“[Sarah] Palin has made the biggest step forward in feminism since Madonna channeled the dominatrix persona of high-glam Marlene Dietrich and rammed pro-sex, pro-beauty feminism down the throats of the prissy, victim-mongering, philistine feminist establishment.” — Camille Paglia

Bwahahaha. OMG. SRSLY?

Well… Colour me prissy.

Honestly, I couldn’t make it through the whole article. I got lost in the bog of hero-worshipping the frontier-style women as “bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.” I seriously can’t believe there is anyone who fails to get the logical flaws inherent in, “prove you’re equal by doing what’s necessary without complaining about the fact that society makes it harder by not treating you as equal.” and “Prove you’re equal by meeting the impossible standards we set for female behaviour instead of by criticizing those standards, which I will call whining because of my perceptions of what is appropriate in female behaviour.”

In fact, what makes Paglia so impressed with Sarah Palin is that she “was somehow able to seem simultaneously reassuringly traditional and gung-ho futurist.” (emphasis mine.) I mean really, this is what passes for feminism? Can you seem pro-feminine-progress without making the traditionalists feel threatened?

‘Cause, you know, I’m not going to presume to judge Sarah Palin’s feminist cred. She’s as feminist as she wants to be, I’m sure. But, I have to say that electing a harpy and a shrew would represent a larger leap for feminism than electing a non-threatening traditionalist who is remarked on, even by feminists, more for what she seems like than for what she’s actually said or done.