One correction Michelle Obama has resigned from her job.  Yes some of the coverage is sexist but isn't it sexist to hold her back from answering questions and being interveiwed?  Is it not just as sexist not to be able to admit that this woman is not qualified when Carl Rove said Tim Kaine was not qualified becuse he had not been Gov. long enough?  Is it not just as sexit that there is this assumption that all of the investigation is because she is a woman and not because she is an unknown VP canidate?  Is it not just as sexist not to let her campaign on her own? Look I could go on  and on but the majority of the sexim is coming from the ticket she is on.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Thanks for your comment Michelle. Actually Michelle Obama right now is on leave from her University of Chicago hospital job, mainly to help Obama campaign. I am not aware of any reports that have said she has resigned or plans to be a stay at home mother, if Obama wins. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93535521

 Like I said in the post though, that is their decision, and should be respected. I think for all the concern about Palin's children, having her husband be the stay-at-home parent should have been sufficient, but it still seems like it is a concern for some. That was the point- that no one is questioning the status of Obama's child care arrangements, but Palin's are, hence the double standard.

I agree that there ARE double standards in each party. As for the sexism you describe, I think it is more political than sexism from the Republicans. I think they are trying to bring Palin "up-to-speed," and show her the ropes so to speak, before they turn her out on her own. I believe if she were a man in this situation, they would be doing the same thing, no matter what political party the man belonged to. I don’t think it is sexist to have reporters looking into her background. I agree with you, that they are trying to find out who she is.

But when her pregnant daughter is dragged into it, her child care arrangements are brought under scrutiny, and sexist comments are made outright about her, that is sexism that a male candidate would not be subjected to.

Heather
* A Mama's Blog

You said. During the last year and a half, how much time has Obama spent with his girls?  Unlike the Palins, Obama's wife, Michelle, has not announced that she would be a stay-at-home parent, should Obama become president.  That is their private decision to make, and we assume they will figure it out.

This has never been "private" for the Obamas.  The media hasn't had to grill the Obama's for details of their family life and how they balance work and family because they are so OPEN ABOUT how it works.  Obama went home for long weekends, every weekend, throughout the campaign.  Now that the conventions are over, I don't know if he is still doing that.  But it seems when he was in a contentious race for just the Democratic nomination, that he spent quite a LOT of time with his daughters.

In May 2007, three months after her husband declared his presidential candidacy, she reduced her professional responsibilities by eighty percent to support his presidential campaign. Early in the campaign, she had limited involvement in which she traveled to political events only two days a week and stayed away from home nights only if their daughters could come along. (From LA Times)

So, I believe the work and family issue related to the Obama's HAS been discussed a lot.  Here are just a FEW of the articles related to that (Doesn't include on-camera interviews):

About.com:  Barack and Michelle Obama Marriage Profile

12/24/05:  Q & A with Michelle Obama

including the questions:

• How has the balance of time worked?
• How has your life changed?
• Do you consider yourself--at least sometimes--a single parent?

8/22/07:  It's All About Priorities for Michelle Obama

12/14/07:  Obama Talks about Influence of His Own Father on his Fatherhood

12/27/07:  First Lady in Waiting

2/29/08: Michelle's Struggle

4/29/08: Obama Making Time for Family

6/6/08 Obama's Weekend Off; Date w/ Wife, Hosting Sleepover for 8 Kids

7/8/08: Obama's Family Seen & Heard

7/23/08:  Obama's Daughters

8/10/08:  Obama Family

Mitegirl,

I am not sure what you mean when you say "You are not victims." I am not claiming, nor did I say I was a victim.

As a mother and a woman, I find the double standard here very blatant. For the record, I am an Independent, but this is not just a "conservative" issue. Leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton agree Sarah Palin has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats (from Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13129.html

When you say the Obamas have been so open about their family life well, that is their choice. I fail to see why if someone (a man or a woman) decides that they don't want to be that open, why it is any of our business (or the media's) to "grill them" how they are going to work out their child care and family arrangements. Keep in mind too, that Obama has had almost TWO YEARS to divulge whatever information to the public on his family that he wanted to. One of the references you cited went back to 2005- that is almost three years.

Despite the articles that have been out about the Obama family, I still haven't heard the same "concerns" to the same extent from the media regarding if he becomes president will he have enough time for his daughters? Nor have I heard the media questioning if Obama really should take on a demanding job like the president because he has a family. These are concerns that have been expressed in regards to Palin, hence the double standard.

Obviously I can't read every article printed, and can't listen to every interview on TV. Even if someone, somewhere asked him these questions, it has not been to the extent and the intensity that Palin has been subjected to, in a matter of two weeks (not years.)

The barrage of media (including blogs) into Palin's family life started immediately. There were rumors that Palin's new baby, really wasn't hers, but her daughter's. That was when it was made known that Palin's daughter was pregnant. How was that focusing on the issues?

I agree that we should move on to the issues, but when just as recently as Wednesday, Dem. Chief Carol Fowler made another sexist comment when she said "Sarah Palin's top qualification seems to be not having had an abortion," the very people who should be focusing on the issues aren't. They are more concerned if Palin has had an abortion-why is that? (Fowler did apologize later). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/ap_on_el_pr/sc_democrat_palin

This is an ongoing issue. Pretending it isn't happening, or brushing it off won't make it go away. If we refuse to acknowledge it, how can it ever be changed?

My belief is that Sarah Palin opened the door to scrutiny when she described herself as a "hockey mom".  

She very purposefully used that part of her identity to attract voters who have a specific agenda by emphasizing that aspect of herself.  We as Americans have a right to discuss her being a mom.  

 So she can't have it both ways.  If you come out swinging and declaring yourself a mom and a pit bull, then you better be willing to take whatever gets thrown your way.

And, when you trot out the family to show everyone that you've got strong family values.  Oops, then, gasp, when the picture doesn't match the rhetoric and you're you're suddenly shocked, it's laughable.

And, if we want to stay with issues, then her stance on abstinence only sex education becomes more hypocritical when we take a look at the teen pregnancy rates in Alaska, which mirrors the experience in the rest of the country.

I saw this post from Michael Seitzman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-definition-of-sexism_...

Here's a few paragraphs:

"Now, I want to be clear and speak directly to those of you who LOVED that Palin interview. You're an idiot. I mean that. This is not one of those cases where we're going to agree to disagree. This isn't one of those situations where we debate it passionately and then walk away thinking that the other guy is wrong but argued well. I'm not going to think of you as a thoughtful but misguided person with different ideas who still really cares about the country and the world. No, sorry, not this time. This time, if you watched those interview excerpts and weren't scared out of your freakin' mind, then you're mentally ill, mentally disabled, or mentally disturbed. What you are NOT is responsible, informed, curious, thoughtful, mature, educated, empathetic, or remotely serious. I mean it.

But I like to think that anyone can change.

Stop voting for people you want to have a beer with. Stop voting for folksy. Stop voting for people who remind you of your neighbor. Stop voting for the ideologically intransigent, the staggeringly ignorant, and the blazingly incompetent.

Vote for someone smarter than you. Vote for someone who inspires you. Vote for someone who has not only traveled the world but who has also shown a deep understanding and compassion for it.

The stakes are real and they're terrifyingly high. This election matters. It matters. It really matters. Let me say that one more time. This. Really. Matters. "

I don't think posting an article from a writer saying that people who liked Palin's interview are idiots and are mentally ill has anything to do with the subject of this post. How is that productive?

In the US, we can vote for whomever we like- if we like someone who is inspiring to us, we are free to vote for them. If we like that someone is intellectual or down-home, we can vote for them. If you want to vote for someone based on their politics, you are free to vote for them.

I don't think trying to tell people how to vote is very productive. People will vote based on the issues that are important to them.

For the record, I think Obama presents himself as a very down-home person. Someone you would want to go have a drink with, and play a game of basketball with. Should I decide not to vote for him now, because of an article?

I was hoping the comments could stay on the subject of the post.

Futhermore, when a male presidential candidate picks a woman for his
running mate, it sends a message to women and to men, that he
believes his pick is qualified and capable of being an effective vice
president. 

Unfortunately, in light of the interviews Palin has given over the last 48 hours, if John McCain truly believes that Sarah Palin is qualified and capable of being an effective vice president, then he's already senile.

The sad truth is, Sarah Palin wasn't chosen for her experience or her intelligence or the fact that she is qualified and capable. She was chosen because, and solely because, she is a woman, and he wanted to appeal to the female voter base that he flt was drifting in the wake of Clinton. And if that ain't sexism, I don't know what is. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

Best line I've heard all week in regards to Sarah Palin.  This sums up my feelings exactly:

Is it sexist to want the person flying your plane to be a pilot?

OMG.  That is EXACTLY IT.  (Thank you, Kathleen Reardon.)

I don't even WEAR t-shirts.  But I would wear that one.

Kathleen Reardon's quote is one of my favs too.

Because when I saw the Gibson interview, I thought to myself, this person is not going to blink, and she's not going to THINK when it comes time to commit troops or aerial attacks that could not only send her Kid into harms way, but yours and mine too.

I'd like someone who didn't go to 5 colleges in 6 years. Academic rigor?  Not for this person.

Here's the link from the Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html 

I have a question though for Sarah Palin.  Has she ever been up to Big and Little Diomede Islands and looked across the 2 miles of water to see the Inupiat peoples who are relatives of the ones on American Soil? Doubt it, as it's very foggy there.

Just food for thought- I noticed Gibson's interview with Palin was heavily and poorly edited. At some points she was barely finished talking, when the sound would cut out, and Gibson would be cutting in with another question. Was she trying to explain her thoughts more, hence the editing? I don't know...it makes me wonder why they did that. No matter who the candidate is, personally I don't judge them on only one interview. Hopefully there will be more, but I understand everyone has the right to decide for themselves. * A Mama's Blog- A Mama's Blog

I just keep asking myself how educated, intelligent women can be so focused on the portrait, that they are missing the big picture.  Do you think if Obama had chosen Hilliary Clinton as his running mate, any of us would have ever heard of Sarah Palin?  If you answer yes, then you are kidding only yourself.

A co-worker said to me at the outset of this incredible journey into the unbelievable - "It's sheer genius,"  It was only the morning after the announcement of Palin as running mate and my first impression was disillusionment.  I'd always considered my friend to be more discriminating, a better judge than that.  Well, do I have egg on my face.  She was right.  It is sheer genius from a marketing standpoint - and that's exactly, and all that it is - marketing.

So, all of you women who think Sarah Palin is being discriminated against in the media and the blogs and over the water cooler - Yes, intially there were attacks on her personal choices and her family.  Perhaps because it was so new, nobody understood the stakes yet. I say that not as an excuse, but as an admission of our mistake - and even sexism - in not taking the woman seriously.  Now it is about issues, about qualification and substance.  You who defend Palin are the ones who keep dragging us back into the arena of personal judgement when we keep trying to move away from that.

I am not against women and mothers working in careers that demand their time and attention away from their families.

I am not against husbands/fathers taking on - or over - family responsibilities.

I am not against women having strong opinions and expressing them.

Under the category - Her business not mine ~

I do not care what Sarah Palin's personal reproductive choices are.

I don't care if all of her daughter's become unwed mothers.

I really don't even care if she hires a nanny and hubby fishes, continues to work for BP and races his snowmobile 365 days a year.  That is their business. Period!

If you cannot see that the Republican body is using Sarah Palin in the most sexist way possible, you aren't wearing rose colored glasses, you are wearing blinders.

Talk to me about a woman who disregards her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, including it's ammendments, because some of those ammendments don't fit her personal agenda (freedom of speech)  Talk to me about a woman who intends to use her power to fire those who don't agree with her personal agendas.  It doesn't matter that she didn't try to ban any books, it doesn't even mantter that her inent in questioning what the librarian would do may have been only out of curiosity, it doesn't matter - no wait - it matters even more - if what she says is true. Her move to have the librarian fired had nothing to do at all with the subject of possible removal of books from the library.  By Palin's own admission it was because the woman didn't support Palin's agenda.  I don't care if the agenda was about books, or if it was some other issue of running the city of  Wasilla - terminating people who hold opinions different from an elected public official is wrong in every way.  It goes against the very grain of our country's founding principals.

Do you really want the second in command of our country - with potential to be the first in command to be so capricious( and I don't care what McCain's age is - Kennedy was a young man when he died.  Any of us could be hit by a bus tomorrow)? Do you want to risk that at some point, she may step foward with a personal dislike of something you are not in agreement with and then you will be at the mercy of her dictatoraial tendencies?

Remember, life is a journey, not a destination. Here's to Living Well! www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com & www.lwbms.blogspot.com

I find it interesting that in all of this hoopla about Sarah Palin being subject to attacks by a sexist media I hear NOTHING from those same so-called feminists about the RACISM that Obama has to endure and continues to have to suffer through.

He has had to answer to question after nauseating question that has to do with his beliefs, his personal life, his past, and his professional life. Funny how Americans had to hear about Rev. Wright forever but Palin has not had to face one question about the extremist, racist views of her own pastor (whose church, she just stopped attending). How racist is it that he has his name mixed with a terrorist, Osama bin Laden? Or that he has two white men marketing waffles that has a picture of him with a turban on his head? Or that a fist tap (also known as the dap) with his wife was conflated with a terrorist fist jab? How about the fact that Sarah Palin called the burden of being black in America “light?” Are you serious?

I don’t hear a peep out of you so-called feminists about how Michelle Obama has had her image racked through the coals either. And no, I don’t think anyone should be questioning any woman about her supposed abilities to be a good mother if we aren’t asking the same questions about male politicians abilities to be good fathers. But at the same time you all are shouting with glee that “yes, we have a woman” you have failed to realized that she stands for everything contrary to the general feminist manifesto. And she’s on the same ticket as a man who laughed when a colleague called Hillary Clinton a B*tch and has been caught on tape calling his own wife a c*nt.

Please.

cajones7: Maybe you should write a post here about racism that Obama has had to endure. It would be interesting and shed light on that aspect of this campaign race too.

For what it is worth, I haven't seen a video of McCain calling his calling his wife that name. People like to speculate why McCain didn't answer the question if he ever called his wife that, but I saw it more like he wasn't going to dignify a question like that with a comment. I guess different responses mean different things to different people. As for him calling Hillary a b**ch, this is the first I have heard of that, so I am not in a position to comment on that.

I don't consider myself a traditional feminist, but as I have said before, it bothered me on the sexism and BOTH Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have been subjected to. Yes, I even wrote a blog post about the sexism Clinton endured back in May; the link to it is in my post.

So I am not trying to take sides here, but with Palin, this is the most common occurrence. Funny, how people can't even open their minds and read what I wrote- everyone is so quick to judge me that I am some conservative victim (I'm an Independent who has always voted Democrat), and throw insults my way, for writing about a problem as I see it in BOTH parties. We can't talk about how to change this, but we can insult and bash.

I was hoping we could have a respectful discussion about this, but it seems like everyone (at least who has replied to this so far) wants to bash and it seems like the comments are off the subject for the most part anyway.

I don't like bashing anyone, regardless of their political party, and it is clear we can't talk about feminism and the double standards facing women in both parties, without bashing going on. So I suppose if people want to continue the bashing that is your right, but I am not going to respond to it anymore.

It's not worth it to me, and it is so unproductive. We don't solve anything this way, and it is clear the posters here are more interested in bashing myself and the politics of the right, even though sexism affects women in both parties.

Heather- A Mama's Blog

 The news media has run the b-word clip enough for anybody who isn't living with theirr head in the sand to see it. 

As for any man that would call his wife the C-word, well, there are no words for that level of disrespect to all women.

Remember, life is a journey, not a destination. Here's to Living Well! www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com & www.lwbms.blogspot.com

Steinem also asserts "that feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman, but making life more fair for women everywhere."  

Sarah Palin is on record as endorsing abstinence-only education, which has resulted in an increase in teenage pregnancy and disease in recent years.

Members of her party and her religion are against, not just abortion, but birth control.

Her party is against equal pay for equal work; has recently been working to chip away at Title IX; has a dismal record supporting adequate health care, daycare, and hey, science.

Palin herself has demonstrated limited knowledge of the outside world, and shown that she sees thing through the same narrow lens of end-times Christianity that lends itself to justifying war with religion. She seems to have no concept of the financial sector and its role in the current economic crisis. Her solutions to energy dependence are all destructive. Her claims of work against waste and corruption have been pretty much debunked. She is hardly the model of competent, female, leadership Hillary supporters were looking for, and I fear that Palin's nomination will have serious ramifications for future female candidates. Condoleeza Rice would have been a better choice; she's at least been to Russia.

What's the point of having Sarah Palin shatter the glass ceiling if the falling shards cut off the rest of the women toiling beneath her.

 -Lisse

@ Home in the World 

 Sarah Palin is pro-contraception. She just doesn't care if they talk abstinence too. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story

~TW
Retro-Food

..with the above comment, obviously Steinham was speaking of the fundamentalist rhetoric that Palin spews, that frankly is quite intolerant and scary for many people; it seemed as if the original blogger purposefully was misunderstanding Steinham's point, which is hard to miss.

I was  also shocked at how boldly amamasblog seems to disregard viewing Sarah Palin as someone who many many people, and yes many "independants" find shockingly arrogant. She has a proven track record of corruption, she has DEfunded special needs funding in Alaska by 60%. I am sure now that she has her own special needs child she will refund it; that is her historical way of 'governing"; appointing unqualified friends to offices, funding her own pet projects and defunding others. What about the 312 days that she charged PER DIEM travel funds when she worked out of her home? Its also interesting this idea of the interviews that she supposedly is having to endure being edited; I think Fox News is one of worst in the media for that and they love Palin!  I don't feel sorry for Paiin at all I feel sorry for her children because their mother is very dishonest and corrupt and power hungry and she seems to use her own special needs child, her pregnant daughter and her son who will go off to war as photo-ops, its frankly disturbing. 

Mom 101:

Thanks for the link to the clip of McCain laughing & not denouncing H. Clinton being called b**ch. I really hadn't heard that yet- I don't watch TV or the news, and had not come across that yet. I don't agree with that, and there is another example of sexism towards Hillary Clinton. About the other comment to his wife, I can't 100% say that he called her that or not. Anyone can write a book and say they witnessed an event. If he did call her that, it is disgusting and now that this allegation is out there, he should address it. On the same token, I have seen people posting pictures of T-shirts, that say, Sarah Palin is a C***. Using that word towards ANY woman is wrong.

Mom101, Tangog1rl, and Lisse:

I believe Tangog1rl said I misunderstood Steinem point. Let me ask you this:

Aren't Steinem's views only being applied when it is convenient or lines up with the Democrat politics? An example that I see, of this is in the stay-at-home status of Todd Palin.

An interview last year said Todd Palin "takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer, according to his wife. He divides much of his time between Wasilla, where Track is recovering from shoulder surgery, and the capital in Juneau, where the Palin daughters are in school."

Sarah Palin then said, ""He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. He says, ‘I can sleep when I die,' "said Sarah Palin."There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He's able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine." http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8924080p-8824177c.html

A situation like this is not uncommon in many households today. Yet, Steinem and many others dismiss this contribution and example of feminism. This is the very situation they have been wanting, yet Palin who has achieved this, is dismissed as anti-feminist.

To draw a comparison, the ticket that Steinem supports is Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Obama's wife Michelle, had a well paying, high level administration job, at the University of Chicago. To my knowledge she is on leave from this job, but some say she has quit her job. Quit or on leave, so Obama could pursue his career.

Joe Biden was a single dad when his wife died in 1972. His wife now, Jill, said if Obama and Biden win, she will still teach, but try to juggle both her job and her family, just as she did when Biden was in the primaries and was away from the family.

This is traditional patriarchy. Why is Steinem supporting this, when it could be considered anti-feminist? Can't it be argued that Michelle and Jill's choices are being restricted so they can support their husband's choices? POLTICS ASIDE there is no doubt that the arrangement between these two tickets that is not restricting a woman's choice in this example, and is the ideal matriarch arrangement is the Palins.

When politics are NOT aside, Steinem supports a traditional patriarchy arrangement. That makes me question the entire "feminist" view-point and reasoning.

You can only be considered a feminist if all of your beliefs, and politics line up 100% with what Steinem and Democrats say they should be. If you happen to be pro-life, but believe gender or traditional stereotypical roles do not matter in what you can achieve in your career, and you have created with your husband, an arrangement that supports this (like Palin), you are anti-feminist, and anti-woman. Yet, if you are pro-choice, Democrat, but give up your career to support your husband, that is not being anti-feminist, or anti-woman.

Hillary Clinton gave up a large part of her career and self to support her husband and his political career. Yet, that was not viewed as anti-feminism either. Why? Because Clinton is a Democrat, and is pro-choice.

Playing devil's advocate, suppose Palin announced she was giving up her spot as McCain's running mate, because her husband got a job offer, and she needed to stay-at-home, to take care of the children and the home. What do you think Steinem and others would say about her? Would they liken her to Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton- following in their footsteps to support her husband? I seriously doubt it. The criticism of her setting the feminist movement back light years would be relentless in my opinion.

I am NOT saying that women have to agree with Palin's politics or accept them. I fail to see why it is up to Steinem and others to decide who is a feminist and who isn't. Does any woman ever really live up to feminist ideals 100% of the time? If not, I suppose you are still a feminist, as long as you are not a pro-choice Republican. How is this supporting ALL women's rights?

The only reason I can see for this double standard from Steinem's is not because Sarah Palin is anti-woman, but I have said before, because of her politics.

This article of Steinem's showed that politics do matter in feminism, and even if you are achieving some standards of feminism, but are pro-life, you will be considered an anti-feminist. Other women like Clinton and Obama, who give up their careers so their husbands can succeed, even though that is anti-feminist too, are still considered feminists, because they are pro-life.

How would you explain or justify this?

Heather* A Mama's Blog- A Mama's Blog

...does not have to be a matriarchy. That's a common misperception about feminism.

And while this IS about Sarah Palin's politics, it is not only about her pro-life stance. There are many, many other reasons that voting for her party will set women back. I've listed some in my previous comment.

TW is correct about her saying she is personally procontrception, but her party is attempting to change HHS regulations to equate contraception with abortion. Given her history, I'm disinclined to believe that she would fight such an effort.

Now, on to those other women - Hillary clearly returned to a career once her husband was out of office. Both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden will have that option as well. Most of us will not have that option. Either economics will prohibit us from ever "taking a leave of absence" or, as in my own experience, it will be very difficult to get back into the workplace after motherhood. In any case, traditional patriarchy would be if they never had those jobs in the first place because their only career was as wife and mother. I think the Democratic ticket will work to give women and men more options for work/life balance.

Todd Palin can easily afford to stay home with the kids. He is a freelancer/contractor and his wife and family have been the recipients of government sponsored health insurance at least since his wife assumed the governorship, if not since the beginning of her city council seat. Again, most of us do not have that option, and the GOP does not want us to.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

Feminism is at a minimum about expanding and honoring choices for women and men.  Palin and her party are about limiting choices - mostly for women. Palin's pro-life stance can be honored as a personal choice, but not a a policy to be forced on the rest of us.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

First, Tod Palin works a rig, so those who level charges that "he works for British Petroleum!!!" are obfuscating the reality of his job.  If he gets close to $100k for it, good for him.  It's nasty work.

Second, Camille Paglia had a great article in Salon last week, where she examines the history of feminism and locates Sarah Palin at not only the next stage, but also the early, pioneer-woman stage. It's worth a read, whether or not you agree with her.

Third, Ms. Steinem's POV seems to be that a woman cannot be a feminist unless she is pro-choice, which is an odd argument because feminism is supposed to be all about choice, including the choice to not terminate a pregnancy.

Finally, to excoriate a Vice-Presidential candidate simply because he or she is anti-choice is a scare tactic that goes nowhere.  Roe v. Wade has stood the test of time for over 30 years.  In itself it is built on Connecticut v. Griswald, which is about the right to privacy.  To overturn Roe v. Wade would be to open up Griswald and privacy of bodies and that's just not going to happen.

JaneBecker

http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com

Thank you all for your comments and keeping them respectful.  I really appreciate that.    

Mom101:  I view the feminist movement by Steinem to mean that women never give up their choices to stay in a traditional female role.  I view it to mean that the movement fights for women's rights. In that I assumed that would be mean acknowledging and supporting women that did make strives by having a careers, and holding what would normally be considered "male" jobs and positions.  

I think a more recent viewpoint from that movement was women do have the choice to choose whatever they want (career, staying home, or a combination).  I'm not sure if Steinem supports that, or if that has just evolved.  That is why I think that the movement should at the very least, acknowledge when a woman does have an achievement, especially when in this case it is a first (first Republican woman VP candidate).  That is why I am puzzled that Steinem dismissed Palin’s accomplishment, or breakthrough, or whatever you want to call it, yet says nothing when women like Clinton, put their careers on hold for their husbands.    

It seems like what so many people seem to be saying is, since Palin’s political party is pro-life, she (or any other Republican woman), could not be considered a feminist.  If that is the case, it makes sense, but I don’t think the feminist movement should claim to support all women, because they don’t.  It seems like they will support you and acknowledge your achievements as long as you or your political party is not pro-choice.       

Jane, I did catch that article by Paglia in Salon, and I liked it.    

The comments here have given me a lot of food for thought, not only how I define feminism, but how others define it.  Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.  

  Heather*  A Mama's Blog  

Firstly,

I have to disagree with anyone who uses Camile Paglia as an example of someone who can fairly identify movements in the growth of feminism...although I did find her comment on Sarah's performance perfectly put

"I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut" 

It is a perfomance and Palin plays it to the hilt; "soccer mom" "MILF" loving religious mother who moose hunts.. and it isn't until one looks at the facts- that are in every paper practically- that this charmingly offbeat 'boffo" falls apart and we discover that she indeed someone who wants to fly the plane with no pilot's license and god as her co-pilot.

 But re Paglia, lets talk about her "Charlie"... wasn't she  the person who said, for example 

"Let's get rid of Infirmary Feminism, with its bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives, rape victims, and incest survivors. Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses"

 If bloggers don't like people slandering others, surely this above qualifies as a quite childish "rounding up" of all the "infirmary feminists" that Paglia disagrees with. Its as Palin calling everyone who disagrees with her 'haters"; a juvenile and absurd linguistic move to remove intelligent questions from discourse by labeling people harsh and unfairly earned names that should come out of the mouths of MTV DJ's not politicians. And the quotes from Paglia are just a way for  her to get published with bellicose soundbites that serve her more than the 'feminists" she says she supports. Here is another perfect example

"The prostitute has come to symbolize for me the ultimate liberated woman, who lives on the edge and whose sexuality belongs to no one." 

Really? But there have been many studies done by the professional community that would show a strong link between childhood sexual abuse and prostitution...so if one is doing something due to lack of self esteem or mindless repetition of childhood experience is one 'liberated"? Don't get me wrong maybe there are indeed a few prostitutes out there who really love their job, feel it works perfectly for them and have no issues; good for them. My point is Camile says "the", thus using the average prosititue as an example of someone whose sexuality belongs to no one and who is liberated. Having worked with women who have done this as a job I would disagree. In fact the best day of my life as a feminist thus far was organizing the hiring papers of a very courageous woman who went back to school and became a LVN after she was on the street for years selling her body to pay for drugs. I don't think she feels she was 'liberated"  during her years giving oral sex for 20 dollars although she is now!

Re; rape kits, this is the worst; how in the world can someone validate this BUT Palin and Paglia who both have no sympathy for rape victims... so hopefully if one is raped it will  not  be in Alaska where Palin let rape victims pick up the tab for thier rape kits and where Paglia equates these same women as "bellyachers".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html 

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/9/10/sarah-palin-an...

This is just one example of how, in my opinion, Paglia and Palin both sell out the same feminists that they link themselves to; they want to limit and define feminism with their own narrow self aggrandizing "I am a Maverick" stance, while throwing this exact accusation at others. SO to those who quote Paglia; are women who are raped and incest survivors "sob sisters"? If you don't think so, than why reference someone as bombastic and offensive as Paglia? Is there no one else who can be quoted here? Paglia is to fair intelligent discourse like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter; sound bites and nothing more maverick than that.

 From Wall Street Journal today on earmarks

"It is difficult to compare Sn. Obama's earmark record with Gov. Palin's -- their states differ in size, for instance, and the two candidates play different roles in the process. But using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama."

Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

Even on the question of whether women should vote!

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Suffragettes were opposed by many women!

Now you can find out the shocking true story of the suffragettes in an exciting, new, free e-mail series -- The Privilege of Voting.

Go behind the scenes in a real-life soap opera and discover ALL that happened to set the stage for women to finally win the vote. It's a rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

Subscribe free at www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

amamasblog, I agree with you 100%.  Thank you for having the courage to share your views about this issue.  Without a doubt, we have seen some very ugly examples of sexism towards both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.   

I think when Sarah Palin brings her family into her speeches and the public eye, they are open for questions. I object to her because I think she's incompetent, not because she's a woman. Her history shows her to be vengeful, thoughtless and not fit to be Vice President of the USA, especially on a ticket with someone McCain's age. Her views, ignorance and arrogance of the issues frankly terrify me. I see her as close to a female version of George W Bush and we know how well that's worked out. If she were a man, her competency would be in the forefront of people's attention, without question. Since she is a woman and politically incorrect to challenge, that acts, to some degree, like a smokescreen.