Why This Feminist Hates Sarah Palin

So the WSJ presumes to explain why feminists hate Sarah Palin. Consider me baited, Cathy Young: let me tell you why *this* feminist--feminists being, you know, not all the same, any more than women are all the same--hates Sarah Palin. Oh, and that "not all the same" thing? We'll get back to that; it's a key point.

Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher.

Liberals generally dislike conservative policies and the politicians who support them. Big surprise. Even women, if they are liberal, will dislike conservative women politicians because--here's that key point--women are not interchangable. This point is why the SNL sketch was funny. Just in case you didn't get that.

Moreover! Feminists, in general, dislike--not "have a hard time dealing with", "dislike"--conservative women, where conservatism means things like "opposes women's reproductive rights" and "opposes support for single mothers." That kind of thing being, y'know, central to the point of feminism, which is a political movement that aims to promote the rights and equality of women as a class. Which isn't the same, by the way, as promoting every single individual woman. This should be obvious, but if you have a hard time with that whole "women aren't all the same" concept, it's a big leap to really *get* that.

Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

Unlike "truly unhinged," which isn't the least bit misogynist, oh no.

On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

Those examples are indeed misogynist and sexist. Many feminists will freely admit that women can be sexist, too. Given that sexism is kind of embedded in our culture, it's difficult to come up with ways to express anger at or about women that *aren't* sexist, actually.

You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family.

No, see, there's a difference between supporting a *principle* and supporting every single individual who happens to benefit from that principle. Again: a stretch, I know, but just repeat after me: "individual women are individuals; they are not representative of All Women Everywhere."

Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother.

See upthread, re. women being capable of being sexist, too. Even feminists. What with sexism being culturally ingrained and all.

Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.

Mmmmm, that's not *quite* the argument. Let us keep reading to see what the argument actually is, shall we?

In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself." In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker.

Mmm-hm. I, for one, seriously doubt that the "help" of Todd Palin (and why is he just "helping," given that they're his kids too?) is the only assistance Sarah Palin's getting with raising five kids, including a special-needs baby. Call me crazy, but as the mother of just one kid, I just sort of doubt it.

But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."

That's not Goodman's problem. It's Goodman's argument. Which isn't that Sarah Palin is "too good at having it all." It's that Sarah Palin has the same needs other women do, but that she refuses to support policies that would supply them to women who, unlike herself, don't have large extended families, husbands with good-paying flexible work, jobs of their own that pay well and require very few hours, and lots and lots of money to pay for help if and when those other things aren't enough.

This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles."

Oh rilly??? You don't say.

Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

Right, well, again: this is a good argument, is it not? Most people aren't making a solid 200k/year, as the Palin family reportedly is. And most people who do live in far, far more expensive cities than Wasalia, AK. Why not address the claim here, rather than trying to ignore the actual substantive issue by hiding behind the "but Sarah Palin's a woman!!!" nonsense?

Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing.

Marrying "down" is indeed a very smart thing to do if you are highly ambitious, as Palin is. Men have known this for years. But should *all* women who want both a family and a career "pick" a partner who is "able" to take on "equal responsibility" for raising his own children? Why is it the responsibility of women to find men like this? Why do we not hear people telling men that if *they* want a career and a family, they should pick partners who will be able to take on equal responsibility for children?

Oh right, because we still assume that child-rearing is women's first and most natural job, and that having kids *and* a career is optional (for women). A luxury we're only allowed if we make good "choices" like "picking" men who will care for their own children.

Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly

Indeed. And assumptions like the ones I was just explaining are a big reason why.

-- and who better to smash that stereotype than "First Dude" Todd Palin?

Why? Because he's Alaskan? Because he snowmobiles? Because he works on an oil rig? Because he makes six figures? I'm kind of feeling like maybe there are some unarticulated lingering perceptions about manliness underlying this idea that Todd Palin is the best man for smashing the sexist presumption that men can't take care of kids.

Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is "subordinate to a great man."

Bullshit. Read Warner's column again; the "great man" referred to isn't Todd Palin, who isn't so much as mentioned in Warner's piece. It's John McCain.

Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support.

McCain's running for VP under Palin now?

Isn't that real feminism?

What, tokenism? No, actually, it isn't. Nor is misrepresenting the arguments of others, as it happens.

Not to Ms. Marsh, who insists that feminism must demand support for women from the government.

See above, in re. "feminism is a political movement." The government would therefore be the proper focus of it, yes, just as it is for all political movements.

In this worldview, advocating more federal subsidies for institutional day care is pro-woman; advocating tax breaks or regulatory reform that would help home-based care providers -- preferred by most working parents -- is not.

False dichotomy. Actually feminists support both tax breaks and regulatory reform for home-based care providers. See, for instance, Obama's amendment to H.R. 796, "To provide certain employment protections for family members who are caring for members of the Armed Forces recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred on active duty."

Trying to legislate away the gender gap in earnings (which no self-respecting economist today blames primarily on discrimination) is feminist.

Yes, it is. And in fact there's quite a bit of evidence of remaining discrimination. Including the structural discrimination of how full-time work is defined, and the social discrimination of letting men as a class off the hook in re. caring for their own children--see above.

Expanding opportunities for part-time and flexible jobs is "the Republican Party line."

Part-time and flexible jobs are awesome--if they provide benefits, and if they are what workers are actually looking for. Where people want or need full-time employment in order to, oh, say earn a living wage or provide health care for their families, expanding "opportunities" for them to work as temps or part-timers is bullshit.

I disagree with Sarah Palin on a number of issues, including abortion rights.

That's mighty big of you.

But when the feminist establishment treats not only pro-life feminism but small-government, individualist feminism as heresy, it writes off multitudes of women.

Real individualist feminists wouldn't expect all feminists to approve of all political agendas, as long as they're being espoused by some woman somewhere.

Of course, being a feminist role model is not part of the vice president's job description, and there are legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin's qualifications.

Again, mighty big of you to acknowledge this. Why not write an article about Palin's qualifications or lack thereof, rather than one about why feminists should be supporting her--especially since you're allowing that there are, in fact, legitimate reasons not to do so?

And yet, like millions of American women -- and men -- I find her can-do feminism infinitely more liberated than the what-can-the-government-do-for-me brand espoused by the sisterhood.

Well, sure; being rich is really, really liberating. The problem is that most Americans--and especially most American women--aren't rich. And yes, talking about that and figuring out what the government--you know, the one that's supposed to be by, of, and for the people, including the women people--should actually *do* about that fact isn't nearly as easy as writing yet another half-assed article about what's wrong with feminists.

But no one ever said that democracy was supposed to be easy.


Anyway, yeah. So that's why this feminist bitch hates Palin. Because her presence on the ticket is being used to make bullshit arguments like that one. Because she's a token. Because she, and her handlers, refuse to acknowledge that she's a token. Because the party for which she is running, and the policies she supports, and the presidential ticket she's on, actively promote a political agenda that's inimical to feminism. Because feminism isn't, and never has been, about supporting every single thing every woman everywhere does. Because there is a difference between women as a class and women as individuals.

Because I, with my very own personal brain, think that Palin is underqualified; that she's more likely than most v.p. candidates to actually end up running the country, given McCain's age and state of health; because I viscerally dislike being condescended to; because I viscerally dislike being told what to think; because I viscerally dislike it when people try to do an end-run around my principles and throw in a ringer and tell me that a spade's a freaking laurel wreath.

And you know what? Maybe, just a little bit, because being told that the amateurish, untaught beauty queen is the feminine, feminist ideal, the best women can aspire to be--YET AGAIN--is seriously fucking irritating.