Palinism

So I've been meaning to write a little something about this article I read in the City Paper (dc) a few months ago but never got around to it because once I think about writing something concrete I roll it around in my brain 69 times and decide it's too daunting of a task. So I'll leave the commentary to a minimum. Basically the article describes the views held by some of Sarah Palin's female supporters and extends these views to her impact on feminism. You can read it in its entirety here. At first the article employs the well-worn notion that people, particularly women, who support Sarah Palin have no real idea what they're talking about, and merely buy into the "meaningful" image she and many other political workers have crafted of her. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I think writing people off who can't give a sparkling, well-worded and specific answer about their political decisions is a little too easy. For me, it's her stance on abortion, it's kind of a non-negotiable issue that a woman should have the right to a safe and legal procedure, but I won't profess to know much more about her politics besides what the media has told me. All this aside, I find all that America has said about her fascinating. In this article, the emerging idea of Sarah Palin as a neo-feminist is addressed and one paragraph stood out to me in particular:

"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 :)