative women are to be marginalized as poseurs or pawns; women are only valuable when they vote Democratic and promote socialist agendas. Women must be delivered from the cruel patriarchal clutches of their fathers, husbands, and ministers and into the open and liberating arms of the state. Steinem wants to paint Palin as a victim and pawn of the "right-wing patriarchy," but she fails to explain how she herself is no better than a toady for the left wing grievance machine.