The Power of Palin
Sarah Palin became mayor of her town, governor of her state, and has now secured the Vice Presidential nomination for the Republican Party of her country. She accomplished this using the basic doctrine of feminism: female empowerment. Many feminists are now trying to distance themselves from the result of their own work by launching scathing critiques of Sarah Palin, conservative women, and anyone else with the audacity to point out the connection between Palin's rise and the last forty years of feminist ideology. This is upsetting for some to realize, but the fact is, this hacking away at unwanted results is nothing new. Fifteen years ago I wrote To Be Real and have since written and lectured on the necessity of inter-generational power sharing within feminist institutions, the full integration of men into organizations working for gender parity, and the necessity of finding commonality with women who don't hold progressive views. In response, I've been attacked, undermined, and politically abused by some of the very women I sought to serve. I'm not the only one. Many have fallen out of the graces of the feminist establishment because of their critique of it. But in Sarah Palin, this habitual distancing of women who don't serve the progressive feminist agenda has reached its apex. To date, feminist think-tanks, powerful feminist icons, and the leadership of major, national women's organizations have done the dirty business of policing feminism. A couple of years ago, for example, I was asked to deliver the keynote address at the National Women's Studies Association. At the address, I told a room full of a thousand representatives of Women's Studies programs across the country that we, as a community, were going to have to be more open, more tolerant, and more inclusive of women and men who do not share a progressive agenda. I specifically discussed the need to reaffirm our commitment to biological family, a trope successfully manipulated by conservatives, including Palin, but dismissed by the left. A shouting match ensued, during which many of the leadership present reeled at what they perceived to be the inappropriateness of my comments. The organization then followed up with a nationwide mailing of their newsletter, which included an article suggesting that I must have been on drugs to have raised these issues. They were so unconcerned about undermining my credibility among women's studies programs, I had to threaten a lawsuit to get them to write a simple retraction. The message was, "Don't book Rebecca Walker for any paid speaking engagements in women's studies programs nationwide." The audacity of this vindictive silencing and other examples of political exclusion, has created the very vulnerabilities now being exploited by Palin Power. Sarah Palin looking like a progressive, thinking like a conservative, and hiding from public scrutiny, is nothing more than conservatives exploiting the breach created by feminist leadership. This shrewd politic, crafted by right-wing think-tanks, individuals, and organizations is a turn-about of a page taken directly from the feminist playbook. Sarah Palin is being presented as the new and improved, moosehunting Gloria Steinem. No matter who wins the election, feminism is going to come out of it with a bloody nose, and women will be at odds with each other at a level we have never seen in the history of our country. One thing is for sure though, if McCain wins, the proponents of Palin Power will feel confident that they exploited feminist vulnerabilities using feminist tactics, and won. The writing of the inevitability of Palin Power has been on the wall for many years. The feminist leadership's attempt to silence the messengers have left entire generations of women vulnerable. At some point I hope that those who credit themselves with the advancement of female empowerment will take responsibility now as they have in the past for what is going on in the national discourse about women in this election. I believe the outcome of all of this will be the true catharsis, not the one labeled "for progressive women only."
Follow Rebecca Walker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rebeccawalker
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"No matter who wins the election, feminism is going to come out of it with a bloody nose, and women will be at odds with each other at a level we have never seen in the history of our country."
Um... except at the level we've seen among men for oh, all of human history.
Of course Sarah Palin will get some women's vote and not others. The fallacy is in assuming that there is one candidate who will get 100% of women's votes everywhere. Our opinion as women is just as diversified as the men! Does anyone talk about "backstabbing" and "exploiting the divisions among men" when male candidates run?? No! It's just taken for granted when men have different opinions from each other.
A woman who opposes Sarah Palin isn't a bitter old washed-up dinosaur feminist. A woman who supports Palin isn't brainwashed. They are both human beings with their own perspectives.
I happen to think Sarah Palin's abortion policy - the idea that government can force a woman to carry her rapist's child to term - is inhumane on its own merits, not because of who is presenting it.
In both the article and in these threads, there's a good deal of the Chicken Little Syndrome when it comes to present-day "feminism." I say be patient, because there will be no going back. What the Palin issue highlights is that we're involved in a decades-long process when it comes to women's rights, and we as a society need to be flexible as times change, especially us women.
I will say, though, that all who profess to be feminist, particularly the women, might want to take a look at themselves, and consider if they're contributing to the current divisive notion that "some women are more equal than others."
So given your logic, should I just go along with Palin's lack of experience for the VP job and her objectionable beliefs, and vote for her anyway? Is that what you mean by playing fair?
Every feminist, along with every intelligent and caring person in America, should speak out against the McCain-Palin ticket and vote for Obama-Biden. The Obama administration will be far better for women's issues - and groundwork will be laid for putting a woman in the Executive Office who is truly qualified and not just a pander to the Religious Right.
First of all, Sarah Palin didn't become Governor of Alaska because of women's empowerment: she became Governor because she uses the established old-boy establishment network until it suited her to turn against it. That's not women's empowerment; that's channeling Jerry Falwell's cozying up to Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker until he got close enough to stick the knife in their backs and twist it.
Second: The fact that someone is female and has managed to climb all over the people who supported her when it was expedient to do so does not make her a feminist. It makes her a vicious, grasping, self-interested operator.
Third: Voting for someone because they are female is not an act of feminism.
Voting for somebody because they are pro-choice is not an act of feminism either. I am sure there are plenty of creepy men out there that are glad to vote pro-choice. You know the kind that sleep around, or the kind that get underage girls pregnant. You are going to miss big time if you don't adjust your thinking to include women with judeo-christian values under the feminist movement. You are not flexible enough to understand that feminism has matured now, and strong independent women have differing views about some old-school feminists ideas like abortion.
I'm no Palin fan, but I will point out that she was empowered to the extent that the "old boy establishment network" had to allow her to play, and the only way to play the political game for now is according to "old boy" rules. In Alaska she beat them at their own game and came out on top. It was the feminist movement that paved the way for her to accomplish this.
Does this mean that I embrace our male-dominated politics and political system in the US? No. Does this mean that I admire Palin's personal views re: religion, government, and family? Hardly. Would I vote for a woman simply because she's female? Never.
Yet I will give any woman credit for setting professional goals and achieving them.
Cindy, you are one of the few people posting on here that seem to actually understand what Rebecca was saying. Such objectivity has been scant on this board.
Oh please!!
I suppose it comes down to what you view the "basic doctrine" of feminism to be. If, as I understand it, you view it to be the understanding that women, as a group, are discriminated against both personally and systemically, you could not view Sarah Palin as a feminist in any way shape or form. By her actions in public office she has shown that she is hostile to this basic tenet.....she would call us "whiney". Female empowerment was always a necessary step but it's hardly a worthwhile end in and of itself if it is at the expense of other women.
The great and powerrful Sarah Palin will be visiting the UN today. The McCain camp wants pictures taken, but no commentary on the visit from the news sources. What is the McCaIn Team hiding? Couild it be Sarah Palin's ineptness?
Great, she has ovaries. She is still a farce of a candidate that doesn't know anything about anything. My 12 year old knows more about economics and world history than Governor Palin. This author has a conservative bone to pick. It is not about Sarah Palin's values, it's about her incompetence.
EXACTLY!!
My 5-year has been out of the country more than she has. And, my 5-year old knows the difference between truth and fiction. She's also better spoken and smarter. I'm not kidding.
When I listen to Sarah Palin, I immediately think of George W. Bush. And that's not a good thing.
Pumpkin.......I am guessing you have no idea just how sexist you are.
You have reduced a woman of accomplishment to your 5-year-old.
I will be looking forward to your five year old addressing a political convention!
One can hope, Ms. Walker, but it's only hope at this point. The fanatic left will never give up and never grasp reality firmly.
Good for you for speaking up on this issue. I have long abhored the elitism of the academic feminists. They are divisive. It's almost like they wear their feminism as a way to define their lives and follow cookie-cutter thinking.
I loved what Bill C. said today, particularly since I've said it on this blog repeatedly. There is no need to attack Pal. If you don't like her, then don't vote for her. Period. The attacks on her, however, are nothing more than completely mean-spirited sexism that most regular people find disgusting to watch. It's frankly abusive to the entire country to have to see it.
Women, regardless of their political choices in this election, should speak out against this type of behavior.
Puma Ann, it's refreshingly ironic to hear you refer to someone else as divisive. Good one!
"Mean-spirited sexism"? "attacks"? You mean like wanting to determine if she's qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency by asking her about the issues? By calling her out when she lies repeatedly about the bridge to nowhere, being against earmarks, and fighting the old boy network?
I'm glad you got the Republican talking points memo, but your vague generalities don't exactly win your debate.
I am not trying to win any debate.
I respect everyoone's right to vote according to whatever their own reason is.
That is why I liked Bill C's talk on the View.
I have disliked the attitudes of the new Democrats. They are brittle, accusatory, and divisive.
People are criticizing Sarah Palin on the same grounds that they criticized George Bush eight years (and four years) ago. Uninformed, vindictive and sarcastic, intellectually lazy, fake folkiness, out-of-his/her league, etc..
How is that sexist?
It isn't, Pumpkin. It's just a bunch of disgruntled female PUMAs and the hypocritical GOPs trying to cloak Palin's inexperience behind a smoke-screen of self-righteous anger.
Furthermore, it's OK to mock a man for being inexperienced but God-forbid we do the same to a woman because she's inexperienced and not fit to serve.
Now, who's being sexist, I ask you.
Let's see.....
attack an inexperienced man=good
attack an inexperienced woman= you're a good-for-nothing, scum of the earth, sexist pig!
Women, regardless of their political choices in this election, should speak out against elevating mediocrity to positions of power.
The real sexism is in hiding this women's lack of knowledge of the issues. She is being protected from the media like no other candidate. She is being given deferential treatment because she is a woman.
With Palin,religion and religious views so in the news these days, I’m wondering what you all think about this. I came across this interesting site, opposingviews.com the other day while doing some research on religion and its place in politics.
It’s a site where there are numerous interesting debates on all sorts of subjects that are on everyone’s mind. The debate that specifically captured my attention is the one asking whether Intelligent Design has merit. I do like the idea that their debaters are not simply average people giving their opinions, but all are experts in their chosen fields.
The point of view that really got to me though, is the one from the Ayn Rand Institute in which they call ID a supposedly non-religious theory, and a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science. They use words like it is metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural. I’d like to place my comment there, but I’d really like to get some input from you before doing so. Here’s the specific debate I’d like to comment on. http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-s-bait-and-switch Thanks so much.
I was seriously agnostic most of my life. I now have a spiritual higher power, and it really is a lot like Sarah's, minus the religion.
I do believe in a personal design.
It's just a faith deal. Can I prove it? LOL* I wish. Nothing remotely close.
But I love my spiritual life today. I wouldn't, as I sense she doesn't, push this on anyone. It's my deal.
I think the evangelicals have created this problem. They were very pushy. Today, the party being the pushy ones?
It's the Dems. And I don't like them much either.
I think respect for one another, for our differences, for our similarities, is the only principle I will back.
End of story.
I do not care if this new party thinks they are liberal. They aren't. They are reactive, and they are punitive.
That's not liberalism.
With Intelligent design, you must think not only in terms of life evolved, but you must think deeper into the actual creation of the first living thing and the mechanism that created the universe. It takes more faith to argue the universe created itself out of nothing than to say an intellegent designer created a universe. Life itself is not explained by evolution, only the supposed changes after life first began. scientist can't explain how life began. It is all too googleplexingly impossible for life to have just started out of a mix of elements along with a little lightening. Even the simplest of life forms cannot be explained out of thin air. The most ridiculous "Big Bang" Theory sounds like a Hail Mary pass to me. How could nothing explode into something? Something may have exploded into the universe but what put that something there in the first place. Nothing? That is what we are forced to learn publicly.
Don't have an intellegent design argument over evolution, have an intelligent design argument over creation itself. I know that the big bang theory is taught in school, and that to me takes the same type of faith that religion does. It is the religion of the non-believer, and no other belief of our origins is allowed to be taught. There are only two thoughts - creation out of nothing, or creation by intelligent design. All that is being asked is the objective teaching of two faith based theories.
Why does no one proclaiming Palin as some sort of role-model with "accomplishments" ever bother to list them? Here, let me help you out with some of her accomplishments:
Fact over fiction, here are a few facts for you to chew on:
-hired a lobbyist for earmarks, lied about it on national TV over and over, and proceeded to build an ice hockey rink for her town of less than 7,000 without due diligence, which led to a lawsuit over the property rights, which cost Wasilla $1.3 million dollars
-started charging rape victims for their rape kits, a practice so heinous the State Legislature passed a law to ban the practice
-Overrode a two-time state defeat of a referndum for aerial hunting of wolves and bears because she wanted to increase the moose population for hunters
-sued the federal government to take polar bears--POLAR BEARS!!--off the endangered species list because protecting their [vanishing] habitat would interfere with drilling for oil
-campaigned on bridge to nowhere, and after congress killed the project, took the $223 million anyway, and lied about it repeatedly on national television
-thinks she is qualified to be Vice President of the USA in the middle of two wars started by Bush, yet has no clue what the Bush Doctrine is
Anti-choice women are so thrilled to have another anti-choice woman on the ticket, they are apparently blind and deaf to the real Sarah Palin.
some role-model!
-campaigned on bridge to nowhere, and after congress killed the project, took the $223 million anyway, and lied about it repeatedly on national television.
Hmmm...that's either ignorance or lying. Palin did cancel the Bridge project. The money was not specified as to use, and she did not turn it down but used it for projects beneficial to Alaska. That's a governor's job. Her statements weren't lies.
Paln pretends she hasn't suckled at the teat of the earmark pig, but she is one of the worst offenders. Sarah Palin is an opportunist and a liar. McCain, himself, criticized her a year ago for the money for that bridge.
Sailfree, your ignorance is astounding. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
Congress later killed the project after much public outrage but sent alaska $223 million for its general transportation budget, which Palin kept. She never told the Congress "thanks but no thanks" because the project was dead before she became governor.
Do a little fact checking next time you are about to accuse someone of being ignorant or a liar.
Apparently you don't know that it is very rare to receive that much government money with out it being "specified as to use". No one, even you or the Bush administration can control a budget in that way. As a taxpayer I do not think that we should be giving $300 million dollars to a state for one thing, and they make a unilateral decision to use it for something else. That is why this country is broke, in the red, in financial crisis. How much more money did this administration give away in this manner? This is a testament to Palin's ignorance about the budget process. But, the congress is to blame also, they should have pulled the money back, and used it somewhere it was needed--like in New Orleans.
Day 26 and no Palin press conference yet. PALIN LIES about Open and Transparent Government!
Day 26 and no Palin press conference yet. PALIN LIES about Open and Transparent Government!
Day 26 and no Palin press conference yet. PALIN LIES about Open and Transparent Government!
Day 26 and no Palin press conference yet. PALIN LIES about Open and Transparent Government!
Do we really need to stoop to name calling (ignoramus). Agree with her or not, Palin is quite accomplished, be it in a small population state. And she may have a screechy voice, but that is not really important, just petty. She is a role model for our girls - regardless of where you are from, if you work hard and incorporate your belief system into your everyday life, you can be successful...whether as a politician, in business or as a homemaker, if that is your choice. Not all women have to agree on every issue...being a woman is not a sleeve of the social system that all who are born fortunate enough to be female are automatically herded into. There are many sleeves and branches that incorporate women of all different belief systems. That is what I believe feminism is about...the ability to CHOOSE what you believe in and have others, while they may not agree with you, RESPECT your decisions.
I am a staunch pro-choice advocate, but I am not going to let that one decision pigeon-hole me into not being able to prioritize the issues that factor into my vote. Tunnel vision handicaps us into not being able to see the bigger economic and political landscape. While protecting the reproductive choice of women is very important to me, I am not willing to cash that ticket in for a potential economic disaster under Obama, and a socialist healthcare system, among other things.
I still don't think you know what you believe. You and others who speak like you do seem to be at war with themselves. How in the world can you espouse to be a Democrat and think that a McCain/Palin economy, essentially a continuation of what we have (because McCain knows little about the economy and Palin knows NOTHING) will be anything but the unmitigated disaster you claim for Obama. McCain will be controlled by the economic players that control him now and controlled the Bushes, Reagan and the Republican congress and senate in the last 30 years. You had to be in D.C. to understand the width and breadth of the puppet strings.
We are now reaping the benefits of their machinations--deficits as far as the eye can see, wall street collapse, credit crunch, home foreclosures, runaway gas prices, wholesale inflation, loss of manufacturing jobs, rising unemployment, trade deficits, outsourcing, bank failures, should I go on? We have the worse economy since the great depression. Just this morning I've heard several expert analysts say that a depression in this country is not far fetched. Do you honestly want Palin within a heartbeat of the presidency in this crisis??? Do you REALLY???
Factoverfiction
Since the nomination, I have been posting that "pro-choice" isn't the be all and end all of women's politics. You illustrate how it is possible for an intelligent, pro-choice woman to vote for a ticket with Palin on it despite the disagreement about abortion.
I have two daughters and I hope their role models are not women who lie, scheme, and bully their way into positions of power. Sarah Palin is driven by her ambition with very little to back it up. No thanks. I'll take a role models like Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama over Sarah Palin any day.
Feminism isn't about advancing yourself through cirminal misuse of the power and funds of your office, as Palin has done. Troopergate, hyper-secrecy in using private e-mails for government business (against the law, by the way), and lying about her record. She got and average of $300 per person earmarks in her own town, and yet left the town in $20 million debt. She used the town's funds to electioneer for Lieutenant governor, then accused someone else of the same thing. She managed to run roughshod over the people in her town to get large box stores into the town and put them in in such a way that she killed all the fish in a major lake in her (litterally in) own backyard. She's stuck a knife into anybody that she could find political advantage in knifing. Is this the kind of "feminism" you want to defend? I can't imagine why.
She's been nailed on her legitimately lousy merits. What in the hell's wrong with that?
This addresses the issue of "character" not "feminism."
I agree, 100%.
I worked with women in So. Indiana in the 80s to promote abortion. Boy, did I get a lesson in how family values conflict with public policy LOL*
I learned. Respect others.
What I find repugnant about Palin goes beyond gender, race, or political persuasion. From what I can tell, she's a bully, a type that seems to be predominant in, but not limited to, those who share her "conservative", backward, and limited world view, as Ms. Walker has discovered. Sadly, whenever people form groups, or in any way feel they have the upper hand, the urge to push other people around seems irresistable to some. This is a battle to be fought in every family, in every human heart. On the upside, when bullies are exposed or confronted, they tend to fold like a cheap card table.
Exactly. Palin is a Rove/Cheney clone.
scary.
I think that's what I don't like about her either. I don't like human pitbulls with or without lipstick.
As one that did not actually hear Palin speak until recently, I was suspicious of the unanimous glowing adjectives that followed her nomination speech. It smelled like an RNC or Rove hand-out that the MSM were going to push on everybody, an army of women bloggers descended on HuffPost praising their new queen. After reading a few blog commentators state that they couldn't listen to her for more than a few seconds, I had the misfortune to hear the shrill, abrasive sound myself, a few seconds was torture. I never got to her silly, lying content other than in print.
Shame on you MSM and your agents for pushing another ignoramus to lead our country. Have you no shame?
'Progressive' feminism is not really feminism is it. 'Progressive' feminism is about empowering women through the freedom that abortion gives them. As long as this is the platform of 'progressive' feminism, then feminism will never be accepted by the moajority of Americans. Feminism should be about empowering all women regardless of their views. That is not the case though as evident with the brutal attacks most modern 'progressive' feminists and liberals have toward Sarah Palin.
'Progressive' Feminist need to reform as Rebecca Walker suggested or rename their movement to 'Women For Abortion'. There are simply too many men and women who feel too strongly about abortion to even allow it to be a choice. They feel the choice should also be granted to the innocent unborn. The 'progressive' feminist movement is actually not progressive at all, it is rather antiquated and narrow-minded.
I agree. The neverending battles over pro-choice or pro-life have both muddied the waters and unnecessarily restricted the feminist agenda. I happen to be pro-choice (And please note, folks, that differs from "pro-abortion."), but I can appreciate that another feminist woman would never identify herself as pro-choice if she were adamantly against abortion. Does this make her less of a feminist than me? Nope, provided that she honors my personal choice to believe otherwise. The bottom line is always choice, no matter which side of the fence one falls on.
It is nice to reach across the aisle isn't it. That was not so hard. I am usually a little more brazen, but then again, those comments are usually booted out.
That was a good start. Views on abortion run to the very core of people. That is why it is important for folks to know where there candidate stands on that issue. It is a litmus test of morality especially to pro-lifers.
Personnally I am adamently pro-life. I do understand the difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice, although I think only .00001% of the population is pro-abortion. This is very important for everybody to understand the depth to which pro-lifers feel. For me, the moment I would vote on a candidate that is pro-choice, the blood of every unborn child that is aborted after that point would be on my hands. I would feel personally responsible for their deaths, and there have already been so many. As you could imagine, if you felt that strongly about something, would you vote that way? I am sure I am in the minority, but it is a large minority, because most of the folks I am around feel the same way.
Control over reproduction is one of the core of the women's movement. That includes birth control, protection against rape (since it may result in pregnancy), terminating unwanted pregnancy, and larger issues of family planning and delayed motherhood. A large part of this is not wanting to be ruled by our reproductive organs. I will support any woman's choices, including how, when, and if she becomes a mother. That's feminism. It is not about restricting choices (as you suggest "progressive" feminism should be), it's about having the freedom to choose how to live our own lives. If you find that to be antiquated and narrow-minded, I suppose that's your choice.
Why is abortion at the core of the women's movement? It should be about empowering strong woman regardless of their political beliefs. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, and her intentions were not for the benefit of the downtrodden woman. Her intentions were self destruction to the dregs of society under the disguise of personal freedom of choice. Freedom of Choice sounds empowering and it is, but it is empowering to self-destruct on a socio-macro-level. Having the freedom to choose when you want to be a mother is not an excuse to abort an unborn human. Sex is the choice of becoming a mother, not abortion.
I guess empowering all women to stand up and say 'we don't need this thing called abortion to be considered strong and independent' is antiquated and narrow-minded. You put all the power of a woman only in her ability freedom to abort the unborn. Sweep the proverbial dust under the rug and say "look, everthing is clean". That to me is very, very backward and not just antiquated but downright sub-human.
"empowering all women despite their views?" that's just silly. imagine saying that "male empowerment" is about empowering all men despite their views. ridiculous. a person's "views" is what repels or gains my support. not their gender. grow up.
The point is that you should not be calling it "FEMINISM" if it does not empower all women. You don't have to agree with my opinions, but your mixing up the point. feminism should either be changed as the author indicated, or be called something else that is not so all encompassing as "Feminism". To me a nurturing pro-life woman is very feminist.
Well, mexamerican, the truth is that our society is still patriarchal to its core, and men *are* empowered simply because they are male. All views are expressed relative to those views originally established by men and for men's benefit, whether religious or secular, even women's and those of the feminists who have fought over time to empower women from within the patriarchy. When push comes to shove, it most definitely is about gender. And control.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
