Kevin McCullough

Sarah Palin has become the most historic feminist icon in a decade. For this honor she has been subjected to derision, ridicule, and endless sexist contempt by not just the Obama/Biden presidential campaign, but other "modern" feminist voices to boot.

Palin's nomination and amazing composure in the heat of the national spotlight have so frightened Obama in fact that he has unleashed "feminist attack dogs" (their words not mine) and are now beginning to tout some of the most sexist, divisive, and backwards minded rhetoric in a generation. The "modern feminists" don't like Palin, she scares them, intimidates them, and shatters the presuppositions of the Steinem, Allred, NARAL, and Oprah crowd. One them (guess which one) is in fact so afraid of her influence, she has refused her a spot on her daily nationally televised talk show.

So it stands to ask the question, "Why does Palin scare them so much?"

And the answer is simple. On September 8 my publisher releases a book that explains this in greater detail, but the short of it goes like this: modern feminists are not/were never true feminists at all.

In fact the brand of "feminism" that emerged from the 1960's was not only faux feminism, it was a deception on every level--especially in its results and promise to bring fulfillment to the women of the culture.

In the midst of the upheaval that particular decade brought us, the use of sex and experimentation in gender bending laid the groundwork for the greatest moral crises we face today. Promising utopia for the sexes, the faux feminism of the 1960's has instead reaped havoc on women's emotions, accomplishments, and physical well beings.

In the 1920's legitimate feminism (or "classic" as I term it in the book) settled the score for women. In the 1920's the issue of equality for women was an inequity that brave women like Susan B. Anthony and others fought for deservedly. The issue at stake in the 1920's was equality. Equal pay for equal work, the right to vote, the right to own land, conduct commerce, and a host of other issues were shown under the classic feminist spotlight for what they were--discrimination based on gender.

But the 1960's crowd, adopting the term "feminist" never sought equality. Instead they sought something that sounded similar but had tragically different results called "sameness."

Equality under God and law, conveyed dignity to each individual regardless of gender. "Sameness" says that each gender is always substitutable for the other under any circumstance. Thus if a man could have much sex in the 1960's without "consequence" then abortion had to be legalized so that women could have the same outcome. And if all it takes is two people to make a marriage then gender should have nothing to do with it. (Thus why Hawaii, in the early 1970's became, almost by accident, the first state to legalize same-sex "marriage" due to the language of the feminist amendment that was passed in that state's legislature. A move the people of that state overturned within five years.)

Sarah Palin believes that she is every bit as competent as Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The truth is she has much more significant experience in being a top executive than the two of them combined, and yet the "modern feminists" continue to prevent her from breaking through the ultimate glass ceiling.

The reason they do so is clear. She believes she is equal to any man who would like to run for office. But she doesn't believe she's the same as them. She has a manly, and (according to several women I've overheard) handsome husband. She is content in their life together as a couple where each goes out and works hard. As a mom she is parenting her kids giving them what mothers give best, and her husband, gives what only a father can.

She's not afraid to don some lipstick and use her comely attraction to romance "her guy" one night, and turn around and beat back corruption as a fierce defender of what is right the next day. She "bitterly" clings to God, and that picture of her holding and aiming an M-16 is one of the coolest pictures on the internet. Excelling in sports, beauty, education, business, and government she is confident in her beliefs, accomplishments, and results. And that's truly what the 1920's feminists set out to achieve.

Susan B. Anthony derided abortion, and there wasn't a sniff of "lesbian rights" amongst the suffragettes. All they wanted was to be treated equally, but they didn't need to restructure the basis of society, or murder their unborn (or in Obama's world "born") children to do so.

My book actually examines what the faux feminist movement did to men. I wrote it because of the hope that even former 1960's radical women are in need of--as dozens have conveyed to me. One very sad consequence of the 1960's equation was the extension of male adolescence--thus no need to commit, thus no need to take responsibility for the emotional, physical, or financial well being of the women being tossed aside. These men were told not to, and they listened.

But a small town girl, who never took a backseat to anyone, has told a different story. One that never was told by the angry voices of the 1960's that has become the predominant view of women today. You can be both equal AND different.

Sarah Palin is living proof...