And the truth comes out....Feminists are evil monster's trying to ruin this country...

Sheesh, I don't condone violence but he needs a smack upside the head for that one...

i think smoke just came out of my ears...that is infuriating. i can't believe he actually thinks it's a good thing to provide a counterpoint to a movement that wants equal rights for all groups of people. this says so much about the ways john mccain has changed and why i would never, ever vote for him.

Now I guess it's important to remember that the viewers at Faux News think that feminists are crazy, man-hating lesbians who live on compounds, inseminating each other with turkey baster and having abortions (those aren't my words, but I can't remember where I got them).

That said, more frightening to me than Sarah Palin's monstrous anti-freedom, anti-health and (as far as I'm concerned) anti-American positions, is the fact that this woman is a complete and utter moron.

We've tolerated politicians with those anti-freedom, anti-health and anti-American views (*cough* Bush *cough*), but rarely does out country do well under idiotic leadership.

The executive branch is built for competence, and clearly McCain and Palin are ruled out on the basis of that criterion.

Wow... just Wow.

McCain is well known as an old school misogynist but he usually shows more tact.

Fortunately A pair of feminists are going to take the executive branch by storm this year.

He shouldn't be so thrilled. Her popularity has dropped considerably with women. Wonder why that is?

I love me some liberal feminist agenda.

This entire issue need look no further than the audience Palin is actually attracting. Honestly, enough said. She's attracting men who dream about a woman as compliant and agreeable and anti-feminist as she is, and those are the people who will vote for her. She's certainly not getting the vote of any women I know. Then again, most states are completely different from New York!

If she's actually the best thing that happens to his campaign, I can't wait until he thoroughly loses.

Is he finally admitting that Palin ISN'T a feminist? 'Bout damn time.

At least now I have a direct quote to cite when I tell people Palin is not a feminist. They look SKEPTICAL. Come on!

Maybe what McCain was trying to say was Palin represents a conservative feminist agenda... (any takers? Anyone?)

Academically, what would a conservative feminist agenda look like, opposed to a liberal feminist agenda? Where would the overlap, differences, and varying emphasis be?

Hmmmm...

Well, we're liberal and feminist and she kind of is our enemy, something that could really defeat us in a way, so there he is.

I think all this "agenda" stuff is ridiculous. The word itself is taking on a bad connotation. Absolutely everybody has an agenda. If you don't have an agenda, what are you doing in politics?

Isn't this whole "liberal agenda" bull-nonsense going out of style? Aren't most people starting to clue in to the fact that the conservativism that has dominated American politics over the past thirty years is actually self-serving and fiscally irresponsible? Hasn't the word "liberal" been trampled down so many times by the conservative agenda that it has ceased being the equivalent of "free-wheeling, money-spending, bleeding-heart, amoral anti-American?" Aren't we now, generally, starting to think of liberal as fiscally responsible as well socially responsible?

Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. The word liberal has always sounded good to me. So does the word feminist.

Would this "liberal feminist agenda" that she stands counter to include the bit that has ensured and upheld her right to vote and hole public office?

*hold public office, gah!

Has the McCain campaign tried to winner voters by touting Palin as a feminist before, or was that just supporters using that particular rhetoric?

Palin is a counter to the "Liberal feminist agenda" aka women's reproductive rights!!!

I almost couldn't watch the clip. McCain and Palin truly make me sick.

And has anyone read how McCain treats his current wife Cindy (or women in general - remember his rape joke in the 80's?)? NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

He's a misogynistic butthead. Clearly the type of person we want running this country (and giving example to our kids).

On the topic of who Palin's audience is, the other night somebody said something about her to this guy and his automatic response was "Well, she's HOT, so...I wouldn't mind..." and then he sort of trailed off like people do when they expect me to laugh along with them and I don't, and said something about how he's sorry he's a pig, by which he meant he's sorry he forgets to censor himself when there's a "lady" present.

I happen to be very fond of the liberal feminist agenda.

I'm proud to be a member of the liberal feminist agenda ;)

I don't know Steven, but I do have some indication.

"Through Sarah Palin, the definition that has been painted by the liberal media of what an acceptable female candidate has been shattered. An acceptable female candidate for the Democrat party and the liberal media is an angry, shrill woman who doesn't see a child as a blessing, but as a burden. A woman that puts her career first. Who is on the fringes of a lot of issues. And what we are seeing in Sarah Palin is essentially Ronald Reagan in heels. And a woman who puts her family, her god, and her faith first. A woman who is able to juggle her profession and smile and be kind and compassionate. We are witnessing the revolution of what is going to be acceptable to be a female candidate right now." (Robin Smith, TRP) [From Shakesville[

It's an interesting question. I've even checked the Feminists for Life website in search of an answer, but it didn't take long before my head spun from all the anti-choice PR. When this quote came out I became really really frightened that the right would do to 'feminism' what they've done so often: redefine a term and then reappropriate it to serve their own purpose. Fortunately, that kind of rhetoric didn't go very far and I hardly heard it again. I'm glad McCain now settled it once and for all.

Wait. Though I haven't read it, this book should give some of the answers. It was pointed to in this article on Alternet, which I found really interesting.

Yes, I'm glad that he's building upon and smacking down those liberal feminist ideas like *blatant air quote* women's health *end blatant air quote*.

The way he says this, I'm wondering what he thinks the conservative feminist agenda might look like.

I love that he contrast "liberal feminist agenda" with the "wonderful family" that Palin has. I keep forgetting our liberal feminist agenda involved destroying that idealistic American family. I forgot that part of the manifesto for a minute, its right after "castration of all uncooperative males."

I'm kind of flattered he's so afraid of us.

Okay, guys, who sent John McCain a copy of the Liberal Feminist Agenda? 'Fess up. You know that shit is classified.

Never forget: We caused 9/11 with our damn rape shield laws!

I'm not normally one to pull the "WHEN OH WHEN DID 'LIBERAL' BECOME A DIRTY WORD?" lament out of my rhetorical handbag, but it is funny to consider how the word "agenda" can practically imply facsism when someone in this country attaches it to "liberal" (or "feminist"). Suddenly the problem isn't that we're unwashed free-love hippies -- it's that we're on the move. Since when is having an agenda a sign that someone is not to be trusted? This isn't a campaign for the management position at Baskin-Robbins. This is federal elected office. If there was ever a job where having an agenda was appropriate, this is the one. Planning to drive the country to the Rapture on a snowmobile powered by the Holy Spirit is not a more qualifying alternative.

Misspelled, Your last sentence made me pee my pants a little. That is filed in my top three favorite mental images.

I second that, Liz B. It begs to be illustrated. Were I better at cartooning I would do it. :)

He's right. She is the best thing that could have happened to America. After America saw her interviews and speeches, they turned toward Obama.

we've got to watch out for those EXTREMIST FUNDAMENTALIST RADICAL FEMINISTS AND THEIR EVIL AGENDA!! Phew, good thing the world has someone like Palin to counter these immoral agenda pushing fems..

feminists don't want to castrate men (well...i can only speak for myself on that one :P heh) or HURT anyone, the whole point is to include and protect people, ALL people. so WHY on earth, would that need a counter?! surely all parties should be working towards the feminist goals.

i really can't wait til he loses. then he can go off and look like a chicken nugget/colonel sanders combo in private and leave womens minds and bodies alone.

This is one of those moments where I feel exceedingly naive, because I.....cannot..... believe....he.....actually...said that. It's quite bizarre to KNOW that it is absolutely the way these conservative politicians feel, but you lose the full impact of that knowledge after they adopt "centrist" speech and engage in deceptively watered down assertions.

What would have been even more interesting is if the follow-on question was, "And what do you perceive as the liberal feminist agenda?" Because, I think that is something ALL voters, male and female have the right to know. Besides healthcare, violence-free lives, and equality, I really can't think of anything else. Even if you take abortion entirely out of the formula,(one item does not an agenda make) WHAT DOES HE MEAN????

Do you think he would have given the whole response to that question in air quotes?

Does anyone else have the impression that he doesn't really want to win this thing anymore? I mean seriously, to veer away so completely from careful, centrist speech seems like a huge gaffe to me.

My greatest hope is that one day we will all look back on this sort of talk and it will appear akin to George Wallace at the schoolhouse door.

I'm personally dumfounded...and completely disillusioned. (And even more determined to make my vote count.)

My first thought being, uh, "No shit." Palin hates women, erego, anti-feminist. She hates healthcare, welfare, etc, erego, anti-liberal. And she knows absolutely nothing about politics in general so there is no way in holy hell that she could possibly have an agenda. (Also, she thinks it's "obvious who the bad guys are" when in comes to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. Just sayin)
Sometimes, I am almost jealous of America because it is so, so obvious who not to vote for. But then I realize that her and McCain might actually win, and I appreciate living in a country where according to Jon Stewart our "Conservative party is like America's 'Nader-loving gays for peace.'"

@Flippy: I completely agree. I never really understood why the word "agenda" was demonized in the first place. Saying that someone else has an "agenda" in that context implies "it's okay for me to believe certain things and push for certain legislation and other changes, but it's an evil conspiracy if my opponents are doing it."

She's a psychotic barbie doll. I see why that appeals to McCain, but the rest of the country has gotten wise (relative to this moron).

I can't believe people aren't up in arms about the first line of this clip: He admits adding Palin to the ticket was a "cold, political calculation." He's not even trying any more!

Steven: I was under the impression, from my women's studies classes, that liberal feminists are the most "conservative" on the continuum of feminists, which includes socialist feminists, radical feminists, etc. Hence, there is no such thing as a conservative feminist.

How some women can consistently vote against themselves and their own liberation (liberal/liberation) is beyond me. Why the rest of us have to be punished because some women need to play patriarchy's games to get that head pat is a great injustice.

I have checked the “Liberal Feminist Agenda” and, indeed, Section 14.52, Subsection 2a, Article B calls for the total annihilation of the whole of the U.S. as we know it, turning every citizen into a radical, lesbian, hairy, abortion lovin’, feminazi. The real question is who gave McCain a copy? Sigh. I guess now we’ll have to change our agenda to something more benign like equality or something.

She's a psychotic barbie doll.

alexs: This is a feminist website. Sexist comments are not welcome here.

I get a kick out of the fact that everyone on each side of any issue is always accusing everyone else of having an "agenda". Like it's the most evil thing in the world.

I mean, having a hidden agenda is one thing, but I'm pretty sure feminists are pretty upfront about what we want. So what the hell is wrong with having certain goals and being very forward about what those goals are?

I was having a conversation over a Guiness two nights ago and this topic came up. And I'd like to bring this up here (unless its already been hashed out before- then someone please direct me to the archives!).

Palin obviously has some appeal to conservative women. And these women are excited because for the FIRST time (except Elizabeth Dole, but she didn't enter said conversation) these women feel like there is someone speaking for them. Conservative figures tend to be male and the feminist movement is quite liberal. How can we reach these women? Is there a feminism-lite that can cater to the pro-lifers? How about Christian feminists (or do they even need a feminism-lite)?

I know that my mother felt left out of the movement when she decided to stay at home with my sister and I- she felt like feminism made it more difficult for a woman to stay at home by placing more and more value on working outside the home. How can we place more value on traditional "women's work"?

Are we doing these things and I don't know?

I think feminism really truly can be for everyone, like bell hooks said. But I worry that the women who don't share a liberal ideology feel left out.

I have noticed something though- when the "agenda" comes up, we note violence against women and healthcare. That is something we can all rally around (except for abortion, which as we all know is hotly controversial). But how do we bridge the gap? Do we even want to? Is feminism-lite even feminist?

So I know all about the gay agenda--the toaster ovens, etc. And as an ardent follower of the Feminist Agenda, what prize do I get for converting people? I'm thinking at least a trophy depicting a bronze aborted fetus...the prize should definitely be bigger, though, for converting guys. Ideas? Is there someone I could write to on this one?

@ TinkTheTank: well, I lean more toward the radical side, so some here might disagree with my response to your questions, but to start: I think one important thing about feminism is letting women choose what to do with their lives, and if that means staying home, fine. Nobody should feel too pressured to do things other than what they really, truly want to do.

But a problem I see is that we're raised in a society that doesn't actually give us a real choice. To your question, "Are we doing these things and I don't know?" I'd say, yes, tons of feminists definitely are saying that "traditional" women's work has value and that choosing to do it, exclusively, is just fine. But there are those of us who are equally concerned with abolishing the idea that cooking, cleaning and caring for your family have something to do with your sex. I think only when that concept has disappeared will women have real choices about whether to stay home or go to the workplace.

"Feminism-lite," I feel, doesn't address the root of the problems...and would therefore not be very productive. The idea of an anti-choice "feminism," or one that doesn't question the idea of "women's work" being for women, is more like...well, patriarchy-lite. "Women can't have total control over their bodies, and we need to respect their 'choice' to stay home and clean rather than pursue a career...but, go women!" just doesn't seem to hold much substance to me.

The definition of feminism has changed over the last century. We break down the biggest sexist status-quo, but there are always more. I mean, Laura Ingalls Wilder wrote that she didn't care about women getting the vote, and she wasn't alone; were there suffragists fighting for the right of women to CHOOSE NOT to vote? No, because we've got patriarchy to do that for us. That, to me, is what feminism is--questioning the comfort zone, exposing sexism even in places where people, including other women, are perfectly content to sustain the status-quo.

So yeah, I don't feel the need to bridge that gap, the same way I don't feel the best thing for liberalism is to make it more appealing to conservatives through compromise.

TinktheTank - There's certainly Christian feminism. While I know feminists who are hostile towards religious folk, it's nowhere near as institutionalized as the resistance of the Christian right to actual, real feminism. (Abortion totally aside - I mean, John McCain opposed the Ledbetter Act because it might cause problems for businesses. Hint: if the businesses were paying their female employees fairly, it wouldn't be a problem.)

But I digress. The feminist movement is a lot more accepting of Christians than the Christian movement of feminists.

How would you define conservative feminism? It would seem that feminism is inherently a liberal movement.

I just want to wipe that arrogant smile off of his face... ugh!

You know, Rebecca, I don't know how a conservative feminism would look. Which is why I wanted to bounce ideas off people.

As for "women's work," I whole heartedly agree that it shouldn't be decided by gender but by ability/equal work times. And as I'm thinking about it, I realize that this fight to make it more gender neutral has had the unintended consequence of making it more valued. Because men are doing it now, too. But then I guess empowered women executives/supervisors are coming home from work and doing that same housework, as well now. So that adds to the value. Although, you're definitely right though, Judith, feminism-lite is more like patriarchy-lite.

I just really feel like we're missing a population. Of course, a movement that is inclusive to all religions, like ours, may help bridge that gap to religious conservatives. Perhaps that's the bridge I'm looking for.

Because I have no clue what to do about the secular conservative women. And of course, I'm speaking about social conservatives (although as a social worker- fiscal conservatives scare me and would like to bridge them over to my side!)
And really, social conservatives who don't have a religious component to their conservativism probably wouldn't want any part of our movement, and wouldn't want any sort of bridging.

I just wonder how we can make feminism speak for all women, even those who are conservative, since no one else really speaks for them. Or maybe feminism already does, but the message gets twisted and we loose some people.

I would think that a conservative feminisms would be a feminism with a lot of moral judgment.

Using the very simple 'social, economic and political equality' concept conservative feminist would not believe that women have to much restrictions, but men don't have enough.

Take sexual mores and the whole stud/slut thing. As I conceptualize it, a conservative feminist would advocate for ensuring a man with a lot of parters was looked down upon for being a slut. Male purity would be put on a pedestal along with female purity.

In regards to body image, both men and women would be judged equally for not meeting some sort of ideal and being overweight would be seen as a moral short-coming (gluttony is a sin, btw).

The arguement for conservative feminism and abortion has already been made. If someone is suppose to be a complete sovereign over their body anything that messes with the natural (what a loaded word that is) development of a fetus/baby is a violation of its bodily sovereignty. Baby trunps because it is more vulnerable.

So yeah, thats how i think conservative feminism would work.

He is an ignorant twat. He doesn't know what he's going on about.
I'd like to hear Obama's opinions on Ms. Palin.

Steven: That's really interesting and makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the perspective.

One more idea of what I think conservative feminism would look like...

Regarding the difference in insurance coverage for birth control and Viagra... neither coverage should be mandated by law. Needless regulation getting in the way of free government.

If women really want the coverage, they should use the free market and refuse to sign up for coverage that does not include birth control.

Men could do the same if they had an insurance policy that did not cover erectile dysfunction.

Any difference in coverage would result from women as a whole being unwilling to use capitalism properly.