Haters Gotta Hate, Moose Gotta...Moose

Jim Taranto over at the WSJ believes he has figured out the "irrational hatred" of Sarah Palin by the left, and does a spectacularly irrational job of it by pinning it on "liberal feminist women".

We'd say this goes beyond mere jealousy. For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics in a way that it is not for any other group (possibly excepting gays, though that is unrelated to today's topic).

An important strand of contemporary liberalism is feminism. As a label, "feminist" is passé; outside the academic fever swamps, you will find few women below Social Security age who embrace it.

That is because what used to be called feminism--the proposition that women deserve equality before the law and protection from discrimination--is almost universally accepted today. Politically speaking, a woman is the equal of a man. No woman in public life better symbolizes this than Sarah Palin--especially not Hillary Clinton, the left's favorite icon. No one can deny Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments, but neither can one escape crediting them in substantial part to her role as the wife of a powerful man.

It's pretty impressive saying Sarah Palin proves women are equal politically and then in the same paragraph saying Hillary Clinton's political power derives from being Bill Clinton's wife.  That would imply that women are not politically equal, particularly at the highest levels of American government.  But back to how Palin somehow threatens sexual identity of irrational liberal women...

But there is more to feminism than political and legal equality. Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.

Except for the small minority of women with no interest in having children, this is an inescapable problem, one that cannot be obviated by political means. Aspects of it can, however, be ameliorated by technology--most notably contraception, which at least gives women considerable control over the timing of reproduction.

As a political matter, contraception is essentially uncontroversial today, which is to say that any suggestion that adult women be legally prevented from using birth control is outside the realm of serious debate. The same cannot be said of abortion, and that is at the root of Palinoia.

To the extent that "feminism" remains controversial, it is because of the position it takes on abortion: not just that a woman should have the "right to choose," but that this is a matter over which reasonable people cannot disagree--that to favor any limitations on the right to abortion, or even to acknowledge that abortion is morally problematic, is to deny the basic dignity of women.

So government cannot fix the intrinsic workplace inequality that Taranto says exists between men and women, but that a government solution to the morally problematic question of abortion is needed.  Government cannot legislate equality in the workplace, but it must legislate the reproductive choices of women.  Maybe Taranto believes the former is because of the latter, I don't know.

The fact that Sarah Palin wants the government to tell other women what they can and cannot do with their uterus makes the dislike women have for Palin who are opposed to that "irrational"?

What's "irrational" is one one side of their mouths conservatives who scream that buying health insurance is fascism, but that banning abortion is a proper use of government authority.   I guess it hasn't occurred to Jim that these fears of government overreach by the new GOP House leadership on abortion may not be "irrational".

What the GOP is doing with H.R. 3 is something entirely different. They’re not only placing new restrictions on abortion services but also expanding the role of government in private life. As CAP’s Jessica Arons put it, “H.R. 3 would redefine the concept of government funding far beyond the current common understanding. Rather than simply prohibiting the use of federal funds to directly pay for abortion, H.R. 3 would insert itself into every crevice of government activity and prohibit even private and non-federal government funds from being spent on any activity related to the provision of abortion any time federal money is involved in funding or subsidizing other, non-abortion-related activities.

It's all so...irrational...if you think about it.