Critical of girl power?

Recently, I was criticised by Ruby Hamad (see On Line Opinion article) for writing a positive essay on Governor Sarah Palin, a great woman. Here is my response:

Silly argument No1

That the article is to be riddled with blatant sexism is immediately apparent in the title; “Girl power is back” … We are not even into the actual article yet and already the female subject is belittled before our eyes.

According to Ruby Hamad, politically incorrect boys, cannot praise politically incorrect girls because …?

Perhaps, the “thought police” can send me a list of all the words I can and can’t use in public. I’d love to see that list, by the way. I’d post it on my regrigerator.

(Fact check: in any case, I’m not responsible for the title. But, just for the record, I do love the editor’s choice!)

Silly argument No2

Palin is 44-years old. Hardly a “girl”. Furthermore, this woman is running for the second highest office in the world’s leading power. And yet Terpstra, who claims to be supportive of her, has right off the bat dismissed her as a girl and likened her to a frivolous, has-been girl band of the 90s. Is this what passes for an endorsement of a female politician on the conservative side of politics?

I don’t think Governor Palin is a little girl, but if Leftists have an issue with colloquial speech, then they can pile on Clinton. Truth is, many of her supporters use the above “devil words” all the time. Why single out conservatives? Why the double-standards?

The Longman Dictionary of English associates the noun “girl power” with (1) “the idea that women should take control of their lives or situations” and (2) “the social or political influence that women have” in the West. Hardy sexist.

It isn’t surprising to learn, then, that Clinton’s male and female fans love to watch the “Hillary Clinton - Girl Power!” show on YouTube - and sing with the Spice Girls. Still, Hamad singles me out me for “overt sexism” and other thought crimes.

But, above all, Hamad’s attacks on the allegedly “frivolous” Spice Girls border on the unforgivable. Is this what passes as feminism in leftwing Melbourne? Spice Girls rule!

Silly argument No3

Terpstra once again states that the tapping of Palin “may make a strong case that the Republican Party isn’t running from change, but building on change”. What change Peter [sic] (for the umpteenth time)?

Clearly, Hamad likes to both misread and skip my paragraphs and lists. But, given that Hillary “Shame on you, Barack Obama” Clinton likens Governor Palin’s change to “a great accomplishment” I think we can all agree that the United States can teach the world a lesson. Or two.

Silly argument No4

This leads to the second major fallacy in Terpstra’s article. Namely, the claim that Palin “may win over Hillary Clinton’s hurting supporters”.

Fact: Team Republican is already winning over some of Hillary “Shame on you, Barack Obama” Clinton’s hurting supporters.

Watch the polls. Indeed, I’ve read their wounded web posts, seen their protest signs, heard their cries on YouTube, examined their pro-Palin arguments, studied the polls, and, reached the conclusion, that they’re not Obama’s tools.

Across the South and the Midwest, for example, thousands are jumping on McCain’s and Palin’s wagon. But there’s more. Even if, 10 per cent of Clinton’s followers vote Republican, then the Democratic Party is in serious trouble. The figure, I suspect, however, is closer to 30 per cent. A fallacy? Ruby is entitled to her opinions but not her facts.

Silly argument No5

Palin’s views oppose Clinton’s on every single major issue, including the issue of women’s rights.

Is this true? And, should one assume that all voters - male and female - vote along strict political party lines. But just for accountability’s sake, let’s see how Hamad’s thesis stacks up:

Abortion? Clinton now says that "abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare". This suggests that she is moving to the right. Less abortion clinics, after all, means more mothers.

Guns? Clinton talks fondly of her hunting memories too. “You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she recalls. “You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter” as Obama claims. (April 12, 2008.)

The death penalty? Clinton and Palin support the death penalty for granny killers - and beastly terrorists.

“Gay marriage”? Clinton and Palin oppose “gay marriages”.

Iraq and Afghanistan? Clinton and Palin back interventionism when it counts, and millions of Kurdish women are very grateful.

In reality, this idea that Clinton will bring us back to the “peaceful” 1990s, and that all of Hillary’s supporters reject Palin’s support of Bush’s “hawkish” policies is a joke, miles removed from reality. Indisputably, they all support interventionist foreign policies.

And did Hillary campaign for Bill? As Thomas E. Woods correctly points out in his New York Times bestseller, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History: “Clinton dispatched the military forty-four times during his eight years. The U.S. military had been deployed outside of America only eight times in the previous forty-five years.” Thus, Hamad’s anti-war Hillary is pure fiction.

Silly argument No6

Palin, he says, “just may kick butt”. Yes, because men run countries … By focusing on Palin’s gender and not her policies, and repeatedly likening her to irrelevant celebrities and invoking pop culture mantras Terpstra is contributing to the sexism that inhibits women from ever achieving equality in the work place.

Wow! So, my last “devil words” are conspiratorially “invoking pop culture mantras” which are allegedly “contributing to the sexism that inhibits women from achieving equality in the workplace.” And, they say Michael Moore is excessive!