The 2008 Presidential Election has been the season of “firsts.” Gender has become a force with which to be reckoned, refusing to disappear as an issue in this battle for the White House. John McCain thrust it back into the forefront with his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential pick. Regardless of her apparent lack of qualifications, the question remains: is she being treated fairly? Senator Hillary Clinton’s nomination struggle revealed inherent problems in our system that have resurfaced with Sarah Palin, who also exposes new concerns, specifically: what does feminism mean today in American politics?
Let’s be clear: I am no Sarah Palin fan. Her interview with Katie Couric on NBC, not even two weeks after the disaster with Charlie Gibson, was so abysmal it left me feeling sorry for her. She has displayed an incredible amount of hubris in the first place to accept a nomination for a position far above her head. Anyone who agrees to be in the political spotlight must be prepared, as a condition of that agreement, for any assessment—fair or unfair—of everything he or she has ever done, said, and—especially for women—worn.
Scrutiny from the media has always been harsh, but it is even more so toward women as the media, relishing the opportunity for a story that sells, subject female politicians to a double standard. During the campaign trail, pressure to be physically attractive works against women who are seeking to hold office. Often, physical beauty is viewed as having an indirectly proportional relationship with competence. Drawing attention to the physicality of a female candidate suggests weaknesses in ability, in addition to portraying them as physical objects and indicating that they are out of their element by running for office.
I was perusing Facebook groups today, when I came upon a disturbing one: “I would have sex with, but not vote for, Sarah Palin.” These types of groups do not surface for male politicians. Sarah Palin, however, is the first female presidential ticket contender most Facebook users can remember, as Geraldine Ferraro outdates many of us.
This is evidence of a frightening phenomenon that has arisen with Sarah Palin’s candidacy. It is acceptable to mock Sarah Palin’s hair, lipstick, pregnant daughter, beauty queen status, and hockey mom credentials. But this is different—this has nothing to do with sexism, the liberal left chants. It is about bigger issues, like her stance on abortion and equal pay for equal work.
Actually, the truth may not be as easy to distill. Perhaps many anti-Palin comments are sexist, and the “deplorable policy” justification is an ad hoc explanation for these sexist beliefs. Gloria Steinem, in a recent Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, said, “Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life [fairer] for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.” I have a proposition for Gloria Steinem on said “new pie” (Couldn’t she have picked a better analogy than women baking pies when discussing feminism?). Perhaps Sarah Palin is exactly that new paradigm Steinem is talking about. Perhaps Sarah Palin’s candidacy launches a movement in which women reassess feminism and make it more inclusive. The irony in many women’s outrage about Palin is that they do not believe that conservative women can concoct their own brand of feminism. They believe that conservatism, that pro-life and pro-gun postures, belong in the masculine-gendered realm, and that any woman who holds those beliefs is being untrue to her sex. Isn’t it also sexist to automatically assume that, because of her gender, a woman will value the right to choose more than her loyalty to fiscal conservatism?
It seems that Gloria Steinem and the like are not being multidimensional in considering that conservative women now have a model for another way of expressing feminism. While her placement on the ticket was a cheap ploy on John McCain’s part, objectifying Governor Palin and flaunting her as his “token woman” in an alternative option for change, perhaps she is inspiring to another kind of woman that feminism has previously left in its wake. Through these methods, ones in which more women feel compelled to participate, women and men can redefine the way society views and treats women. If Sarah Palin serves only to engage women who would otherwise check out of the process, then she has succeeded in advancing the presence of discussion within the monolithic feminist camp. A democracy should allow for competing ideals, and feminism, as a promoter of democracy, should be no different.