The vitriolic hatred of Sarah Palin by the radical feminists, as exemplified especially by the Blog “Shakesville” shows, beyond doubt, the terrible dilemma and schizophrenic mindset the conundrum that is Sarah Palin has put such feminists into.
On the face of it, a woman of Palin’s achievements should be the cause for triumphalism amongst feminists. In every aspect of her life, her career achievements in a “patriarchal” world, her completely equal sharing role with her husband (a “real man” if that has any bearing on the matter), her capacity to be an author, outdoors person, activist and caring mother are an incredible advance on where women were as late as the mid 1960’s.
But no, Palin is under ceaseless attack for one reason only, her dedicated pro-life stance. Whatever feminism was before the rise of Palin, and of course its aim of equality of opportunity was laudable, it is now seen to be mono-focussed. Pro/anti life considerations are its defining motif above all else.
No matter what Palin has achieved, no matter what she may further achieve-even to the ultimate feminist triumph of becoming the first female president of the United States, she will never be acceptable to the feminist left.
This is the ultimate failure of feminism in its current aspect as a manifestation and tool of the Alinsky radical left. In this current guise its goal is to defeat Palin and prevent her from achieving the highest office in the land. This is because she is a woman whose life views they disagree with-at the cost of negating economic policies which will help all women.
This dichotomy in the collective mind of radical feminists is highlighted further by their failure to grasp that there are elements in society, and human nature, which transcend the blinkered notion of “patriarchy” and the liberal world view.
Their attitude to Palin’s life reinforcing/religious stance is mirrored by their non-comprehension of the Dionysian nature of humankind which finds its expression in women as well as in men. The surrealist paintings of Dorothea Tanning are an odd journey into a world which, if depicted by a man, would be the subject of much feminist attack as misogynist e.g. one of her seminal works Eine Klein Nachtmusik .
Tannings paintings bring the viewer into “an unsettling world” of what appears to be Victorian repressive neurosis.
The male created surrealism of e.g. Dali has a dreamlike, or similarly other worldly nature, but there is nothing of the overt, distorted nature of Tanning’s work. Even the title of her major work (pictured below) “The Truth about Comets and Little Girls" reinforces this unsettling innuendo "Her work explores the female psyche through the medium of dreams. Her paintings often combine a superficial childhood innocence with rather disturbing undertones and morbid symbolism"
Even Hieronymus Bosch, the predecessor of what we know as surrealism presents nothing of the nature of Tanning’s oeuvre. His work, even with his most gory depictions, have an element of being so over the top that they transcend being unsettling.
Feminists, Paglia perhaps excepted, have been so radicalized by years of extreme anti-patriarchal propaganda that they have inured themselves to viewing the broader brush of humanity. This humanity expresses itself in regarding men and women as having diverse, but equal natures, some aspects of which are not particularly attractive, but that in reality are held nonetheless.
Women can hold to a pro-life stance for which they shouldn’t be demonized by other women who “know better” and which demonization leads to, ultimately, the detriment of all women and society as a whole. The feminists, in their black and white view of the world are unable even to entertain a reasonable dialogue regarding an individual’s pro-life stance. By doing so, they expose themselves as lacking a truly humanistic and balanced view which accepts the diversity in women in the arts and in the body politic.
No comments:
Post a Comment