Hillarysworld

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/10/sarah-palin-embracing-feminism-or-co-opting-it-for-conservativ/

"Mama Grizzly" Sarah Palin is once again proving to be a thorn in the side of the feminist blogosphere, which has recently been invigorated by the debate over her co-option of the word "feminism."

Since her ascension to the coveted status of one of the most visible women in American politics, feminists have engaged in a spirited discussion about Palin's impact on the progress of women's liberation. But her speech last month at a fund-raising breakfast for the Susan B. Anthony List -- a coalition whose goal is to elect female anti-abortion candidates -- has especially drawn the ire of many feminists because, among other things, she so eagerly and freely drew upon the words "feminism" and "feminist" ("no less than a dozen times" notes Feministing's Jessica Valenti).

At the event, Palin celebrated anti-abortion candidates and supporters and said that they embodied an "emerging, conservative, feminist identity."

Palin crowed about how the Right, and specifically the Susan B. Anthony List, is reclaiming the feminist movement and bringing it "back to its original roots." But, typical of Palin, this is empty talk: Lynn Sherr, a biographer of Anthony, and Ann Gordon, a historian who edited Anthony's papers, said as much in the Washington Post: "We have read every single word that this very voluble -- and endlessly political -- woman left behind. Our conclusion: Anthony spent no time on the politics of abortion. It was of no interest to her, despite living in a society (and a family) where women aborted unwanted pregnancies."

But this truth is probably too inconvenient for Palin and those who fill out her anti-abortion cohort.

What's more, the co-option of feminism by anti-feminists is nothing new. Amanda Marcotte of Slate points out that Palin is simply "the latest incarnation of a long and noble line of feminist anti-feminists: women who call themselves feminist but also object to the existence of the feminist movement and organize in opposition to it."

The 111th Congress is comprised of a record number of women -- 95 -- but only 21 are Republican. In both the House and Senate, only 10 percent of Republican lawmakers are women, while roughly 25 percent of Democrats in the House and Senate are women. Neither party's record of electing women is anything to write home about, but clearly the Democrats are more willing to include and elect women, which is perhaps why conservative women have given up on the shrinking tent that is mainstream conservatism and embraced the Tea Party.

It's not just that the Republican Party has historically neglected to support and elect women that has drawn conservative women to the Tea Party movement. Indeed, several important events have converged over the past few years to bring about an atmosphere in which conservative female candidates -- many of whom have been endorsed by Palin, the de-facto leader of the Tea Party -- are the talk of the current political season. Of all of the cultural and political events that have brought us to this point, perhaps Hillary Clinton's candidacy was the main catalyst. (Would it be too cynical to suggest that Palin wouldn't even be a candidate for vice president were it not for Hillary?)

I don't think it's too cynical at all. When she was first named as McCain's veep, Palin even thanked Hillary (and Geraldine Ferraro) for paving the way.

Take Rebecca Traister's observation on the Democrats' botching of Clinton's historic moment: She laments "the Democratic Party's sluggishness in celebrating the historic achievement of Hillary Clinton, its unwillingness to address the monumental nature of her presidential campaign or to acknowledge the often gender-inflected challenges she'd faced. What John McCain and Sarah Palin had done, brilliantly and terrifyingly, I thought at the time, was to move in on territory -- women, feminism, women's history -- that their opponents had been too reluctant to claim."

That sounds about right to me.

Sadly, the cynicism that John McCain and the Republican Party employed when they nominated Palin to be vice president has only been renewed. As the mainstream GOP has failed to connect with voters, it has engaged in a calculated effort to "turn gender into a selling point," as the LA Times' Doyle McManus puts it. "Republican strategists say female candidates should run well this year, when voters are dissatisfied with incumbents of both parties, because women are, by definition, outsiders; they're not members of the 'old-boys club.' "

For feminists like Valenti, this GOP strategy is nothing more than "an empty rallying call to women who are disdainful of or apathetic to women's rights, who want to make abortion and emergency contraception illegal, who would cut funding to the Violence Against Women Act and who fight same-sex marriage rights."

Of course, there are a lot of women who hold these beliefs. They're women, but they aren't feminists. At the same time, there are liberal women who aren't feminists, either. They might talk the talk, but instead of walking the walk they were drinking the Kool-Aid. We saw plenty of 'em in 2008 and I'm sure we can all name names.

Another question has arisen from Palin and the Tea Party's "feminist" power grab: Is it better to have a debate that is about the defining characteristics of feminism -- like, say, who "belongs" -- than to not have one at all? Says Kate Harding of Jezebel: "One curious thing about this 'new conservative feminism' is that all these women suddenly want to be known as feminists. Like it's a good thing! A desirable thing! A fashionable thing! When did this happen?"

True, "feminism" used to be a very dirty word among conservatives, particularly among fundamentalist Christians. If I were more interested in these Repub women, I would take note of when and where they actually apply the feminist label to themselves. I doubt if they do it when they're courting the family values voters.