I note that a dichotomy between "feminist" and "woman" has taken a form that is distinctly not to the feminist advantage.
This was made as clear by Palin for American feminism as it was done by Thatcher for British. In both cases women ascended to the highest eschalons of a reactionary party, with almost no celebration from the feminist movement that had longed to see exactly that.
The cause for this is that Palin is quite obviously amongst the "Right Wing Women". As such she is deemed by many feminists to be somehow discounted from true womanhood. That is to say, her politics prevents her advancement being seen as any form of feminist achievement.
However it clearly indicates a success for feminism: the harshest critics of Palin have declared that this constitutes "Electoralism", that John McCain has ascended a shoddy candidate purely for electoral gain. But what does the fact that John McCain would act in the way demonstrate but the power of women? If he had no requirement to appease them he might have chosen someone who knew more on the Iraq than that obtained by watching the news, but then this is a gentleman who once made reference to the "Iraq/Pakistan border".
This is damaging enough for any form of Patriarchy, but so is the vision of the entire feminist movement descending upon a successful woman. Far be it for me to encourage the utterly loathsome phenomenon of "identity politics", but I struggle to see why more feminists can not accept the ascension of a woman to such a high position as an indication of feminist success. If even a reactionary in his mid seventies can be reached then there is surely hope for anyone!
The common line used with regards to this is "She's a woman but she's not a feminist", an argument which I find quite remarkable. The question is begged - are feminists attempting to secure rights and power for women, or for feminists?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Palin Implications.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9001
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I have seen a decent amount of people being excited that a women is in this high of a position. However, I think when people respond that she is a woman not a feminist they are responding to the belief that we all vote with our vagina's. We, as feminists, fight for women's rights, Palin does not. She has gained power in a red state by embracing many of the anti women beliefs that the republican party has.
It's easy to be black and white. It's not easy to have or talk about diametrically opposed emotions on the same subject.
I am delighted that Clinton's run basically forced Republicans to choose a female candidate. I am delighted that women are finally reaching for positions that have largely been closed to us, and getting a serious chance at it.
But I am pissed that this is the woman they chose. I am pissed that the there is a chance that the first female Vice President might be a woman who would have no problem holding her foot on so many other women's throats.
I can't support her candidacy because I can't support her policies. Just like I can't support McCain's candidacy because I can't support his policies.
"...women ascended to the highest echelons of a reactionary party....what does the fact that John McCain would act in the way demonstrate but the power of women?"
*Thank you*. I don't think that every indicator of progress is positive. Susan Faludi wrote a five hundred (well, I'm making the page numbers up)pg. book about exactly that. It's called 'Backlash', and I think we've all read excerpts of it in Women's Studies 101.
It seems unlikely to me that the Republicans are hoping to win this election with an unprecedented landslide vote from the "Hoodwinked Hillary-Supporting Feminists" voting block. But if he *is* pandering to women with Palin, then good- that just means the R. party sees women as a powerful demographic. & this is the party that, love 'em or hate 'em, ***knows who to pander to in order to win elections***.
& even in the worst possible of all worlds, in which the R's win this election, create a repressive totalitarian North-Korea knockoff state in which Palin is granted sovereignty over every woman's uterus and every schools sex-ed, well, no girl raised in that world would see a gender based limit to her political potential. Just saying.
...now, I'm not suggesting that that would be a "win" for women's empowerment over all, but I think this whole Palin situation in general is an encouraging sign for the women's movement. We don't all have to be on the same page ideologically, but clearly something is working so we should keep on doing what we do.
But hey thats just me.