Feminists To Sarah Palin & Working Women: Learn Your Place!–Updated

August 31, 2008 / 3:05 pm • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Some women just won’t learn. Myself included. If I were the right sort of woman, I’d have this view:

That likely explains why you’re not hearing about this comment Ms. Obama made at the Women’s Caucus of the Democratic National Convention on Thursday about her husband (bold is mine):

He’ll protect a woman’s freedom of choice, because government should have no say in whether or when a woman embraces the sacred responsibility of parenthood.

Apparently, Michelle isn’t aware of, or doesn’t sufficiently appreciate, the viability of adoption as an alternative, or that the adoption waiting lists are long. Like her husband, who says that determining when human rights begin (i.e., when life begins) is “above my pay grade,” she does not appear to grasp the scientific fact that parenthood begins at conception.

See, I’m not a real woman, because I believe that a woman takes responsibility for her choices, including who she has sex with and whether or not she uses birth control. In fact, if a woman has sex with a man, gets pregnant before marriage, I believe she has a couple choices: marry the guy, raise the baby, or put the baby up for adoption. (And I’m not talking about rape or incest which is such a small number of abortions. I am for the morning after pill in those cases. Nuance.)

This brings me to Sarah Palin. The latest issue surrounding her is that she got pregnant with her first kid “triggering” the shot-gun marriage. And, your point is, Alan Colmes besides demonstrating your crass classlessness? She got married. She’s still married. And considering that 90% of married people, Christian or not, have sex before marriage, I’d say she’s in the majority of people. If the story is even true.

So, the National Organization for Women is coming out against Sarah Palin. Of course. She’s not the right kind of woman. She doesn’t know her place. My favorite quote from their press release titled “Not Every Woman Supports Women’s Rights”:

The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.

That’s too rich. The fact that she is living equal rights doesn’t count. She has her own career. She demonstrated her right to choose and chose to keep her children and chose to birth them even after finding out one child wasn’t “perfect.” She’s not a eugenicist as so many Lefties are proving themselves to be. Gay people take note. You’re next. But see, she made the WRONG choice and therefore she is not deserving of NOW’s endorsement.

The only issue that matters for NOW is abortion. It’s the litmus test. A woman doesn’t matter. She has to be right sort of woman…a woman who believes abortion is the only way. Cassy Fiano notes the condescension toward women:

Also, if anyone wants to talk about condescension towards women, you can’t even begin to have that discussion without mentioning modern day feminism. They are sneeringly condescending to any woman who doesn’t agree with them. This NOW press release is dripping with condescension. It’s as if women can’t understand for themselves what they want. Thank God feminism came along to educate us ignorant women who can’t understand how important it is to be able to have an abortion! So you’re pro-life? It’s OK, honey, you just don’t know any better yet. Don’t worry, we’ll tell you what to think, because you clearly can’t decide for yourself.

It would have been better if Sarah Palin had aborted her baby (if it’s really her baby, good grief, the Kossaks are insane in the membrane). Michelle Malkin says:

Of all the moronic attacks on Sarah Palin, and they are piling up, this has got to be one of the lowest of the low.

And it’s brought to you by the morbid ghouls who would rather you abort your unborn children than bring them into the world and increase the planet’s carbon footprint. Left-wing definition of “proper pre-natal care:” A bloody trip to Planned Parenthood.

Have mercy upon them.

NEW, a women’s organization, Network for Enlightened Women, responds to NOW:

Throughout the election cycle, feminists have highlighted the importance of getting a woman on the ballot. They often said they wanted a woman, regardless of party affiliation. That was an easy argument when Hillary Clinton seemed like the most likely contender. John McCain has stolen their thunder by picking a Republican woman. It took the National Organization for Women (NOW) less than three hours to release a statement against Governor Palin.

The Anchoress notes in her aptly titled post Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman [read the whole thing, but it will get your blood boiling, my blood has evaporated, it’s been boiling non-stop since the lefties have been spewing their bile]:

Then, Alan Colmes posted (and apparently immediately took down) a piece basically questioning Sarah Palin’s instincts as a mother because she, a month before her due date, and far away from her doctor, did not immediately fall apart when she noticed some amniotic fluid leaking.

This not being her first pregnancy, she did what a prudent, experienced woman who knows her own body would do; she called her own doctor, kept him apprised and did not panic. She made a scheduled speech, traveled home and went to the doctor.

The left is going to try to run with this? If Palin had a “D” after her name, she’d be praised for her calm, collected manner and we would all know that – of course she would have seen a doctor had she needed to – but every woman wants HER doctor with her when she delivers, if it’s possible.

Oh good grief. As a woman who birthed three times, with my fourth, my midwife couldn’t make it in time and I had the baby with my husband and a helper (doula) and at home! Talk about empowered. A real woman knows her body. Women are not weak babies. Real women have babies, as many as they choose, as many as they’re blessed with. I feel like Steve Martin in Father of the Bride, “Why am I the only feminist around here?”

MaxedOutMama says this about working mothers, and how they’re hearing all this:

You know, I don’t usually write about women’s issues, but this kind of thing – well, it’s pretty freaky. Apparently the meme that Palin wasn’t really pregnant hit the radio – Thom Hartmann.

However all the claims that Palin should be in a demanding job because she has kids- boy, oh, boy. That’s going to make women see red. Most women in the US have to work for economic reasons, so what this amounts to is the claim that women with kids should be relegated to lower-tier jobs. This is not the sort of thing most women like to hear, but it is the type of thing that professional women know will be said behind their backs. Oh, sure, there are laws preventing prospective employers from asking you about kids, but it’s still an issue. Reading all this is going to push so many buttons for women.

MOM is an economist and a mother. Michelle Malkin is a writer and a reporter and a mother. The Anchoress is a writer and a mother. Gina Cobb is a lawyer and a mother. Dr. Helen is a psychologist and a mother. Ann Althouse is a law professor and a mother. I’m a chiropractor and mother.

But as conservative, moderate and/or libertarian working women, we don’t count. Only a woman who submits to liberal orthodoxy is worthy of support, even if the woman’s life exemplifies the very ideals the special interest group supposedly stands for. But it’s a lie. NOW isn’t for women. They are for abortion. They are for women as victims. They are for special, not equal, treatment.

So feminists like Maureen Dowd have no problem objectifying a fellow woman and dismissing Sarah Palin as being the star of a real-life “chick flick”. As a woman who enjoys science fiction and fantasy novels, and who reads stories to her kids, I find Dowd’s derision particularly entertaining. Why, it’s almost like a fairy tale, Maureen–you know the one, where the older, single witch hates the younger, more beautiful woman who gets the crown and the man.

Earth to NOW and feminists everywhere, who, exactly is the cliché again?


Don Surber expounds on what rights a woman has:

If true, it would have given libs a chance to use their favorite epithet:


You can be an unrepentant terrorist.

You can be a perjurer.

You can be an ex-klansman (Exalted Cyclops at that).

But Lord help you if you are a conservative and you run a stop sign.

Lefties who would complain would be saying a woman has the right to kill a baby even if it survives abortion — which is the Official Position of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama — but not the right to pose nekkid.

Yes, let’s be clear about what’s okay for a woman to do, feminists. We women are too stoopid to figure stuff out, ya know, because like, we’re ignant. Like, I’m from the “West”, Michigan, we don’t know nuthin’. Texas is even worse, ya’ll.


Well, anyone with a brain has been hoping for Sarah Palin for some time (I know I have), but the Left was shocked and figured it was some sign of desperation. Personally, I thought it was a sign of sense. So did John McCain, which actually makes me like him more. From Ed Morrissey at Hotair:

Far from being some sort of panic attack, McCain’s selection of Palin was a deliberate effort to craft a specific message for the general election and for his Presidency, should he win. He wants to challenge his party to recall their reform roots from the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America. He cannot expect to have that taken seriously or effectively without having a real reformer, and not just a talker, on the ticket with him. He needs the conservative base energized and enthusiastic to make that message effective, and Palin provides both a track record of real reform and energy for the GOP base.

As the Times said on Friday, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The panic seen from the Left shouldn’t surprise anyone, either. After their so-called reformer picked a 35-year Washington insider as his running mate, the ticket of true reform is obvious to even them.

She’s a reformer who happens to be a woman, not a woman who happens to be a Republican. Therein lies the difference between thee left and right.


If you want a more tightly written, succinct summation of the smears against Sarah Palin and the logical responses, you absolutely must read Jeff Goldstein’s treatise on the subject. Here’s just one tidbit about Sarah Palin’s being the anti-feminist:

6) Palin, according to the “feminists” at Feministe and Pandagon, is an “anti-feminist” and “anti-woman” — appealing as she does to women who feel inferior, and who don’t adequately mistrust the patriarchy. Her deeds are unimportant. That she has made her own way on her own gifts and hard work suggests that she has adopted the mindset of a man. Because as everyone knows, we can never truly have “equality” or a “strong female role model” until we have a number of laws that give women special dispensation — laws that are embraced and championed by women of white privilege, not callously ignored by moose dressing hicks with beehives and stretched uteri, married to men who, like, fish unironically.

Read the whole thing and try to not cry. Sarah Palin’s savaging at the hands of the press and the Left will make what Clarence Thomas endured seem like child’s play. She’s a woman, after all. How dare she?

Updated 9/1/08:

Include Sally Quinn in the list of feminists who like only a certain kind of woman:

My first reaction was shock. Then anger. John McCain chose a running mate simply because she is a woman and one who appealed to the Republican’s conservative evangelical base. Now, with news that Palin’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant, McCain’s pick may not even find support among “family values” voters.

She is, of course, absolutely wrong. How sexist to think that the only reason Sarah Palin was picked was because of her ovaries. Yes, I was excited to see a woman on the ticket, but I was excited for reasons I write about here.

Sally Quinn, Maureen Dowd, the feminists at NOW reveal themselves, completely unmasked, for all to see. Not that they’ll listen to a working woman with children in fly-over country, but maybe they’ll listen to many women who are paying attention and deeply offended. Women like these at an ABC Days Of Our Lives forum (who knew?):

toohotintx: This whole situation has put a spotlight on the truth that most women have known for a long time: there is a difference between feminism and equal rights.

Under feminism, you only get equal rights if you hold a certain viewpoint.

And another one:

momtomegan: Unbelievable!! Even if it’s true:

#1 – It’s NONE of our business.

#2 – Has NOTHING to do with her ability to be VP.

#3 – Goes right along with her Pro-LIfe stance – so no shock there.

#4 – If this were a Democratic candidate and whether or not she was pregnant before she got married was brought up, Feminists would be screaming sexism.

#5 – She and that man she “had to marry” just celebrated 20 years of marriage!!


alexandra518: If the Dems and media continue to go this route, I know quite a few Democrat women that will get really pissed off, really quick. Funny thing is, it only helps the McCain ticket.

Thanks for the link, Dragon!

TheOneandOnlyEvilDragon: Ya;ll are welcome… and what amazes me is how much of the attacks come from women… hell, even if one doesn;t agree with her policies, one should be able to see that she is a great role-model, and applaud for that at least.

These are the women who feminists routinely insult. These are the women who vote. These are the women who don’t have the luxury of choosing whether to work or not. Often the choice is made for them. These are the women who are “breeders”. They worry about balancing their work and home life. They see Sarah Palin and can relate.

Feminists, you are hurting yourselves.

  • Pingback: Palin: Bad Mother, Bad Woman | The Anchoress()

  • Denise

    I’m a first time “blogger”, so, forgive me if I don’t use the appropriate lingo. I would like to say that I am a registered Democrat. That being said, I am anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. Why then, am I a Democrat? In all honesty, from my experience with politics, Republicans talk on a high moral ground, but they lack compassion! I mean, this whole pull yourself up by the bootstraps is easy for those of us who A) have boots; B) are wearing nice shiny boots handed to us by our parents, grandparents, etc. Most Americans, esp. today w/ this given economy (and I do know that what goes up must come down) are in a bad place financially. I am not even going to mention the populations who have been historically oppressed by our government. But, I really think that for the most part, Democratic leaders look out for the “little guy”. I am a former teacher and counselor, and I used to vote based on what a leader would do for education. Now, I’m a stay at home mom of two small children, and I need someone who is going to look out for the best interest of the future. All of that being said, I don’t know much about Sarah Palin. If we all are honest, not many people do. I’ve read several things over the past couple of days that make me say “huh?” As a fellow woman and mom, I don’t want to criticize another. However, if we’re honest here, if Sarah were a man A) she wouldn’t had been on anyone’s list, short or long B) her “motherhood” wouldn’t be called into question C) I wouldn’t be blogging right now. I would like to say that as a mother, my children mean the world to me. My husband and I made the decision that I would stay home and raise our children. I just think that a job like Vice President is too demanding for a new mom. Yes, I know this is her 5th child, but come on, she has a newborn! Yes, I know that women do it everyday, go back to work when their child is 6 weeks old, sometimes 4 weeks or even sooner. And I tell you, I’ve spoken to many women in that predicament, and if their finances were better, they’d stay home. Sure, it’s easy to say that those intending or not intending on having children should be financially sound prior to pregnancy, but most of us aren’t. I just can’t imagine leaving my 4 month old in the hands of a nanny when financially, my having a career outside of home wasn’t necessary. I’m not hear to judge Ms. Palin or any other working mom, b/c my husband kept our oldest for 3 weeks while I completed my job responsibilities. But, I tell you, if I didn’t have to do it, I would not have. Regardless who wins the election, History has been made and will be made again. I hope we as Americans can respectfully disagree and get on with the business of improving this nation for those of us here and for generations to come!


  • Heather C

    I really appreciate this entry, Melissa. Not one hour after Palin was introduced, I started seeing such awful things being said about her, including another woman questioning why in the world she would even consider having another baby at 44.

    Uh…choice? Her choice?

    I think she’s a rock star. Wait. Let me rephrase that… 🙂 I have one child and my energy is not all that high. I can’t imagine how she does it, but the fact that she can pretty much do it all, with five kids, makes her pretty dang special.

    I’m livid at the hypocrites. I hope the R ticket wins, just to do a virtual ‘in your FACE’ when she’s an official VP. The hypocrites won’t shut it, though…but maybe they’ll confuse themselves enough that they’ll come around. Cross fingers.

  • Denise,

    You know, I hear what you’re saying and appreciate your input. However, I’d ask that you look at this again. Sarah Palin has a calling to public service. She can not only benefit her family, she can benefit the country with her service.

    To me, it is unbelievably sexist to imply that her husband couldn’t adequately care for their children. No, he can’t breastfeed the baby, but it looks like she wouldn’t be doing that anyway. Or, I think I heard that she was pumping–exactly what I have done. And what my working sister had to do because she had to work. It’s doable.

    I understand the mothering instinct. I had a premature baby and simply could not imagine leaving my sick baby somewhere. And good luck trying, there was no child care either. We were poor. Someone had to work. My husband and I had equal earning potential. I stayed home. But who am I to judge Sarah Palin’s choice to do otherwise when she has the opportunity to serve so many.

    No one would question a man making this choice and yet here are the feminists doing just that. It’s beyond hypocritical.

  • Jeffersonian

    The problem, Melissa, is your understanding of modern feminism. It’s not the empowerment of women, per se, but simply another stalking horse for the Left’s agenda (see also: multiculturalism). You can’t fit a Kleenex between NOW’s platform and the editorial board of The Nation.

    Once you see it from this perspective, everything falls into place: Sarah Palin can be savaged by man and woman alike because she is not a leftist and thus inimical to “women’s rights” as Offical Feminism defines them. Far from being misogyny, destruction of Palin is a positive step in the defense of women everywhere.

  • The liberal feminists are upset because they were beaten to the punch. Nobody with half a brain thought the Mondale/Ferraro ticket had any shot of gaining the White House in 1984, but now a REPUBLICAN!!1!11! woman could very well be a heartbeat away from the presidency, and they are terrified. I for one will revel in the irony and hypocrisy of the left as every attempted smear of Palin will be shot down by a new media dominated by conservatives with reach.

  • qwerty

    MAUREEN DOWD’s article on Sarah Palin is scandalous to say the least. The tone, language and the content of the article is JUST unacceptable. Look at this line from the article

    Sarah is a zealot, but she’s a fun zealot.

    Looks like the worst attacks are coming from women themselves. From NOW, from liberal women and Maureen Dowd.

    Also if she was aiming at a career in Public Office, which is very demanding, she should have stopped with 2 or 3 kids.

    –She’s a woman, after all. How dare she?—

    This more a manifestation of the age-old standards of the society. An unsuccessful man (namely a ‘unmanly’ man), who lives off others money is vilified as sharply as a woman pursuing career at the expense of motherhood.

    Has any one seen a woman being put to blade for just being stay at home mom, living off husband’s income?

    It is not that men are given a free hand and women are stifled at every corner of society. It is just that both of them are regulated to roles that suited their biology and society.

  • Palin appeals to a very large demographic that the Democrats have abandoned. She is married to a man, and she doesn’t seem at all unhappy with her situation. This is problematic for disgruntled HRC Democrats. Joe “would you like some sugar with your restraining order, Ma’am?” Biden Democrats believe that women should be able to leave their marriages for any reason or for no reason, and that taxpayers and child support enforcement policies must be designed to make this choice a neutral one, with no economic consequences at all for mom and her children. The fact that she remains married to a man – after 20 years! – and has born 5 children with him is deeply troubling to Democrats.

    The fact that she’s been able to embark on a successful political career, and still have 5 children, is a thumb in the eye as far as Democrats are concerned. Democrats maintain that the freedom to have both children and a career requires government assistance, since men, by their very nature, have to be compelled by government to support women and their children. When a women chooses a lifelong partnership with a man, all she is doing is making a sneaky end-run around the government, selfishly consuming his wages and his labor directly from the source.

  • Trish

    I object to the idea that both parents “must” work for financial reasons. I chose to stay home with my child. My family has had to make financial sacrifices to make this possible. I prefer making financial sacrifices to the emotional sacrifices I would be forcing on my child if both of his parents were absent. Not everyone wants to do this, but there is really no excuse for the left’s condemnation of those of us who choose to do this.

    Denise, my dear–“I’m not HEAR to. . .” ? Spell-checkers don’t take care of everything.

  • Pingback: A Collection of Sarah Palin's Sins... - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!()

  • Pingback: Sarah Palin’s Uterine Activity & Her Daughter’s, Too–UPDATED « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier()

  • Julia

    Are you saying that leftists, liberals, et. al. should sing Palin’s praises, despite a fundamental disagreement with her policies, statements and beliefs, merely because she is a woman?

  • I am saying that feminists pretend at representing certain ideals but have no problem trashing a woman who lives those ideals because she doesn’t ascribe to one of them–abortion.

    And if the left and feminists were attacking her policies it would be one thing, but they’re not. Like Maureen Dowd, they’re going after her for really important things like earrings, and beauty and her sex life.

  • Jeff Weimer

    This thought that she shouldn’t have accepted because she has a newborn special-needs baby is frankly, laughable. Do you think this wasn’t carefully thought out, discussed, and ultimately decided WITHOUT her husband and family’s support? If she were a man this wouldn’t even come up.

  • Jeff Weimer

    Well, the feminists DO purport to represent and speak for ALL women, just because they are women. This only shows the cold, hard truth – they’re NOT and they WON’T, if only they don’t live their life according to their ideas. It’s about power, not advocacy.

    Feminists SHOULD recognize her achievements, as it validates everything they have been fighting for. There is plenty of room to disagree with her policies and positions. They won’t do that, it undercuts their ‘moral authority’ and quest for power. Maybe NOW should change their name to be more clear about the reality of their agenda.

  • Ceecee

    Sarah Palin belongs to the group Feminists for Life. So she is a feminist, just not one who believes in abortion. She truly does stand up for women. This is unlike the mainstream feminists whose support for women is conditional, based on their support for abortion.
    Oh, and Sarah is a Christian too. Many mainstream feminists are hostile to Christianity, claiming that it is patriarchal. They ignore the fact that pre-Christian pagan societies treated women with outrageous horror that included female infanticide. Today many anti-Christian societies also treat women with a series of atrocities. Note the Islamic societies with their so-called “honor” killings and female genital mutilation, and India where they do sex selection abortion and female infanticide.
    What do the mainstream feminists have to say about these horrors? Nothing, they are too busy trying to support abortion. Are they helping the women who suffer from these abuses? No, all they care about is abortion.
    I hope women see through the attacks on Sarah Palin that the mainstream feminists are spewing, and vote for a ticket that will really defend the rights of women.

  • Julia

    Then, I guess feminists are not a monolithic group. Sounds like there are many different feminisms out there that women can choose to support or attack, identify with or not.

    Look, she’s a strong woman in a position of power. That will be unpalatable to some. But don’t confuse forcing women to give birth to unwanted babies (and yes, waiting lists for white babies are long, there are plenty of older children who are wards of the state) with not wanting women to be in powerful positions.

    Having 5 children is environmentally irresponsible at this time in our history. However, that is her choice to make. And while I object to having that many children myself, I will not tell anyone else how many children to have because I don’t want anyone else to make that choice for me. However, I also don’t think it is appropriate to keep my opinions hidden. However, my opinions are just that. She and I are free to consult with whomever we choose and make the decision that seems appropriate to ourselves according to our own convictions. That is the beauty of most of the many forms of feminism, a label she and I are both free to claim, despite our contradictory opinions.

    It is really easy to knock down a straw-man or straw-feminist in this case. Sure, taking issue with a candidate’s earrings (I haven’t seen the article, but I’ll take your word for it.) or lapel pin is silly. It should be treated with the seriousness it deserves. That will allow the discussion to return to where it should be; Will this candidate do his or her best to enact the policies which I think are best for this country.

  • Trish

    I have to tell you this: having 5 children is not “environmentally irresponsible.” The birth rate in developed countries is dropping like a stone. The only reason that the American population is not dropping with it is the high rate of immigration.
    I bought into the old “overpopulation” argument myself–40 years ago. We only had ten years to save the earth then.
    Funny how we still have only ten years, isn’t it?

  • Julia

    I was not aware that we only had ten years. I’m not 100% sure what that means.

    I know it is not PC to say that it is irresponsible to have as many children as you want (or even as many as you can support). It is an unpopular statement to the majority of people on the left, the right and in the center.

    I think it is wonderful that you have remained open to new ideas and have allowed yourself to change your mind during the last 40 years. It is impossible to fully understand an argument without allowing yourself that opportunity.

    Here are some numbers to consider, from the United Nations Development Programme. The US contributes 21% of carbon dioxide emissions while contributing 4% of the population. Ethiopia, with 1.2% of the world’s population contributes less than 0.05% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. To get up to our rate each Ethiopian would have to cause the emission of 82 times more carbon dioxide. Alternatively, each woman could have 82 children. Argentinians contribute about the same percentage of carbon dioxide to world-wide emissions as they do to world population. They can raise 3 children for the carbon dioxide “cost” of 1 child in the US. Developing countries can let their birthrates skyrocket and have a smaller effect than we will even as we maintain our current fertility rate of 1.8 (births per woman) which is below replacement rate. Carbon dioxide emissions are one example similar numbers could be calculated for whatever measurable quantity you chose to use as your yard-stick. Carbon dioxide just happened to be the one I ran across in my cursory search.

    Side note: although our country’s fertility rate is 1.8 there are still more people being born in this country every day than are dying in this country everyday. This is a result of our population structure. There are more women of childbearing age than there are women past childbearing age. This means that our population will continue to increase even though our fertility rate is below replacement, which is 2.

  • Pingback: Vote Colborne 2016! » Why Not?()

  • metro1

    Sarah Palin is about to become a grandma – but she’s still a bad ass


    Double-standard alert: Biden is a serial plagiarizer & Obama disappeared $110 in grant money with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. I know those fellas are Democrats and all but – you know – there may be some interesting stories there too.

    What Biden and Obama did was morally wrong. Gov. Palin being a first-time grandma is good news – although you’d never know it from the news media or the Left.

  • Julia said:

    “The US contributes 21% of carbon dioxide emissions while contributing 4% of the population… blah, blah, blah.” I can only assume that this is meant to support your earlier statement that “Having 5 children is environmentally irresponsible… blah, blah, blah.”

    As more and more scientists refute the UN’s and Gore’s global warming fantasy, it is turning out that (oddly enough) the sun has more to do with our global temperatures than previously thought. For example, this article will help you understand how sunspots have had a greater effect on our global climate than any amount of man-produced CO2, etc – http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/article12823.htm

    Additionally, though you probably won’t hear it on the news, we actually lost .7 degrees Celsius last year as our mean global temperature, which has virtually wiped out the 1 degree gain that we have experienced over the last century. This, in a nutshell, destroys your “Having 5 children is environmentally irresponsible” argument, and it should also give you cause to seriously question those who would lead you down the false path of “global warming.” Do some research.

  • Amy P.

    Having children is not “environmentally irresponsible” – who the heck are we “saving” the planet for if we don’t have or abort future generations? People who think there are too many people on the planet should set an example and reduce their carbon footprint completely. Keep your eco-hypocrisy off my womb and children, please.

    Few of the liberal feminists I know have EVER acknowledged, appreciated, or defended my right as a woman to be a conservative, Catholic, and pro-life. I’m “brainwashed” they tell me; I’m “hoodwinked by the patriarchy”; I’m “stupid” and “unintelligent” – all those things have been hurled at me, but supposed supporters of women, because I don’t do exactly what they think I should do.

    They ignore the very real, very deadly consequences of abortion – especially that most abortion are coerced by the fathers/families/etc., and that many women experience such trauma after abortion (and many die very painful deaths). They just DON’T care.

    They always argue abortion is about a “woman’s body” but I’ve never met a woman with two brains, two hearts, two sets of DNA – abortion ends a separate life. Period. And in this nation, it shouldn’t happen nearly as much as it does. Being in an orphanage sucks – but are you going to go and off the kids in foster care because being dead is preferable to living in the system? I think not.

    Feminism is a joke. Women like Dowd, etc. don’t give a crap about women like Palin, women like me – 99% of the women out there. They don’t speak for me and they don’t respect me.

    So this is a prime example of how they really treat women who dare to get out of lockstep with their ideologies.

    I want none of it.

  • no, not THAT Glenn

    [I cannot tell a lie. Rachel sent me here.]
    I’m a logician, not a doctor. I apply logic. I do that in life.

    — Widemouthed Maureen Dowd [albeit not a mother herself?] noted Cindy Sheehan and generalized a Postulate about mothers. Remember?

    — Gov Palin’s brood makes her demonstratively a mother. There’s little controversy about that, quibble some may about details.

    — According to the Dowd Postulate, Gov Palin accordingly has ABSOLUTE MORAL AUTHORITY, so all should stfu and listen.

    No? What changed? Why is this different?

  • Jennifer

    Julia, it is absurd to make the flat statement that having five children is irresponsible. Having five children you can’t afford, or don’t want, or can’t care for – THAT is irresponsible. The Palins are exactly the kind of people who should be having multiple children, as opposed to people who can’t care for them.

  • Pingback: Even More Link-Love for our Beloved VP Nominee at Haemet()

  • Pingback: Fear | Dabubbler.com()

  • I have seen a lot of asinine musings over the last few days about why McCain picked Palin, and how wrong it was for him to pick Palin, and how unfair it was to other possible picks for him to pick Palin, and how the selection of Palin represents a blunder, and how the selection of Palin shows he has bad decision-making skills.

    This is all very silly.

    McCain had several reasons to pick her; they’re obvious if you understand his political situation and his political personality.


    McCain picked Palin because:

    1. She’s a game changer, which he needed;
    2. She’s a base-pleaser, which he needed;
    3. She’s a maverick who took on her own party and hates pork, which he is and he does and it causes him to feel an affinity for her and her style;
    4. She has executive experience which was small, but nevertheless is (a.) sufficient by usual vice-presidential standards, and (b.) compares favorably to his opponent and thereby makes his opponent look (as he indeed is) more qualified to be a vice president than a president;
    5. The alternatives were all dull or old, which merely amplified the problems his ticket had before picking them.


    Now, the above five items are the reason why McCain thought Palin might be a good pick. There is a final reason which caused him to “pull the trigger” and actually do it; actually pick her.

    I doubt McCain realized when he picked her that the conservative base would be so energized that they’d talk openly about flipping the ticket. (Fortunately for him, it’s not an option at this point!)

    But most of his base were talking about staying home — as they did in 2006, producing a Democrat win — because they thought he (like the 2006 GOP Congress) didn’t like them and didn’t give a rip about their conservative priorities.

    So he was going to lose no matter what. If he picked Pawlenty, he’d lose, too. Ditto Romney. Ditto any other same ol’ pol.

    So, with nothing to lose but more losin’, he had no reason not to (and every reason to) do something unexpected with the possibility of a payoff.

    That was his last reason, the analysis which won the argument for him.

    And the gamble worked.

  • As for the comments about having FIVE (oh, the humanity!) children:

    Has it escaped folks’ notice that, in the days before birth control, that might be about the MEDIAN for a healthy family?

    What, then, has changed?

    Simply put, it is the tendency of Americans and the post-industrial West to prefer self-centered playing with toys to the raising of children.

    While not all DINKs exemplify this, the vast increase in their numbers does. We want to travel, we want to live in big houses, we want hi-def, we want new-car, caviar, four-star daydreams. (Think I’ll buy me a football team.) Hard to do that with a little liability who has to be toilet-trained and who keeps drawing with crayon on the wallpaper.

    So, when families had no option, most of them learned selflessness and give-and-take out of necessity.

    Nowadays, while there *are* selfless DINKs and while there might — possibly — be self-centered parents of nine, it is usually those who demonstrate their willingness to care patiently for the future of the country who most certainly exhibit (a.) the sacrificial willingness to take on a burden for the sake of a cause greater than themselves, and (b.) optimism about the future of the country.

    Hurrah for Sarah Palin and her husband. May their children appreciate their lives and the character of their parents, and pass on that generous gift to their own children in turn.

  • Julia

    Most of the responses to my (extremely non PC) post about 5 being an environmentally irresponsible number of children to have have completely missed the point.

    Regardless of what sort of parent you are, new lives in this country consume a disproportionately large amount of natural resources and produce a disproportionately large amount of trash.

    Also about DINKs owing football teams? Fred Levy Jr. former owner of the Rams has grandchildren.

    When there were fewer people on the planet, it was just fine to have as many children as you could support. There was just that much more surface area per person. Dilution was an appropriate way to handle pollution for a long period of human history.

    A concrete way to think about this is the metaphor used by the carbon foot print calculators. You know the ones I mean, where you enter the number of miles you drive per day, the square footage of your home, whether or not you fix plumbing leaks quickly and receive an estimate of how many earths it would take to support all the people on earth if all the people on earth lived in the same manner. To get the number down from the inevitable 3 to 7 earths that are needed for most US residents, you could drastically change your life style or you could reduce the number of people you multiply by (the world population).

    Most likely it will take a concerted effort by citizens of the first world to reduce our consumption and our population. As economies of third world countries improve, and as education levels (especially of women) in third world countries improve, as their job prospects improve etc. birth rates have been falling. This is not the only part of the answer, however, because at the same time, the standard of living in third world countries increases along with consumption.

    As usual, there is no simple solution. It will take contribution from intelligent people of all political sensibilities to arrive at a solution (or more likely, many solutions) to this problem. First we need to be clear that there is a problem. It is much easier to pretend we can keep coming up with technological fixes to our consumption problem. It is even easier to blame global warming on sunspot cycles which clearly we can’t control. However, sunspot activity does not correlate with our consumption habits.

    Also: about the sunspots. I believe the poster is referring to a literature search rather than hands on research, since she refers me to a blogger’s account of someone’s research. It should be noted that the blog posting refered to is formated to look like an article from the online (and peer-reviewed) journal _Science_ but it is a blog post, not a peer-reviewed primary research article. The distinction is not trivial. The insistence on peer-review makes science (as a discipline, not the journal) a conservative endeavor where change is not taken lightly and paradigms take mountains of evidence to change. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand it ensures that accepted scientific ideas of the day have been soundly investigated. However, when someone has conflicting evidence, changing the state of the field takes a long time. Science allows a constant re-evaluation of theory in light of new evidence making it our best method of solving problems of the physical realm.

    I want my children (and my children’s children and so on) to have woods and streams and farm fields (not industrial feed lots – real fields, with grass and clover) and deserts and tundra and oceans to explore and find joy in. I would prefer that they (my children’s children and so on) not live through the massive population crash we are heading for. At some point (unless we reduce our consumption and our population) we will increase our population faster than we can come up with ways to squeeze more corn out of fewer acres and some people will survive but most will not. Long before that however, our future generations will loose the opportunity to enjoy the gorgeous landscapes we enjoy today.

  • Gina

    I understand why the feminists disagree with some of Sarah Palin’s views, like abortion, and I understand their disappointment at loosing Hillary as the first female President, or Vice President. But, now they have a real chance to elect the first ever female Vice President. A woman who exemplifies so many amazing qualities, including her successes and 85% approval rating as Alaska’s governor, mother of five, and the whole nine yards. In addition to breaking the glass ceiling, Palin can finally bring about tremendous reforms for women.
    As International abuses keep coming to light regarding women’s rights, including everything from burkas, to white slavery, to honor killings, you would certainly think that women would be tripping over themselves to elevate one of their own to such a high position. What a shame the feminists are so petty that they can’t see the big picture, set aside their conflicting grievances, and make a couple of concessions, in order to progress in such a big way.

  • Hellavajewel

    To all the women that love Sarah Palin and feel she is what they were looking for. Do you feel she should be at the top of the ticket because it seems like John McCain isn’t good enough.

    I have to listen to her take a few questions but she seems divisive. If she is such a great woman why dont I see her embrace women from all backgrounds. Women of all backgrounds would love to support a strong woman.

    Sorry but a strong woman stands up for the rights of other women. Women that want a CHOICE. Most women don’t want to be told what they can do with their bodies.

    Has she been to areas that are plagued with gun violence?

    and since she is running on a Country First ticket. No questions her patriotism when she wants to put Alaska First.

    So ladies continue to love, support and vote someone that makes you feel warm and fuzzy. so you can feel better about yourself. I want someone that will make me feel better about the Country First. I can me feel better about me. So Sarah Palin thanks but no thanks.

  • ada

    I can relate quite closely to Sarah Palin in many ways. I am a 42 year old mother of 3 who has previously worked outside the home and run a very busy business. I know first hand that it is almost impossible to take care of your children the way you would really love when you are so busy outside the home. Aside from the job or business itself there are also work related pressures and politics. This I imagine is insignificant compared to being the VP or even the president in the case of anything happening to 72 year old John McCain.
    People can try to convince themselves all they like because she shares their beliefs but there is a reason why a woman is blessed with the ability to nuture more than the man. This is our primary task above anything else. It does not demean a womans rights it just means that a woman and a man are created differently for God’s different purposes. There is a reason why her daughter is pregnant at 17 inspite of the heavy christian life they have lead. Could it be because the mom is not there enough? I am not judging Sarah Palin or her family but if my daughter had just gotten pregnant at 17, I’d have a lot of soul searching to do about whether I have done my best by her and the other children especially if I were Gov of a state and my husband worked frequently outside the home on oil rigs. I definitely will not be taking on a challenge that will mean even less time with the children. The book of Ecclesiastes puts it bluntly… There is a time for everything. Let us not turn a blind eye to the truth. Thank you and God bless you.

  • I think the really funny thing about this is to hear all those conservative/religious family-values people who used to rant and rave about ‘working mothers’ and ‘abandoned children'(Dobson, Schafly. Robertson) sounding like Alan Alda or Gloria Steinem. It’s priceless.

  • Pingback: bs’s blog » Will she be the second coming of Hillary or Jackie? ::()

  • Pingback: RedState: Conservative News and Community » Will she be the second coming of Hillary or Jackie? ::()

  • Pingback: ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Will she be the second coming of Hillary or Jackie?()

  • Chris is home in VA

  • suhani2chaddha

    Hi there,
    this is quite convincing stuff, but you might also wana hit http://www.pregnancycounseling… for more info on pregnancy…