The Female Factor
A timely series of news bytes from the Independent Women's Forum
Conservative commentator Laura Ingraham recently told the Los Angeles Times that, "Sarah Palin represents a new feminism..." The feminist establishment, however, is quick to counter that Gov. Palin is not truly a feminist.
Yesterday, NOW released a plea for support as they struggle to control what a small minority of women believe feminism is. With working-class women flocking to the Palin camp, it appears they are fighting a battle they have already lost. NOW's president, Kim Gandy finds it ironic that the word "feminist" has been spoken in public so many times since the Palin explosion. However, what's ironic, is that a true feminist suddenly arrived on their playground, and because she is a conservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, mother of five, they don't want to play.
"It is not surprising to see feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women dispute the term ‘feminist' as it applies to Gov. Palin," said Carrie Lukas, IWF's vice president for policy and economics. "After all, groups like NOW have worked for years to redefine ‘feminism' to fit their liberal agenda. Anyone who exposes conservative views is not welcome in their feminist club."
"Whether you agree with her policy positions or not, it seems foolhardy to deny that Gov. Palin represents a strain of American feminism," added IWF's Allison Kasic. "She is a strong-minded, successful, independent woman, and has the potential to hold one of our nation's highest offices. The fact that she's a Republican shouldn't exclude her from being a female role-model or a feminist."
To interview IWF scholars, or to receive an e-mail version of "The Female Factor," contact femalefactor@iwf.org or call Media Services at the Independent Women's Forum at (202) 349-5882.
22 Comments
Jannabob | September 26, 2008, 5:41pm | #
Yeah, um. Here's a history lesson: 1982
The republican right sponsored "Family Protection Act" was going to stop federal funding to public school textbooks that showed women in anything other than traditional roles. Thank God congress didn't pass it.
Against it's earlier convictions, the republican right has nominated a woman to be V.P.
My question is,
This is not a traditional woman's role, will they want to write about it in the textbooks?
It's not the fact that she's republican that doesn't make her a female role model, it's the fact she doesn't want to give any women a choice, she has turned her back on women.
Sandra Day O'Conner (supreme court justice) is a conservative republican, but at the same time she believes women should have a choice. She is the true role model and feminist, not Palin.
Trish | September 27, 2008, 8:22pm | #
Sandra Day O'Connor is not a conservative.
Clare | September 28, 2008, 3:59pm | #
No man or woman should be declared a feminist or not based on a political party. I am a 17-year-old female college sophomore, majoring in Mechanical Engineering and consider myself a conservative feminist. That means that I believe women can accomplish almost anything a man can and that she should not feel confined to "women's jobs" or always playing "women's roles." I could never be a housewife.
On the other hand, I will never support killing what will eventually become a human being. Most of what leads women to consider abortion is their own carelessness. My generation (and people two to three decades older) need to grow up and start taking responsibility for their actions, not taking the easy way out by having an operation.
I will never vote for same-sex marriage or believe that God hates gay people. It is not they, but their actions which God hates.
The world needs to realize that feminists come in many forms and have a wide variety of beliefs. Hopefully, soon the term “feminist” will become absolute, when men and women have true equal rights.
Beth | September 28, 2008, 5:56pm | #
I'm sorry, but Palin is not a feminist. Regardless of her political or religious beliefs, she is a very far cry from feminism. Feminism is about equality, not who is right or wrong about politics or religious beliefs/choices. In regards to the comment about NOW supporting their own political agenda...well, I must say the individual who wrote this article obviously is just as much at fault as he/she claims NOW is for using their own political ideals and biases to placate his/her own agenda. That is what is considered the pot calling the kettle black...
Chris | September 28, 2008, 6:09pm | #
Everyone has a right to feel the way they do about politics and religion. What they don't have the right to do is take away a women's right to choose. Which, by the way, I'm glad that one of the posters seems to have already decided at the rare (and completely too young to know) age of 17, that they think they have this all figured out. The bottom line is that if Palin wants to call herself a feminist, good for her. She isn't, and considering she had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is, I'm sure she doesn't know what the Feminist Doctrine is either. Feminism is, by definition; the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Are we taking away the right for men to take viagra? Are we taking away any other rights from men? How is taking away a women's right to choose any different? If you are ever faced with the difficult choice (whether it is due to rape, birth-control that failed, etc.) of having a child or not, then YOU can make the decision to keep it. That is your choice. Why is this not a two-way street? I think if I choose not to have a child, I should have that right. YOU cannot tell me I don't. THAT, my friends, is the ANTI-Choice doctrine which is not part of the Feminist Doctrine.
Renee | September 29, 2008, 12:40pm | #
As women we are the first protectors of our children, people are not disposable simply because of the start of our lives is in our mother's wombs. Yes, our bodies but it doesn't change the organic nature of the relationship between mother and child or that the purpose of sexual activity is to make babies and have potential mothers and fathers bond with one another and to care for each other.
The initial feminists were pro-life...
As seen from the 'Feminists for Life' and Susan B. Anthony Lists'
"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."
-Alice Paul is the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923)
"The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism. That the honorable term “female physician” should be exclusively applied to those women who carried on this shocking trade seemed to me a horror. It was an utter degradation of what might and should become a noble position for women." -Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, the first female physician, in her diary, where she recorded her thoughts about Madame Restell, an early New York abortionist. 1845.
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton in a letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873. Recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library.
You can keep repeating the word 'choice' or 'equality' all that one wishes, but when we create laws that says a woman has no obligation to her child from its inception, the well-being of all children comes into issue. When does our obligation from our children start then? Or can we choose to whenever we feel like, let's say when they reach puberty and become obnoxious if we're not up to the challenge can we give them up to the state? Even despite being born, children are completely dependent once outside the womb and still years afterward. If motherhood is about choice, then why is it child neglect at some point in time if don't keep up our obligation?
If you want to talk about equality, why not create a culture in which men are equally participatory and supportive in parenting.
jannabob | September 29, 2008, 1:33pm | #
First, trish- yes, Sandra Day O'connor is a Conservative Republican who is pro-choice. http://www.oyez.org/justices/sandra_day_oconnor/..or read a book.
Secondly, Clare, you can be pro-life for yourself, and be pro-choice for everyone else. That is exactly what pro-choice means. I am pro-life for myself, and pro-choice for everyone else, especially those who are fiscally and emotionally irresponsibly unprepared to have a child. Keep in mind, there are young girls that will turn to "the dirty knife" if their rights are taken away, usually death is the consequence, either way, for their child AND for themselves.
Also, until I stop getting ticketed for driving in the carpool lane while pregnant, because it's not an "individual life form yet", I don't take any of you "pro-lifers" seriously. It's only a "life form" when it is convenient for you, or fits your religious agenda and that's not what America is about.
It's about freedom, and Palin is not extending the right of freedom to other women, therefore she is not a feminist. And I agree with Chris. We, women, are not taking away the right that men have over their reproductive health, i.e. Viagra.
Until we become communist, women have a choice.
I can't believe there are so many women who don't take pride in this democracy.
By the way, Renee, in 1923 the world population was only 2.1 Billion people. A famous saying was "Have plenty of children; children are your wealth." Moving away from that agrarian society, in 2008, the population reaching 6.4 Billion people using up our natural resources, where children are an expense not an asset, I think it's safe to say that if you truly want to "go green", then don't have any kids. The world is quite a different place now; and it is very naive and counterproductive to think otherwise.
Gotta love this Repub, ahem, "Independent" forum!
ISA | September 29, 2008, 11:14pm | #
First, Hi to Michelle Bernard. I'd like to commend you for your insightful, honest, and seemingly balanced approach to women and politics on the different issues and various networks. But I'd also like to make a comment about Sarah Palin in general. I, like you and other intelligent females don't feel it's necessary to put down Sarah Palin. However, I am concerned that the Republicans, who scame out out swinging for Palin, don't perceive that their behaviors towards her are sexist and patronizing and indicative of a sexist society in general. I base this on the fact that the Republicans treat her as if she has no capabilities. They coddle and coach her needlessly, and have ultimately relegated her to being a friendly, comforting face rather than provide information to the voters. How sexist, patronizing, and paternalistic is that?
Chris | September 29, 2008, 11:14pm | #
Jannabob-thank you!
You have eloquently put the facts out there for everyone to see; it is about making your own decision to be pro-life for yourself if that is what you believe, and pro-choice for everyone else. This is why I also say that those who subscribe to the anti-choice doctrine are not truly feminists, a true feminist would want to preserve the equality of women, not destroy it.
Beth | September 29, 2008, 11:17pm | #
ISA-
Do you think maybe there is a reason for this type of behavior?
It kind of makes you wonder, who is truly out there batting for women's issues...
ISA | September 29, 2008, 11:27pm | #
I'd like to put another two cents into this discussion on Sarah Palin. I'd like to agree that Sarah Palin has been manipulated and she is being used as a pawn. I think if anything, the Republicans are showing a deeply troubling, hidden aspect of sexist behaviors. They put Palin out there like a poster child for the Republican party. Next, they've confused and obfuscated the REAL issues that most females face in their daily lives. They have tried to make us all think this is a pro-female strategy, but I dare say it isn't. From the moment she took the stage, I was concerned. Palin has a lot of skeletons and ugly political conduct in her current and past public life. She has numbers of females in her own state who are protesting her for her extreme stances against female reproductive rights to her treatment of Native peoples of that state. She has spent a bundle of pork barrel money on her "going nowhere" projects. In short, while I won't personally attack her--afterall she is a female, a mother, and even if crudely, a public servant. But God help her and the American people if Palin and McCain get into office.
ISA | September 29, 2008, 11:36pm | #
BETH--I'm not sure WHY the Republicans think this sort of "dog and pony" show featuring Palin will work on American females. I suppose the main reason is because they understand that a number of American females who are married with a family, are in general, and I did say in general, not as educated. Many typical suburbanish, stay-at-home-Moms, have less exposure to politics and to the the goings-on in the world around them. Unfortunately, many of us females, particularly those within that category, are less-inclined to be interested in politcs and may only become involved following the interest of their husbands.
But I for one, am particularly disturbed by the Republicans' sneaky, condescending and yes insidiously sexist behaviors. They want to keep tabs on Palin like she is some teenager of sorts....she can't even speak with reporters. This was one of the biggest, boldest, and baddest moves concocted yet by the Republicans. And you know what?....I'd be surprised if it really flies.
Nancy Jones | September 30, 2008, 2:01pm | #
Well, this is interesting. I haven't heard anything that said that Sarah Palin would try to criminalize abortion. I'm pro life. I don't want to criminalize abortion. I just would like to see fewer babies aborted. Also, overturning Roe Vs. Wade would NOT criminalize abortion. It really, truly would not. It would take the issue out of teh federal law's hands and return it to the individual states to decide what works best in teh states. I'm in favor of that. I'm also in favor of seeing abortion doctors go out of business DUE TO LACK OF PATIENTS. Please, please point a link to where Sarah Palin has said she'd like to criminalize abortion.
jannabob | September 30, 2008, 2:09pm | #
Republicans have a history of being sexist.
In fact, a Republican-feminist is ridiculously close to being called an
oxy-moron.
I know there are gray areas, but I still say Sandra Day O'Connor, being a conservative republican yet sensitive to women's rights (because she is an intelligent woman), is truly a feminist. Fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. Smart lady.
Palin, on the other hand, well, lets just say as demographics change, so do values. I'de like to see her operate here in Los Angeles, where we have WAY more people than moose. California's population equals 14 states combined and yet remains democratic because we embrace diversity and freedom, not condemn it. We realize that to cooperate effectively with EVERYONE, we can not limit the rights of others based on our one-sided information accumulated in a fundamentalist snow town outside the continental U.S.(such as Alaska)
FG Lawrence | September 30, 2008, 7:12pm | #
Sarah Palin is to be commended for her
role. She had a right to choose to get
pregnant or not get pregnant. She chose
pregnancy. Once that life had formed she
knew she could not kill that living baby.
If you have ever carried a baby in your
uterus you know it is very much alive from conception. To kill whether in the
womb or out of the womb. Same difference. Thank you Sarah for being a
great lady!
FGL
OHIO
jb | September 30, 2008, 9:04pm | #
Ha. Yes, lets commend Palin for having a uterus. Bravo.
Let's commend her for being 10 years over the safe age for having a child.
Let's commend her for taking that risk anyways, to uphold a narrow point of view, that now made her child suffer from downsyndrome. Bravo.
Let's commend her for her fundamentalist right-wing priorities:
"Every rapist has the right to choose the mother of his child."
Let's commend her for teaching her daughter to become part of the "teenage pregnancy" statistic. Bravo.
Let's commend her for her indepth knowledge of foreign policy and attaining her passport last year.
Let's commend her for all the countless impressive interviews and all the knowledge she has about what a Bush-Doctrine is.
I can not wait until thursday. America is already the laughingstalk, but this debate will just be hilarious if she shows up.
I hope the stepford wife does her homework and memorizes the lines well!
Most of all, I hope she doesn't forget her lipstick!
Deanna | October 3, 2008, 6:00pm | #
Wow, you sound really angry, jb. I'm not the biggest Palin fan, but it's another thing entirely to say that her right-wing views caused her child to have Down Syndrome. In my opinion, that is neither accurate, nor something you should say in a public forum about another women no matter how your political views may differ from hers.
So, let's just pretend that all the Palin critics are right - maybe she is a bit of a pawn, maybe she is not the *best* representative for most of us, maybe she is not the brightest crayon in the box. Does that make it bad for us for her to be the U.S. Vice President? I believe that it does not. I am not advocating supporting her just because she is a woman, but I am urging you to consider what it means for a woman to hold that post, even a woman with whom you may disagree on a few issues. U.S. government does not require a person to be a scholar, or to be perfect. Sarah Palin has been a successful governor and with proper advisors and support could be a successful Vice President.
Many people think that for a minority of any type (woman, African-American, Hispanic) to become U.S. President, he or she will have to run as a Republican. This represents the best way to get both conservative votes along the party lines and also the votes of persons who are moderate but outside the Republican party. If you are planning to wait to vote for a woman until one runs as a Democrat, you may be ensuring that a woman does not attain one of these posts for a long time.
As to the pro-life/pro-choice debate: I am personally pro-life and could not abort my future child. However, I recognize that other people have different views and it does not promote a healthy society for women if they cannot exercise these views, no matter how grotesque I find them personally. I think abortion does degrade women, by placing the ethical responsibility for the life of the child on the woman. I think it also is sad that most abortions are performed on women who are upper-middle class or above, are older, are married, and have many other characteristics that would make them good parents. Women who are raped, young, have lower income, are unmarried, and who are less educated are less likely to obtain an abortion. Something is wrong with this picture, but far be it from me to claim to know how to fix it. I do know it would not be solved by prohibiting abortion. Wealthy, well-educated, upper class, married women would still have abortions.
The good news for all of the pro-choicers is that Sarah Palin does not decide whether abortion will be legal. Neither does the President. The most they can do is appoint justices and judges. Roe v. Wade is precedent and cannot be easily dispensed with. Voters spend way too much time and energy on this issue, which evokes passion but not progress.
ISA | October 6, 2008, 12:02am | #
DEANNA-I hope you're not suggesting that we vote for Palin based on the fact that she is now currently the ONLY female on either ticket. If so, that 's a ridiculous notion. I don't think we should vote based on whether someone is a female or male, white or black...but on whether they will be an effective respresentative and a true advocate for the people. To her credit, Hilary Clinton is a female politician of real substancea and she didn't have a pile of seemingly anti-female issues clouding above her. Further, Hilary does not have possible abuse of animal rights concerns hanging over her head, neither is she being charged with trampling upon the rights of sovereign indigenous people for selfish gain. I believe the real reason Palin opposed Alasakan Native peoples rights to fishing is because her husband is a commericial fisher and he wants to be greedy by taking away the fishing/hunting rights of Native people and thereby obstruct their tribal efforts to provide their own means of survival. Palin isn't good for females, animals, or for this country period. Just the thought that a female with so little substantive insight and so much meaningless "fluff and stuff" could gain political advantage and become president makes me cringe.
Jannabob | October 7, 2008, 2:32pm | #
I agree, ISA.
When Deanna mentioned that a woman or a minority will only be able to get into public office if he/she run as republican, it is simply not correct. Who is running for president on the democratic ticket right now? OBAMA, a minority, and polls say he is 7 points ahead of McCain.
The bad news for pro-choicers, if McCain/ Palin get into office, would be the reinstatement of the "gag rule" and the tightening of the Hyde Amendment, making it more exclusive and harder to find/get an abortion, especially for poor women (In fact, probably the ones who need it most). That is exactly why young, poor girls aren't getting abortions, because Bush currently upholds the gag rule and strict regulations of the Hyde Amendment. In fact, that was one of the first things he did when he became president. And thus, teenage pregnancy has increased amongst the poor and the under aged.
I'm not sure how abortion degrades the woman, it takes two to tango. And I guarantee there are more teenage boys really pressuring these young girls (but not considered rape) to have sex, and not the other way around. And from this, I just don't see why the girl should have to suffer on both accounts: Getting pressured, and now being stuck with a pregnancy.
I am a feminist, and a democrat, obviously. I really don't believe there is such a thing as a "Feminist- Republican" or a "Gay-Republican". As much as I want a woman in office, it can not be a woman who is a self proclaimed "feminist republican" and "Maverick". That basically means, if she were to get a sex change, her views wouldn't change either way. Punish the woman, not the man.
Also, not sure how I feel about a fundamentalist Christian in office, where church and state are supposedly separate. Creationism in schools? Great. And according to the bible, animals are just here for our pleasure... Why don't we kill them and join the NRA? Maybe we should teach that to our kids too.
Well, one good thing that will come of McCain/Palin in office.. I'm not having kids.
Candice | October 9, 2008, 3:38pm | #
Sarah Palin is not a feminist. She is allowing herself to be used as a pawn. And she is not acting as a conservative. McGrumpy picked her because of her chromosomes, not her qualifications. That's anti-conservative.
OTOH, I do believe a feminist can be anti-abortion and conservative.
Palin is not a great example of that, at ALL. IWF should be ashamed for promoting her.
And, yes, her kids are an issue, because 1) she made them an issue 2)she has 5 of them 3)one is an infant (special needs, no less) and one is pregnant
Clearly, the "first dood" is not handling business at home in his wife's absence as governor. Her family needs her.
Sharon Berrian | October 9, 2008, 8:15pm | #
Let's not forget she's Gov Palin - a smart, honest, courageous woman. Let's not hold it against her that she's lovely. In and out, I add. God you women! It's no wonder the difficulties encountered by women attempting to reach high offices. Women are so hard on each other. Why has she been savaged by the media and other women. How shameful. Shouldn't we celebrate her. We can't agree on everything she believes. How can anyone? In my 33 yrs working for the State of Ak,I know what she's accomplished. I'm so very proud of her. sb
ISA | October 9, 2008, 10:48pm | #
Sharon...let's be clear here. Although we may all be females here, we need to be honest and recognize that SOME females around us do bad things that effect us all as females. While we all share the same anatomical organs as Palin, have motherly and wifely duties as she does, Palin appears to be miles from what is good for us females to exemplify. This is especially true for females in public office. Granted, it's always good and refreshing to see any female thrive in the public view, but we do NEED the right females who do the RIGHT things and not things that hurt and abuse animals and people.