Feminism:Sarah Palin::

Here's an opinion piece from Forbes.com arguing that feminists should be happy with Sarah Palin's nomination for VP. Check it out at:

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/09/14/sarah-palin-feminism-oped-cx_hm_0915mansfield.html

As a feminist, I rejoice that a woman could realistically aspire to such a high political office, and have a decent shot at reaching her goal. The fact that a woman could be easily accepted by voters as a viable candidate for VP highlights the dedication, perseverance, and gumption of generations of feminists and women's rights activists. I've no doubt that Sarah Palin supports the right of women to have access to jobs, and that many women in this country see her as a role model of a professional woman who is also a mother, wife, friend, and community member.

HOWEVER, Harvey Mansfield (author of the Forbes article) is correct in saying that many feminists oppose Palin's bid for the VP position, although he completely misrepresents the reason for this opposition. His article is grossly reductive of the goals, strategies, and history of the feminist/women's movements in the U.S. He speaks in stereotypes about "radical feminism", revealing his own ignorance of the movement. He even has the guts to claim that Palin is a "better model for American women--for all women"; this statement basically revives the battle that many Second Wave feminists have fought for decades: We don't need a man to tell us how to be women. Furthermore, Mansfield conveniently leaves out all the reasons that many feminists won't vote for Palin. To name just a few of my own: 1) she promotes abstinence-only education, which leaves young people woefully ignorant about how to prevent an unwanted pregnance AND STDS, should they choose to have sex; 2) She opposes abortion rights for women; 3) She explored the possibility of banning a book written by a pastor about ministry to/for/with LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual and/or Transgender, and Queer) persons; 4) she supports oil drilling in Alaska and tried to keep polar bears off the Endangered Species list--now what kind of mother actively works to make the environment WORSE for her children and grandchildren?; 5) As Alaska governor, she reduced funding for special needs children, proving her solid "family values"; 6) She passed legislation required rape victims to pay (several hundred dollars or more) for their rape kits; 7) She has proven herself ignorant about such things as the Bush Doctrine, giant lending institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Iraq war, and foreign policy; 8) the McCain-Palin campaign machine tosses around the "gender card" with wild abandon now anytime someone challenges Palin to prove herself, whereas myriad other female politicians have withstood truly sexist obstacles time and again, proving their ability to do their jobs; Palin, in comparison, may be proving a negative stereotype that women are weaker, more fragile, less intelligent, and less capable of handling pressure than are men when it comes to politics. Oh, and I almost forgot: Mansfield compares the women's movement to the civil rights movement. How original of him, to pit these two liberation movements against each other. He clearly shows his white, male, privilege here--yes, there are many, many white men who have joined the struggles against sexism and racism in this country, but Mansfield is clearly not one of them. He misses the reality that sexism and racism are both STILL around. While it is no longer acceptable in most circles to "look a woman [or a person of color] in the eye and say 'you are not equal to me'", Mansfield seems to think that sexism and racism only occur in this direct manner; instead, racism and sexism today have morphed into much more subtle forms, making them harder to stamp out altogether.

Mansfield's "historical facts" are sketchy at best, undermining the validity of his argument. He is entitled to his opinion...as am I. In my opinion, this professor of history needs to go back to school.