Moving Target

Is there a list from the liberal feminists on what constitutes 'sexism', and what benchmarks constitute 'advances for women'? Because lately it seems to be a moving target.

I used to think I understood the feminists' point of view. Women and men were to be treated equally in all circumstances. If you ask a question of a woman, it should also be asked of a man. It shouldn't automatically be assumed that women are the primary caretaker of the children, and even making that assumption could garner you an angry and hostile response. These were the rules.

But now that Sarah Palin is making her mark in the political realm, a double standard has emerged, or shall we call it a "tightening of the definition of sexism". Suddenly liberal career women are asking about Palin's decision to be on McCain's ticket, and is she too ambitious at the expense of her children. What? Are there any other ladies out there that are as confused about this as I am? I haven't heard anyone ask about Barack Obama's ambition at the expense of his two little girls. And as much as the media likes to harp on Palin's FIVE children, the fact is that two of them are grown, meaning she only has one more child at home than Barack. Yet Barack hasn't been subjected to the same scrutiny as Palin. And now all of a sudden this makes sense to so-called feminists.

So what are the rules? Because clearly they change from situation to situation. Traditional women have been out there for a long time saying that despite our dreams of men and women being completely "equal"/"the same", we are not; we are made differently and built differently. In God's design this makes sense. Men have no problem with discipline and do not harbor feelings of insecurity and guilt. Women balance this out by their natural sense to nurture and love and avoid 'hard core' discipline. The two characteristics of God's design make for a nice balance for a family. Traditional women understand this, and ask for equality based on the differences in our make up. 'Value me as a woman for the traits that I bring to the table; don't belittle me and my traits and my role; and give me the opportunity to do exactly what I want to do, even though I'll do it as a woman instead of trying to do it like a man'. For me, what feminism has done is make it to where I can do anything I want to do, anything. If that means staying at home because it helps my husband and I achieve our goals and the kind of life we want to lead, then I can do it. If it means my friends stay home with their kids, they can do it. It's their choice and not one that is imposed on them. If I or my friends want to work and divide the home responsibilities, we can do it without any guilt. At least, that's what the feminists always told us.

But now, it's those same liberal feminists who are judging Palin harshly. This puts them in a predicament, because now they really need to define exactly what feminism is and what sexism is. Are they ready to admit that all choices come with a sacrifice, and it's a myth to think you can have it all? Staying at home sacrifices career. Having a career sacrifices time with children. Are they ready to admit that? Are they ready to admit that men and women are built differently and that women more naturally take on the role of caretaker? I don't see them being able to admit this, but in their questioning of Sarah Palin, that is what they are implying.

In the end, I think their treatment of Palin has hurt the feminist cause. By having this slippery slope, moving target of feminism and sexism, they're reinforcing the 'sexist' notion that women can be quite irrational and unhappy no matter what; that women always find something to bitch about. After all, my dream as a woman is that all women would have the same opportunities available to them that men do, should we decide to pursue those. That we have the freedom to live whatever kind of life we want to live, without any gender barriers. And Palin is achieving that. Count this true feminist happy.