Well, quite frequently about many things, if I am going to be honest. But today, I am confused by the religious feminists who prefer to call themselves, "Egalitarians" or "Evangelical Egalitarians"
It's bad enough that folks got their knickers all twisty over Ken Buck's (Senate candidate, Colorado Republican primary) crack about not wearing high heels. Honestly, if you can't take the rough and tumble and an occasional "sexist" comment, why are you in the race at all? Apparently, it's only bad if men are sexist. If women are sexist and want to specifically elect women, then that's just peachy keen-o. The religious feminists are just fine with that. Personally, I thought Buck's comment funny and his point a valid one.
Exhibit A. Margery Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony fund is charged with getting conservative women elected to office. She has sent out a letter in support of Jane Norton, Ken Buck's opponent in the Colorado Republican Senate primary. Notice that it's all about electing women. Not electing conservatives or pro-life candidates, but specifically women who fit those two categories. That's ok, that's Margery's job.
But why is a religious feminist concerned about specifically electing women when they profess to be all about gifts and talents and elevating people based on those qualities and not based on whether they wear high heels or not?
And why is it ok to be sexist when supporting women and not ok for men to make sexist comments when opposing women?
And they say they're not the sexist ones? Nah, I'm not confused at all. It's just a case of flummery!