What does Sarah Palin actually believe?
Here we go again. The topic is Sarah Palin and her putative feminism, and just typing those words has made my stomach clench up in knots. Jesus. I have no brief for Sarah Palin. I don’t like her, frankly, and I don’t care about her. I do, however, care about feminism. And if we’re going to talk about whether a woman’s beliefs qualify as feminist, shouldn’t we find out what those beliefs actually are?
Much of what was said about Sarah Palin back in 2008 had more to do with stereotypes about evangelicals than with anything Palin herself said or did. For example, the Obama campaign spread the meme that Palin was anti-contraception. She’s not, but people believed it because of the stereotype of the anti-abortion evangelical Christian. Similarly, people assumed Palin was a young earth creationist who thought the dinosaurs were here 6000 years ago — again, not because she herself ever said that, but because of the stereotype. Amanda Marcotte asserted that Palin was one of those Purity Ball anti-sex types — again, based entirely on the stereotype, though as far as I can tell Palin has never endorsed that Purity Ball nonsense or even said anything about premarital sex. And of course Jessica Valenti made the sweeping statement that Palin is against “everything” feminism stands for; but again, this doesn’t seem to track with Palin’s actual statements at all.
Now we have Kate Harding writing this in Jezebel:
But Sarah Palin and her loyal fans are changing all that, by crafting a “feminism” that says we CAN have it all: Gender equality and obedience to men!
Obedience to men? Is that true? Does Sarah Palin believe that women must obey men? Because if she does, then of course she’s not a feminist. Jesus, we don’t ever need to have this conversation again. Game over. Feminism = gender equality. You are not a feminist if you believe that women were put on earth to be inferior or subservient to men. This is basic semantics.
So if Sarah Palin really believes that women must obey men, then please, somebody show me the cite. Please.
By the way, I agree with several of the points in Kate’s article, particularly her observation that “Feminism did not leave conservative Christian women behind. Conservative Christian women rejected feminism.” And her analysis of leftism and religion is spot on.
This, however, is rather strange:
This is what I think of whenever I hear people talk about conservative Christian women “reclaiming” feminism, or blaming those mean and nasty “traditional” (read: “actual”) feminists for keeping them out. You don’t even want the fucking banana. But you’d rather turn it into a lump of mush that nobody wants than let anyone else have it.
Is Kate saying here that conservative Christian women really don’t want feminism or anything it offers, not equality or opportunity or respect; that they just want to ruin it for all the other women? Because if she is (and I may have misread her), I disagree.
Some women trapped in conservative Christianity probably feel that way, yes; some women are self-loathing misogynists. Some women are threatened by feminism and wish to appropriate it. Some women are dishonest opportunists. And of course the male patriarchs on the right want nothing better than to destroy or defang or redefine feminism any way they can.
That’s true on the left as well. I don’t know when the Playboy Bunny suit got a “feminist empowerfulment” label sewn in, but I’m pretty sure that has about as much to do with feminism as the Southern Baptist Convention. And there are plenty of women on the left who seem determined to redefine feminism as some kind of Virginia Slims-smoking Jimmy Choo-wearing labioplasty-seeking exercise in patriarchal compliance.
But I would argue that most of the half-assed feminists (or would-be feminists) on both the left and the right are half-assed not because they’re plotting to destroy feminism, but because feminism is hard. And patriarchy is strong. Feminism is hard for individual women, who have to divest themselves of all kinds of brainwashing and footbinding; and it’s hard for society, which is obviously taking centuries to move from women-as-chattel to women-as-human-beings. Nevertheless, the feminist promise is deeply and genuinely appealing to all kinds of women, even (or perhaps especially) to those trapped in heavily patriarchal subcultures. And so you get all kinds of klugey compromises and weird messes as women try to remake their little worlds.
Put it this way: when the crazy-ass evangelicals start ordaining women as preachers, I don’t see that as a plot to disguise patriarchy as feminism. I see it as progress. Yes, the religion is still a patriarchal crockpot of nonsensical goop, but hey, at least it’s moving in the right direction.
76 Responses to “What does Sarah Palin actually believe?”
-
Sarah says:
This is an excellent post. I particularly agree of your assessment of left wing feminism. God knows that I’ve had conversations with some women, one who actually went through a women and gender studies program, who believed that feminism meant “do anything you want” including wearing stilettos and making out with other women in front of men.
I kind of blame the third wave, actually. Maybe I’m romanticizing because I’m in my twenties, but I appreciate the radicalism of the second wave much more. People seem to forget that feminism is hard work and requires change. But we’re now in this morally relativistic universe where every frat boy and his dog can be considered a feminist. And if all feminism requires is to just express yourself, then one becomes a revolutionary by just sitting on the couch. This sort of feminism just promotes docility. Don’t get me wrong, I still appreciate some aspects of the third wave, but often it seems too individualistic.
Re:Palin. I’m not a big fan (mostly because I’m a left winger), but people are now speculating if she’s had breast implants. Oh joy. I nearly barfed when I saw the “article” that mentioned that. She has gone through so much crap and I feel really bad for her. I think I would shake her hand if I met her, just for the fact that she’s gone through all she has.
Sarah
donotyield.blogspot.comJune 12th, 2010 at 1:27 am EST -
Violet Socks says:
who believed that feminism meant “do anything you want” including wearing stilettos and making out with other women in front of men.
Which is pretty much the Jezebel demographic. Friends who still read the site tell me it has improved immensely in the past year or two, and even qualifies (sometimes) as a genuinely feminist site. But through 2008 at least, Jezebel’s feminist cred was about on par with Cosmo’s. Most feminist bloggers considered Jezebel’s “feminism” to be so content-free and patriarchy-compliant as to be effectively anti-feminist. Like calling the Pussycat Dolls the new face of feminism.
But I’m told it has improved, and that’s great. Still, it’s funny now to see Jezebel in the war for “real” feminism.
-
Grace says:
There has been a sort of “duality” about Palin that makes her an interesting study. During the last 5 or 6 months of 2008, I carefully observed her life style and biography: That basically in her marriage she is the “star” with her own “project”, not her husband, who apparently happens to be the more involved parent. That she is a hunter (my personal views about it are irrelevant in this context) and fisherwoman, and does those things w/out giving a damm about what Andrea Mitchell or other people think about it. She played basketball in high school and defended Title IX and women’s rights.
On the other hand, and this is her dualism, the things that she says or claims to believe in relation to being pro-life, pro-gun, baby driller, pro-war, tax-cutter, “liberal media,” etc., seem to be at odds with some of her actions. Usually is the other way around, like in the John Edwards’s case.
And then there are women like Michelle Obama, who neither preach or live their lives as feminists; they are just helpmates happy to oblige, apply make-up, dress-up, and support their men in their “important” projects, even though, unlike Palin, they may have their own Ivy League degrees and make good money working for the “corporate” bosses. Oh…and she accused HRC of not being a good housekeeper and husband’s caretaker.
-
Sameol says:
I mean, I could be wrong, but hasn’t dumbing down feminism and making it non-threatening and sexxxxay what the public faces of feminism have been about for quite a while now? Wasn’t that the point of Jessica’s book for teens with the naked woman on the cover? Isn’t that the point of Amanda’s enthusiasm for FGC? Isn’t that why it became a point of pride for Third Wavers to declare their support for anti-feminist male candidates over female ones and why no woman, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican is ever good enough while every man is an honorary FDR, Lincoln, Wellstone?
-
Simon Kenton says:
“Oh…and she accused HRC of not being a good housekeeper and husband’s caretaker.”
Palin said this, or Ms Obama said it? I have trouble believing Palin said it, but I have no experience at all with what Ms Obama says.
-
m Andrea says:
IF the banana is indeed a lump of mush (and even non feminists seem to agree on that point) THEN women are idiots for continuing to eat it. What they really don’t like is the last bit. No one ever actually refers to heteronormativity as the purveyance of idiots, but logically, that’s what you have to be. The only way women can avoid the idiot designation is to deny that sexism exists or to deny that sexism is “that bad” or hide behind their Nigel as if he magically represents 3.8 billion men.
And since those are patently ridiculous positions for a woman with enough experience to know better, the next best denial mechanism is ad hominen attacks directed at genuine feminists. Or a distraction technique, whereby misogyny is feminist because they say it is. Really, I don’t think their brains can take much more cognitive dissonance without going splat. I give them twenty years at the most.
-
quixote says:
Ms. O said it. During the campaign.
-
m Andrea says:
The longer sexism continues, the more difficult it becomes to find excuses for the atrocious behavior committed by a group which one is brainwashed into respecting. If sexism is caused by culture, then one would expect sexism to actually end “someday”. It’s starting to look like they’re waiting for the rapture.
Guess what cults always do when their savior, whom they have based their entire identity on and designed their entire lives around, doesn’t come? They either become atheists or they find an excuse to annihilate themselves. Yet, that is assuming atheism is a option. In a world where men are everywhere, gender atheism is not possible. So, expect brains to go splat.
-
Chevalier says:
I cannot argue this case better than you have, but have to chime in with this: Palin makes me PROUD. I have a visceral reaction to her name, and it’s a positive one – she reminds me of that awesome feeling of vindication and possibility when her name was first announced in 2008 as the VP pick. At a time when every Hillary supporter – and Hillary herself – had been humiliated, laughed at, disregarded, and cheated out of her/his rightful due, Palin came by and raised her fists supporting Hillary on a public platform, proclaiming herself to be a feminist, saying things like ‘turns out, the women of America aren’t done yet’ – she reminds me of that utterly thrilling moment.
-
monchichipox says:
“If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.”
Michelle Obama -
monchichipox says:
I know this is beating a really, really dead horse(as far as the campaign goes) but it was one of the more disgusting quotes of the campaign. Especially when it was at a “Women for Obama” meeting. I believe it was the permission from the Obama camp that sexism would be permitted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN1qZMBE9Gc
Now who is really the feminist?
-
Nessum says:
… while in Finland yet another woman is heading for the PM post.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/.....5620100612
(Apologies for being ot.)
-
anna says:
Popular culture has done a fairly good job of pushing the message “Women can do anything men can do in the work world.” A woman who was discriminated against there would likely fight back. Unfortunately it has also done a good job of pushing the message “Women should base their self-esteem on their fuckability.” And there is no message about home and family. So many straight women consider themselves feminist because they agree with Betty Friedan that women should not be confined to home and family, yet they don’t want to put off men, and there isn’t a lot of societal support for a woman saying to her husband “You will do half the housework and childcare without my having to constantly remind you and check up on you or I will divorce you.” That’s considered way too much to ask, and he can always find a woman with lower standards, since it isn’t considered unfair for women to do the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare. So she doesn’t dare bring it up. And there is even less societal support (people and culture agreeing with her and reinforcing what she says) if she says “I don’t want you to use porn or go to strip clubs.” Porn and stripping have become synonymous with sex, and if a woman doesn’t like them she’s considered a frigid prude. And of course it goes without saying that women are expected to spend much more time, effort and money on their looks than men are, and are expected to put a lot more effort into pleasing their husbands in bed than the reverse (don’t see a lot of straight guys starving themselves and learning how to pole dance while their wives crack open a beer and have a nice ogle.)
So I would say a lot of women genuinely consider themselves feminist because they wouldn’t want to go back to the 50s and they support rights that have already been partially won and are less controversial (at least on the left) such as equal pay, abortion rights, equal job opportunity, etc.) But when it comes to asking that nice liberal man they share their lives with to treat them like a human being and not an unpaid maid and whore, they are terrified. Because they know he probably wouldn’t, and how can they live as straight women knowing even nice liberal men who they love treat them like shit? Better to smile and say “I choose to shave my legs! It’s fun and empowering! The fact that my boyfriend would dump me if I didn’t or if I asked him to do so has nothing to do with it.”
See, you can choose your choice all you want, but pressure on women and only women to do unpaid shitwork to please men (of the housecleaning or the bikini waxing variety) just because they are women is still sexist bullshit.
-
Jewellstar3 says:
She is enigmatic, that’s for sure. She’s the leader of her family. She makes her own decisions about her career. Those behaviors are symptomatic of feminism, and she is not against birth control. However, she is definitely anti-choice, which rules out feminism, in my book. Can she be half feminist?
-
Violet Socks says:
Porn and stripping have become synonymous with sex, and if a woman doesn’t like them she’s considered a frigid prude.
Which is pretty much the position of Jessica Valenti (whose site routinely treats “porn” and “sex” as synonyms) and Amanda Marcotte (who is notorious in the blogosphere for her attacks on feminists who criticize pornography or prostitution). Another reason I find it hilarious that these women are positing themselves as the defenders of The One True Feminism.
-
Violet Socks says:
Nessum, Finland is never off topic here. This is practically a Finnish blog!
-
Vicky says:
Have you actually read Valenti’s article on Sarah Palin? She says: “Just as consumer culture tries to sell “Girls Gone Wild”-style sexism as “empowerment,” conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.”
For the record: I don’t like Jessica Valenti (I’m a radical feminist), but I have to agree with that quote. Conservative feminism is an oxymoron. And women preachers are just as patriarchal as women pornographers, no matter how feminist they claim to be.
Sorry, but I don’t want to have an ally who thinks that bombing third world countries and murdering thousands of women and children is fair. -
Violet Socks says:
She says: “Just as consumer culture tries to sell “Girls Gone Wild”-style sexism as “empowerment,” conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.”
For the record: I don’t like Jessica Valenti (I’m a radical feminist), but I have to agree with that quote.Yeah, I agree with that quote too. And I thought it was funny (as in ironic) when I read it, given Jessica’s own style of feminist empowerfulment.
Conservative feminism is an oxymoron.
How? “Anti-feminist feminist” is an oxymoron. “Sexist feminist” is an oxymoron. But “conservative feminist”? Surely it depends on what is being conserved. If what is being conserved is sexism and misogyny, then yes, it’s an oxymoron.
But “conservative feminist” is not an oxymoron if what is being conserved is something other than sexism.
Sorry, but I don’t want to have an ally who thinks that bombing third world countries and murdering thousands of women and children is fair.
Feminism is not a club. It’s a political principle. A social ethos. A person is a feminist based on what she believes. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you would like her in your club.
-
anna says:
Yeah, someone can believe that women are equal to men and still have repellent positions on other topics, just as Martin Luther King nobly fought for racial equality and yet was terribly sexist. I wish Sarah Palin was more to the left, but I won’t say she can’t call herself a feminist (though I won’t vote for her necessarily either.) She supports most feminist positions aside from abortion (Title IX, non-sexist sex ed, equal job opportunity, etc.) I think she’s one of the most feminist people the Republilcans have (not that she has much competition.)
On the other hand, she and McCain did oppose the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (not for antifeminist reasons, but still) and she is strongly pro-life, so maybe you draw the line there. I’m a little more flexible. I draw the line at Camille Paglia, who calls herself a feminist, and then goes and sincerely says crap like “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.”
-
Violet Socks says:
I wrote this post because I really would like to know if Sarah Palin believes that women must be obedient to men. Has she said that anywhere? Because jesus, that would settle the question.
-
gxm17 says:
“If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.”
Michelle ObamaThis has to be one of the most base, misogynist comments I heard during the woman-hate filled 2008 campaign. It ranks right up there with the “Palin is a c__t” t-shirts as I felt the same visceral horror when I first heard it. To this day it sends a blow to my gut. I can not believe a woman, much less someone as bright as MO, said this about the first female finalist in a presidential primary.
For me that comment will forever represent how patriarchy tears women down by tearing us apart.
-
quixote says:
Well, either all us bright wits who read this blog have never seen Sarah Palin say anything like that obedience stuff, or we missed it.
I tried a quick and silly google search for ‘”Sarah Palin” obedience’ in Google News, and the only results are blogs talking about how she’s into obedience. Regular goog returns a vast echo chamber of blogs discussing that. There sure isn’t anything right up in the top layer providing a quote from herself.
-
Simon Kenton says:
The reason I couldn’t believe Palin said that about good housekeeper and good husband caretaker is that I know a lot of women hunters. Those that have kids have a fair’s-fair deal; the husband hunts this season while they take care of the kids, they hunt a different season while the husband takes care of the kids. There’s not one of them that would get it if you accused her of being a substandard husband caretaker or housekeeper. It’d be like you were addressing them in urdu; it just doesn’t enter their minds; it’s not in the frames of reference. I don’t think Palin’s ever said it (and neither does google, according to quixote) but if, just this once, we look at the way someone acts, look at their deeds, it appears from the outside like she has the political gifts, he has the caretaker gifts, and that’s how they do most of their partnership. And really, does it make sense that somebody who operates a marriage like this would be urging the sisters to kiss the knout?
-
Violet Socks says:
Simon, Palin definitely didn’t say it. It was Michelle Obama — and the incident was pretty notorious, at least for those of us watching the campaign. I think it was in spring of 2008. It was at a political rally, and Michelle cast aspersions on Hillary’s fitness for office by saying that if you can’t take care of your own house, you can’t take care of the White House. I believe it’s on videotape.
-
gxm17 says:
I consider Palin a pro-patriarchy feminist, understanding fully that’s an oxymoron; but it seems to me that the particular brand of feminism she represents is one that, much like the pro-porn third wavers, is trying to fit gender equality into the patriarchy box. Personally, I don’t think the norms demanded by patriarchy make for a good, or healthy, fit but considering how deep patriarchy runs, how thoroughly inundated we are in it and, as Violet points out, how very hard feminism is, I understand why women go through the contortions.
Palin is a incredibly charismatic woman and, like chevalier @ 9, she makes me proud. I admire her and I respect what she has accomplished. As she aligns herself more and more with her natural base, the religious right, I find it harder to consider voting for her. But who knows what 2012 will bring. (The only thing I know for sure is that I won’t be voting for Obama.)
To Violet’s question, from my quick scan of the internet it seems that people are assuming Palin thinks women should be obedient to men because she is a Christian; particularly, the doctrine a church she at one point attended, The Wasilla Assembly of God, is often cited as a “cult of masculinity” in anti-Palin opinion pieces. However, I have not found any direct quote from Palin to support the assumption. It appears that someone started the obedience meme and it just keeps rolling along.
I did find some interesting religious essays addressing whether “conservative complementarians” (Christians who believe god has given women a distinct “helpmate” role) can reconcile Palin’s 2008 candidacy with their beliefs. I’m an atheist so it’s all pointless mental contortions, but it was a somewhat enlightening read; and the article makes no bones about being anti-feminist and that Palin identifying as a feminist is a serious cause for concern and ends on this note:
“I pray that our semi-complementarian brothers will recover their biblical moorings before it is too late. Otherwise, the standard for their daughters and the next generation of Christian women may very well be the feminist Sarah Palin, not the biblical Sarah…”
For me this is evidence to support Violet’s contention that what Sarah Palin is doing for conservative and religious women is vital. She is doing important feminist work in an area liberal atheists such as myself could never reach. Hmmmm. Maybe I would be able to cast a vote for her again.
-
Violet Socks says:
To Violet’s question, from my quick scan of the internet it seems that people are assuming Palin thinks women should be obedient to men because she is a Christian; particularly, the doctrine a church she at one point attended, The Wasilla Assembly of God, is often cited as a “cult of masculinity” in anti-Palin opinion pieces.
I would be amazed if Palin ascribed to the doctrine of obedience or submission. That’s why Kate’s article startled me, and why I’m asking (sincerely) if anyone can show me a citation.
Not all evangelicals preach male dominance, and the Assembly of God churches are among those where you’ll occasionally find some semi-feminist thinking. Thirty years ago I knew an Assembly of God pastor, a woman, right here in Virginia, and I assure you her church did not believe any of that bullshit about female submission. Yeah, they were godbags and believed in all kinds of crazy ass shit, spoke in tongues, etc., but they also believed in gender equality, racial equality, etc. It was a weird mix of deeply conservative Christianity and modern-day beliefs about human equality.
Based on Palin’s life and statements, I have long assumed that she belongs to that strain of evangelicalism.
However, I have not found any direct quote from Palin to support the assumption. It appears that someone started the obedience meme and it just keeps rolling along.
It’s amazing. PDS is even stronger than CDS. People cling to their Palin myths with white-knuckled determination, and god forbid you interefere with facts. There are still people out there insisting that Palin wants to ban birth control pills, and that I’m just an ignorant fool for not “knowing” this.
For me this is evidence to support Violet’s contention that what Sarah Palin is doing for conservative and religious women is vital. She is doing important feminist work in an area liberal atheists such as myself could never reach.
This is the thing that so many people seem to miss. Kate Harding’s article, for example, betrayed a kind of seige mentality. There’s an unspoken assumption that all of these conservative Christian Palin fans are vicious women who want to destroy feminism. Good lord. Don’t people realize that Palin’s popularity with that demographic is largely because these women are yearning for a way out of that male-dominated box? Palin is the first woman they’ve ever seen who’s giving them a chance to reach for some kind of feminism without roasting in hell for all eternity. Can’t we have some compassion for these women?
-
monchichipox says:
Lover her or hate her I don’t think being obedient is a label you can put on Sister Sarah. There is nothing in her life, beginning as a little girl who hunted to help put food on her poor family’s table, that shows she ever considered herself obedient or submissive.
-
octogalore says:
I don’t think you’ll find that quotation. As you’ve identified, one flaw, hopefully not fatal, of lefty feminism is the tendency to militantly guard the door. Feminism is the belief that women are equal — period end of story. Whatever ones beliefs are on foreign policy and the economy, that card cannot be pulled by the Hardings of the world, and their attempts are counterproductive if our goal is actually to help women and not to simply enforce exclusivity.
-
Violet Socks says:
As you’ve identified, one flaw, hopefully not fatal, of lefty feminism is the tendency to militantly guard the door.
If that is the case — if contemporary leftist feminism* is like that — then why? And when did it happen?
I know I’ve told you guys a million times that I’ve been a feminist since 1971. I’ve always identified with the radical, Gloria Steinem/Susan Brownmiller style of feminism. And the attitude I grew up with was that feminism was something we wanted to spread to everyone. We wanted gender equality to become a bedrock mainstream value. And every step in that direction was welcomed.
*By feminism, in this instance, we’re actually talking about some of the practioners of feminism. There is a mistaken tendency to conflate individual women with the political philosophy of feminism, and I wish to avoid that. This is what leads people to say things like, “if Amanda Marcotte is a feminist, then leave me out!”
-
Violet Socks says:
Also, I want to point out that I’m a leftist feminist, a “traditional” feminist, etc., etc.
-
gxm17 says:
Can’t we have some compassion for these women?
Amen. It’s no better than not having compassion for the women in Afghanistan or any other religiously repressive anti-woman environment. These women deserve not only our compassion but the chance to make their lives, and their daughters lives, better. If Sarah Palin offers that chance, then Sarah Palin is doing something good for the feminist cause. We aren’t going to win the war against women quickly. It’s going to be a tough and seemingly endless slog. Voices like Palin’s will help us over the long haul.
-
Violet Socks says:
If Sarah Palin offers that chance, then Sarah Palin is doing something good for the feminist cause.
It’s a hard pill to swallow because Palin’s politics are so horrible. I never liked her politics, but since resigning the governership she has gone further and further to the right. It’s appalling. Between death panels and Arizona and blaming the oil spill on environmentalists, she’s just..agh. It’s painful.
So I can understand why people are like, ick.
But I have to say, I do think she is shining a bit of a light for conservative women. When she said at that rally in 2008, “we can be progressive and conservative at the same time,” I’m sure most liberals thought she was talking gibberish. But she wasn’t — she was trying to tell women like her that they could reach for equality too.
Of course none of that applies if she really does believe in obedience, submission, etc. Which is why I keep asking if that’s true.
-
Violet Socks says:
I would also point out, though everyone here already knows it, that saying “we can be progressive and conservative at the same time” is no different than what third-wave sex-ay feminism has been doing for years. “Being a feminist doesn’t mean you can’t still conform perfectly to the sexbot ideal!”
-
Grace says:
This may sound weird, but the other possibility is that Palin just grew-up as a rebel in her family of origin, and because of that she has done and does what she wants in her private life (even those things that could be considered too bold and socially transgressive for her gender).
However, she knows that the only way to advance herself politically is by regurgitating all this reactionary and right-wing propaganda and aligning herself with the Limbaughs and Glenn Becks. She sounds like any Machiavellian politician who would align with whoever or whatever for the sole purpose of getting a political pay-off farther down the line.
Despite all this,and to her credit, I can perfectly see her telling the right-wing men to go fuck themselves if they wanted her to “step down” and renounce her own political aspirations for the sake of patriarchy, something that Margaret Thatcher would have done (it makes perfect sense now that Palin is actually an admirer of Thatcher)
-
Grace says:
I forgot about one point: I personally don’t believe that Palin has ever said anything about “obedience” to men. She is not stupid and knows that saying something like that would alienate an important sector of women, among them the “Pumas” of 2008. Doesn’t
-
Adrienne in CA says:
If that is the case — if contemporary leftist feminism* is like that — then why? And when did it happen?
I don’t know who did it or when, but I think it’s because some people decided feminism was a means to advance leftism. Because of course equality for women for its own sake is a worthless goal.
Also, I want to point out that I’m a leftist feminist
Yeah, me too. And those are two different things.
If I was only able to choose one, I would choose feminism. A conservative government where half the leaders are women would be better in the long run than a progressive government where most of the leaders are men. Better because it would be more fair, and better because it would eventually be more liberal. I think the men on both sides (i.e., the patriarchy) fight it for different reasons: the left don’t like the “more fair” part and the right don’t like either the “more fair” or the “more liberal.”
Anyway, I’m happy that no matter what happens, CA will elect a woman Senator this year. And even though I’ll be voting for the dude for Governor, a woman will be running who could actually win.
*****A
-
Sameol says:
To be fair, though, of course there actually are anti-feminists like Christina Hoff Summers, Camille Paglia, who do seem to want to demand entrance to the club basically in order to destroy feminism, so it’s not like it’s a completely unrealistic fear. I’m guessing that has a lot to do with any door guarding tendencies. Years of being railed at as intolerant for rejecting people who are against pretty much everything your movement stands for will create wariness.
-
Nessum says:
Much of what was said about Sarah Palin back in 2008 had more to do with stereotypes about evangelicals than with anything Palin herself said or did.
I agree, and that’s why it has since been so difficult to know for sure what Sarah Palin’s beliefs really are. E.g. whatever Tina Fey said, imitating her, was accredited to Sarah Palin herself.
I also agree with Grace that Sarah Palin
knows that the only way to advance herself politically is by regurgitating all this reactionary and right-wing propaganda and aligning herself with the Limbaughs and Glenn Becks.
Which is why I think one needs to look for statements she made prior to becoming the Vice Presidential candidate.
For that purpose I tried to find transscripts or videos from the “Newsweek Women & Leadership Event” in Los Angeles March 2008, where she appeared with Janet Napolitano 6 months before she was even on most people’s radar.
But, as you might recall, all that was ever cited from that meeting (6 months later) was her “accusing” Hillary Clinton of “whining” (she actually talked about her “perceived” – by the press – whining) and it seems to be all that’s left on YouTube: The “whining” part.
Or maybe (probably!) it just takes a better and more patient “Googler” than myself to find those statements?
-
Saurs says:
In the future, when I encounter a funfeminist on-line with whom I have a fundamental disagreement, I’m going to direct her (or him!) to anna’s comment in 13. It needs to be read and disseminated and then read again. Excellent, excellent stuff.
-
alilz says:
I don’t think Sarah Palin can be considered a feminist because she doesn’t believe in or support equality for all women.
From what I’ve read and heard her say only supports equalty for straight biological women.
That’s my line in the sand for feminism.
It has to be equality for all women – striaght, bi, gay or trans and women of every ethnicity, race, religion, political affliation , etc.
-
Violet Socks says:
Do you have the same standard for other things? Just curious. Was Martin Luther King not really a believer in racial equality?
-
Grace says:
Let’s not all blame it on the “malicious” media for us not being clear about what Sarah Palin’s beliefs are. Politicians have a responsibility to give details about their policies, philosophy of government, and beliefs in general. The problem with Palin is that whenever she tried to say anything about herself during the 2008 elections ended up being filtered, corrected, and suppressed by the McCain’s campaign, and yes, also distorted by the Obama’s sychophants to the point of reducing her to a caricature, a “fuckable” creature, or just a C with a T at the end.
But that was the past, and now it should be the time for her to define once and for all what she stands for. Unfortunately, in a way she has been doing the same that Obama has always done since he wrote about the all so famous dreams of his father and the audacity of bullshit: double speak, using soundbites for impact, and saying a little bit of everything for everybody from scripts that can vary minute to minute according to the occasion.
My motto is not to pay attention to what people say, because words are just that: stupid words. Instead, look at what people do, their actions, and go from there. Last thing I heard is that Palin will visit with Margaret Thatcher in London. There, that’s an action and I am sure it means something about what Palin’s beliefs are.
-
Sandra S. says:
Sarah Palin is a politician. She is doing what the vast majority* of politicians do: She’s positioning herself. As governor, she seems to have largely gone with popular opinion and existing law. As mayor, she seemed to be populist. As a vice-presidential candidate, she tried to reach out to disaffected Dem women, and simultaneously consolidate support from the Repub base. Now, she’s tacking right to position herself solidly as “one of us.” Do I object to this? Not any more than I do when any other pol does it. If she runs for President, she’ll tack back left in the general. If she wins? My money is on her governing fairly, as a populist, and as a moderate Republican. I think she’s willing to court extremists to get elected, but that she has no interest in extremist policy.
*The only exception I can think of is Hillary Clinton. She took a lot of flack early during the primaries for not promising the moon- it made her seem more moderate than I think she is in terms of ideals. But it also meant that she was never in the same boat as Obama of talking out of both sides of her mouth, and getting in trouble later for promising and failing to deliver.
-
Because my head has been swirling with this stuff lately « Blue Lyon says:
[...] What Violet said: Some women trapped in conservative Christianity probably feel that way, yes; some women are self-loathing misogynists. Some women are threatened by feminism and wish to appropriate it. Some women are dishonest opportunists. And of course the male patriarchs on the right want nothing better than to destroy or defang or redefine feminism any way they can. [...]
-
monchichipox says:
Why so much wonder if Sarah Palin believes women should be obedient and submissive? She’s never said it and more importantly she’s lived her life by example. Never once showing that she believed it.
I’ve read over and over again that Hillary is a ball busing man hater lesbian who killed Vince Foster. I don’t need to hook her up to a polygraph or google her quotes until my fingers fall off to know that that is not who Hillary Clinton is.
“From what I’ve read and heard her say only supports equalty for straight biological women.”
Yeah from what you’ve heard. From who? The troll who has been living in her floorboards recording every secret word she’s ever said? Did you hear or read that she vetoed anti gay legislation in Alaska because she found it unconstitutional? What a ridiculous comment. Biological women. What is she rounding up the Cylons and putting them in death camps?
-
Violet Socks says:
Biological women. What is she rounding up the Cylons and putting them in death camps?
I suspect alilz was alluding to the distinction between biological women (those of us with two X chromosomes, etc.) and trans-gender women (biological males who identify as women).
-
monchichipox says:
Ahhh thank you for the clarification…It just sounded so Sci-Fi now I feel like a boob.
-
alilz says:
Yeah from what you’ve heard. From who? The troll who has been living in her floorboards recording every secret word she’s ever said? Did you hear or read that she vetoed anti gay legislation in Alaska because she found it unconstitutional? What a ridiculous comment. Biological women. What is she rounding up the Cylons and putting them in death camps?
I did in fact mean trans women.
I said “From what I’ve heard or read her say meaning what I’ve heard Sarah Palin say.
I’ve read that she vetoed legislation that would have prohibited same sex partners from getting benefits BUT from what I understand she vetoed because she didn’t think it was Constitutional.
She supported the Alaska ban on gay marriage. And she has said in the Vice Presidential debate that she would not support a federal expansion of health benefits for same sex partners if it meant expanding marriage rights to gays.
Sarah Palin has said in multiple interviews and on video that she believes that marriage is for 1 man and 1 woman only.
Sarah Palin has said on more than one occasion and I have seen her say on more than one occasion that she supports only traditional marriage between 1 man and 1 woman. She may have gay friends but she doesn’t believe that they should be allowed to get married.
She doesn’t support a repeal on DADT right now, but I don’t know if she would support a repeal on the future.
Now granted most of my information comes from when she ran for VP but it was hard to get more up to date information.
From what I’ve also been able to gather she supported Prop 8.
If I’m wrong please give me links to exact quotes for Palin about her support for the legal right for gays and lesbians to marry.
But from what I’ve heard Sarah Palin say and from where I’ve read her quoted she does not support full equality for gays and lesbians.
For that fact I can’t consider her a true feminist.
Note that Hillary Clinton has said she doesn’t think gays and lesbians should be allowed to get married but they can have civil unions. I don’t consider that the attitude of a real feminist either.
I don’t remember exactly when I first heard the term feminist or when I decided “hey! that’s me!” but it was when I was around 14 or 15 years old (roughly 20 ish years ago) and it was pretty soon after that I decided that it was pretty hypocritical for me to want to be treated fairly and equally and not be subjected to oppression and at the same time want to oppress other women, or even other men.
If I can figure that out as a teenager in a Southern Baptist Republican household (and attending Southern Baptist churches) then I don’t see why it’s so hard for anyone else to figure it out.
-
anna says:
Well, do you say a leader of the NAACP who doesn’t support gay marriage doesn’t really believe in racial equality, because he doesn’t support black gays and lesbians?
It’s great to support all forms of equality, and I do support gay marriage, but feminism doesn’t mean you support every good cause or else you can’t call yourself a feminist. It means you believe men and women are equal and should be treated equally.
-
Grace says:
Can somebody explain to me what’s the difference between “civil unions” and marriage? Especially when it comes to legal benefits.
-
Sameol says:
You didn’t answer Dr. Socks’ question about Martin Luther King, though? We shouldn’t honor him as a proponent of racial equality because his sexist, patriarchal attitudes disqualify him?
-
Sameol says:
I believe there’s a pretty major state vs. federal issue. Only a few states recognize civil unions, and all the benefits conferred are confined to the state level and not transferable between states. When it comes to federal benefits, like tax breaks, Social Security or veterans’ benefits, immigration sponsorship, etc., you’re pretty much out of luck.
-
alilz says:
@49 – Actually yes I do think that the leader of the NAACP isn’t for true racial equality because he accepts and endorses the discrimination of Black gays and lesbians.
GLBT rights isn’t about a “good cause” it’s about EQUALITY.
Please tell me how it’s acceptable for a feminist to endorse and accept the discrimination of women.
-
Sandra S. says:
alilz,
As a Queer woman, I care deeply about gay marriage rights. As a mental health practitioner, I also care deeply about ensuring that even the poorest of the poor have access to mental health care. Both issues fundamentally come down to JUSTICE, to the fact that we are all human beings, and therefore all entitled to be treated fairly. But that does not mean that both are issues of concern to the Queer community.
Sure, gay marriage rights affect women. Does that necessarily make it a feminist issue? If it does, it’s not because half of the gay population is female. Approximately half of the psychological community is female, too. That doesn’t mean that as a feminist Violet needs to take a strong position on EMDR and prescribing rights.
If gay marriage is a feminist issue (and I actually do think that queer issues are feminist issues), it is because homophobia and misogyny both spring from the same seed, as it were (the social construct of gender).
That said, no two (or five or seven) policy positions are enough to make or break someone’s status as a feminist. Feminism doesn’t come with a checklist. You don’t earn feminist merit badges. There is no membership card or secret handshake. The only litmus test is your IDEALS.
I happen to be a VERY BAD feminist. I laugh at some really misogynistic jokes. I look down on other women for conforming to patriarchal standards (and in some cases for Failing to conform to patriarchal standards). I had bariatric surgery to look more appealing naked. I don’t really value motherhood that much. I haven’t read even One seminal feminist work. I dropped the only Women’s Studies class I ever took because it bored the hell out of me. I like pornography, and I have been known to get lap dances. I just got my first Brazilian Bikini Wax. BAD feminist.
Is the definition of feminism that you collude with the Patriarchy, but, you know, you feel REALLY BAD about it afterward? No. But I also think it’s about a hell of a lot more than just whether you carry out the approved feminist exercises five times a day. It’s about more than just sorting your recycling and voting Democrat. It’s about being someone who BELIEVES IN WOMEN.
Even if Sarah Palin SUCKS at Feminism (and I don’t think she does), she has every right to call herself one anyway.
-
alilz says:
I’m not a great feminist either.
I don’ go to protests I don’t march for issues, I shave my legs (mostly) , I like to fee stereotypically feminine (except not with make up).
I don’t think how you dress and look is as important is what you believe in.
I’m straight so I feel awkward arguing this with you, I’ll admit.
It’s not just about gay marriage, it’s about all the ways the laws and society discriminate against gays and lesbians.
I’ll ask it again — how can a woman be a feminist if she’s only wants some women to have equality?
-
Violet Socks says:
alilz, are you talking about the definition of feminism now, or what people are morally obligated to believe/do if they don’t want to be hypocritical creeps?
Feminism = ending sexism.
Gay rights = ending gay discrimination.
Civil rights = ending racism.
anti-anti-semitism (!) = ending anti-semitism.These are all distinct things, yes? They have distinct meanings, yes? I think that’s the point we’re trying to make.
Now, it is certainly true that anyone who ascribes to one of these should also ascribe to the others, since they’re all about human equality and social justice and ending discrimination. They should.
In practice, though, they often don’t. In fact, most of the men who have worked against racism or anti-semitism or even homophobia are, themselves, flaming sexist assholes.
But if your criteria for considering someone a genuine civil rights person OR gay rights person OR anti-anti-semitism person OR feminist is that they must fully subscribe to all of the human justice movements, then you need to be clear about that. And be aware that a whole lot of people, from Ghandi to Martin Luther King to Jesse Jackson, will not make the cut.
-
anna says:
In case anyone doesn’t know, Martin Luther King cheated on his wife repeatedly. And certainly he often used sexist language (who can forget “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood” not to mention “all of God’s children — black men and white men” and many more.)
Jesse Jackson had an affair and a child as a result (frankly I think a powerful man having an affair should be seen as sexist since there is a prevalent idea that of course a rich, powerful, charismatic man is going to have at least one mistress, he’s entitled to it, the little lady should look the other way in exchange for being the great man’s wife. Like Jackie Kennedy.) And there were those infamous remarks about “Hymietown.” He was once strongly pro-life, but has become pro-choice.
As for Gandhi, he required his female disciples to sleep in the same bed with him while he was naked and sometimes other women, even underage girls, while they were both naked, supposedly to test whether he could stick to his vow of chastity. Apparently he considered it a great point in his favor that he refrained from raping them. Also, he advised the world to oppose the Nazis with pacifism rather than war, which of course would have led to general slaughter of helpless people even more than what was done.
Is this what you meant, Violet? It was all I could find.
-
alilz says:
So it’s okay for a feminist to be racist?
-
alilz says:
Let me rephrase that-
Would you consider someone a feminist if they only wanted equality for white women?
-
Sandra S. says:
Alilz,
I’d argue that while it isn’t MORALLY OKAY for a feminist to be a racist, it doesn’t exclude her from feminism.
-
Violet Socks says:
Oh, it was much more than that with MLK. He explicitly rejected feminism. He believed that men should be the leaders in public and in the home, and that women’s duty was to be obedient helpmates (or compliant prostitutes). He made it clear to Coretta Scott that she was to obey him, stay at home, and not have any public role. He deliberately stepped around and pushed aside women leaders in the civil rights movement.
And he was joined in this attitude by most of his confreres. The civil rights movement was heavily patriarchal and anti-feminist.
-
Violet Socks says:
Alilz, would you consider someone a civil rights advocate if he only wanted equality for black men? Like MLK?
-
alilz says:
MLK was wrong.
He wasn’t advocating for full civil rights for black women, only partial rights.
so it’s okay for to if a feminist works to make sure that there are laws in place that oppress certain groups of women?
From what I can tell from your blog shaving my legs and watching porn is worse than supporting laws that oppress women.
-
Violet Socks says:
alilz, you don’t seem to be able to distinguish between definitions and moral imperatives. Of course it’s not okay for anyone to work for laws that oppress anyone. But we’re talking about definitions.
Yes, MLK was wrong. But I notice you don’t say “he wasn’t really a civil rights advocate.” I notice you don’t say “he wasn’t really an anti-racist.”
From what I can tell from your blog shaving my legs and watching porn is worse than supporting laws that oppress women.
That is just silly. Are you really that confused?
-
alilz says:
You consider Sarah Palin a real feminist even though she has actively supported and vocally supported laws that oppress women.
She seems to get the real feminist stamp and women who are look stereotypically feminine get labeled as half assed.
-
Violet Socks says:
By the way, this thread is so blindingly white I’m going to have to put my sunglasses on. “Are you saying feminists can be racist???” Jesus H. Christ. Pose that question to some black women.
-
alilz says:
Let me rephrase that — is it acceptable to you if there are racist feminists?
-
Violet Socks says:
Alilz, you seem to think I’ve looked into Sarah Palin’s soul and agreed to personally induct her into the rare and charmed circle of Genuine Feminists. Jesus! It has nothing to do with me or Sarah Palin or anything else. We’re talking about the definition of feminism.
A feminist is someone who is anti-sexist. Just as a civil rights advocate is someone who is anti-racist. That’s all. That’s what those words mean.
Read this, maybe it will help:
-
Violet Socks says:
Let me rephrase that — is it acceptable to you if there are racist feminists?
No, absolutely not. I think that is horribly hypocritical. It makes me angry the same way the civil rights men made me angry for being so sexist.
-
alilz says:
Let me ask this – is it acceptable if there are feminists who are homophobic and want to keep oppressing non straight women?
-
Violet Socks says:
It’s not acceptable to me for anyone to do that.
-
alilz says:
Then why do you support someone who does that?
-
Violet Socks says:
What on earth are you talking about?
-
alilz says:
Over the days long deal with the comments I’ve gotten confused.
My mistake, my comments were not supposed to be directed at you Violet but at those commenters who have said Sarah Palin makes me proud.
I want to know why they are proud of a woman who supports the oppression of other women
Despite my obvious confusion over who I was addressing.
I still maintain being a feminist means wanting all women to be equal, which means that I won’t consider someone a feminist if they work to oppress other women.
-
Toonces says:
alilz, oppressing someone because of their sexuality is different than oppressing someone because of their sex, even though a woman can be oppressed because of both and no one should tolerate either oppression.
Jared Polis is classist but he’s still anti-homophobic. Do you say his status as being anti-homophobia should be revoked because some gay people are poor? What about Lady Gaga? She uses some seriously sexist imagery in her videos. I mean, if that’s your stance, it’s totally fine with me, but I’d like to see the people who make this argument be consistent, and so far they only target feminism, IMO.
-
Carmonn says:
I’m guessing people who don’t support her politics are proud of her because A) she’s the second female VP nominee ever, and B) because the kind of misogyny that was unleashed last year was scary and draining and on some level it was cathartic watching her be subjected to it all and keep going, hypocritical and imperfect as she might be. By your definition, MLK Jr. wasn’t a civil rights advocate or supporter or racial equality and neither are many of those we consider civil rights advocates, so does that mean no one should be proud of someone’s accomplishments in standing up against racism or breaking barriers?
You can be part of the problem and part of the solution at the same time, it’s a harsh, complicated world filled with bad options.
