Here's why we still need feminism: Sarah Palin's bizarre cultural cache

Thanks for both your comments, Scout's honor and debontherocks. I can see now that  I undermined my own argument with that line about how easily Palin is parodied.

To clarify, I was NOT suggesting that Palin was to blame for disrespectful caricatures of herself; I was really trying to argue the OPPOSITE of that!

I led with the image of a pornographized (new word) cultural fantasy about
Palin precisely because it so diverges from the image of a serious
political candidate, an image which I'm sure we'd all agree she's both entitled to and needs in order to be electable.

My thesis is, in short: 

1) As a culture we still have NO positive narratives of women in power. And that sucks. 

2) To counter that, female candidates on a national level are invariably forced to exert extremely strict control over their public personae (lots of examples here, but the image in my mind is Hillary's 3 decade physical transformation from hippie chick to power-broker.)

It sucks that powerful women have to adhere so strictly to cookie-cutter image in order to neutralize the perceived threat of their power. What we need to do to counter this is  to disseminate more and better narratives about successful, powerful women. 

3) Palin has chosen NOT to tightly control her public persona, banking on spontaneity.  She/the campaign has thrown out a lot diverse and sometimes downright contradictory information about herself (pro-abstinence with pregnant team daughter; thrift-store shopper v. chief executive officer, etc.).   

Those contradictions do make it easier for everyone -- the mainstream media, toy merchandisers, far-right political pundits, feminist bloggers, pornographers, late-night comedians etc. -- to caricature her in insulting  ways (and make money off the caricatures).

But the REAL reason Palin's been treated with such disrespect isn't that she lacked the experience to control her image (or, alternately, that she took a risk on spontaneity, depending on how much control you think she is).

The problem is that as a culture we still (40 years after the 2nd wave of feminism began) have NO positive narratives of women in power. And that still sucks.   

That's why we still need feminism.

Debontherocks, I agree that "post-feminist theory has not adapted to contemporary sensibilities and isn't relevant in many ways"; I just disagree with your conclusion, that feminism is a "cultural hammer"  too coarse to be of analytical use.

The widely-varied responses to Palin's public persona are to me evidence that we still need feminism in order to create more and better representations of women in power.

Feminism, the way I see it, is not the philosophy that "Man is bad, woman is good." Nor is it the belief that women always are/will be oppressed.

At it foundation, feminism is about discovering who is disempowered and then empowering them --  making sure women have the same opportunities for self-determination (over their bodies, their lives, their economic status) that men do. 

As such, feminism is a flexible cultural scalpel which can be used to expose the underlying power structure of our society -- not only in regard to gender, but also in regard to the closely-related (and often unexamined) structures of class and race in America.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  If I ever put this post out there again, I will definitely rewrite that 5th paragraph.

Lila

Lila Hanft, Ph.D.

http://lilatovcocktail.org ( http://twitter.com/lilatovcocktail )

http://twitter.com/lilatovcocktail

I hate her politics, but I'm not going to say that the emergence of Palin porn is because she portrays herself attractively.  Doesn't that sound like it's "her fault?" Bill Clinton presented himself as charming and even flirtatious, which worked for him.  Lying about an affair is what didn't work.

 For many, many years I identified as feminist and have studied feminism as a theory and as a political movement.  This year Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton offered us a fascinating study of contemporary interpretations and assimilation of feminist theory.  I think Palin's contradictions, the sexism in electoral campaigns and the public's interpretation of Palin and Clinton as female candidates show us the exact opposite of your assessment that we need still need feminism. 

We can now see that the American feminist political movement is indeed dead, that it died in a weak position which allowed its mantle to be manipulated and donned by even John McCain, and that post-feminist theory has not adapted to contemporary sensibilities and isn't relevant in many ways.  We wouldn't see this level of acceptance for the GOP's cooption of "feminism" if our politics had ever been concerned with relevance or evolution.  A wish for a return to the cultural hammer of feminism is the last thing we need right now.  It's an interested lens for viewing Palin's affect on women and men, though.

YES WE CANDY! --Come trick-or-treat with Sarah and John at the GOP Mansion! ( http://www.ontherocksdebspooky.blogspot.com/ )

Deb
www.debontherocks.com ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ )blog
www.3smartgirlz.c

ugh.  Ignore my heinous typos.  I got impassioned and forgot to edit.  Heh!

Sigh.

oh, please.

The last video is insulting to Republican women. I laughed becaus ei do have  a sense of humor, but only for the seheer ridiculousness.

Did you know women could support McCain and perhaps not be behind 100 percent of their issues?  I am for John McCain and yes Sarah Palin,  but for choice and birth control, for gay marriage and against California's Prop 8, and many other contradications. 

You don't seem to get that just because a candidate does something or has a particular viewpoint that then their electors have to have the exact same viewpoint.  Let's turn it around, okay? You didn't hear me saying after Bill Clinton's foray with Monica that, "geez, those Democrats seem to support sexist behavior like giving blow jobs to men in authority in the work place."  Or, "geez, Democratic women believe in infidelity and fellatio."

Nope.  Why?  Because it's silly and insulting to women's intellect to peg them as one type because of their complex vote which may have prioritized experience, integrity, and the Iraq war first over other issues because they have someone they care about in Iraq.  

Does that make sense?

It just seems wrong to call to arms for feminism in your title, then point out and link to and provide pictures of a woman running on presidential ticket in a degrading, demeaning, and sexualized manner.

You say " her public persona lendsitself so easily to porn."  Have you seen the images of Hillary floating around the internet for years?  Yes, Hillary?  So are you saying Hillary's public persona lends itself to porn?  That's just like saying she was asking for it.  No woman deserves to be reviled and sexually mocked whether it be Palin, Hillary, Chelsea (yep, it's out there), or Condi. I'd link, but thta would make me a hypocrite.

No woman deserves to have her ambition and accomplishments twisted into porn dolls!  Let's be even-handedly feminist.  Feminism should be applicable on both sides of the aisle.