Posted on 11/25/2008 11:48:07 AM PST by lewisglad
Lack of feminist support for governor is not hypocritical
For the record, Sarah Palin was far from the feminist ideal. Seriously. I have yet to come across one feminist-identified individual with an iota of support for the woman.
However, political commentators displayed their limited understanding of feminism by considering this lack of support hypocritical. In their minds, Palin was strong, confident and defiant of gender norms. She was basically a man (say, George Bush for example) in a woman’s body.
Kate Obenshain’s Nov. 21 article for the Washington Times, “Radical feminism’s mighty foe,” falls in line with this critique.
According to Obenshain, it wasn’t feminists in general who were behaving hypocritically. She astutely observes that “generic feminists,” as well as Neanderthals (except Ann Coulter) support the legal and civil rights women have already been granted, so whether or not they support Palin has little to do with their political ideology.
But when it comes to radical feminists, who are under the irrational impression that gender equality wasn’t achieved in 1920, not supporting Palin proved problematic.
Obenshain implies that radical feminists are merely concerned with women being put into positions of power, regardless of their politics, which is precisely where her argument falls apart.
First, Obenshain appears to be branding any feminist who still finds the battle for gender equality worth waging a “radical feminist.” The term “radical feminism” has a much more specific definition.
For instance, radical feminists tend to object to the idea that in order to be successful, a woman must act like a man. Obenshain described Palin in the most masculine terms possible, attempting to illustrate the ways in which she “has all the attributes feminists claim to value.” Which feminists?
In contrast, Hillary Clinton is described as having cried, being fickle and softening on issues, all traits that point to femininity. While such traits were taken out of context and probably would be described differently in reference to a male presidential candidate, they reveal Obenshain’s underlying message.
Being male means success, while typically feminine qualities are inadequate. What we have, then, is a world that accepts women in positions of power only if they internalize patriarchal qualities and act like socially constructed men.
Both Clinton and Palin understood this. They were both required to act stoic and assertive in order to avoid being demonized for the weakness attributed to their gender. For doing so, Clinton was a “frigid bitch.” Palin could get away with displaying masculinity, though, because she was also considered “hot.”
The point is, radical feminists criticize the ways in which women are expected to follow patriarchal guidelines in order to be accepted as equals. So Obenshain’s claim that radical feminists’ failure to appreciate the ways in which Palin lived up to this standard better than Clinton did doesn’t make much sense.
Obenshain explicitly listed everything that radical feminists are expected to value. In her mind, these things include nothing beyond being “strong, outspoken, independent” and not relying on a marriage for the advancement of one’s career (cue smirk in Clinton’s direction).
Oh, and Palin made it through the campaign season without crying. She also made it through without speaking with a semblance of articulacy, I would add.
These traits have more to do with “generic,” or liberal feminism than they do with radical feminism, the former being the group that Obenshain was so quick to exonerate.
If she understood what was meant by the term “radical feminism,” she might have better allocated her word limit addressing the actual ways in which radical feminists were hypocritical for not supporting Palin.
As a final attempt to uncover the inconsistencies of radical feminists, Obenshain trotted out a list of supposed radical feminists who spoke out against Palin – journalist Sally Quinn, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and liberal feminist Gloria Steinem.
None of these feminists identify as radical feminists. Oops. Blatant factual errors aren’t exactly conducive to a cogent argument.
In reality, radical feminists (as well as feminists in general) were opposed to Palin because her politics were bad for feminism and bad for women. Palin does not support reproductive rights or sex education. She doesn’t care about the state of the environment and doesn’t believe in global warming. She is pro-war and as a result, she is pro-violence. She supports policies that deny the existence of social inequality, and by implication, doesn’t really care about the eradication of sexism or racism.
As feminist Eve Ensler wrote for the Huffington Post, “everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antiethical to Feminism.”
So no, Ms. Obenshain, radical feminists were not behaving hypocritically. Instead, they were standing beside their fundamentals instead of supporting someone solely on the basis of her gender, which would in fact have been hypocritical.
Unfortunately for Obenshain and Palin, feminism transcends women’s ability to display patriarchal definitions of strength in order to obtain success. If Palin does follow through with her future plans to run for president, she should be reminded that she can’t count on the feminist vote
The feminists have never been about women....they are only about liberal causes - especially abortion.
Like Margaret Thatcher eh?
What this amounts to is that Feminists cannot support a conservative of either gender.
Oh Hum...like that’s news....?
Brilliant. The "logic" of liberals never ceases to amaze me.
Ah, ok, I get it — abortion.
Exactly right. On the topic of Abortion, there are essentially two choices. The “pro-choice” people have absolute disdain for one of those two choices. Palin chose Life, and so the feminists (the pro-choice people) instantly rejected her. That choice was the wrong one, apparently.
Abortion is a symptom of what the feminist cause was all about -
being able to have sex like men with the equal ability to walk away from consequences.
Instead of requiring men to be MORE civilized, feminists demanded that women be empowered to act LESS civilized.
The abortion issue has evolved, however, into keeping the guilt of killing an innocent human out of any public mention - they don’t want their consciences tweaked. It’s not about keeping it legal for future “choices”, it’s about keeping past “choices” guilt free.
Because choosing life implicitly points out that the “choice” that feminists prefer is WRONG AND EVIL.
Would this include the right of the youngest, most innocent, and most powerless of girls to not be summarily executed as an inconvenience to their mother?
Radical feminism peaked about 1970 along with the rest of the protest movements. Gov Palin’s mention of the topic brought little except Hillary!’s respect.
Well gee Marissa you must live in a cave! National Organization for Women President Endorses Palin Shelly Mandell, the president of L.A. National Organization for Women, who has endorsed the McCain/Palin ticket.
On the other hand the right to keep an bear arms is just made up nonsense, having no Constitutional basis. Period. No discussion. If you think otherwise your a bigot.
Please hand me the stupid stick again...maybe if I keep beating my head with it I might be stupid enough to be a "progressive".
Former LA NOW Chapter president Tammy Bruce also endorsed her.
Feminism, like racial equality, was not about what it claimed. It was about fomenting class warfare to create chaos, resentment and division in this country. It was the opposite of what it claimed, as are most leftist schemes.
It’s easy to be a lib....just stop thinking for yourself and buy into what the MSM is telling you.
So, let me see if I have this straight. In earlier times, a man was convinced that it was his God-given obligation to provide for our family and all I had to do was tend to the children and keep the house straight.
Now, thanks to that special, premium blend of insanity known as feminism, I still have to tend to the kids and keep the house clean, PLUS I get to schlep to work like the everyday Joes, because we all make less than the dudes used to.
Pardon me if I don’t fall all over myself to thank them.
Ummm... she reads HuffPo - enough said!
Blah. Blah. Blah.
A preachy screed blathering all around her sole point - that Palin cannot be embraced by feminists because she's not a liberal. One simple declartive sentence could have said it all, instead of this wordy excercise in banality and pretension.
If she really was concerned with winning over the author, all Palin would have to utter is "Melissa, you can abort all the rotten little babies that infest your bitter womb anytime you want."
What I learned about feminism from the last election is that feminists can only be female democrats who believe in abortion and same sex marriage. Those are the requirements. three out of the four or less automatically disqualifies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.