Speaking out for social justice at the Academy Awards Ceremony

Patricia Arquette standing up for women's equality. (The New Agenda)

In yesterday's post, I mentioned the possibility that the movies are catching up to the likes of the edgy Penumbra Theatre in St. Paul, MN where drama and storytelling support social justice. I was referring to the "political statements" made during the Academy Awards Ceremony. The New Agenda's Anita Finlay applauds best supporting actress Patricia Arquette for standing up for women's equality in her acceptance speech.

Finlay reports:

Patricia Arquette brought excitement to an otherwise lackluster Oscar telecast with her impassioned speech on behalf of women’s equality.  Upon accepting the award for Best Supporting Actress, she stood before a worldwide audience of 1 billion and declared: “To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and every citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”

She got a sustained standing ovation and enthusiastic whoops from none other than Meryl Streep, not to mention worldwide twitter love for her statements.  And whether or not you like politics mixed in with your awards telecast, Arquette is right.

It was widely assumed in the press that in asking for women’s equality, Ms. Arquette was referring to the under-representation of women in Hollywood, both in front of and behind the camera. Women helm only 6% of film projects and are outnumbered 4 to 1 in on screen representation.  SONY also got a black eye last year when it was revealed that its female execs made far lower salaries than their male counterparts and Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence was paid less in America Hustle than her lesser known and less celebrated male co-stars.

Arquette would not be the first to speak out on women’s behalf.  Upon winning the Best Actress Oscar last year, Cate Blanchett noted that stories about women do sell tickets.  Women do fascinate beyond “Bond girls.”  Was Arquette addressing this as part of the issue …yes.  Was that her main point?  I think not.

While I’m sure Patricia Arquette was addressing women’s inequality in all its forms, her Oscar speech made a passionate plea for the recognition of women of all social strata – 73% of us are in the work force and 40% are sole breadwinners or head of household, yet 2/3 of minimum wage jobs are held by women.  So to those in Congress, like Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who say that getting and enforcing equal pay laws for women don’t matter – think again.

Read more:

Celebrating strong female leadership in the Twin Cities

Harvard Business School Professor Bill George.

You may know of Bill George as a Harvard Business School professor and the former CEO of Medtronic in the Twin Cities. Although Bill and I have never met, I feel a personal connection with him and his wife Penny. Bill and Penny have generously supported my alma mater, United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities. Bill shares my interest in mindfulness meditation - he's been a mindfulness practitioner for several decades. And today, I enjoy Bill’s presence among my Facebook friends.

I also have in common with Bill my support of equal opportunities for women, and I’m pleased this morning to link to his recent article: Strong Female Leadership Sets Twin Cities Apart:

 

What makes the Twin Cities so vibrant and progressive? First, great institutions in business, education, health care, government, the arts and social services. Second, extraordinary leaders who built these organizations.

While we have had exceptional male leaders, what makes the Twin Cities stand out are the many women who have built these organizations as CEOs, board chairs and presidents. In no other major city have women leaders had as great an impact.

Many books and articles assert that women don’t have opportunities to succeed in male-dominated organizations. Sadly, far too many cultures systematically deny women opportunities for advancement. Yet a 2012 Harvard Business Review research study found that in evaluations of 7,280 leaders, women were judged better than men in relationships, integrity, developing self and others, taking initiative and driving for results. That’s certainly true of female leaders I have studied.

Read more:

Required reading for all women: "Eleanor Roosevelt – feminist icon"

Eleanor Roosevelt, an early role model.

In my early 20s, married and a stay at home mom with two young children, I used to eagerly read Eleanor Roosevelt’s monthly column in Redbook Magazine. She became a major role model for me in the days before women were welcomed on either the national or the world stage. Heck, we weren’t even welcomed in the ranks of professionals in whatever field.

Over the ensuing years, though, I somehow never got around to reading Eleanor’s biography and although I heard that FDR betrayed her, I wasn't sure whether it was rumor or fact.  Reading Eleanor Clift’s piece at the Daily Beast this morning brought tears to my eyes, and I marveled at the enduring heroism of my early role model.

Clift’s piece, titled Eleanor Roosevelt – feminist icon - should be required reading for all women, feminist or not:

Eleanor Roosevelt’s challenges began at a very young age with a mother who belittled her and a drug-addicted, alcoholic father who worshipped her. Orphaned by the age of ten and taken in by a well-meaning but dour grandmother, she found her footing at Allenswood, a girls’ boarding school just outside of London. The French headmistress, Marie Souvestre, took 15-year-old Eleanor under her wing and gave her a glimpse of what an independent woman’s life could be.

It was at Allenswood that Eleanor learned she had a brain, that she could be popular, and even became captain of the field hockey team. Under Souvestre’s tutelage, Eleanor began to discover the woman she would become and the social causes she would embrace, adopting Souvestre’s commitment to social justice and an affinity for the underdog. “I became more of a feminist than I ever thought possible,” Eleanor later wrote. She wanted to stay on after graduating and teach alongside her mentor but bowed to convention and returned home to make her societal debut.

Nearly six feet tall, slender and with piercing blue eyes, the young Eleanor was not the aged woman that we have come to associate with her. Her teeth were not the best--there was no orthodontic work available then--but when 22-year-old Franklin Roosevelt proposed to a then 19-year-old Eleanor, he was as smitten with her as she was with the dashing young man. A man who also happened to be her fifth cousin once removed.

Read more:

On behalf of feminist leader Gloria Steinem

Photo courtesy of bio.com.

I met Gloria Steinem the first time at a Planned Parenthood meeting in Rochester, Minn. where Gloria was the featured speaker. I was privileged to shake her hand afterward. When I marched in Chicago in support of the ERA, Gloria and several other feminist leaders led thousands of us through Grant Park. Several years later, I attended her book signing event in the Twin Cities. I am so grateful to Gloria for all she has done on behalf of women around the world.

Gloria is 80 years old now, and I thank Upworthy for providing this video.   

On the 50th anniversary of Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique"

1971 Betty Friedan leads the march for gender equality.

I was in my early 30s and the mother of two children in elementary school when I first read Betty Friedan's book, the Feminine Mystique. Friedan's insights motivated me to take advantage of the GI bill - I'm an Air Force veteran - and pursue a long deferred dream by enrolling in college. Family responsibilities slowed me down a little, but I graduated five years later with a BA in English, concentration in writing.

In her article in the NY Times on gender equality, Stephanie Coontz notes:

THIS week is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Betty Friedan’s international best seller, “The Feminine Mystique,” which has been widely credited with igniting the women’s movement of the 1960s. Readers who return to this feminist classic today are often puzzled by the absence of concrete political proposals to change the status of women. But “The Feminine Mystique” had the impact it did because it focused on transforming women’s personal consciousness. 

In 1963, most Americans did not yet believe that gender equality was possible or even desirable. Conventional wisdom held that a woman could not pursue a career and still be a fulfilled wife or successful mother. Normal women, psychiatrists proclaimed, renounced all aspirations outside the home to meet their feminine need for dependence. In 1962, more than two-thirds of the women surveyed by University of Michigan researchers agreed that most important family decisions “should be made by the man of the house.” 

It was in this context that Friedan set out to transform the attitudes of women. Arguing that “the personal is political,” feminists urged women to challenge the assumption, at work and at home, that women should always be the ones who make the coffee, watch over the children, pick up after men and serve the meals.

Read more:

 

Good question: are you a ‘feminist’or pro-woman?

Photo courtesy of mniebuhr.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amy Siskind’s post, “Is ‘Feminism’ Going Chapter 11?” reminds me of the sense of betrayal I experienced in 2008 when ‘feminist’ friends and acquaintances first trashed Hillary Clinton in the primary and then Sarah Palin in the general election, seldom pointing to specific areas of disagreement. Instead, the first words out of their mouths were usually, “She’s a bitch.”

I’ve moved on from most of those friends and acquaintances since then, but I’ve continued to refer to myself as a ‘feminist.’ Siskind’s logic is breaking through today, and I’m wondering if it’s time for me to declare myself pro-woman. In her final paragraphs, she directly addresses my category as a former Clinton supporter who left the Democratic Party in June 2008, although I did not head for the Republican tent. Instead, I re-registered as non-affiliated. Now I’m about to give up my card-carrying status as a ‘feminist’ and exchange it for the pro-woman designation. Siskind writes:

And what of Clinton supporters?  The legions of women who felt they no longer had a home in their party.  Among Clinton supporters, there was a rather widely held view that women’s groups (and many feminist) were either ineffectual or complicit in Clinton’s demise, preferring candidate Obama.   The women claiming the mantle of feminism did little to heal these wounds, excoriating Clinton supporters for their criticism of President Obama.  One particularly spiteful Obama supporting feminist coined the term “Clinton dead-enders” for those loyal to Clinton, leading the charge for more Clinton supporter bashing and exclusion.

Since most Clinton supporters were silenced and had no means to act out, they chose instead to act in.  More like a raft afloat.  Each wave washing them further from political ideology.   2010 was the first year since exit polling was taken that women went GOP.  But a closer peek, reveals a truth:  Women, 60 and Over, the largest and most reliable voting block, shifted from +6 D in 2008 to +12 R in 2010.  The second largest voting block, Women, 45-59 went from +10 D in 2008, to tie.   These are Hillary’s women.

There is one place that is making a home for all women, and that is the Pro-Women Movement.  It’s last call for feminism:  go inclusive or go extinct.

Read Siskind’s post in its entirety here.

Hillary Clinton’s popularity soars even as she places women’s rights at the center of US foreign policy

 Secretary Clinton meets with Belarusian and Belarusian-American human rights activists including "We Remember" President Irina Krasovskaya and Belarus Free Theater co-founder Natalya Kolyada to discuss recent events in Belarus. State Department Photo by Michael Gross

In her recently published must-read article in the Guardian, Madeleine Bunting marvels that Hillary Clinton’s popularity continues to soar as she places women’s rights at the center of US foreign policy.

Bunting writes:

Many of her statements can be routed back to the idealistic internationalism of 70s feminism. Astonishingly, she has managed to bring the feminism for which she was loathed in the early 90s (as the first lady who didn't stay home and bake cookies) into the heart of the state department and foreign policy, and is still clocking high opinion poll ratings.

From the start Clinton left no one in any doubt where she stood: women's rights are "the signature issue" of this administration's foreign policy, she said. She mentioned women 450 times in speeches in the first five months in office. "Transformation of the role of women is the last great impediment to universal progress," she declared, and began to develop what is her standard line: women's issues are integral to the achievement of every goal of US foreign policy.

Or put more simply: the empowerment, participation and protection of women and girls is vital to the long-term security of the US. Last month this rhetoric was translated into policy in the long awaited Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, which aimed to redefine US foreign policy around civilian power. "We are integrating women and girls into everything we do… in all our diplomacy with other governments… in our work on conflict and crisis," said the state department's briefing.

Read more:

Without the Pedigree of a Kennedy, Clinton, or Cuomo, New York’s Senator Gillibrand Becomes Prohibitive Favorite

New York Gov. David Paterson, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

Every so often African-Americans and members of other minority groups remind one another that they are not all required to be on the same page all the time; there’s room for diversity. Just so, women are beginning to realize that although they may not agree on every political issue, they can stand united in their opposition to sexism and misogyny as well as all other forms of bigotry. Representing 51 percent of the nation’s population, women could thus assure a major upsurge in political power.

The saga of politically conservative Kirsten Gillibrand, who recently replaced liberal Hillary Clinton as the junior senator of New York, is a good illustration of the above. The AP’s Valerie Baumann reports:

ALBANY, N.Y. — Kirsten Gillibrand didn't have the pedigree of a Kennedy, Clinton or a Cuomo. She was not, her critics said, up to the challenge of winning a tough, New York brawl for the U.S. Senate seat Gov. David Paterson handed her.

But on Friday, the last of the established threats to her candidacy backed away from a promised Democratic primary showdown, leaving Gillibrand a smoother ride to a full, six-year term when she faces election next year. U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, who just last month raised $300,000 at a dinner that featured former President Bill Clinton, said there was too much to do in Congress to spend the next year campaigning.

In less than seven months, Gillibrand went from vulnerable and criticized to a prohibitive favorite. A primary election fight is the biggest threat to Gillibrand in a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1. No Republican has emerged as a general election opponent.

"The deal is done," said Doug Muzzio, a politics professor at Baruch College. "She's the Democratic primary candidate and she's not going to face any substantial opposition."

When the little-known, conservative-leaning U.S. representative was named to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator in January, Democrats in the state fractured. Loyalists backed her, but others balked, despite vocal support from President Barack Obama and New York Sen. Charles Schumer, a political force in the chamber.

The early favorite for the Senate seat, political scion Caroline Kennedy, backed out at the last minute for reasons that have never become clear. Another possible senator, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, also was passed over (though he never publicly said he wanted the job).

Gillibrand's conservative views on guns and immigration drew sharp criticism from more liberal Democrats in the state. Besides Maloney, U.S. Reps. Steve Israel and Carolyn McCarthy considered primary challenges.

Read more:

Meghan McCain and the power of sisterhood

In the Christian Science Monitor, Chloe Angyl, a college senior at Princeton, seeks to bridge the generation gap between older and younger women; the recent spat between Meghan McCain and Laura Ingraham is Angyl’s lead example.

Angyl writes:

Princeton, N.J. - Last week, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham attacked Meghan McCain for speaking out about the Republicans' failure to relate to young people. Instead of meaningful debate, Ms. Ingraham belittled her younger counterpart (the daughter of Sen. John McCain), insulting her appearance.

It got me thinking: The 1960s gave us some great slogans. It was the decade of "black is beautiful." It was the era of "make love, not war." And most important for women, the '70s gave us "sisterhood is powerful." Sadly, this last slogan is also the least recognizable to women in 2009.

In 1975, the idea that women could effect real political and social change by listening to each other and by sticking together was electrifying. Today, it is almost unheard-of.

Instead of engaging Ms. McCain in a thoughtful dialogue, Ingraham tried to silence her by suggesting that she was too fat, too pretty and, above all, too young and inexperienced to be allowed to speak out the way she did.

It's unsurprising that older women are attacking younger women, or that they're using the tactics of middle-school queen bees to do it. After all, in our culture, women aren't taught to support other women. Older women, invisible in the mainstream media, have been told from infancy that they'll only be relevant as long as they're young and sexually attractive. As a result, they often see younger women as competition, dismissing and alienating them. Offended, younger women don't look up to older women as role models or mentors. In short, sisterhood isn't so powerful any more. And this has to change.

This weakening of sisterhood has created a gap between generations of women, a gap that is holding women back and making much-needed progress more difficult to accomplish.

Last week, Sally Burgess, the chairwoman of the National Abortion Foundation, was quoted in The New York Times as saying that "younger women have always had access to abortion care, they don't fully appreciate the battle that was fought to have it available to them."

Ms. Burgess suggested that because younger women take reproductive freedom for granted, they're less likely to have the "fire in the belly" that motivated women of her generation. The implication here: Younger women don't appreciate the work our mothers and grandmothers did to make our lives better than their own.

But here's the thing. Everywhere you look, young women are taking action to carry on the work done by previous generations, and not just in the area of reproductive rights. Women are reading, writing, blogging, voting, protesting, educating, speaking, and working to build on the progress – political, legal and cultural – that older women have worked so hard to achieve. As women we all need to remember that we're on the same side.

That's what sisterhood is, and it can be a powerful thing.

That's not to say women shouldn't support other women simply because they happen to have the XX chromosome in common. But in order to ensure continued progress for women, older women need to form relationships with younger women instead of fearing us or belittling us. Even when we don't agree, women need to engage with one another's ideas and intellects, instead of going for the modern-day jugular of appearance and weight. We won't always agree, but we must always treat each other with respect, and we must applaud, and listen to women when they speak out in a world that seeks to silence them.

Read More:

The Vulgar Language of Campaign 08: “Balls” and “Fuck,” Synonyms for Courage and Rape

Just a thought this wintry morning in St. Paul as this intense week winds down. In following the presidential campaign and its aftermath, I’ve been repeatedly offended by a couple of sexist terms used freely throughout the blogosphere on both the left and the right.

Let’s begin with “balls,” as in male testicles. Earlier I linked to a post by Michelle Malkin in which she defended Sarah Palin against the attacks of McCaine aides. Malkin wrote: “Shame on the smearers who don’t have the balls to show their faces.”

Although I appreciate Malkin’s defense of Palin, I object to the increasingly common usage of “balls” as a synonym for bravery or courage. Using a slang reference to testicles strongly implies that courage is primarily a characteristic of males.

I’m reminded of a story I read years ago in MS Magazine. It seems Norman Mailer was heard to remark: “In order to be a good writer you have to have balls.”

A feminist reporter asked, “And in what color of ink do you dip them, Norman?”

“Fuck” is the other ubiquitous crude term that I find offensive. An old English word, referring to sexual intercourse, fuck literally means to take unfair advantage of, i.e., rape.

In an election year when party leaders and the media have clearly demonstrated that sexism is alive and well in America, it’s not surprising that the vulgar language of male superiority and related issues of violence against women continues to dominate the national discourse.

It’s been said before in Campaign 2008, but I’ll say it again: America, we can do better.

An Earlier Event in Chicago’s Grant Park: Marching for the ERA on Mother’s Day, 1980

The Equal Rights Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

***

It’s late afternoon in the Midwest on this long-awaited election day. The prospect of watching an Obama victory celebration at Chicago’s Grant Park this evening has brought back memories of another event that occurred there some 28 years ago.

On Mother’s Day, May 10, 1980, I joined several members of the Unitarian-Universalist Church in Rochester, Minn. for a bus trip to Grant Park to march in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. We’d been instructed to wear the same colors for a show of unity. I stood stock still in amazement that day when I stepped off the bus to see 90,000 women in green and white converging on Carl Sandburg’s “city of the big shoulders.”

According to the Feminist Chronicles: “Marchers came from every state of the union and represented over 300 organizations and delegations. The massive event was conceived and coordinated by NOW. Mayor Jane Byrne, the first woman mayor of Chicago, addressed the crowd, together with Jessie Jackson, Ellie Smeal, TV celebrity Phil Donahue, and Marlo Thomas.”

With hope in my heart, I sat on the ground that day, listening to our speakers while imagining what it would feel like at some far away future date to tell my grandchildren about my participation in this historic event.

To my dismay, Ronald Reagan was elected president that November and ultimately the ERA failed to win ratification by its deadline.

When Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy in the Democratic primary, I’m sure that many of those 90,000 women with whom I marched in Chicago in 1980 felt as uplifted as I did. I’m equally certain those same women were as stunned as I was by the tsunami of misogyny against Sen. Clinton in the primary that helped sweep Barack Obama to victory as the nominee.

The tidal wave of irrational hatred of women crested again during the general election when Sarah Palin set foot on the national stage and quickly became the object of slander and ridicule amplified by a media still under Obama’s spell - objectivity be damned.

Just for the heck of it, I’ve scanned the readers’ comments on election-day coverage this afternoon at a couple of leading so-called progressive blogs. To my consternation, I suddenly realized these mostly young Obama supporters aren’t even aware they’re being sexist with their crude, offensive comments that once targeted Hillary Clinton, but are now primarily aimed at Sarah Palin.

Obama’s millions of online supporters don’t appear to know the difference between sexist attacks and civil discourse in discussing political issues; their mindlessly offensive comments are their normative behavior.

But here we are on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008 and what more can I do or say? I confess that a part of me grieves that on a day when many are gleefully anticipating a potential landslide for Obama, my principles dictate that I must sit on the sidelines. A life-long Democrat, there was a time when I longed to see my party return to the White House. But the wounds from the primary and the obviously rigged Democratic convention are still too raw. And having recently left the Democratic Party to re-register as non-affiliated, I can’t bring myself to vote for the lesser of two evils. What a travesty in these perilous times that the name of Hillary Clinton, obviously the best qualified of all the candidates who announced in 2008, is not on the ballot.

Guess I’ll skip TV coverage of the gathering in Grant Park tonight; it would feel sacrilegious.

How a Long-time Feminist Can Support the McCain-Palin Ticket

I’m not sure how I missed this post by Dr. Lynette Long at her blog on Sept. 8, but I’m pleased to link to The X Factor today in which Dr. Long, a psychologist and well-known feminist, explains why she has decided to support the McCain-Palin ticket. Following The X Factor, I’ve included a link to Dr. Long’s update a couple of days ago to her original post.

Dr. Long writes:

“I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. My party refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other candidate in history. My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the mainstream media. My party was mute while the main stream media repeatedly called Clinton a bitch and symbolically called me and every other woman in this country a bitch. My party was disturbingly silent when the main stream media commented on Hillary’s body or the shrillness of her voice, reminding me and every other woman the fundamental disrespect we endure on a daily basis. My party’s candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. My party’s candidate was silent when the rapper Ludicrous released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. My party and its candidate gave their tacit approval for the attacks on Senator Hillary Clinton and consequently women in general.

“I have a choice. I can vote for my party and it’s candidates which have demonstrated a blatant disrespect for women and a fundamental lack of integrity or I can vote for the Republican ticket which has heard our concerns and put a woman on the ticket but with whom I fundamentally don’t agree on most issues. If Democratic women wait for the perfect woman to come along, we will never elect a woman. We have to seize opportunity where it presents itself. Besides, the Democratic Party is no longer my home. I have no home, but this election I will make my bed somewhere else.”

To read The X Factor in its entirety go here.

A couple of days ago on Sept. 27, Dr. Long posted an update to The X Factor, which she reports has gone viral. In defending her original post and her decision to support the McCain-Palin ticket, Dr. Long presents her credentials as a feminist:

“I have worked an entire lifetime to further feminist causes. My first professional job was teaching remedial high school math to girls. I started a web-based business called color Math Pink to promote math achievement for girls and I was selected by the American Girl company to write Mathsmarts, a math strategy book for girls. If I am anything, I am a feminist.

“I have researched sex-role stereotyping and gender issues and published dozens of articles in trade and professional journals including Working Mother, Essence, and Ms. If I am anything, I am a feminist.

“I have fought for the rights of women rights every single day of my life. I point out the dearth of photos of women in the New York Times to the lucky person who sits next to me on an airplane, the lack of pictures of women on money to the wait staff at a diner, and I have been in a decade-long fight with the United States Post Office to put more pictures of women on postage stamps. If I am anything, I am a feminist.

‘“I coined the term ‘latchkey children’ and defended the rights of women to work on national level. I have assisted numerous projects to improve the quality of childcare so that mothers could work and not worry about the safety of their children. If I am anything, I am a feminist.

“I am passionately pro-choice but I also think that it is not always a psychologically free choice. I have written a play which deals with the psychological complexities of abortion entitled, One in Two, which has been performed in New York, New Jersey, and Washington DC. If I am anything, I am a feminist.

“I have spent decades coaching women on how to achieve more power in their personal relationships and in the workplace. If I am anything, I am a feminist.”

Read Dr. Long’s update in its entirety here.

The Left-Wing Feminist Assault on Sarah Palin – It’s Not Pretty!

I was talking politics with my neighbor minutes ago; Dave and I are both former Democrats, now rebelling against the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils in November; heck, we’re even considering voting for Ralph Nader. “But seriously,” Dave said, “the Democratic party needs to get rid of its leadership. They pushed aside the better qualified candidate (that would be Hillary) in order to put their guy (that would be Barack) in place.”

Yep. That’s exactly what the Democratic Party did, and can you blame me for laughing when two-gun Sarah Palin spits in their collective eye, and the McCain ticket surges ahead in the polls?

Speaking of Sarah, my well-educated liberal friends who have been swooning – fainting at times - over Barack Obama since they heard his first rousing motivational “yes-we-can” speech are pleading with those of us who continue to refuse to get in line. They’re telling us that Barack, not Sarah, is the candidate who is truly for women’s rights; Sarah, they say, is no feminist.

Cathy Young addresses that issue in her article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal titled Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin.

Young writes:

“Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.

‘“On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a ‘Christian Stepford Wife’ and a ‘Republican blow-up doll.’ Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog, ‘Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.’

“You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family. Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.

‘“In the Boston Globe on Friday, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a ‘supermom’ whose supporters ‘think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself.’ In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker. But Ms. Goodman's problem is that ‘she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K.’

‘“This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic. Mrs. Palin admits to having ‘an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles.’ Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers.

‘“Mrs. Palin's marriage actually makes her a terrific role model. One of the best choices a woman can make if she wants a career and a family is to pick a partner who will be able to take on equal or primary responsibility for child-rearing. Our culture still harbors a lingering perception that such men are less than manly -- and who better to smash that stereotype than ‘First Dude’ Todd Palin?

‘“Nevertheless, when Sarah Palin offered a tribute to her husband in her Republican National Convention speech, New York Times columnist Judith Warner read this as a message that she is ‘subordinate to a great man.’ Perhaps the message was a brilliant reversal of the old saw that behind every man is a great woman: Here, the great woman is out in front and the great man provides the support. Isn't that real feminism?”’

Read more.