And, then, without a trace of irony, she writes:
She is an insult to feminism, a sickening example what a woman will do to other women in order to please men and further her own career. Women do shit like that to other women to keep them down – to make their achievement seem more extraordinary – to keep women out of their way, so they can enjoy all the power and the men themselves, and that stuff makes them worse than sexist men. It is worse to be a traitor than a perpetrator.Well, gee—maybe Palin just does it because she thinks it's funny.
I hear that's a legitimate excuse for misogyny these days.
The curious thing is that Cho ends her post by citing policies that quite expectedly make Palin resoundingly objectionable to feminists/womanists and our allies—but uses them as some sort of fucked-up justification for unleashing vitriolic sexist attacks on Palin (I'm allowed to use sexism against this woman, because she deserves it). If she'd just instead stuck to Palin's heinously antifeminist positions in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
But some women will do terrible things to other women in order to further their careers, to keep other women down and make their own achievements seem more extraordinary. So I've heard, anyway.