Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing — the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party — are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women — and to many men too — who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.
But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.
Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”
I will consider posting comments on this article which are submitted first by email to: KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com.
Gloria Steinem? Good Lord! I didn’t know she was still around….
Who on earth could possibly care what Ms. Steinem thinks about anything? Seriously.
By giving Bill Clinton a free pass – every man (who is a Democrat) is entitled to a little sexual harassment now and then – Steinem showed she was a partisan and not a feminist. As such, her statements must be seen as party sludge. The mud she throws at Palin only falls on Steinem.
From DII:
Who on earth could possibly care what Ms. Steinem thinks about anything? Seriously.
Answer – Me
From the Archer of the Forest:
I understand that Governor Palin is not the Democrats’ first (or apparently last) choice as a Presidential or Vice-Presidential pick, given her politics. I have trouble following her feminist detractors’ logic, however. Granted I am a white man so take this for what it is worth, but I think they really short circuit their credibility on the gender gap issue if they oppose her so rabidly. They seem to expect respect and everlasting gratitude from everyone for all the hard work feminists have done over the years, and if you do not give them that gratitude they get touchy. There is certainly some deserving merit in that, as many women take for granted a lot of hard earned rights that would have been unthinkable for them to attain as little as two generations ago.
I think in this instance feminists have let the fog of hobby horse politics cloud their primary goal. If their primary goal is to break down all barriers for women, then they should at least acknowledge that Palin, even though they do not agree with her on policy, is a means to that end. Again, she is by far not their first choice, but could at least be an ally or a first step is achieving that primary goal.
By their actions, however, the only logical conclusion to which I can come (and please correct me if I am logically in error) is that to attack Palin so vigorously, their devotion to policy and political agenda(s) on issues is more important and has become the primary impetus of the feminist movement (or at least Steinem’s branch of it) even over the original intent of feminism that what it would mean in achieving a break in the glass ceiling by having a female vice president, regardless of party affiliation. Achieving that goal first and then fighting over correct policy is a more effectively prioritized political agenda.
I say this because I consider myself a proponent of women’s rights. I certainly think women should have equal rights and be treated as such. But where I begin to find myself at odds with contemporary feminist thought (at least post-3rd wave stuff) is this very muddled juxtaposition of individual policies with the primary goal of equal rights.
I ran into the same bizarre phenomenon with the whole (Bill) Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. And it was at that point that I stopped toying with the notion that I, myself, might self-identify as pro-feminist. I thought it was deplorable that Bill Clinton was using his position as dominant male power figure to curry sexual favors from young female interns, often while on company time. I was most disappointed in how the major feminists at the time, almost without exception, offered either deafening silence or were rushing to defend Clinton. Had Clinton been a Republican, feminists would have been screaming for his head on a platter, as rightly they should have. I thought that was a dreadful abuse of white, male privilege.
Just my three cents (price adjusted for inflation).