"In 'newer feminism,' every woman’s choices are valued—no matter what those choices mean for other women. Schlessinger isn’t an enforcer of rigid gender roles; she’s a facilitator of women’s choices. Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and comprehensive sex education isn’t anti-feminist; it is her choice to deny reproductive choices to other women. Under this model, Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis isn’t an exploiter; he’s a liberator of women’s breasts."
I remember encountering this conflict when I took Feminist Literary Theory (ENG352-best class hands down at VCU); where do you draw the line at what is feminist? There are so many branches and subsets within the theory and its basis is in the idea of equality; it seems wrong that it should be exclusionary. But of course everything gets muddled in the notion that everything done by a woman, or a minority, or someone who calls him/herself feminist is progressive, meaningful, subversive, feminist.
I really loved learning about "the personal is political" criticism when I took Fem Lit; it opened up an entirely new understanding for me: looking at one's relationships and personal life through the lens of feminism. But you can see how dangerous a concept it becomes when taken into the hands of those with no essential understanding of feminism or women's rights, like Sarah Palin and her followers. They do just as the excerpt above states, that is, act it as though every decision that a woman makes is important and RIGHT, by virtue of the fact that she has a vagina. Scary stuff. Feel free to comment. If there is anyone besides Dan and maybe my mom who reads this :)
