One of the issues that I think has been missing from much of the talk about Sarah Palin and her appeal to women, in the mainstream media and in the liberal blogosphere (and, I'd venture, the conservative, but I try to avoid that), is how narrowly this facade of Palin as the "all-American woman and mother" applies.

In talking-point after talking-point, when folks discuss Palin and how her actions, career, politics, and family reflect on her as a woman, as a candidate, as a mother, as a politician, etc, they point out how her actions, experiences, and biography are such that women can relate. Even if someone is a stay-at-home mom, she can relate to the struggle and the choice she made, and perhaps her values are aligned with Palin, so she feels more sympathetic. If someone is a working mother, she can also relate to how hard of a choice it is, prioritizing your work or your family.

What's taken for granted in all of this is that it's a choice. And that is SO. FAR. AWAY. from many women's lived realities.

Palin has been blasted from all sides for going back to work 3 days after giving birth to a child with disabilities. Some say she made the right choice, some say she made the wrong choice, but what very few people are saying is: "Hey look, she had the privilege, freedom, and ability to MAKE A CHOICE."

Megan Ortiz has a great piece up at Racialicious that goes into this in much more depth, which everyone should go read. Suffice it to say, what really has been getting to me about all of this talk about Palin is what ISN'T being said or asked.

There are scores of white feminists who, while they may not agree with all of Palin's policies, can identify with her biography. However, for all of its struggles with racism, as a movement, feminism has never ACTUALLY been an all-white movement. It's been monopolized by white concerns and people, but there have always been women of color working and identifying as feminists. So to ask what kinds of feminism Palin and Clinton represent seems, to me, like you're posing the question too narrowly. Feminism doesn't actually fit into the Palin/Clinton dichotomy. I mean, hell, Cynthia McKinney's even running! (Not that anyone spends more than a hot minute talking about her.)

Both Palin and Clinton represent a mainstream feminism that has consistently neglected the voices of women of color. I'd assert that Clinton's feminism is MORE aligned with a feminist ideology that is inclusive and centered on supporting all women, not just white, wealthy women. However, the extent to which feminism's successes can be measured by Palin or Clinton, and the extent to which they are representative of broader feminist movements or women in the US, is really only relevant insofar as you're talking about white women. The feminism that has served to enable Clinton and Palin to be in the positions they are today has involved countless hours of thankless, often heartbreaking, work on behalf of many many many women, gender variant folks, and some men - but it has, nonetheless, been a feminism which has brought significantly more benefits for women like Palin and Clinton than women of color, queer women, poor women, other groups of marginalized women, and women who are all of those supposedly disparate groups combined.

(Sorry I'm so wordy...0

I don't disagree with you, Bruce, and while I hope you're overreacting or worrying about nothing, I'm not willing to hedge my bets yet.

I think one of the things that Palin has going for her is precisely what a lot of feminists (myself included) are criticizing. Palin is the "model working mother" who is *proof* that we don't NEED silly government programs like WIC or childcare or welfare or healthcare, because OBVIOUSLY, women CAN do it all. Utilising social welfare programs has such a stigma these days, what woman struggling with working multiple jobs and taking care of kids, potentially on her own, wouldn't want to believe that she too can do it all and doesn't need anyone else's help? That's a hell of an enticing model and narrative to identify with, because the alternative - needing social welfare programs to get by, has been labeled as a sign of laziness or ineptitude.

And seriously, poor and working-class mothers who work who knows how many jobs and raise their kids should feel proud and be commended by society - regardless of whether they were able to benefit from social services or not. I can't even imagine how absolutely exhausting and hard that must be, and your mother and others like her SHOULD be able to take pride in the choices they made. But we're in a society that doesn't give them that validation unless they reject "help." Thank you Ronald Reagan and your damn "welfare queens." (Really, I think mothers as a whole group should receive more praise and support, but that's a different conversation.)

There is so much social pressure to pass as a higher class, it makes a lot of sense to me that plenty of folks who would be directly, negatively impacted if Sarah Palin's policies are implemented want to identify with the kind of woman who wouldn't. Because the women who are screwed over are poor women and women of color, and the women who *can* do it all are rich white women... and we're all supposed to want to be rich and white, right?

And I'm not saying it's about some sort of false consciousness either, or that people just don't get that they are "voting against their interests," because successful passing does bring benefits. Identifying with, and potentially being identified as, the "right" kind of person means the possibility of better treatment, and a "better" lot in life. (I mean, I grew up upper-middle class and figured out right quick that if I could pass as upper class, I was more readily accepted, supported, and affirmed by my peers and larger community - that I'd have more power. I'm pretty certain that's not a unique experience, by any means.)

However, even though I couldn't give you any numbers or verifiable information, my intuition says that there are far fewer folks who'll be helped along the way because they get 'mistakenly' grouped in with the "right kind of people," and far more people who would benefit by enacting more comprehensive social services. But, that's why I vote Democrat.

So, I do think you've touched on something important, and threatening about Sarah Palin. I also think that there are a lot of women in the US who will see through the facade. I'm optimistic, but I think it's on all of us who contribute to these discourses to keep talking about these issues in thoughtful, deep ways, and to poke holes in that facade.

...And to talk about Cynthia McKinney more. Because I'm sure you're not alone in not knowing who she is. Someone asked me recently if I was voting Green, for Nader, and I had to correct them, let them know that, actually the Green party's nominee was McKinney. (Who, btw, spoke at Antioch's 2007 graduation.)

Bruce, very interesting discussion, both your post and the comments.

Personally, I don't think of Palin as a feminist because, like Steinem and Carlos, I believe what defines feminism is the commitment to achieve true equality for women in all areas of life, something I don't believe Palin stands for. Take just one (key) issue: choice. In my opinion, it is absolutely essential to feminism. If a woman does not have the final say-so over her body and reproductive function, she can never be equal. Especially if contraception is also restricted or forbidden.

Being a hard-working, high achieving woman does not a feminist make you.

I think part of Palin's appeal to women is her down-to-earth, one-of-us style. She says "Dude." Her speech isn't perfect and polished. She throws in "like" and "well" and her voice has that pitch and tone of so many middle American housewives that many female politicians ditch as soon as possible to make themselves seem smarter.

Hillary was a polished professional. Palin seems to be "the luckiest woman in America." Palin is a rags to riches story that any woman can pretend could happen to her. Hillary's story is one of working hard and climbing your way to the top, a story that most Americans - male or female - respect, but know they'll never emulate.

Palin appeals to the basest common denominator. That's her appeal with both sexes. Hillary is a role model. Palin is being portrayed, successfully, as an "everywoman."

Yeah, the rags-to-riches part is particularly annoying, especially in a culture that idolizes people who make it to the top through almost no work of their own (as in American Idol).

On feminism, though, I'd die of shock if Palin used the word without an "I'm not a..." in front of it. But she's still going to have to face a lot of the derogatory crap that other women politicians face and benefit from the work feminists did before her.