Hope-a-holic, Gloria Steinem, goes on the record.


From the Los Angeles Times


Palin: wrong woman, wrong message

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

By Gloria Steinem

September 4, 2008

Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing — the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party — are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women — and to many men too — who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can’t do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn’t say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn’t know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, “I still can’t answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?” When asked about Iraq, she said, “I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.”

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she’s won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain’s campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn’t know it’s about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate’s views on “God, guns and gays” ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let’s be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can’t tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin’s value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence-only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don’t doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn’t just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn’t just echo McCain’s pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, “women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership,” so he may be voting for Palin’s husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women’s Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

Explore posts in the same categories: politics

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

5 Comments on “Hope-a-holic, Gloria Steinem, goes on the record.”

  1. Bill Says:

    Remember that voting demographic “Angry White Men ” Well there seems to be a new one ” Angry White Women”. I am hoping that the posts of Ms Steinem and Blugal are not compelling evidence that the Goodegg as become a outlet for their humorless venom. Alas I’m afraid it has. I’ll check in a month or two to see if there is any cheer to be found.

  2. Mark Says:

    Seriously Bill, “humorless venom?” Is that the new term for a thoughtful column devoid of sarcastic name-calling written by a woman based on how women might actually feel about this selection?

    Let’s talk about “humorous venom,” as it relates to what was in Ms. Palin’s speech last night. I give credit where credit is due: she knocked it out of the park for the home team. But when you strip away the sarcasm, the cynicism, the distortion there’s really not much left, is there. Reagan was sarcastic too, but at least he balanced it with optimism about the future. Did you see any of that last night?

    Let’s talk about the issues, the things that really have people upset about the last eight years: Enron, Worldcom, an illegal-unending war, war crimes, katrina, lack of affordable health care, torture, wiretapping, a mortgage crisis, global warming, a failing economy, record debt, etc. etc. etc. Do you know how i define victory? Pull bin Laden out of a cave. Independence from foreign oil? How about we start with conservation and government stimulus for renewable energy in addition to more drilling? Oh, and the conservatives suddenly care about children with special needs? Really. As the father of a special needs child, i find this to be the most outrageous. It took me all of five minutes on google to find that Sarah Palin cut special needs funding by 60% as governor of Alaska. Must have been before she had the “need.”

    The Republicans may very well win this election after all. And it will be straight out of their playbook: take the focus off the important issues by demonizing your opponent. It’s worked before, and maybe it’ll work this time.

    So, I’m sorry if there’s no cheer to be found here. I just don’t find that there’s a lot of humor in what Ms. Palin had to say last night.

  3. Heidi Says:

    Gloria Steinem is a serious intellectual, but this doesn’t make her humorless. I think she stretched it pretty thin to find a shred of hope in the message that the Republican party is carrying these days. Way to reach, Gloria.

    My own personal hope is that Republicans will learn to be more accepting and open-minded about what they might otherwise categorize as an unwed, pregnant, teenaged social outcast by having Palin’s daughter shoved in their faces. Then again, shame on McCain for using Palin’s family in this way. Don’t get me wrong – I have no sympathy for Sarah Palin. Look what all that teaching of abstinence got her daughter.

    My final hope is that Republicans will experience a change of heart related to those in society who fall on hard times, have difficulty taking care of themselves, or, God forbid, are born with a birth defect and end up as a drain on society by requiring Federal assistance. Life is precious to the Republicans only as long as people don’t ask for any handouts. We would all be better off without that kind of hypocrisy.

  4. Bill Says:

    Mark ; Technically it would be how some women might feel, and yes it was humorless Regardless thank you for your refreshing burst of anger and hatred

  5. Mark Says:

    Yes, Bill. The minute you start inconveniently pointing out the facts, it becomes “anger and hatred.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: