Fighting over Feminism.

by Meredith O'Brien


Mention Sarah Palin and half the people with whom you’re speaking may recoil and the other half may smile, as the working mother of five -- including a toddler -- former vice presidential nominee serves as a living, breathing Rorschach test for what it means to be a powerful woman in politics.


If you tend to lean toward the liberal point of view on the issues, it’s very likely that you despise her. If you tend to lean conservative, there are many amongst your conservative peers who adore her. If you’re somewhere in the middle, you may hold mixed feelings . . . at least that’s the conventional wisdom about how people perceive the former Alaska governor, the first female one in that state.


But combine “Sarah Palin” with the word “feminism” and try not to get hurt in the crossfire when liberals say she’s no feminist for a multitude or reasons (not least of which is her pro-life stance) and conservatives counter by saying that liberals don’t have dibs on the term and that Palin’s one of a new incarnation of the word, a “Mama Grizzly” feminist who doesn’t toe the liberal feminist line on every issue.


On the internet, on talk shows and in media outlets, the chattering class has been vigorously debating several aspects of this issue: Can Sarah Palin – or anyone who’s against abortion rights – be considered a feminist? Does any single political ideology “own” feminism or have the power to say that certain females qualify as feminists but others don’t depending on for which political party they register? Should traditional, Democratic/liberal feminists be working to make sure that Republican/conservative women don’t drag this word away from its current liberal connotation?


Democrats and liberals should fight to take the phrase away from conservatives, says Salon’s Rebecca Traister who has had concerns that: “. . . Palin and the Republicans' embrace of ‘feminism’ ‘could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like’ and worse, that this subversion had been made possible in part because my own party [the Democratic party]’ has not cared enough, or was too scared, to lay its rightful claim to the language of women's rights."


She urges Democrats to lay out the definition of feminism so that its original meaning doesn’t get twisted into something that the 1960s/70s feminists never intended: “There has to be a move toward ownership from other Democrats, from those women and men who have perhaps not yet named themselves feminists . . . but who also do not want to see ‘women's rights’ come to mean the exaltation of fetal life over female life and religion over science, who don't want to see ‘women's liberation’ divorced from notions of equal opportunity and instead reframed as Ayn Rand-ian survival of the richest or most privileged.”



I agree with lmjn on all counts. If a woman's spritual, political and/or religious belief system results in efforts to minimize, reduce or eliminate a person's rights solely based on gender, then the use of the term "feminist" just can't apply to that woman, whether she is registered Democrat, Republican or something else. Palin is an opportunist, like lmjn said - not much different than the Kardashians in my mind, she just makes a fool of herself on different channels.


The reason I have an issue with calling Sarah Palin anything besides an opportunist is that her "feminism" does not spring from a desire for equality or an intention to improve life for women. She's happy she and her family have "choices" but would like to limit the choices other women could make. She disparages the feminists from the past, without whom she would have no hope of holding any job, much less elected office.

The one bright note is that I've always maintained that we will not have achieved equality until incompetent women can rise as high as incompetent men. Apparently that day is just about here.