A Feminist Look at Palin's Military Jargon

I don’t think I’ve ever been so repulsed by the shameless liberal media as I am today, watching and reading the purely “hate-hate-hate-!!” rhetoric blaming Sarah Palin’s “targeting” of Gabrielle Giffords’ Arizona district for Saturday’s tragedy.

When a mentally unbalanced young person commits a violent act, it is nothing but a horrible tragedy. It is human nature to try to make sense of a senseless act, to try to place blame and make all the circumstances add up to some sort of false-security “solution” to block similar tragedies in the future. But none of that excuses those who indulge their human bent without restraint. Restraint in matters such as this is the function of reason.

Commentators, who have indulged in political finger-pointing in the aftermath of tragedy, using familial and national grief as a leftist revolutionary tool, ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

And just to set the rhetorical record straight, many conservative bloggers have already dug up the violence-laden political speech of many well-known liberals, including most famously, the president himself.

Howard Kurtz has a great column today on the Daily Beast, refuting most of the liberal commentators’ charges against Palin.

I have one bone to pick with Kurtz’ assertions, however.  Kurtz labeled Palin’s use of the “crosshairs” political target map as both “unfortunate” and “dumb.”

It still amazes me that so-called enlightened people fail to see the obvious when it comes to the obstacles women actually do face in seeking powerful positions.

If Sarah Palin does intend to run for the presidency -- ever -- then she faces a built-in obstacle to her aspirations that no man faces. She must overcome deeply embedded psychic archetypes which tend to discount a woman’s ability to be firm and tough, especially in foreign policy and military matters. Our reluctance to trust a woman in the role of commander in chief is no small thing.  And this reluctance is firmly positioned in the thinking of both men and women.

There is indeed a glass ceiling and nowhere is that ceiling thicker or more feminist bullet-proof than the presidency of the United States. The barrier to women as national leaders has been broken elsewhere, but elsewhere is not the United States -- the world’s lone superpower.