The only reason Palin is McCain's VP choice is because he will pander to anyone to get votes. He thinks women are so stupid that we'll vote for someone based on their genitalia. Had gender not been an issue this election, she wouldn't even be there. People thought Obama lacked experience? He's got more than her! So there goes the GOPs favorite talking point!

You think this is a victory? Fine, wait until this country continues to reflect the society in A Handmaid's Tale. Then just pat yourself on the back for your great "feminist" victory.

Condescend much?

I often find that people who say "I'm a Republican because I'm not a socialist" don't actually know what socialism is, or that there's a difference between socialism and regulated capitalism.

I do think it's great that McCain chose a woman, but just because she's a woman doesn't mean that we can't disagree with her policies -- in fact, your inference that we cannot do so is kinda... what's the word? Sexist. You are doing the same thing that you are damning: claiming that women are or should be subject to group think.

You don't have to think that we should have universal single payer health care, and I don't have to believe that Sarah Palin is A)qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency or B)having policies that are appropriate for this country at this time.

No way. No how. No McCain.

Remind me how McCain's choice of Palin changed his stance on pay equality and reproductive rights? You can believe in whatever policies move you, but don't tell me that you buy into McCain's gender-washing of his own ticket.

Soooo, you think the Dems are socialist?

...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Honey, your democrats are right-wingers compared to actual socialists.

Oh geez.

Oh and... it's not very feminist to support the party that considers women to be walking uteruses in the service of their male relatives - by blood or by marriage.

Coming from outside the borders of the US, I cannot grasp how anyone can be feminist and Republican... but I guess if you choose to ignore the anti-woman policies, they don't look so bad anymore.

Oh and educate yourself about socialism, please.

I guess I'm cynical because McCain is so openly and aggressively trying to recruit voters who supported Clinton and disagreed with the nomination of Obama. I'm also cynical, because as I said to my spouse this morning, I can think of at least five Republican women politicians who have a strong educational background and record of public service. Here's some, in no particular order:
1) Kay Bailey Hutchinson
2) Olympia Snow
3) Susan Collins
4) Heck, another Alaskan, Lisa Murkowski
5) McCain could even have another first term Republican governor with more political experience than Palin.

After months of railing against Obama's inexperience, he chose a woman with very limited political and executive experience.

And even though it shouldn't be necessary to clarify, no one is shaming Palin for choosing to give birth to any of her five children. We are, however, objecting to her anti-choice politics. Anti-choice groups all over the country are lining up to fawn over her. I live in Wisconsin, and within an hour of the announcement, a congratulatory press release was up on Wisconsin Right to Life's website.

Sure, congratulations to Sarah Palin for her historical VP run. I have no objections to that. But I think it's fair to be critical of the motivations of McCain's choosing her and her qualifications for the job at hand.

No - of course you shouldn't vote for McCain or Palin if you don't agree with them. You shouldn't vote for someone you who has policies that are against your beliefs. And PROVE MCCAIN WRONG - if you think this is because he will "pander to anyone" - then don't vote for him - great!

But, universal health care is socialist policy. It is the essence of socialist policy. Socialism as defined at dictionary.com is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." That is socialized medicine, that is universal health care.

As a strong intelligent person, I want control over my life, not the government. I'm sorry if I didn't express that clearly, and yes - I should be more accurate, but in an effort to save space, I shortened my thoughts into a more concise phrase.

Thank you for the comments and to Feministing for allowing me to post. I appreciate that Feministing is open to discussion. I'd be much happier if as feminists we could understand that not everyone believes exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean we can't be fighting for gender equality just the same.

Being a feminist shouldn't require me to be a Democrat

Well... being a feminist DOESN'T require you to be a Democrat. It's just that the Republican are not usually very excited to take up feminist issues. Democrats aren't that amazing at it either, they're just better at it than Republicans.

I'm all for people voting for the candidate they really believe will do what is right for them. If, for you, that is really McCain, then cool! And even better for you that he's added Palin to the ticket!

Sarah Palin is a strong independent woman. Being a beauty queen shouldn't disqualify you. Choosing to keep your baby shouldn't disqualify you. Being a Republican female shouldn't disqualify you as a strong woman candidate.

It doesn't. For most of us "socialists," it's her RECORD that disqualifies her, not any personal decisions she's actually made.

As a strong intelligent person, I want control over my life, not the government.

I'm curious, then, are you pro-choice? B/c by your own definition of why you're a Republican, you should be. And yet you want to vote for two people who are not.

And, are you against EVERYTHING that takes away your control? In that case, aren't you really an anarchist, not a Republican?

No, choosing to keep your baby should not disqualify you from being a strong woman candidate. But in my opinion, preventing other women from their personal choice, and autonomy over their bodies and reproductive rights, does.

No, being a Republican female should not disqualify you from being a strong woman candidate, but a first term governor only one step away from President? Talk about lack of experience... makes me very nervous.

As a feminist, I will support a candidate, not based on her or his gender, but because I believe she or he is the right person for the job. I don't feel that either McCain or Palin is.

And I have to add... does McCain really think that we women Hillary supporters are falling for this???

I do think it should be possible to be a feminist but not a Democrat (or at least not on the left, fuck the two party system). The problem is, the Republican party is so deeply sexist, and their sexism is so pervasive, it's very hard to take someone seriously when they claim to be both a feminist and a Republican. Feminist Republicans, at least the ones who aren't deeply, deeply troubled by a large part of their party, must not be very serious feminists, to support a party that thinks so little of women. I'm regularly ill with the Democratic party on the issue, and they are so, so much better.

And on the "Socialism" note: Do you support public education? It's just about the same thing as wanting universal health care, if we didn't have the socialist public education the poor would go uneducated and everyone suffers. Health care is too important to be left in the hands of corporations, just like equality, the environment, education, the roads (oh yes! your roads and highways are the result of socialism, too!), etc. I'm all for business freedom, but there are certain things that businesses should not have control over.

Being a Republican, or at least the version you're supporting, is very much about privilege. You don't have to care about universal health care, because you aren't going without, or if you do go without you can cover yourself in case of emergency. You might not care about paycheck equality laws, but that means you can pay for a lawyer to prove discrimination (it's hard expensive to prove). If you don't want state run day care, it's because you're lucky enough to be able to afford private day care, or you work in a field wealthy enough to be able to provide it. If you don't care about the environment--Well, seriously, who doesn't care about the environment? And, likely, your parents were that lucky, too, because those things all benefit children--you know, the innocent ones who aren't "responsible" for not being able to land better jobs--the most.

Don't get me wrong, I'm damned lucky too, and all of those things apply to me, but I have the empathy to consider, briefly, how horrible it must be to not be able to afford health care, to have to leave your child with substandard caretakers while you work in a job where you're discriminated against, but don't dare demand a raise because women who are aggressive aren't treated well. Every so often I have one of those leanings, where I think "Hey, the government shouldn't be regulating this sort of thing!" but you have to remember: Companies walk all over their employees, they abuse their customers and the environment, and if the government doesn't do something people are going to keep getting hurt, through no fault of their own.

This is not something to celebrate. This is a slap in the face. He chose a woman candidate not because of her accomplishments, but because she is a woman that may bring him some votes.

She is a woman that republicans are comfortable with. Anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-gay rights, etc.

"Choosing to keep your baby shouldn't disqualify you"

How horrible. How offensive. Did you really write a statement like that to post on this site? I haven't heard anyone saying Palin should have had abortions. What a perfectly anti-choice statement.

I guess there is not real point in arguing the choice issue with a republican but I just want to say being PRO CHOICE does not mean PRO ABORTION.

"Sure, congratulations to Sarah Palin for her historical VP run. I have no objections to that. But I think it's fair to be critical of the motivations of McCain's choosing her and her qualifications for the job at hand."

bingo.
it doesn't make one bit of difference to me that she chose to carry a down syndrome pregnancy to term--that's her business and none of ours. it's her willingness to dictate what other women must do with their own bodies that bothers me.

it appears to me a calculated attempt to woo women voters, specifically disappointed hillary supporters with this move. it's nothing against sarah palin personally--she sounds pretty accomplished and i give her credit for getting elected governor and for calling out unethical behavior, but i don't think she's qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, based on what i know of her so far. that's not antifeminist, nor is it a personal attack.

While I respect your opinion, I think you are very misguided. Feminism, for me at least, isn't about individual women achieving power or prosperity; it's about creating equality for all women. And so anyone in power who opposes women's rights (not to mention gay rights, and everything else I stand for as a feminist and a human being) is for me, a step backwards, regardless of gender. It seems to me that you are focusing on feminist talk about "strong, independent women" and not getting the point about equality and rights for all women. Not to mention that the decision to make Sarah Palin McCain's running mate was, as has already be evidenced by commenters in this post, based soley on the fact that she is a woman, rather than her merits as a politician. Her gender is there to distract voters from the fact of McCain's misogynistic stances. That is not equality or progress, and I find it incredibly sleazy and insulting that McCain is clearly expecting/hoping that women are going to discount his policies, his voting record, because he's been so kind and so maverick-y as to have a female running mate.

Also, as far as your thoughts on universal healthcare; "I want control over my life, not the government," you really think you have more control over your life when insurance companies with only their own interests at heart dictate whether or not you get urgent medical care? To clarify the democratic stance on universal healthcare, the idea is that people should be able to control their lives, their health, and body, regardless of their income. And, in theory, the government who "controls your life" is the one we the people elected to do so.

At least, that's my take. That was nice to get out of my system, thanks!

I dunno. Given McCain's numerous and recent rape jokes, and him outright saying that women don't need equal pay legislation and that they need more education (essentially saying that women don't get paid as much because they don't do their jobs as well as men... !!!) makes me feel that he's chosen Palin as some kind of last-ditch attempt to win, but that's it. Not because of Palin herself, or her own accomplishments. I feel like chose her only because he thinks women will all just vote for him now regardless of the (varying, of course) issues that we believe in.

Additionally, I think feminists tend more often to be democrats because the issue of women's rights tend to be completely absent from the republican agenda. I don't think I've even heard one word from McCain about actually improving women's lives. I have heard him say things about not giving us more rights, though, because then more businesses could get sued! (we can't have that!)

Of course, I'm not saying there can't be Republican Feminists. Of course there are, as you well know. I think if you can balance all these things that I personally find hypocritical, then more power to you. Sometimes it just depends on how you look at it.

"universal health care, state run day care, the pay-check fairness act (which, btw is not about pay-check fairness - it is about the government mandating business practices, we already have anti-discrimination laws that can be used when you take your employer to court), and saving the environment at all costs. "

Most intelligent people who do not come from privilege or do not abuse the privilege they came from, but, instead realize it's a responsibility (to whomever much is given...)
are liberals.
Deal with it.

If anyone tries to force me to keep an unwanted pregnancy, my Detroit poverty surviving, "baby killer" self will wipe the floor of my favorite clinic with that anyone.

Step off of my uterus

Step off of my sons education.
Creationism is a male induced fantasy for fools.

Do not pretend that the day I sold the house I saved up for from age 12, worked hard for and remodeled by myself to PAY MEDICAL BILLS didn't affect you.
It did.
It does.
You may not be aware of it, but, it is affecting you right now.
It affects all of us.
The parents who live 2 miles from you, who do not have decent child care are raising children who will be in the world with your children.
It is affecting you now.

Watch Obama's speech. i think he fairly represented Liberals once and for all.
come back and comment after that.

It KIND of cracks me up when Americans (usually Republicans) compare Democrats to socialists... Honestly, here in Canada even our Conservative party (which is who is in power) is more left-wing than your "left-wing" Democrats.
And socialism is friggin awesome, as far as government goes... I'm an anarchist in an ideal world but seeing as we seem to be unable to function without government, I'd way rather have a socialist government than a capitalist/right-wing government because socialism is WAY less hierarchal and 'pull yerself up by yer bootstraps'...
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS RIGHT WING. Don't fool yourself, guys.

Megan S. just made my day. I don't know if Americans are still hung-over from the Cold War or what, but Socialism is not necessarily OMG EVIL! Some bits of it could really help people in their everyday lives without devolving into an authoritarian state, imo.

Hmm. Very interesting post.

Personally, Palin gets no respect for me for various reasons--her stance on abortion, for instance. However, the main reason is that I know perfectly well that the only reason she was chosen is because she's a woman. She was chosen to manipulate disgruntled Hillary supporters. I figured that out the second I heard the news, so I'm sure that she knows it, too. Frankly, it's downright insulting to women.

In fact, my white, Christian, anti-choice, racist, xenophobic, misogynistic grandfather--the epitome of a Republican (no offense)--adores her already and thinks I should too. He's told me this several times today. Why, when he knows I completely disagree with her views? Because she's a she. The whole debacle is disgusting and I really hope that no one's silly enough to vote for McCain because of this development.

However, I would really love to hear more from you on how your Republican beliefs mesh with your feminist beliefs. As much as I disagree with your post, it was a fascinating read.

I think the best way to describe how I feel today is probably how British Feminists felt when Margaret Thatcher won her party's nomination in the UK. MT is the perfect example of how a woman can ruin the lives of women. I think Sarah Palin is a good example herself, from what I've read of her policies thus far today.

Oh, and the U.S. Democrats are socialists? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You're funny. I consider myself to be a socialist, and I'm much farther left than the typical Democrat in this country. Granted, some Democrats in this country are socialists, but not very many.

"Sarah Palin is a strong independent woman. Being a beauty queen shouldn't disqualify you. Choosing to keep your baby shouldn't disqualify you. Being a Republican female shouldn't disqualify you as a strong woman candidate."

Thank You! I couldn't agree more. I agree that she was a good choice and i don't understand the flack that she is already getting and it hasn't even been a full day since she was chosen. She was chosen because she is conservative and represents the party well, but i also think it was because she isn't the obvious boring choice. I am excited about this and to quote a friend of mine, just beside myself.

Obviously, as a woman you shouldn't vote for someone just because they are a woman as well or have a woman on their ticket. It should always be about politics, which is why it never even crossed my mind to vote for H. Clinton.

I also agree that in the feminist community it is communicated that if you are a republican than you aren't really a feminist. I think it's total bullshit. I consider myself very feminist. I am more independent than republican, but i am a registered republican to have a voice in my state for the primaries. I am a social liberal for the most part but a fiscal conservative. And i think that the community should be more inclusive and allow all women to have a voice. Because i think it is better for all women to be able to debate intelligently than to have exclusiveness and for it to exclude.

Thank you so much for expressing diversity within the feminist community here on feministing. While I am not a Republican and will not be voting for McCain/Palin, I respect your opinion on Palin's VP nomination. In my opinion, feminism is about recognizing problems that women encounter and working to solve those problems; feminists should be able to understand eachother, even if we don't always come up with the same solutions for those problems. I choose not to support Palin because I don't agree with her position on many issues, but I am excited about the possibility of more women in high-profile leadership roles in this country. I also hope that feministing continues its sexism watch just as closely with Palin as it has with Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama, because Palin is definitely going to get hit with just as much sexism. Thanks for having the courage to express your opinion, even when it seems so many people here may not agree with you. Keep it up!

I'm very concerned that so quickly the issue of Palin "choosing to keep her baby" is becoming a major thing. I keep seeing this, and it is extremely bothersome and offensive. Feminists, democrats, liberals- they all have children, including many with special needs. Many people who support the right to choose also choose to keep the children they have conceived.

We are going to have to work hard to fight this implication that democrats somehow force women to abort children, because that is exactly what the Republicans are pushing here. It smacks of the way people say Christians are being forced to "give up" their religions when they are not allowed to have the 10 commandments on the courthouse steps. Insulting.

Leela, thank you for expressing your opinion. I've often wondered if being a feminist meant you had to be a Democrat. When I first registered to vote at 18 (many years ago), I registered as a Democrat mainly because it's always been known as the people's party and because of its pro-choice stance.

But as I've gotten older, my views on the the Democratic party have soured. While I still believe in many Democratic ideals, I realize that there are Democrats in office who are no better than their Republican counterparts. Neither party is above corruption. Neither party is above pandering. I hear people say that McCain chose Palin simply because she is a woman. I don't deny that. But Obama also pandered by selecting an older, white male as his running mate.

At this point, I am still leaning towards voting for Obama. But I do respect any feminist who chooses to vote for McCain.

I don't know who will I vote for. But as I've just said in another comment, I'm proud of this pick:

She took on the good ol'boys club of Alaska politics and fought the big oil companies. She payed her own studies and worked hard all her life, while raising a family. Like Clinton, she's a doer, not a talker. Even if eventually I don't vote for her, I admit pleasantly surprised for having this choice.

Oh, and she's much better than Libby Dole, Kay or Lisa Murkowski. She's... I dunno... real? Her parents were school teachers, her husband a fisherman, she didn't have the chance of going to fancy universities, she practiced sports at school...

darby,
Your point on Obama pandering by selecting an older, white male is actually a good one. I have been thinking about it quite a bit myself. The sad thing is that every choice for VP is pandering- trying to fill some gap in their electability. But it is also to fill a job position that requires the person to be ready to be president on a moment's notice. Would he have chosen her based solely on that criteria? Probably not, which is what is insulting about it. It would be hard to argue that Joseph Biden does not have the experience necessary.

Plus, when you see clips like this one from the past few days: http://beltwayblips.com/video/sarah_palin_what_is_it_exactly_that_the_vp_does_every/
it makes you a bit worried that her running mate is 72 years old.

Plus, when you see clips like this one from the past few days: http://beltwayblips.com/video/sarah_palin_what_is_it_exactly_that_the_vp_does_every/
it makes you a bit worried that her running mate is 72 years old.
--------

Hm... that joke is older than dirt. I suspect 31312 previous VP potential nominees have done it in the pasts decades. I remember Bill Clements saying the exact same thing years ago.

I can't believe you thought she was talking seriously...

Smiling! I think it is great that Senator McCain chose Govern Palin to be VP of the U.S. I hope they win! If they do, then I as a black male will never again have to listen to the BS of any white person talk about how minorities should stop asking for "affirmative action" access to jobs, promotions, and resources when they are "less qualified" or "not qualified" compared to "supposed qualifed whites". Congratulating Gov Palin on being "chose for the Republican VP slot is the equivalent of President George Bush claiming Clarence Thomas was the "best qualified legal mind in the world" and thus should be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. Pleaseeeeee, that Uncle Tom Negro was chose and nominated because he embodied, prescribed to, all of the most regressive values and policies his ancestors are turning over in their grave about to this day. 151 million women should be insulted, offended, that McCain chose her -- and even more offended that she accepted the position, when she knows she does not have the "minimum qualifications" to be VP, never mind the President. Proof: I could not believe a white female wife of a white male was interviewed about Gov Palin, and this 40 something "woman" say, and I quote: "If she can manage 5 kids and a household as a mom" then she can be VP" When did the capacity to procreate and have kids, be a mother, and run a home or apartment" become one of the "best qualifications" for VP or President of the United States? A impoverish woman, without any options, might choose Prostitution (the oldest professional in the world) as a desperate means of income. But what is Gov Palin's excuse for "permitting herself to be prostituted by the GOP" and then having the audacity to "thank GF and HC for paving the way"!

Like I argue to my female associates, SEXISM is not about one's gender per but substantively about what "values" and "policies" one prescribes to, practices, and advocates. Gov Palin makes Phyllis Schafly and Anne Coulter look like 18th Century Maxist -- for I am sure if Frederick Engels and Karl Marx (the founders of what we ignorantly call "socialism) would agree! And the GOP wonders why their "image/brand" is and will forever be viewed as the part of IGNORANCE. If Palin is "best qualified" and/or "has the judgement" to be VP (and President) then I'm going to run out and find me a welfare-mom in the hood, move to Alaska, get her pregant with 20 kids, feed her moose-burgers, and then get her elected to as Mayor of 8,500 voters, then get her elected as Governor of 650,000 voters, and hope the Republican Party will "bankrupt-affirmative-action" pick her to be the First Black Female VP -- LOL!

If you cannot tell, I don't see anything whatsoever FEMINIST about her being chosen or her permitting herself to be chose -- for McCain did not force her to take the job. She's a Right-Wing Republic for sure -- aka, Individual Opportunist! John Locke, the founder of "Individualism" is turning over in his 18th century grave as his moral, spiritual, cultural, and political doctrine of self-determination being spit-upon, exploited, in this way -- and by the MP (Male Patriarchy Duo). Please, give me OB-1 (Obama-Biden for all of their male shortcomings anyday).

Good lord. You sound like fools when you talk about moose burgers. We eat reindeer sausage, (the spicy sausage has red flecks in it and I tell tourists that its Rudolf’s nose) and gobs and gobs of fish (the gold rush that keeps coming back). I’m not a republican, but its local politics. Try and dump on my governor. Palin has as much time as Governor and Obama has as a senator. Obama spent most of his time fundraising and being a prima donna. Palin is one of the few Republicans who has gone through the Veco Bribery Scandal with not taint at all.

And Let me say Palin has more fortitude than Obama. Obama copped out when he was asked about when a fetus/embryos get the right of a person, saying its above his pay grade. Palin has a stance, agree with it or not and she'll say something other than ‘Its spiritual: … or” hope, change, we are waiting for us. Obama not against shelving living humans fresh into the world until they die from exposure and lack of medial attention. If that’s your stance, get some gravitas about you and say it.

Palin has faults. She’s in a local storm for firing a very popular public safety commissioner because the Commissioner wouldn’t fire her sisters ex-husband. There’s some other stuff. I may have voted for her, and I may not vote for her ever, but you are just being ignorant.

In honesty, I am a Republican - and I am a Republican because I am not a socialist

Oy. Here you do nothing more than buy into the hype that wanting the poor to have the same opportunities as the wealthy is some form of "socialism." You also buy into the assumption that any program that resembles an aspect of socialism is inherently bad.

It must be very nice for you to live such an easy existence that you have access to everything you need and have never gone without, wishing the state or federal government could simply lend you a hand.

which, btw is not about pay-check fairness - it is about the government mandating business practices, we already have anti-discrimination laws that can be used when you take your employer to court

So, in a perfect world, we would all be so very free that our employers can blatantly discriminate us at work or our co-workers can freely harass us because of our gender/race/orientation/religion/ethnicity? Gee, I'm shaking because I can't wait for the day that we ave that much "freedom."

Being a feminist shouldn't require me to be a Democrat

Indeed. Being a feminist shouldn't require anything other than the fundamental belief that women deserve 100% equality to men. That doesn't mention a political party, however, of the two major ones, Republicans are as far from that as possible. Democrats aren't perfect, but their platform is a hell of a lot closer to the core feminist values. Picking a woman veep candidate doesn't negate years of oppression, but subtle and blatant, that have been handed out by the repubs. Especially if you consider the real reason McCain chose Palin - to try and trick former Clinton supporters into voting for him. As a woman, a feminist and a Clinton supporter I find this incredibly insulting. Having a vag is far from enough to get me to vote for someone.

Being a beauty queen shouldn't disqualify you.

It doesn't. That's the least of her problems.

Choosing to keep your baby shouldn't disqualify you.

Again, it doesn't. See, here's a little something interesting. As feminists, we believe in a woman's right to choose. See that word? Choose. Meaning, we believe that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term or to raise the kid for herself. Even if it's not the same choice we would make we respect the right to make it. The problem with Palin isn't whether she kept or didn't keep a baby. It's that she wants to deny millions of women that right. She got to decide for herself but she wants to take that away from everyone else.

Sounds like you're buying into the "pro-choice=pro-abortion" slash "feminists are a bunch of baby killers!!!!11one" hype that simply isn't true. If you've been reading this site as regularly as you say, you should realize that by now. I mean, come on.

Being a Republican female shouldn't disqualify you as a strong woman candidate.

Being a "strong woman candidate" doesn't mean you automatically deserve my vote or my respect, or that I shouldn't rip apart your views and platforms as I would with a male candidate I disagree with. To insinuate that we should leave Palin alone because she's a woman is as sexist as saying someone shouldn't support her for the same reason.

We should celebrate this victory for women.

Actually, no. I would never celebrate a candidate with glaringly anti-feminist views as a victory for women.

I'll celebrate when Obama gets elected, because his views actually WOULD be a victory for women. Even though he has a penis. Fancy that.

OneVoice commented at August 30, 2008 12:59 AM: "...Proof: I could not believe a white female wife of a white male was interviewed about Gov Palin, and this 40 something "woman" say, and I quote: 'If she can manage 5 kids and a household as a mom" then she can be VP'..."

Don't parents and guardians in the U.S. have the legal right to make medical decisions on their children's behalf, dismiss any of their children's opinions, spank their children for disobedience whether it's hitting the cat or not smiling enough, etc.? Does the interviewee think that's how the VP should get to treat the nation (including us adults)...?

I think most of what I have to say has been said by profoundsarcasm. great comment. However, I would add that a true feminist shouldn't care about the gender of a politician, or anyone else. My ultimate goal as a feminist is to work to make social changes so that gender becomes completely irrelevant not only in government, but in social, business, and all other areas. McCain's idea that picking a woman would influence feminists to vote for him only goes to show how much he doesn't understand feminism. If candidates were chosen based solely on their qualifications and policies, there would never again be any such thing as a "glass ceiling" for women in politics. McCain didn't chose Palin because of her policies, he chose her because of her sex organs. This shows me that he thinks feminists and Hillary Clinton supporters are bigoted against men, and he thinks playing to that bigotry will gain feminist votes. When a president is elected who doesn't care about the gender of those they work with, that will be a great day for women (and for men too, if you really think about it), regardless of what sex organs that president has. This move by McCain is an insult to feminists. It is basically McCain saying that feminists hate men, which just shows what an idiot he is.

gaelicgirl1983

When the axe came into the forest, one of the trees said to the others,"Look, the handle is one of us"
African saying.

Palin is a handle-
Thatcher was a handle-
they exist.

Obama would have been a fool to choose Clinton as VP. She had already said she didn't want to be VP, then at the last minute changes her ming after her entire campaign was spent saying McCain was a better choice than Obama. Why on earth would he choose her as VP after that?

I lost all respect for her during the primary and would have been looking at voting independent if he HAD chosen her as VP, because it would have made him look stupid.

How can we have party solidarity when a candidate acts like she did? She the same as said 'vote Republican if I don't get the nomination.' Many of her followers are planning to vote McCain rather than vote for Obama, yet Obama followers are called traitors because we didn't support her?? She ran a dirty campaign, plain and simple. I would love to vote for a woman, but so far neither party has nominated one I respect enough to vote for based strictly on genitalia.

The Republicans win elections because they have party solidarity, something the Democrats should have learned by now. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary isn't a Democrat, she's an opportunist.

I would just like to comment on the Obama pandering vs. the McCain pandering, which a couple of commentors have brought up:

Yes, Obama did pander when he chose Biden as his VP; however, his pandering, in my opinion at least, was not completely reprehensible, while McCain's was downright sickening.
First, Obama has been generally considered a decent candidate on his own for a while now. His biggest flaw, which McCain loves to point out, is lack of experience. So yes, he did pander a bit when he chose a more experienced, older, white man as his running mate, but he was certainly not hypocritical about it.
Second, as I already mentioned, McCain loves to remark about Obama's lack of experience. Yet, he has chosen a running mate who has no foreign policy or Washington experience. Obama at least has some Washington (and therefore national law-making) experience, and goodness knows that Obama's VP pick has plenty of Washington experience. In fact, Obama's running mate was in the presidential race for a bit, while McCain's was not even thinking about a Washington position yet.
Third, as many others have already expressed, McCain's choice is insulting to female voters, feminists, and Clinton supporters. To suggest that women in general would want to vote for such an anti-woman candidate simply because his running mate is an anti-woman woman is just disgusting (and yes, at least in my opinion, being anti-choice, anti-equal-work-for-equal-pay, etc. does make a person anti-woman).

And, okay, I'd also like to comment on the main topic of discussion here:

My mom is a feminist and has always voted Republican, mostly because fiscal issues are more important to her than social ones. That is her choice, and although I completely disagree with her views on such matters, I respect that she, and many other people, are both feminists and Republicans/Republican-supporters.
I am non-partisan and feminist, and I will vote for whichever candidate I feel is the best choice both for women's rights and for the country, regardless of what party that candidate and his/her running mate are affiliated with (although such candidates definitely tend to be Democratic in America).
I would absolutely LOVE to see more women involved in politics and government in general, but especially in higher offices, such as VP and President; however, I want those women to be the right women for those jobs, just as I want the right men for those jobs. I truly believe that a candidate's gender should not be a factor in why we vote for him or her, which is why I want more women involved, because then it wouldn't seem so unusual and so historic; it would just be the way things are.

All that being said (and I know it was an awful lot to read, sorry!), I too appreciate all the comments said in this discussion, because it is so important to remember that not all feminists feel the same way about everything (duh, I know, I'm stating the obvious).

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/07/31/todd.redefining.abortion.cnn?iref=videosearch

Redefining "birth control" via the Department of Human Services regulations is a back-door, slick, covert, way for the pro-life movement to force women to become pregnant -- rationalizing that they have to "protect health-care-workers" from being punished by their employer for not doing their job, providing women access to the pill.

So now the pro-life movement is not happy with pitting "an embryo against a woman" but wants to pit "pro-life-workers against women".

The pro-life movement doesn't want to bann male contraceptive -- for men should have the patriarchy-right to decide whether they want a woman to get pregnant. The pro-life movement does not really care about abortion per se, what they really care about is making sure no woman has any legal right to not get pregnant, unless of course men decide such.

What's next, the provide life movement banning any woman from "not having sex" -- redefining "consexual sex" where all women "must have sex if any man desires such".

This may sound like "slipper-slope-logic". But then who would have imagine President Bush using the Department of Human Services regulations (at least in draft form) as a covert way to prevent women having access to birth-control ... but, of course, not men. Here we are, 2008, and still there are those American citizens that want to force, dictate, compell, religious-brain-wash 151 million women to procreate on demand, if and when any males wishes ... via banns on abortion, via no access to birth-control, and eventually via revoking all women's right to consent or not consent to sex ... transfering all of these rights of reproduction or non-reproduction to any male and all males ... yikes!

Scarey, possible, probably ... I say yes, especially if we elected McCain and Palin to be President and Vice President. Imagine, 4 years down the road, their Administration redefining "consensual sex" ... claiming: "No woman has a fundamental right to say no to sexual intercourse with any heterosexual male" (especially her Husband) because "abstinence" is a form of "abortion" (LOL) ... unless of course any male or all males decide otherwise via their absolute control over reproductive rights ... using the condum, vasectomy, ordering women to be abstinent, ordering women to use the pill, etc.

"But, universal health care is socialist policy. It is the essence of socialist policy. "

Uhhhh no. As I said before. Educate yourself.

The essence of socialist policies is to distribute goods and services equally and evenly among the population so no one is affected negatively becuse they were born to the wrong parents or in the wrong part of the country/state/city.

That does not necessarily mean universal health care (though, that is fairly popular among socialists, and for a good reason, too) it means making sure that everyone has access to the necessary health care at prices that won't ruin them economically. But I guess that's an atrocity to someone like you.

You would sound smarter if you recognised that even socalists do not agree on how things are supposed to be run. So saying that universal health-care is the essence of socialist policy is not only ignorant, it's outright stupid.

Leela, I hope you never end up in the position I was put in because we do not have universal health care.

I had excellent health insurance. I worked for an insurance company, in fact. But when I was pregnant, my face and side went numb, and my doctor advised me to go to the ER immediately because I could be having a stroke. If you are having a stroke and they give you clot-busting drugs within 3 hours, you may be perfectly fine. If you go 12 hours after a stroke without treatment, all the damage is done, and it is permanent.

I was not even *seen* by a doctor until I'd been in the ER for 10 hours. And then he couldn't do an MRI on me because the MRI guys wouldn't be in until morning. This was at Johns Hopkins, rated one of the best hospitals in the US.

Why did this happen? Because the ER is *flooded* with people who have no health insurance, or very poor insurance. They can't get preventative care, or even timely care, so that cough they could have gotten antibiotics for if they'd been insured turns into pneumonia that starts killing them. They can't get their gallstones treated until their gall bladder ruptures and they need to go to the ER. They can't get their psychiatric meds until they try to kill themselves and are sent to the ER. And all these people who could have gotten timely care if they'd had health insurance are instead crowding the ER with their emergencies, so a pregnant woman with two kids depending on her, the sole driver in a family where the father is legally blind, could be having a stroke and no one does anything. No one *can* do anything. The people with the preventable emergencies are dying; the pregnant woman might not really be having a stroke, whereas the guy with pneumonia and the guy with the ruptured gall bladder and the guy who just jumped off a building are all dying and need immediate care. (Fortunately, as it turned out, I wasn't having a stroke -- but since I wasn't seen by a doctor for 10 hours, NO ONE KNEW THAT.)

That is why we need universal health care. Because you can have great insurance, have a medical emergency, and go untreated because of all the *other* people who developed emergencies bceause they're uninsured. And don't assume that because you live in a suburb everyone is insured so this won't happen to you. Your ER visit could come while you're on a business trip or when you have a car accident, and the suburbs are full of the silently uninsured anyway, the people with good-paying jobs that nonetheless have no health insurance. (My husband, for example, is an IT consultant, a job he can do despite his disability as long as his computer monitor is big enough. He makes over $150K a year, but has no health insurance because he is in business for himself and self-paid health insurance is a joke.)

Why should health insurance be dependent on your employer anyway? Why is it a Republican value to demand that *business* be saddled with an unfunded mandate? You do realize this makes American business less competitive globally with the countries where the health insurance is done by the government and the businesses don't have to pay for it, right?

I will defend Sarah Palin against any sexism that is thrown against her by any source, but I will not ever "celebrate" her nomination as a "victory for women," anymore than I would McCain's.

It is not like this is Olympia Snowe. Why should we celebrate her just for being a woman, when she is more anti-choice than McCain? McCain at least believes in exceptions for rape, whereas Palin said that even if her 14 year old daughter was raped, she would "choose life" (force her daughter to carry the pregnacy to term and to give birth). Having someone in charge who wants to deny women their reproductive rights is not a "victory for women," even if that person IS a woman. And her view is certainly not representative of the average woman's, let alone feminist's, so how can you expect us to "celebrate" her nomination? The only reason she was nominated was BECAUSE she is anti-feminist, anti-woman and anti-choice. If she wasn't, he never would have picked her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html

"I am a feminst because I believe that every person is equally capable of taking care of his/her self."

Wow. I have never heard this used as a definition of feminist before. Usually feminist means one that works to end sexist exploitation.

The statement that "every person is equally capable of taking care of his/her self" is obviously false, unless your conclusion is that a lot of humans are not people. It is in no way the same as saying "all people have equal rights," or something of the like.

Think about this for a second. Do you not consider children people?

Are those with mental and physical disabilities or those that are in comas or have severe health problems to the point they must be hospitalized people?

After my father had a stroke and needed 24 hour care for months, was he not a person to you during this time?

All people do not have an equal physical or mental capacity to care for themselves. This doesn't change their personhood.

For that matter, not everyone has equal resources, so financially as well, many people aren't equally capable of taking care of themselves. Are the poor not people to you?

"But, universal health care is socialist policy."

Do you hate public parks? Public schools? Public restrooms? What about the fire department? Or public libraries? Or roads, highways and rest stops?

Under your dictionary.com definition, these are also "socialized." Are you working to get rid of them as well or do you only cry "socialism" when it is a right wing talking point, as is the case with universal health care?

I am sorry if I sound snarky, but you sound really privileged, like you have never even attempted to empathize with those who are worse off then you whether physically or economically.

It is hard to see what really is the question/argument here. Is it politics? Is it Palin? Is it feminism? The point is everything Palin has displayed has not been actions of a feminist, or better put, not actions of a woman who is moving forward in the name of the female gender.

To become pregnant at 44 obviously shows a huge lack of, let's be honest, basic intelligence, as well as carefulness. Even worse, the thought of bringing a special needs child into this world, and then abandoning it? Who will raise that child? Her seventeen year old daughter who is pregnant? Does one mother disappear to help run the country while a young child is left to care for her family, new baby brother, and own child on the way? And in the mist of all this, Palin chose to cut funding for sex education in public schools? I think this whole family could use a crash course.

This is not how feminists act. They provide support and foundation for other women. They pave the way. Feminists do not abandon family and offspring in the must crucial and vulnerable times (that of pregnancy, adolescence, and birth).

It seems as though being a woman is simply a tool for Palin, not an honor. Instead of differentiating herself from men, she appears to try and be one. After all, who is she being a mother to anyway? Certainly not her five children she chose to bring into this world.

Palin's lack of respect for herself, her family, and woman is upsetting.

Kat4213 commented at September 2, 2008 1:58 PM: "Even worse, the thought of bringing a special needs child into this world, and then abandoning it? Who will raise that child? Her seventeen year old daughter who is pregnant?"

Her husband?

While it's important to respect single mothers as much as all other parents, we don't need to treat single motherhood as so default that we become oblivious to other kinds of motherhood. For example, many babies have single mothers but Trig Palin has two involved parents instead of a single mother.

Kat4213 commented at September 2, 2008 1:58 PM: "This is not how feminists act. They provide support and foundation for other women. They pave the way."

Right on!

This is ridiculous. How could you support a candidate that's so strongly opposed to reproductive rights and call yourself a feminist. McCain's VP pick was meant to make himself look progressive and woman-friendly just because this right-wing misogynist happens to be female. Congratualtions, you fell for it.