MORNING WIDDERSHINS:ET TU, LADIES?

The controversy swirling around Sarah Palin this week in her abrupt decision to resign her gubernatorial role is huge! Everybody and his brother has signed on with one theory after another as to why and what led to this break with her constituents and what the future has in store with regard to her next move. Much of the chatter throughout the blogosphere largely assumes that she was “forced out” by the actions of a hostile press which brought untold emotional harm to her family and left her no choice but to resign. I have no idea what led to this decision since what she said in her press conference was “fuzzy”at best, and even those reporters and talking heads, a lot smarter and more adept at reading through the lines than I am, are hard pressed themselves to establish a clear objective.

What brings me to this subject is the vitriol and hostility emanating from many feminist sites who are more than willing to hang this resignation around the neck of “sexism” only, and who bluster and decry any other presumed reason around this event. Granted, she was in the crosshairs of some vile and disgusting comments regarding her personal life. What came off the page, and was prevalent on many blog sites, were many vicious comments that should have been immediately scrubbed out of a sense of decency if nothing else. But here I was also reading  similar comments coming from so called feminist outposts joining ranks with the other blogs acting out in the same manner.

I am no fan of Michele Obama. She truthfully does not interest me. She is the First Lady, wife of a man I did not support, and for all intents and purposes, an attentive mother. That she chose to remain out of the public spotlight and devote herself to her daughters as they make the transition to an unexpected jolt in their normal routine is commendable. Michele Obama did not run for office, nor does she owe the nation more than to do what she feels is in her best interest as is her choice. Is that not what feminism preaches? The right to choose one’s own path as we travel through life and to be able to do so based on our own decision making and not rely on the decree of others?

But hold on. This courtesy was not conferred upon her. She was blasted for not taking on a much more involved role as First Lady! For choosing to stay home when she could have been working! For setting aside her Ivy League education in place of baking cookies and overseeing her daughters homework! This does not bother me since one less Obama making policy in the WH suits me fine! As far as I am concerned, she can stay home and bake to her heart’s content. It still remains her choice.

However, as the feminist voices rise up by punctuating the critics who slammed Palin, one thing goes missing in the outburst. This same beating was also in large part delivered against Michele Obama by some of the same bloggers and commentators who now “cry foul” in rushing to the defense of Palin. I have seen female commentators compare Michele Obama to a “gorilla”. Her clothing and make up held up for ridicule. Her butt, tummy and arms laughed at. Her hairstyle, fashion sense, hell, even her shoe size seized upon by the same outraged “feminists” who now cry “unfair” when it comes to the same abuse heaped upon by critics of Sarah Palin. These are female commentators who have referred to Michele as “ugly, hateful, monkey face, mean, untrustworthy, spiteful” and any other perjoritive I may have missed.  “Bitch”" was a big favorite.  Comments delivered by women to another woman based primarily on the fact that her husband, whom they did not support, was running for president and had defeated Hillary Clinton.

When did it become “acceptable” to pile onto one woman as they did so viciously and voraciously, and when did that same attitude become “ unacceptable” when it came to another? Why were totally racist and horribly mean spirited comments allowed through the filter when discussing Michele Obama, when any comment perceived as an “attack” on Palin was either scrubbed or met with such rank hostility by some on the blogs that it defied credulity? When Michele, a female, could be referred to as a “gorilla” while other commentators excused or applauded this obscenity, this same group could than shift into an outright defense of Palin without examining the dichotomy of this position. I am reaching for some sense of consistency here. What is the feminist position here folks is all I am asking. Forget the sense of fair play. Simply consider the hypocrisy of these posters and commentators who today are the loudest voices in defense of one woman, calling out others as sexists and trolls because they refuse to buy into some of the Palin adulation, but who were more than willing participants in the piling on and denigration of another female and did so without compunction.

I am no fan of either one. Neither Michele nor Sarah interest me. But the rampant hypocrisy that I see emanating from the blogosphere itself, from women who crown themselves “feminists” and “defenders of sexist attacks”, who vow to stand up until they are “knocked down” in challenging the misogyny they see running wild out there, need to reexamine themselves when it comes to these outbursts. If it applies to one then it applies to all, regardless of political beliefs, party labels, or “crushes” on candidates of the moment. The outrage to those unwarranted attacks must apply across the board.

But save your faux outrage, your manufactured tears, your misguided attempts to cast yourselves as the pure upholders of all things “feminist”. It is pretty clear that some do not have a clue. In demanding that other blogs delete sexist comments altogether, let’s consider that you do the same. Perhaps one way of overriding these disgusting commentaries is to begin practicing what you preach as well.

Free speech need not sanction a steady stream of invective in an attempt to prove a point. Women who do are nothing more than the same frat boy mentality they so often single out as proof. We cannot elevate the conversation unless we agree that picking and choosing who is eligible to be defended, as opposed to who is not, is swept away.

If the shoe fits, wear it.  A little harsh perhaps but well worth the contemplation.  It may be wise to consider that the “sexist” label is not exclusive.