McCain's cynical choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate illustrates how manipulable vested interest think women are. Don't fall for it!
I mourned her loss. Not because I think Obama is not as worthy a candidate as Clinton, but because the race for the Democratic presidential nomination was played out against a background of two competing isms: racism and feminism. I was sad feminism had lost.
With Hillary Clinton no longer in the running, Republican nominee John McCain was going to try to win over angry Clinton supporters - in particular women. His intention: to widen the rift in the Democrats caused by the contest (Obama v Clinton) with his party as the beneficial recipients. Good plan, but I was at a loss to see how he was going to put it into effect.
Clinton voters are moderates, even progressives. Many, traditional feminists of the second-wave variety. These are women who want to change the status quo so it works better for them because they consider that it still doesn't.
McCain is conservative, especially on women's issues. Worse. He's regressive. He'd like the abortion decision Roe v Wade overturned, for example. Does he even like women? He was heard to say to his wife, Cindy, (during the 1992 senate re-election bid) when she playfully teased McCain about his greying hair, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c***." It's little wonder then that Katha Pollitt, speaking in The Nation said: "To vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane." With this record he would need to pull more than a rabbit out of his hat to attract Clinton voters.
Then, in one of the most cynical political exercises ever encountered, he named his running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Yes, women of America, now you can vote Republican with impunity. You are not betraying your feminist ideals because you will be voting for a woman. And here is a gal who could teach you a thing or two about being a woman. She's a mother who married her childhood sweetheart, had five children, didn't abort her fifth and final child when she found out he had downs syndrome. She describes herself as: "A Hockey Mom." Remarkably, she has managed, at 44 years of age, to potentially be the second most powerful person in the USA. So girls, follow her example - you too could be President.
But seriously, she is clearly not a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton. Palin's ideals are so right wing, they're frightening.
This is what we know of her politics so far:
- She's for the death penalty.
- For oil drilling in Alaska
- She believes in the teaching of Creationism.
- Gun owning is fine.
- Same sex marriages aren't.
- Neither is abortion.
Nevertheless, she may succeed in doing what progressive feminists have tried and failed at. She's almost through that glass ceiling, isn't she? Had Hillary Clinton realised who would be crawling through the ceiling behind her she could have superglued up those millions of cracks while she was up there.
Will Clinton supporters be duped into changing their vote? I would like to think not. However, we females are sometimes easily duped. We have a tendency to subjugate our feminism because we don't want to appear to be victims or thought of as man haters. We seem to have trouble advocating for ourselves. Our reluctant feminism leaves us open to manipulation.
Let me illustrate what I mean. As far as subjugation is concerned, what was Julie Ward thinking when she was fast tracked to the NSW Supreme Court as a judge (without first serving as a magistrate or district judge)? She could have framed her appointment as being a defining moment for women. The journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald certainly suggested it. But no. She said that it was really more about progress for [those downtrodden members of society] solicitors. Solicitors are well educated, extraordinarily well paid, have seriously good career advancement options, prestige and power. When feminism is subjugated to another worthy cause that's one thing- but solicitors?
In the same edition, in a shoddy piece of attempted manipulation, Patrick Parkinson, a law professor at the University of Sydney was commenting on proposed new laws in New South Wales for de facto couples. These laws would effectively put unmarried couples on a legal par with married couples after being together for two years. Parkinson opposes these laws. He has the welfare of females at heart.
"...after a bitter bust-up with Simon, Sarah may be appalled to find that some of her inheritance is taken to meet his future needs...Sarah might even have to pay maintenance to support Simon long after their relationship ends."
Do you really have Sarah's interests at heart, Professor Parkinson? The proposed legislation is aimed at protecting those who are most disadvantaged during relationship break ups - women. But you know that, don't you? To defeat pro female legislation; just get women themselves to oppose it. How deliciously ironic. Give them some bullets and watch them shoot each other.
But back to Sarah Palin: Is her purpose to demonstrate that the status quo works for women? Well, it hasn't worked for me. I'm still just one man away from poverty. Mrs. Palin, you're looking like bursting through the glass ceiling because you have, propping you up, hundreds of years of white, male, middle-class, rednecked vested interest that you're helping to uphold. You're a means to an end. You're being manipulated too.
Susan Merrell is a Sydney-based, freelance journalist who has a Ph.D in political science.
Printer friendly version
Comments
Sarah Palin
What a frightening thought. Susan's point is well made. Palin's credibility gets even thinner with her reaction or lack of to her teenage daughters pregnancy.
I am not mollified by the American commentator's reaction "At least she is a better shot than Dick Cheney"
I thought it was men who started wars and women who stopped them. What are the cahnces of a Palin stopping a war?
In this day and age how can you take anyone let alone a woman who believes in creationism and is anti abortion - these issues were settled 50 years ago.
Entertainment....
I like your supergluing up the cracks in the glass ceiling analogy. As terrifying as it truly is.
However, looking at it positively, how much fun is this? Yet again we get to watch a bunch of Americans waste a shed load of money making complete fools of themselves, reiterating to the rest of the world their already cliched status.
Bring it on. Australian politics is so dull in comparison.
Palin the Patsy
susan...
excellent article - I agree with you almost entirely.
However, I think Palin being put on the McCain ticket serves two other, major purposes for the GOP
1. the obvious: the desperate grab for the female vote - although how many American women will vote for this beaming harpie who loves guns, oil and killing stuff for sport, I don't know.
2. the less obvious: Palin's the patsy - the fall-guy (or fall-girl, if you like) for when the McCain presidency tilt comes off the rails, and the GOP needs someone to blame. it'll also set women's place in the GOP back about 20 years - having a female VP contender on a doomed campaign is tantamount to the GOP writing themselves an excuse note, allowing them to 'never, ever again' put a woman on the ticket... after all, look what happened when we put Palin up and we lost...
gregor
In much the same way as the
In much the same way as the race between Clinton and Obama served as a symbolic battle between sexism and racism, your derison of Palin highlights another battle of the 'isms. For so long feminism and leftism have been bedfellows. In order for feminism continue to blossom, it needs to grow beyond its traditional political base. Palin may have some appalling policies, but rather than being a patsy as you suggest I think she is a symbol that feminism is doing well. So well that it is being courted by the conservative right. But this isn't totally new. Thatcher was never embraced as a feminist icon either.
Sally Rose
Left wing feminism
Great article,
Great article, Susan!
Watching a bit of the Rebublican convention and seeing posters like "Hockey moms for Palin" I couldnt help but also think this was "one of the most cynical political exercises ever encountered". I too wondered if undecided voters would be duped into voting for McCain because he has a woman VP.
I however, didn't want Hilary to win the Democratic vote - Mark Penn, her advisor and Bill both pushed her not to run as a woman. The point of having a female president is to prove that we can do as good a job as a man ( even better?) by being a women: using empathy, emotions, and yes, being tough as well. To me, Hilary was a woman's face for a president identical to all others.
Not being American - why do we care? because a superpower that has screwed up as much as they have has a global impact. They start wars, continue them, they influence the global economy... lets hope they dont screw this one up!
Paper up the cracks. Undesirables coming through. Really?
Influential as the Welsh born Australian resident vote will be in the American Presidential election, it might temper the writer's indignation to note that the Republican Convention in general, and Sarah Palin's barnstorming performance in particular, has turned a seven point McCain deficit into a ten point lead among likely voters according to the latest Gallup poll. While you digest the implications of that, as your wide-ranging blog has raised a few points in my mind, perhaps you'd be kind enough to address some of the following questions?
In your list of 'frightening' right wing policies you mention gun ownership, drilling in Alaska, the death penalty, opposition to same sex marriages and so forth. Unfortunately for the chances of the Democrats, the bulk of the American population actually strongly support Mrs Palin's views, rather than your own. As you, presumably, believe in democracy, why would you be surprised that the electorate support a politician who advocates these things? If I wished to open a can of worms I could go on to ask why, as you oppose the execution of convicted mass murderers, you support the killing of unborn children but that is not the topic of debate here.
You see John McCain's choice of Palin as somehow insulting to all women voters; did you also think that Mrs Thatcher, Golda Meir, Angela Merkel and Indira Ghandi were also hapless pawns of the great right wing conspiracy? Is the public perception of these people as extremely strong, successful, dynamic women who won power and used it, rather than sitting around a polytechnic common room complaining about how oppressed they were, mistaken? How, exactly, does choosing a female vice presidential candidate prove that John McCain is 'regressive' in regard to women's position in society, especially given the vitriolic bile the more excitable fringes of the left threw at Hillary in the primaries and now Sarah Palin and her family today?
To examine one of your clear, but unspoken, assumptions, do you believe that every woman should share the same political opinions as you, simply because of their sex? If so what happened to diversity, freedom of thought and tolerance of difference? Should a woman advance in life only if she shares your voting preferences? Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton would agree with you on this?
Would Sarah Palin have garnered more respect from you if, instead of joining her local PTA, running for mayor of a small town, running for the Republican nomination for Governor of Alaska, winning that election and becoming the most popular Governor in the USA off her own bat without any support from the party establishment she'd done it the hard way and been the wife of a former two term President of the United States?
Critical though you may be of Julie Ward seeing her success as a vindication of her chosen profession, rather than her sex, do you think that if you had chosen law or engineering or medicine as a degree, rather than 'Celtic Studies', you would still be 'one man away from poverty'. Is it your choice of educational qualification, or your sex, which has economically disadvantaged you?
Do you really think that terming every American who isn't a dyed in the wool democrat a 'redneck' is the best way to try to win their vote? Do you really think that every woman who doesn't believe what you do has been "duped"? If so, to return to an earlier point, why don't you believe that anyone could genuinely hold a different opinion of you on, say, abortion?
Do you, as a second wave feminist, consider marriage as an outmoded, patriarchal institution or not? If it is, why should people who consciously choose not to get married be chained by its conventions in law if they choose to live together? If it isn't then why not just get married, and bear its responsibilities, if you want to enjoy its benefits too?
Lastly, and most fundamentally, you lament the 'status quo' in regard to women's status today. Could you name a country, or a time in human history, in which women have had more freedom, rights, education, opportunities, success and economic independence than the western liberal democracies of the present day? You have three degrees, how exactly are you being oppressed again? Exactly what opportunities have been denied to you because of your sex?
If one wishes to lament the plight of women in the world today would not the burning of girls' schools by the Taliban in Afghanistan, widespread female genital mutilation in Africa or the prohibition on women doing virtually anything in Saudi Arabia have more pressing claims on your attention than Sarah Palin's meteoric rise in US politics?
Anyway, I'm sure the women of America will have ample opportunity to make their own minds up about Sarah Palin when she's interviewed by that champion of women's rights Oprah Winfrey...Oh, I see Oprah shares your view that Sarah Palin isn't the 'right' sort of female success story too. Paper up the cracks. Undesirables coming through. Indeed.
In response to the angry young(?) man
In sequence here are some responses to your questions, assumptions and observations.
1. Yes, frightening isn't it?
2. Yes, frightening isn't it?
3 Yes, that's right
4 I'm pro-choice not pro abortion. I absolutely defend Palin's right to choose the path she did with her fifth child. It's a shame she wouldn't do the same for me if I did'nt make the same choice. And don't presume I wouldn't.
5. No
6. Look at McCains track record on women's issues
7. No, not all of them
8. Tolerance is something there should be more of. See answer 4
9. No
10. Is there an educational hierarchy of desirable subjects?
11. Now you're putting words into my mouth
12. Not necessarily, so supplementary questions are not relevant
13. Yes I agree, but the playing field is not level enough
14. Yes, I have three degrees and I'm a few months off gaining a fourth. Educationally I haven't been disadvantaged. Or not recently anyway. However, the fact that I am and have educated myself so late in life attests to the fact that, as a female, I was never exactly encouraged to do so when younger. I obviously had the aptitude. By the way, you may speak disparagingly of 'Celtic Studies' however, people in the celtic nations think it's a very important study. I wonder if you would say the same of students doing 'American studies' or indeed 'Australian Studies'?
15 Sorry, even though I am a female and as such am quite good at multi-tasking (now there's a stereotype for you to tackle, Nick) I can't solve the problems of the world in one article.
16. I'm sure they will too
Let's bring politics back to politics
I have never felt disadvantaged due to my gender and therefore have never felt the existence of a ‘glass ceiling'. In some ways, I believe that it only exists if it is believed to exist.
Why should politics, or anything for that matter, ever be turned into a ‘feminism' vs 'x' competition simply because a female is involved? If McCain had chosen a male with exactly the same credentials and policies as Sarah Palin as his running mate, the only discussion would be around those credentials and policies, not his gender. Why then has this not been the case for Palin?
I'm not ignorant to the fact that McCain has jumped on the feminist wagon now that Hilary Clinton is out of the race; what I suggest is that the existence of the wagon is the problem. Why stand Sarah Palin up on a pedestal as disgrace to females? George W. isn't stood up as a disgrace to males... Not all females hold the same beliefs and values just because they are females. There is not one inherent ‘feminism'.
I feel that I can achieve what I want to achieve as long as I work hard enough. Sarah Palin has obviously worked hard in there somewhere to become Governor of Alaska. Let's assess her for her policies and not her gender or her personal life. Let's bring politics back to politics.
Sarah Palin is not the real problem
Aghhh McCain, you've done it again...
Susan, I couldnt agree more.
I was watching poor old Palin being grilled by a fantasic old school journo in her first EVER unscripted interview. He had her wrapped around his little finger... Whilst he effortlessly had her saying all that he wanted her to say. Toying with the "nubie"... Brilliant!
Yes you are right Susan, she is a means to an end. Manipulated on every level.
Loved the article!!!
Cheers,
R.
To Reuben
It seems Sarah Palin is poised to become a media plaything. This has shades of Pauline Hanson, doesn't it? The difference is Australians were not, in the main, stupid enough to place Ms. Hanson anywhere near real power.
On reflection, perhaps it was not necessarily the female vote that the Republicans were wishing to harness. Maybe it was the media that they really wanted to attract. You've got to hand it to them, they've certainly done that. Mea culpa.
Undesirable?
For someone that claims affection for feminism, you do it a great disservice by offering such a flawed argument.
In my mind, the end point of feminism was equality. So it is disappointing that so many have decided to attack Palin based on her gender, rather than on her record and values.
Isn't it possible that Palin was chosen based on her record? That she is there to shore up the base?
American women did not vote for Clinton as a block, based on gender. So it is interesting that you assume they will now that Palin is on the ticket. Since 1980 more women have voted Democrat than Republican. Assuming this remained true during the Primary season, and women were likely to vote based on gender rather than issues, Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.
I agree with Sally Rose - feminism is about the support of all women and their right to chose ideas, not just the ones that you agree with.
So please - criticise Palin on her record, on her beliefs, and the Republican party for the absurdity of her nomination based on these. Criticism based around gender undermines only your credibility, not hers.
Ephraim's comments