It seems that women have never had it so good. At certain points during this year it seemed likely that the US was on the verge of selecting its first-ever female presidential candidate. There is still the possibility of ending up with a female president by default.
It seems that women have never had it so good. At certain points during this year it seemed likely that the US was on the verge of selecting its first-ever female presidential candidate. There is still the possibility of ending up with a female president by default.
In terms of getting women in to positions of power, the battle has been won. Those crusading feminist relics from the 1970s can hang up their placards and, like Rosie Boycott, founding editor of Spare Rib and sometime feminist activist, repair to the countryside and enter an Arcadian twilight filled with chutney-making and organic alpaca-rearing.
With women breaking into positions of such power, surely it can only mean that the lot of women in society will only improve? Sadly, the reality is far removed, a situation aggravated by the complacency of the former activists; their silence on the subject has ceded ground to those who seek to distort and undermine the feminist argument.
But it would be too easy to dismiss Palin as a “trophy” candidate, whose only electoral asset is her gender.
The truth of this assertion can clearly be seen in all of its glorious simplicity when observing the US presidential race. The Republican Party, never previously known for its progressive stance on women’s issues, is now proclaiming itself the defender of American womanhood. In order to demonstrate their new-found solidarity with womankind, Republicans have chosen Sarah Palin to stand as John McCain’s running mate. In so doing they proclaim that they, unlike the Democrats, have taken on board the wishes of the 18 million people who voted to select Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate. This, in their eyes, marks them out as the “feminist” choice.
The arrogance behind this policy direction is staggering. It suggests that Clinton’s 18 million supporters were motivated solely by the fact that she could provide the recipe for the ultimate chocolate cookies, rather than by her grasp of world economic issues. Moreover, the inherent misrepresentation of the feminist position would be risible if it wasn’t so pernicious and damaging. The Republicans have appropriated the feminist demand that the best person for the job, regardless of gender, be appointed, and have instead inverted it. Instead, they present a candidate whose only qualification is the appeal of her gender, and ask people to vote for them on the basis of it.
But it would be too easy to dismiss Palin as a “trophy” candidate, whose only electoral asset is her gender. Who, once she had been successful in snaring the coveted “hocky-mom” vote, would sit quietly in the corner and let the real politicians get down to business. The true danger implicit in Palin’s nomination lies in the fact that she is extremely vocal and bombastic about her ultra-conservative beliefs. It is her rhetoric whilst on the stump that reveals the true threat underlying the Republicans’ appropriation of feminism, and lays bear the very real obstacles that women in public life still face.
Sarah Palin is emblematic of the wave of anti-intellectualism that is all-pervasive in public discourse, and reaches an hysterical pitch when applied to women in the public view. Contrast Palin’s unthreatening “aw gee shucks” debating style with Hillary Clinton’s calm, assured and business-like discussion. Michelle Obama, an educated, intelligent woman has had to fight accusations that she is an “Angry Black Woman”. These accusations are partly founded on the subject of her undergraduate dissertation, which dealt with the alienation of African-Americans in higher education.
Palin sidesteps the usual vitriol poured on to women who dare to raise their heads above the parapet
Both Clinton and Obama have consistently been accused of neglecting their families, being ruthless and,-greatest of sins- being unlady-like. Sarah Palin on the other hand, the only one of the trio who, if asked to skin a moose would have the faintest idea of how to set about it and the only one who has ever been pictured holding an assault rifle, has emerged unscathed from criticism of this sort.
Any queries that were raised as to how she would continue to care for a large and ever-expanding family whilst holding a job of such importance were quickly stifled. Her predilection for spending weekends inflicting carnage on the fauna of her native Alaska have been cited with pride by those sections of the US electorate, presumably also responsible for the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hanker after action heroes in positions of high office. Lastly, her insistence that both evolutionism and creationism merit teaching in classrooms has been positively welcomed by some.
Herein lies the crux of the matter: Palin neatly sidesteps the usual vitriol poured on to those women who dare to raise their heads above the parapet, and who refuse to deny or apologise for their intelligence because she is not of their ilk. A former beauty queen who cannot name a single paper that she reads, her value lies not in her intelligence, insight or experience. It does not lie in what she as a thinking, rational person can bring to the table in a time of economic crisis, but only in her gender.
Those poor, misguided souls who were intending to vote for Clinton, but will now vote for Palin are damaging the very cause they profess to support. When a woman is appointed because of her gender, because of the non-threatening nature of her anti-intellectualism, she further harms the prospects of those women who fight so that their intelligence, ability and drive will be recognised and rewarded.
If, in November, the female vote is mobilised in favour of Palin, and in favour of the reactionary, small-minded world-view that she represents, there will be more at stake for women than the right to choose an abortion. It will send out a clear message that this world will make room for a woman, but only as long as she does not present herself as the intellectual equal of the men that surround her, and does not seek to fundamentally challenge the status quo. How feminist is that?!