Earlier this week, I received a very interesting response to my post about Michelle Obama being a better role model than Sarah Palin:
I sometimes wonder that if she (Palin) wasn’t a republican and against abortion, wouldn’t the feminists love her?
I spent a lot of time this week thinking about that. What does it mean to be a feminist? To me feminists are people who fight for women to have the same rights and opportunities as men … who want women to be judged on their abilities … who want to end discrimination. Feminists aren’t just tree-hugging hippies. Republicans can be feminists (see: Sen. Susan Collins from Maine or Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas). Men can be feminists, too.
So, if we agree that Republicans can be feminists, what stops the movement from embracing Palin? I’m not sure someone can be a feminist and oppose abortion — but that’s a totally separate argument. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s set aside the abortion issue. If Palin were pro-choice, would she be embraced by feminists? I don’t think so. Feminists wouldn’t rally around Palin because she was amenable to being used as a pawn. She was okay with her status as a women being used as a political ploy to attract the ultra-conservative female vote. Feminists don’t want their gender to oppress them; nor do feminists want their gender to unfairly advance them. Additionally, consider Palin’s stance on key issues: A feminist wouln’t run with a candidate who opposed the Violence Against Women Act or the Fair Pay Act (both of which McCain opposed).
Palin may have demonstrated the ability to balance a career and family; but that’s not the threshold for judging feminists. (As a side note, feminists also support a woman’s right to choose to be a stay-at-home mom … as long as the husband isn’t forcing her to stay home. It should be a choice — a decision made together.)
So, to answer the original question: There are many reasons — beyond her abortion stance and party affiliation — that keep feminists from embracing Palin.