Can you be a supporter of Sarah Palin and still be a feminist? Well, I guess you could call yourself a feminist -- that is, if you think that, as a woman, you still have rights equal to those of a man when:
* You do not have the right of self-determination over your own body
* Even if impregnated through rape or incest you are forced to bear a child
* You're told you're entitled to equal pay, but forbidden to sue for it under most circumstances
* Information on how to prevent your own pregnancy is withheld from you in sex education classes
* If you're a spiritually powerful or otherwise unusual woman, your harassment can justified as protection from "witchcraft"
In that case, I guess it could be said that Elaine Lafferty, a former Ms. magazine editor proudly stumping for Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, is a feminist. Otherwise, it just doesn't add up.
In an apparent diversion from answering the question of how a feminist could possibly support an anti-choice ticket that also opposes legislation that would lengthen the statute of limitations in pay discrimination suits, Elaine Lafferty, in an essay appearing on The Daily Beast, admonished as sexist other feminists who challenged Palin's intelligence. This she conflated with actual sexism directed at Palin by male commentators. Nice try. But just because men (including right-wing men) have made sexist comments about Palin, and a few feminists, for good reason (given the media record), have mistaken Palin for being less intelligent than she is doesn't mean that Palin's a feminist. It just means she's a woman (a.k.a, sexism target) who can't name her least favorite Supreme Court cases, or tell us what magazines she reads.
The two feminists Lafferty insults are pioneers -- one was Ms.'s first and longest-serving editor; the other created and produces the first all-women political talk show.
I don't take lightly this challenging of Lafferty's feminist credentials; I've been on the receiving end of such criticism myself, from time to time, and I know the sting. But I've never supported an opponent of women't rights, and as a former Ms. staffer myself (before Lafferty's time), I feel betrayed by her support of a candidate who, taking advantage of an opening won by the efforts of feminists, would set back the cause of women's rights by decades.
I can't imagine how, as a feminist, one can support a candidate who couldn't bring herself to describe, in her interview by NBC's Brian Williams, an abortion clinic bomber as a "terrorist." Bill Ayers, she said, was a terrorist, but "others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don't know if you're going to use the word terrorist there."
Does Palin doubt that Claudia Gilmore, paralyzed from the chest down by the shotgun of an anti-choice fanatic, is a victim of terrorism? Perhaps during the long plane rides she describes in her Daily Beast essay, Lafferty could put that question to Palin, since she's the only feminist writer with any access to the candidate. (Would that Kathy G. or Ann Friedman could put a few questions to her.)
With no real refutation, Lafferty dismisses as hogwash any association of Palin with the far right. So, we are to make nothing of Palin's recent video shout-out to the annual convention of the Alaska Independence Party -- itself a secessionist movement and the state affiliate of the Constitution Party, whose platform calls for a return to the biblical law of the Old Testament. "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations..." reads the platform preamble, which also claims the United States as a nation founded by Christians. First Dude Todd Palin belonged to the Alaska Independence Party for seven years -- until around the time his wife embarked on an unsuccessful run for the office of lieutenant governor in 2002.
I'm wondering if, on those long plane rides, Lafferty has asked Palin about the Wasilla City Council photo of her with a copy of the John Birch Society's magazine, The New American, sitting on the desk before her. The Birch Society, an anti-communist organization, also stands in opposition to most equal-rights movements, including the women's movement, according to the Web site of Political Research Associates, which researches right-wing organizations.
And while the blessing Palin received from one Rev. Thomas Muthee (famously preserved on video) asking for protection from "all forms of witchcraft" may seem pretty comical, it's really not when one considers that Muthee has a record of harassing women as "witches," having even driven one woman out of her hometown for allegedly causing accidents. It's a misogynist ruse as old as the Inquisition, and not one to be taken lightly as a part of Palin's belief system.
As far as I can tell, the biggest difference between Sarah Palin and Phyllis Schlafly is that Palin has expressed support for Title IX, the law that opened up educational opportunities, especially in athletic competition, to women. But other than that, she's pretty dern Schlaflyesque.
Like Sarah Palin, Phyllis Schlafly has long been the target of sexism in her own party. One of the conservative movement's foremost intellects, Schlafly is rarely celebrated as such, and instead finds herself relegated to the G.O.P.'s ladies' auxiliary. So, if I, as a feminist, decided to support Phyllis Schlafly in a bid for a job that offers a direct line of ascendency to the presidency -- would I still be a feminist? After all, I'd just be defending a target of sexism from people -- feminists -- who say mean stuff about her. And isn't that what feminism's all about -- empowering a female opponent of women's empowerment because she's victim of sexism? And to think that, all these years, I've gotten it wrong.
Hat-tip to Frank Gilligan of Beltway Sewer for the Blue Hampshire link.
Follow Adele Stan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan
Palin's 2012 Plans Leaves McCain Campaign "Speechless" (Video from CNN)
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/palins-2012-plans-leaves-mccain-campa
The McCain camp has to be furious at this latest "rogue" direction, though the liberal blogs have been calling this move for weeks.
Now she'll have time to polish up on feminism and the Bush doctrine.
"Getting elected makes you qualified": will you, and others on the Right, subcribe to that belief when Obama is elected?
I suspect not.
Feminists don't seek the approval of those steeped in patriarchy but rather fight for women's rights, and there's plenty of disapproval for that battle.
Feminists don't seek the approval of those steeped in patriarchy but rather fight for women's rights, and there's plenty of disapproval for that battle.
I do agree that women's rights are still at risk. As an example, a strong woman who doesn't agree with "feminists" is subject to extraordinary levels of ridicule.
As a father of three daughters who supported NOW and spoke for them at many events, I was appalled at Palin a female who was the first mayor of Wasilla to charge rape victims for their forensic exams. Hundreds of dollars tacked onto the trauma a rape victim feels is like a second rape. thanks for your article.
All fancy, intellectualized definitions aside: feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.... who have the ability to make their own decisions. Most of the rest of it is just projected fear.
And please note, jittery gentlemen -- that isn't saying men are NOT human beings. It's not about power over others, it's about others not having power over us.
(i hope you know i'm being sarcastic).
you can keep the word feminist, and all the dirt that goes with it. I'm all for equality, you want abortion? have at, not my business equal pay great, stop harrassment too, just don't think it goes in one direction.
The fact is NOW and the feminist movement has done nothing to make women happier. I'm glad you have and/or are getting your rights. But the big feminist dream of women can do it all and without men is a lie. Women aren't as happy as they were 30 years ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business/26leonhardt.html?ex=1348545600&en=594e67d014f6dc88&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
There are urgent issues in your country and around the world - wars, genocide, nuclear threats, famine, climate change, and depletion of fossil fuels – yet Republicans believe it's important to pander to the bottom feeders who believe abortion and same-sex marriage trumps all that. Most western nations have come to terms with these issues and they have ceased to dominate their agendas. How can the US head further into the 21st century without looking, sounding, acting like the fundamentalists you are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan
If the Republican base that embraces Palin and her views give her a national platform in 2012 can you imagine rebuilding the Republicans on the idiocy and narrow-mindedness of uneducated electorate who believe in fairy tales?
When homosexuality is determined to be genetic ( I believe it is) what will happen if prohibitions get enshrined in the constitution. What if there had been constitutional amendments against blacks or women?
If the forces of dimness were to get an amendment passed forbidding homosexual marriage [or worse, consenting homosexual activities in private - as has been enshrined in the legislation of more than one American state] it would require a subsequent amendment to repeal the offending amendment. A 20th century example is alcohol prohibition, enacted with the 18th amendment in 1920, and repealed with the 21st amendment in 1933.
I, too, am horrified by the brazen attempts of a minority of fringe religious believers attempting to force their bronze-age barbarities on the rest of us. Why a bright man like Barack Obama would support continuing George W[easel] Bush's "faith based initiative" is beyond me. As someone who worked as a community organizer, he should understand that social services are hard work that require substantial training. There's no evidence that untrained church volunteers have the qualifications to do such work and historical examples of proselytizing under the guise of humanitarian aid.
They say they stand for freedom, except if you want to be free to choose not have kids, choose what party favors you serve in your own house, or publish your thoughts in a school paper if you're a minor, or get facts about reproduction if you're a minor, etc., etc.
In June of 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote declared sodomy laws unconstitutional, granting gays the right to privacy in the bedroom.
i agree that men struggle as well, but the state of their position isn't caused by instituitonal sexism on the part of women.
and no offense, but at least they're not being beaten, raped, and offed in record numbers by their wives or other female strangers like women have been and are at the hands of men on a daily basis.
However, when the dust settles from this election, I'm concerned about the repercussions of Sarah Palin for conservative women. We can all disagree on abortion issues, but I imagine many of us know some intelligent, well-informed, pro-life, conservative women. Those women have not had a strong or prominent voice in politics or among their fellow feminists. To suggest Palin is representative of this group of women is unfair and untrue. There are good, honest, smart conservative women out there - even pro-life women. The Republicans had a moment to bring that forward and they failed miserably and I believe did a diservice to those women, and in a sense, all women as a collective group of feminists looking out for one another.
I long for the day when women get their equal pay, sexual harrassment is vigorously prosecuted and abortion is protected by the bill of rights. Then pretty much the whole feminist issue is dead. Anything outside of that is pretty much women being sexist against men because we are different. I hope you get your way on the big three points so we can move on as a nation to issues that effect everybody, not just women.
I’m not sure exactly where you see discrimination or the threat of discrimination against men. Re your last statement, women’s issues do, in fact, affect men, especially (though not exclusively, of course) when the targets of discrimination are their wives. Try and step into the shoes of a woman (and the husband of this woman) who loves her career, needs the income, and also wants to have children, but has to contend with the very real possibility that choosing to have a child will affect the way in which people perceive her as a professional (e.g., less committed), not to mention the problem of access to high quality, affordable daycare.
Another reason to vote Democrat this year.
What has been jettisoned is feminism's raison d'etre, whereas feminism stood for a radically different type of society founded on peace and justice. Rather we have feminism reduced to individual empowerment -- a hammer for those that get in the way.
The type of feminists who support Palin are only in it for greed and powermongering reasons, that they will not feel fully empowered until they have ascended to the top of the heap, even if that heap is made up of the bones of a lot of dead animals who never stood a chance.
Feminism, same as anti-feminism, is a belief system. You either share these beliefs or you don't---and Palin clearly doesn't----unless (or until) they can help advance her personally.
You're not a feminist simply because you're a female competing in a man's world----in fact, my Husband, and many men like him, is a feminist.