Someone on another board said it so well, I couldn't have said it better myself:
First, I would argue Mrs. Palin is a feminist, though not as radical
as the ones we conjure up when we think of feminists. For this
reason she is more dangerous. When a conservative revolutionary is
held up to a radical revolutionary we see the conservative, more
often than not, as the true position, when both should be rejected.
This will only entrench feminism further into the hearts and minds of
those of goodwill.
It is impossible to compare hereditary monarchy, where government
rule is trustingly placed in the hands of Providence, and elected
office. Obviously Mrs. Palin chose to run in politics. There was
no message from God or clear sign from Divine Providence that she was
to leave home and family and run for public office. I wrote the
following in a different forum:
"The bases of female monarchs (in those nations with an established
tradition of it) is that when the father is struck down, or unable to
do his duties, the wife assumes those duties, out of necessity and
the good of the family, which naturally fall to the husband. The
monarch being the father of his people, we see at times that
necessity can (and where there is an established tradition) leave
this patriarchal role to the female, as much as she is able to assume
that role for the sake of the common good, she can be queen, again
where tradition has permitted."
Isabel would have ruled, but she would have seen that: her father and
brothers were dead, thus Providence handed her the burden of the
crown, as confirmed by Spanish tradition, and the will of the Church
and the nobles that recognised her as queen. God placed the crwon on
her head, and it is not at all the same as a housewife from Alaska
deciding to run for elected office.
Topic: What's wrong with Sarah Palin (Read 1763 times)