The "Palindox" of Sarah the Feminist
One of the very interesting dynamics that has emerged lately (and on which Ruth Marcus, among others, has written) is the topsy turvy nature of people's reactions to Sarah Palin's life choices. Democrats in general and feminists in particular have questioned the consistency of Palin's career ambition with her commitment to being a good mother. Republicans in general and opponents of feminists in particular have applauded the fact that a mother of five, including a special-needs infant, is able to ascend to the highest levels of government and power without taking time off for motherhood. My own sense is that both groups are being unfair and disingenuous but for different reasons.
Feminists appear to question Palin's commitment to family because they suppose -- correctly -- that if a woman who hailed from the liberal or left wing of the political spectrum were to make the choices that Palin has made, she would be excoriated rather than celebrated. At some level, women who have felt the need to apologize for their ambition and whatever "compromises" they have had to make to pursue their careers find the country's love affair with Sarah Palin maddening. If she can be embraced, they think, why can't I? And if I cannot, then I will not allow her to be either. Sarah Palin is, in that sense, like the little sister whom everyone considers adorable for doing precisely the same thing that the big sister was yelled at for doing in her time.
Right-wingers applaud Sarah Palin's confrontation with the glass ceiling because of the delicious irony. They do not especially care for the idea of giving women equal opportunity. They are, after all, the ones who brought us the 1992 Republican Convention, at which Pat Buchanan -- to much applause -- derided Hillary Clinton as a cross-dresser for her ambition. Like Clarence Thomas, however, Sarah Palin has an inspiring personal story that -- but for her politics -- concretely seems to personify dreams of her group's triumph over adversity. She was a "hockey" mom, a mother of five and nonetheless simultaneously pursued impressive accomplishments. Like Clarence Thomas as well, Sarah Palin has succeeded by championing positions that endear her to those who have expressed contempt for the struggles of people who otherwise resemble her. Sarah Palin is the Trojan Horse of the party that would turn back the clock on women's progress.
Another interesting feature of Sarah Palin's appeal that bears note is that her politics permit her to act -- proudly -- in ways that would be considered "mannish" in a left-leaning political woman. Imagine for a moment a right-wing politician referring to a group of feminists as "pit-bulls with lipstick"; would that likely be a compliment, as it was when Sarah Palin said it of "hockey moms"? (Incidentally, if Palin is a hockey mom, then I am a karate mom -- you heard it here first). Would the vicious and angry appearances of Laura Ingraham (who clerked for the Supreme Court at the same time as I did) or Ann Coulter be tolerated by the right-wing establishment if they were not fighting for causes better associated with sexist men than feminist women? For that matter, is it any accident that it is pro-life women who proudly call themselves "feminists for life," while pro-choice women are otherwise reluctant to use the "f" word and risk being characterized as "shrill" or "militant"? It is truly riveting to watch people who ordinarily mock claims of sexism queuing up to claim that Palin has been a victim of it.
To put the matter differently, the phenomenon of Sarah Palin may tell a story of how much the Trojan Horse and those like her can live the feminist dream if only they deny it to other women. And no, I will not apologize for calling Palin a horse, with or without lipstick -- I happen to love horses, as long as they are not made of wood and do not contain an army of gun-toting reactionaries.
Posted by Sherry Colb
Feminists appear to question Palin's commitment to family because they suppose -- correctly -- that if a woman who hailed from the liberal or left wing of the political spectrum were to make the choices that Palin has made, she would be excoriated rather than celebrated. At some level, women who have felt the need to apologize for their ambition and whatever "compromises" they have had to make to pursue their careers find the country's love affair with Sarah Palin maddening. If she can be embraced, they think, why can't I? And if I cannot, then I will not allow her to be either. Sarah Palin is, in that sense, like the little sister whom everyone considers adorable for doing precisely the same thing that the big sister was yelled at for doing in her time.
Right-wingers applaud Sarah Palin's confrontation with the glass ceiling because of the delicious irony. They do not especially care for the idea of giving women equal opportunity. They are, after all, the ones who brought us the 1992 Republican Convention, at which Pat Buchanan -- to much applause -- derided Hillary Clinton as a cross-dresser for her ambition. Like Clarence Thomas, however, Sarah Palin has an inspiring personal story that -- but for her politics -- concretely seems to personify dreams of her group's triumph over adversity. She was a "hockey" mom, a mother of five and nonetheless simultaneously pursued impressive accomplishments. Like Clarence Thomas as well, Sarah Palin has succeeded by championing positions that endear her to those who have expressed contempt for the struggles of people who otherwise resemble her. Sarah Palin is the Trojan Horse of the party that would turn back the clock on women's progress.
Another interesting feature of Sarah Palin's appeal that bears note is that her politics permit her to act -- proudly -- in ways that would be considered "mannish" in a left-leaning political woman. Imagine for a moment a right-wing politician referring to a group of feminists as "pit-bulls with lipstick"; would that likely be a compliment, as it was when Sarah Palin said it of "hockey moms"? (Incidentally, if Palin is a hockey mom, then I am a karate mom -- you heard it here first). Would the vicious and angry appearances of Laura Ingraham (who clerked for the Supreme Court at the same time as I did) or Ann Coulter be tolerated by the right-wing establishment if they were not fighting for causes better associated with sexist men than feminist women? For that matter, is it any accident that it is pro-life women who proudly call themselves "feminists for life," while pro-choice women are otherwise reluctant to use the "f" word and risk being characterized as "shrill" or "militant"? It is truly riveting to watch people who ordinarily mock claims of sexism queuing up to claim that Palin has been a victim of it.
To put the matter differently, the phenomenon of Sarah Palin may tell a story of how much the Trojan Horse and those like her can live the feminist dream if only they deny it to other women. And no, I will not apologize for calling Palin a horse, with or without lipstick -- I happen to love horses, as long as they are not made of wood and do not contain an army of gun-toting reactionaries.
Posted by Sherry Colb
18 Comments:
At 2:29 PM,
Sobek said…
"Feminists appear to question Palin's commitment to family because they suppose -- correctly -- that if a woman who hailed from the liberal or left wing of the political spectrum were to make the choices that Palin has made, she would be excoriated rather than celebrated."
Doesn't that very assertion put the lie to feminist claims that conservatives are anti-woman?
We support the woman who shares our ideology, regardless of gender. We don't care for Clinton -- she says it's because she's a woman, we say it's because she's a socialist and a horrible human being.
Palin is proof that we, and not Clinton, are sincere when we say we support women (when they agree with us politically). She is proof that liberals are insincere when they say they support women in general (regardless of politics).
At 3:30 PM,
John said…
"Sarah Palin is the Trojan Horse of the party that would turn back the clock on women's progress." I don't especially understand this particular comment. What's hiding? Ms. Palin's (and indeed Senator McCain's and the GOP writ large) views on the issues you discuss are out there for anyone to discover should they care to dig around youtube or the Anchorage paper's website. The same can't be said of many areas, such as macroeconomic policy, national defense, the list goes on. But, in terms of social issues, I wouldn't describe the McCain/Palin ticket as anything close to a Trojan Horse. Indeed, it's her visibility on social and women's issues which has the GOP base so enthused. People who don't want to become familiar with a candidate's views can't credibly claim later that they were fooled, just uninformed.
At 3:53 PM,
Michael C. Dorf said…
sobek, you say that you conservatives "support the woman who shares [y]our ideology, regardless of gender." But the point that most feminists are making is that your ideology is itself hostile to women's interests. For example, with some exceptions, conservatives have tended to oppose anti-discrimination laws (until after they're so well accepted that it's beyond the pale to continue to oppose them) on economic libertarian grounds, or to explain away structural obstacles to gender equality as the product of purely private choices. It is, I suppose, a good thing that conservatives are not so sexist that they can't even tolerate the idea of a woman helping them to set back the cause of women's rights. But that's pretty faint praise.
At 4:06 PM,
Gary said…
The paradox described is based on the bias effect. Imagine a hypothetical "blind" test. Give a group of Republicans and Democrats a description of a hypothetical candidate. Leave off the political views, but describe the family life, the experience, etc., and ask for opinions on the suitability to be elected. Ask also for the specific reasons. I'm sure there would be a low correlation to what they might say with a real candidate when they know their political positions and party.
Now I think everyone does this, but Republicans take it to the extreme. The same people who trash Obama for lack of experience praise Palin's international experience because her state is near Russia? This is absurd. Many Republicans think politically the way they do about religion. They have their religion and all facts or ideas are chosen and slanted to fit their beliefs. Is this any way to pick a president?
Republican candidates and their advisers know this, and they are masters at exploiting it. They label Democrats as elitists, while they praise Bush as just plain folk, in spite of the most privileged of backgrounds and someone who's every step of college and career was based on his privilege, rather than his merits. John McCain has admitted to having affairs while married to his first wife. Do you think the Republican fundamentalists would ever vote for a Democrat who had affairs? The Republicans market Palin and McCain to those who refuse to think.
As Bertrand Russel said, "Most people would rather die than think; in fact they do so."
At 4:41 PM,
Nomad Toes said…
I read a week ago that when Rick Davis was asked when Palin would give a press conference, he responded not “until the point in time when she’ll be treated with respect and deference."
Even to the McCain campaign, Palin's a woman before she's a politician. To cry "delicate flower" is hardly becoming of a future-VP, and certainly not befitting of a "feminist."
Kimberly
At 6:33 PM,
MK said…
While Palin was mayor, Wasilla charged rape victims for the cost of medical exams (aka rape kits), in violation of the Violence Against Women Act (which, coincidentally, was drafted by none other than Joe Biden):
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/11/10526/9939/96/594843
This woman simply has no rightful claim to being a feminist and really has no standing to maintain sexism charges against her critics.
At 9:31 PM,
Gary said…
Nomad Toes: This is just an excuse, because they're afraid of her having to answer without a script. Every blogger and journalist should ask, "How can she be ready to confront the Russians if she's afraid to face the press?"
At 9:49 PM,
Nomad Toes said…
You mean the Russians that she knows so well? I've been in Alaska for some time now and have yet to see a single Russian.
I do know a Chechnyan, though. I bet that makes me qualified to be Secretary of State!
I hope that the country isn't getting the impression that the way she is, the views she has on women and such, is simply regional. We do have some actual feminists up here. (Not that they'd call themselves such!)
At 11:48 PM,
Sobek said…
"But the point that most feminists are making is that your ideology is itself hostile to women's interests."
As defined by whom? Feminists don't seem to care what Palin thinks about women's interests -- only what they think, and what they apparently demand that other women think.
I think an ideology that encourages men to view women as consequence-free fun-bags (hey, if she gets knocked up, we can always get it fixed, right?) is diametrically opposed to women's interests. I'm stunned that any woman can argue otherwise.
(I'm focusing, impliedly, on abortion here, because I don't know any other area to which Prof. Colb might refer when she mentions "women's progress.")
Prof. Colb says "It is truly riveting to watch people who ordinarily mock claims of sexism queuing up to claim that Palin has been a victim of it."
That's because liberal feminists can't seem to understand that conservatives might actually, genuinely, sincerely attack a liberal (who happens to be a woman) for her positions rather than her biology. And yet support for Palin proves our point exactly: we are happy to see a woman succeed.
But why should I vote for a liberal woman if, in fact, I disagree strongly with liberalism? The only answer I can think of is, because I'm afraid of being called a sexist. Well screw that -- I've been called worse, and all the relevant evidence is to the contrary.
Gary said: "The same people who trash Obama for lack of experience praise Palin's international experience because her state is near Russia?"
No, we're mocking Obama's absurd attack on Palin's lack of experience, by noting that a guy who has accomplished as little as he has should not be pointing fingers.
Gary also said: "Every blogger and journalist should ask, 'How can she be ready to confront the Russians if she's afraid to face the press?'"
Oh yeah, definitely keep flogging that one. How will Obama stop violence in the Middle East, if he can't even stop it in Chicago? How will he stand up to Ahmadinejad, when he can't even stand up to American Palestinians? How will he solve the Afghanistan problem when he can't even persuade Hillary (his ideological peer) to support him?
At 12:22 AM,
Nomad Toes said…
I think an ideology that encourages men to view women as consequence-free fun-bags (hey, if she gets knocked up, we can always get it fixed, right?) is diametrically opposed to women's interests. I'm stunned that any woman can argue otherwise.
This trivialization is not kind, and certainly not productive.
At 1:59 AM,
Gary said…
sobek, you put pretty high standards on a Democrat. What city has McCain stopped the violence in? Come to think of it, have any Republicans stopped the violence in any city? I guess by your standards, no one is qualified to be president, right? On the other hand, is it too much to ask a candidate to answer questions without a script?
At 2:45 AM,
Sobek said…
"This trivialization is not kind, and certainly not productive."
Agreed, the trivialization of women is not kind.
"...you put pretty high standards on a Democrat."
Obama says he represents change we can believe in. Where's the proof of that? He has no track record of fighting corruption -- instead, he got his wife's salary more than doubled in exchange for a $1 million earmark. He thinks America should negotiate with Iran, but he hasn't proven he can negotiate with members of his own party. He thinks he can stop violence in Iraq by surrendering to terrorists, but he has produced no results even in his hometown.
If McCain were running on a platform as vapid and gauzy, I would criticize him for it (instead, I criticize McCain for the specific things he's done that I happen to find repellent).
"Come to think of it, have any Republicans stopped the violence in any city?"
Giuliani got some good results. But again, you're missing the point: Obama thinks he can resolve world problems just by the force of his personality alone. McCain (to his credit) realizes that some bad folks won't respond to anything other than a few Daisy Cutters.
At 10:33 AM,
Gary said…
You illustrate my original point, by parroting the Republican talking points almost verbatim. Thank you.
At 12:41 PM,
Sherry F. Colb said…
I find sobek's description of pro-choice ideology interesting. He says that it encourages men to view women as "consequence free fun bags." I have a few thoughts, in no particular order. First, The logic of the position would suggest that favoring access to birth control in general (and condom use in particular) would be especially demeaning to women. Legal abortion, after all, is in the woman's control, so a man who really wants to avoid the possibility of conception would be better served by using a condom than by relying on a prediction that his partner will choose to have an abortion. As the Feminists For Life web site instructs its visitors, "if she's in trouble, he's in trouble too" and will be held financially responsible if she "refuse[s] to choose," as FFL suggests. My second thought is that yes, there may very well be some men who favor women's access to abortion to facilitate their own sexual conquests. But every man I have met who is pro-choice feels as strongly about a woman's right to choose to keep her baby (and to have access to health care for that baby, even if he or she is not an "abortion survivor") as he does about her right to terminate the pregnancy if she is not ready to carry it to term. It is well and good to suggest that a feminist can in fact be pro-life (as feminists for life have said of themselves), but it is quite another to propose that anyone who is pro-choice supports a system in which men view women as playthings. There is simply no evidence to support such an attribution. My third thought is that it hardly displays respect for women to view them as potential incubators with whom any and all sexual relationships should be viewed as child-support bait. This is not, by the way, my view of all pro-life men but simply the flipside of the characterization of all pro-choice men as looking for an easy lay. And fourth, I cannot help but wonder whether Sarah Palin's teenage daughter really wanted to marry the guy who impregnated her (and who said on his myspace page that he did not want children) or whether the "shot-gun" marriage is a convenient way of "making lemonade" out of what could otherwise have been an embarrassing revelation for a right-wing candidate who supports abstinence-only sex education.
At 2:52 PM,
Sobek said…
Gary, where exactly did you make that original point?
Prof. Colb, it's not just the abortion issue that turns women into objects, it is basically everything about modern feminism -- turning sex into meaningless recreation means the "best" woman is the one who gives it up most easily. Handing out condoms in schools and early sex-ed that doesn't emphasize abstinence diminishes the importance of sex in the eyes of children at their most impressionable. Easy and cheap (or even government-funded) abortions makes sex consequence-free, and removes all sense of responsibility from it.
That does not empower women. It makes them easier prey.
Feminists for Life may say "if she's in trouble, he's in trouble too," but really, there is no trouble at all, other than maybe your conscience.
"But every man I have met who is pro-choice feels as strongly about a woman's right to choose to keep her baby..."
Uh huh. All my conservative friends who are into cheap and easy girls tell me the best place to find them is at a pro-choice rally. Can't imagine why that might be. Nor can I even fathom the possibility that a man would say someting ... not especially honest to a woman.
"but it is quite another to propose that anyone who is pro-choice supports a system in which men view women as playthings."
In fact, if not intentionally.
"My third thought is that it hardly displays respect for women to view them as potential incubators..."
I view women as human beings who deserve love and respect, not as a quick score with an easy out in case I slip one past the goal.
"And fourth, I cannot help but wonder whether Sarah Palin's teenage daughter really wanted to marry the guy who impregnated her..."
I sincerely believe that you can't help but wonder that.
At 3:27 PM,
Nomad Toes said…
I view women as human beings who deserve love and respect
Hard to tell from your comments here.
At 7:24 PM,
egarber said…
Sobek,
We support the woman who shares our ideology, regardless of gender.
If that were really the case, the criticism of liberal women would merely be based their views. But there is no question that in the 90's, conservative men were angry at Hillary because of her ambition itself. I recall countless conversations with Republican friends
who would only tell me: "why should I like her? She's a bitch." Is a man an "asshole" SOLELY because he chooses a career in a leadership position?
These same conservative buddies would give me policy specifics (sort of) when describing Bill, but with Hillary it was more an emotional response. I can respect that you have a more sophisticated view of such things -- but you're not very representative of conservatives I've known.
Handing out condoms in schools and early sex-ed that doesn't emphasize abstinence diminishes the importance of sex in the eyes of children at their most impressionable. Easy and cheap (or even government-funded) abortions makes sex consequence-free, and removes all sense of responsibility from it.
So let's look at a world where none of that exists. Humans will always want to have sex, so you have to assume it would be happening regardless. But *without* sex ed and reproductive privacy, women would be constantly pregnant -- largely relegated to their "traditional" position of being a homemaker, etc. In that world, men can still have a career and pursue their ambitions.
So the point is that I see it the opposite way -- sex ed, birth control, etc. EMPOWER women to reach a more equal gender plane.
Don't get me wrong. I think there is a moral component to sex, but that's not a gender issue, imo.
At 7:34 PM,
egarber said…
If that were really the case, the criticism of liberal women would merely be based their views.
I mean "based on their views".
Post a Comment
<< Home