What [Sarah] Palin so beguilingly represented ... was a form of female power that was utterly digestible to those who had no intellectual or political use for actual women: feminism without the feminists.

The idea that women's anger is fundamentally illegitimate, because they have nothing real, no big things to be rationally angry about, is part of what undergrids the claim that furious women are mentally ill.

Women's ire in any political context remains coded as chaotic, while men's is comprehensible, understood as rational and often admirable.

...[W]hen women do explode with rage, even if the effect is to catalyze a social movement, their anger will never be recorded, never noted, never recalled or understood as nation-reshaping. The fact that we can often only register the fury of white men as heroic is so established that it would verge on the comical if it weren't so deeply tragic.