Megan Fox: Frisky-Fems Finally Find Single Mother They Hate

It's Bristol Palin, of course
*
As the buzz spread across entertainment websites that Bristol Palin has a new boyfriend, the harpies of hate at The Frisky demonstrated once again that that are more about leftism than empowering women by denigrating the 20 year old. At NewsReal Blog, Megan Fox comments:

I could probably explain to The Frisky editorial staff why they’re all single. It might have to do with the fact that they write articles for the entire world (and dating pool) detailing how they are alcoholic tramps who secretly wish they could be call girls. I say that with love and the best intentions to help them in their sad plight of singledom... Clearly, no one is ponying up a ring and a date for Frisky-fems. Bristol Palin has nothing to do with it. But the level of envy is palpable over at The Frisky.

Strangely enough, Bristol Palin may be the only single mother leftist feminists can’t stand. Up until now we’ve been made to believe it’s the most advanced, liberating experience on the planet akin to putting a man on the moon. Single motherhood is a political platform for the Left. But Bristol doesn’t get protection from faux-feminists because she is speaking out against one of their sacred beliefs.

[...]

It’s as if Bristol’s ambition to help teens choose abstinence (the only 100% proven way to avoid pregnancies and STDs) is the worst and most unattractive choice they’ve ever seen. No man (in their sphere) would ever be attracted to such a clean-thinking woman. And horror of horrors, she has an adorable toddler. Babies are icky.

[...]

Babies require maturity, sacrifice and love, none of which the faux-feminists understand or practice. Their existence is about one thing. Them. Bristol, on the other hand, lives for someone else. She has a son. And she has thrown herself into raising him as best she can with an absent and horrid father who seeks to ruin her at every opportunity by slander, libel and downright malice.

[...]

Contrary to The Frisky-fems, I don’t find it odd that Bristol has a boyfriend. I’m sure there are many men across this country who would love the chance to get to know her better. She’s beautiful, responsible, self-sufficient and a decent human being... Maybe the metrosexuals on speed-dial at The Frisky are scared of Sarah Palin, but the men I know would count it as a bonus that their future kick-a__ mother-in-law might actually take them hunting..."

[More]

- JP

Lori Ziganto: Fear of Palin Exposes Feminists as Useful Idiots

*
Lori Ziganto slices and dices the two radical feminists who recently lamented whined that leftists have no Sarah Palin "of their own":

Anna Holmes of Jezebel and author Rebecca Traister, started from the premise that the left needs a “Palin of their own.” As usual for the left, everything is boiled down to gender identity politics. However, they failed miserably at their goal, due to being the perpetual victims that they are. Instead, they only exposed why leftist feminism is not only unnecessary, but also unwanted.

Let’s break down their idiocy, shall we? See, I’m willing to offer a dose of reality in response to each of their delusions. I’m good and helpful like that because, as a conservative, I believe that charity begins at home. The intelligent-deficient need aid, too.

From the start, the authors exposed their true agenda. A Palin of “our” own. Everything is about the collective with the left. They fail to realize that Sarah Palin is an individual. A person. And individuals support her, for various reasons, none of which have to do with her fancy womb. Rather, they support her for her conservative principles and her willingness to take on issues head on, without couching them in politically correct and “let’s all get along ” meaningless rhetoric. She stands up for things, unlike the current President (who never stands up for anything.) Admittedly, it is hard for him to stand up, because he’s usually too busy bowing down.

The authors further exposed their own sexist beliefs by saying that Sarah Palin was “chosen by Mr. McCain’s campaign strategists as a cynical rejoinder to the ill-starred presidential bid of Hillary Clinton.” Oh, yes, McCain chose Palin as a “cynical rejoinder” and so that he could attract disgruntled Hillary supporters. Funny, but I don’t remember any articles saying that Obama picked Biden as a “cynical rejoinder.” Nor to attract old white plagiarists with doll hair.

It's a great read, and you can view the unedited original at Human Events.

- JP

Leftist women whine for their very own 'progressive Palin'

*
Just how far to the left are Anna Holmes, founding editor of Jezebel, and Rebecca Traister, author of Big Girls Don’t Cry? In a New York Times op-ed co-authored by the "progressive" pair, they rather surprisingly let a big, feral cat out of the bag.

The opinion piece is just so much anti-Palin drivel, and the seething jealousy drips from every paragraph. But that's not the surprising part of an op-ed which bemoans the fact that the Left has no anti-Palin to call its very own. The slip of the keyboard is found in this nugget from the article:

"Since the 2008 election, progressive leaders have done little to address the obvious national appetite for female leadership. And despite (or because of) their continuing obsession with Ms. Palin, they have done nothing to stop an anti-choice, pro-abstinence, socialist-bashing Tea Party enthusiast from becoming the 21st century symbol of American women in politics."

Socialist-bashing?

These two moonbats are so far out there in la-la-leftist land that they actually express their indignation over Gov. Palin's criticism of socialism. They must believe that being a socialist is something to actually be proud of! They must think that those who believe in economic freedom should be tolerant of socialists. We can only imagine the polite cocktail party conversation that goes something like this:

"I understand your friend Zelda is a socialist."

"Yes... What of it?"

"Oh, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course..."

The problem is that there is plenty wrong with socialism, as this American Thinker commentary explains:

In the late 1930s, the noted economist Friedrich Von Hayek wrote his landmark pamphlet "Road to Serfdom," laying bare the diseased skeleton of socialist/utopian thought that had permeated academia and the salons of his day. With an economy of words that showcased the significance of his conclusion, he pointed out the Achilles heel of collectivist dogma: for a planned economy to succeed, there must be central planners, who by necessity will insist on universal commitment to their plan.

How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don't. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to our discussion, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be re-engineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.

Von Hayek accurately foretold the fate that would befall dissenters from the plan. They simply could not be allowed to get in the way. Opposition would soon be treated as subversion, with debate shriveling to non-existence under the glare of the state. Those who refused compliance would first be marginalized, then dehumanized, and finally (failing re-education) eliminated. Collectivism and individualism cannot long share the same bed. They are political oil and water, and neither can compromise its position without eventually succumbing to the other. The history of the twentieth century is littered with the remains of those who became "enemies of the state" for merely drawing attention to this flaw. As Von Hayek predicted, the socialist vision would not be achieved without bloodshed.

Conservative women from Cassy Fiano to Lori Ziganto have argued that the feminism of the left is no longer about empowering women, but rather all about radical leftist politics. By showing their outrage over Sarah Palin's criticism of socialism, Ms. Holmes and Ms. Traister are proving that point made by conservative feminist commentators.

- JP