Violet of Reclusive Leftist posted a thought-provoking piece on her blog this weekend, Feminists and the Mystery of Sarah Palin. Violet is a self-described feminist who has been dismayed by the malicious, dishonest attacks on Sarah Palin.

Violet is “baffled” by feminists who never bothered to research Palin’s record and policy views. Instead, their hatred of Palin spurred them to intentionally make up lies about the ”second woman in U.S. history to run on a major party’s ticket” and parrot the misinformation being disseminated by political hacks:

I don’t agree with Republicans on politics — not by a long shot — but as a person, I found Palin charming in a Harry Truman, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Erin Brockovich kind of way. How could you not? Especially after the goons had spent the previous weekend in a misogyny fest of lurid speculation and grotesque sexual insults about her and her family. I was proud of her for her courage, as well as for her personal accomplishments as a working-class regular person who went into politics and succeeded.

Since August 2008, Violet has been countering slurs against Palin on a fact-by-fact basis, but “after you’ve had a few of these myth-dispelling conversations, you start to realize that it doesn’t matter. These people don’t hate Palin because of the lies; the lies exist to justify the hate.”

Violet contrasts how feminists (and mainstream media) have treated Palin compared to Obama. “The fact is, Obama is an intellectually mediocre narcissist with a thin resume who’s lost without a teleprompter and whose entire campaign had all the substance and gravity of a Pepsi commercial. Yet people say Sarah Palin is a fluffy bunny diva.” In an effort to defend Palin, Violet does what feminists usually do in a girl versus boy contest, which is disparage the male, but this time she’s the only feminist sticking up for the female. Even more ironically, the man ended up being the beneficiary of gender politicking.

The feminist blogger even supposes that Palin hatred can be attributed in part to misdirected anger: Obama is nothing more than an empty suit, yet feminists and other leftists are compelled to support him, therefore they redirect their inner-disgust with patriarchal privilege back at Palin. At first, I was sceptical that Violet’s theory could explain why feminists also directed profound hatred at other reviled conservatives such as Clarence Thomas and George W. Bush. After all, neither of those guys lost an election to a postmodern metrosexual progressive like Obama (of course, feminists had other reasons to hate these two).

On the other hand, feminists might have pent up hatred from interactions with their supposedly “progressive” male friends and colleagues, which is then redirected at conservatives – a safer target. Another irony: when someone complains about the vicious smear campaign directed at Palin, many feminists respond that it’s Palin’s fault that she’s been on the receiving end of misogynistic attacks because she invited them by doing X, Y, and Z – thus they end up committing a cardinal sin of feminism, “blaming the victim.”

She admits that her diagnosis of the causes of Palin hatred is on shakier grounds than her astute analysis of the symptoms. Her argument that feminists need figures like Palin to serve as politcally correct “hate receptacles” because feminists have stored up hatred toward certain politicians seems to be circular. What causes the hatred in the first place?

I’m inclined to think that the more direct causes of feminist hatred of Palin are related to the three following phenomena, all of which have been discussed elsewhere in depth:

Palin is seen as a “gender traitor.” The Left reserves some of its most vicious invective for those members of protected groups – gender, race, ethnicity, class – who reject the rules of identity politics.

Snobbery. Example: Maureen Dowd referring to Palin as a Carribou Barbie

Palin is a threat to the “progressive” team/movement (not just ideology).

Elaborating on the last bullet point: Many commentators have observed that the debased attacks on Palin have stemmed from leftist ideology outweighing any alleged concerns about female empowerment. True, yet ideologues of any stripe will tend to alter their positions as political expediency dictates. Ideology leads people to ally with particular groups, but once they have joined those groups, ideologues will viciously defend their “teams” and their teammates, while viciously attacking their opponents. Actual policy positions become secondary. It doesn’t matter if some of their teammates poorly fit their supposed ideological criteria, they will be accepted. On the other hand, ideologues will lie about their opponents to make them seem more extreme.

The above phenomenon is not unique to the Left,  but it is more prevelant on the Left than on the Right. Violet recognizes this tendency when she points out that Hugo Schwyzer is accepted into feminist circles, but she’s not ready to connect that observation to any larger lessons about the Left.

A few parting thoughts: look, it has always been fair game to question Palin’s qualifications to be Vice President – her temperament, policy chops, track record, etc. It’s your prerogative, as a fair-minded person, if you think that Palin is a light weight, a diva, hypocritical. But, if you are incapable or unwilling to admit that Palin has been subjected to one of the nastiest character assassination campaigns in the history of American politics, then I have to question your ability to see beyond the little dome that your academic/media superiors have helped to fashion over your head. Yes, the Clintons were also subjected to vicious attacks from some circles, but these attacks were not amplified to the same degree by society’s megaphones. If the hard-core feminist Violet can see this, why can’t you? The other point I wanted to make was made better by Ross Douthat is in his column yesterday:

Here are lessons of the Sarah Palin experience, for any aspiring politician who shares her background and her sex. Your children will go through the tabloid wringer. Your religion will be mocked and misrepresented. Your political record will be distorted, to better parody your family and your faith. (And no, gentle reader, Palin did not insist on abstinence-only sex education, slash funds for special-needs children or inject creationism into public schools.)