Unless you live under a rock, you know that Republican presidential nominee John McCain threw the 2008 political race into a tizzy when he nominated Sarah Palin as his running-mate. While she differs significantly from Hillary Clinton on an ideological level (as Gloria Steinem notes, the only thing she shares with Clinton is a chromosome), she is still a woman who has been given the nod to become next in line for the most powerful position in the world. I figured that surely women all over the country would at least be proud of her for that. It seems I was wrong, and that is the basis of this entry.
Maybe it is my understanding of the feminism movement that is outdated, or even completely ignorant. I had always thought (assumed?) that feminism was about getting women equal rights and treatment, de jure and de facto. The right to vote. The right to serve in the military. The right to a promotion. The right to succeed or fail just like any man living under our Constitution. If you believe in those rights, do you qualify as a feminist? Would you be accepted into their fold?
Apparently not. In the same commentary, Gloria Steinam suggests that Palin is out of touch with the needs and wants of the modern American woman. It seems she is saying that in order to be considered a feminist, or a woman worthy of representing the advancement of other women, Palin needs to also adhere to a specific set of beliefs, that also happen to be the same beliefs shared by the Democratic Party platform. If a woman doesn't believe in the unfettered access of all women to an abortion, or if a woman doesn't believe that men should be stepping up around the house and carry their fair load of common domestic chores, there's no way she can be considered a feminist.
There seems to be no place, in Steinam's feminism, for an ambitious and achieving woman who is also pro-life, who is for an abstinence-only sex-ed curriculum, who dares to suggest the inclusion of creation theory in the classroom. It seems that the feminist movement has, at worst, been hijacked by the liberal movement. At best, it has evolved to become more restrictive and intolerant of lifestyles and family choices that deviate from some standard.
But what is that standard? Again, it appears that Steinam has outlined it, fairly clearly. In her piece, she states that Palin "opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality" then goes on to list these issues:
- Creationism vs evolution
- Global warming
- Gun control
- Reproductive rights
- Sex education
- Hunting
- Education reform
- Fair pay for women
- Energy subsidies
- Oil drilling
- Fossil fuel use
So is Steinem, who has long been a pioneering voice in the women's rights arena and whose opinions on the matter would likely reflect the current state of the movement, saying that these myriad issues should be considered when evaluating a woman's worthiness of being an icon of progress? Is she saying that Palin, indisputably an accomplished and successful woman, is actually a detriment to feminism because she doesn't toe the line on each of these issues?
I think that is the message here.
But don't take it just from me. As I said right up front, I'm a fairly typical white American male who may be so out-of-touch with women's issues as to be completely unqualified to construct such observations.
So, instead, take it from Camille Paglia, who put together this terrifically balanced piece on Salon.com (registration may be required).
Paglia, who calls herself a "dissident feminist" (I'll have to read more to know what she means by that), contends that "Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership." She insinuates that Steinem, and other modern feminists, have promoted a "shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades [that] has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be."
It seems as though feminism has evolved from what I assumed it to be, to seem more of an extension of the current Democratic platform. When Palin is criticized by modern feminists such as Steinem, it seems obvious that there is more that a woman has to do to be praised as a pioneer than simply breaking through the traditional barriers to achieve.
2 comments:
I am a feminist, so I feel qualified to comment on this thought-provoking post: I agree that the moniker "feminist" does not actually include a specific stance on political issues such as creationism v. evolution, to drill or not to drill, etc., and that it is about equal rights for women, including equal pay (which we are still not receiving in many job markets). But true equality also means being in charge of our own bodies without interference from the government, so feminists are pro-choice, which is not to say "anti-life" as the term "pro-life" in opposition to "pro-choice" seems to suggest. Feminists want, and deserve, the same civil rights as our men in all areas of our lives. As to whether or not Sarah Palin is a feminist, I would just like to say that no self-respecting feminist would EVER make a rape victim pay for her -- or his, for that matter -- rape kit. No self-respecting woman would either. No self-respecting man should even think that that's acceptable. Just because Governor Palin is a tough, career-minded woman doesn't mean she's a feminist. It just means she's a politician.
I never said she was a feminist. I just found it odd that she was so objectionable to feminists. She is a woman who has made a name for herself, first in local, then state, and now in national politics. She is a woman who has broken through that gender barrier in her career. Heck, she appears to be the main breadwinner of the family!
I do not doubt, either, that modern feminism is defined by a large set of women's issues. That was the whole point of this post. It seems to me that feminism was, at one time, not so broad in scope and, being more focused, had allowances for a more diverse cross-section of women, rather than the limited bucket set out for those who hold a certain position on so many issues. This is a notion that was reinforced when I read Paglia's piece (and, hence, why I wrote on the subject).
Post a Comment