A Woman Liberated
I have been reading a lot of articles, blogs, and comments about John McCain's choice for VP, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
And while I, like many Americans, know little about Governor Palin, one of the more laughable angles, to me, is the proposition that the choice of Governor Palin as a running mate is a bald attempt by McCain to "reach out" to women voters who were in Hillary Clinton's camp.
It is ironic that feminists, many of whom supported Senator Clinton, should express outrage by drawing the conclusion that Governor Palin's sole qualification is her sex.
By inferring the insult, they insult themselves, because their assumption amounts to a declaration that sex is the most important, if not only, criterion for Senator McCain's choice--as well as their own.
If they respected their supposed non-sexist principles, they would measure these candidates on a more objective scale.
Because while Governor Palin's sex certainly is important, it matters for an entirely different reason than they propose.
Governor Palin represents a new generation of American women.
And she rightly gives credit to women who have pioneered the political frontier, as evidenced by her respectful nod to Senator Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro in her initial speech.
But Governor Palin's appeal is quite unlike Mrs.
Clinton's, and strikes a completely different chord of American womanhood.
Because for all Governor Palin's relative inexperience in the national political spotlight, the experience she does have, unlike Senator Clinton's, she earned entirely on her own.
Governor Palin was the mayor of a little town, and then ran for and became the Governor of Alaska.
Senator Clinton was .
.
.
mayor of nowhere, and Governor of nothing.
Her husband was Governor of Arkansas (hardly a pivotal state, politically), and then he became the President of the United States.
And in 1992, Bill Clinton, a youthful 46 years old, could hardly have laid claim to foreign policy or military experience.
Hmmm.
That seems to make the sneering criticism of Governor Palin's "inexperience" (as a VP running mate, mind you) sound a little .
.
.
sexist.
I mean, it wasn't until 2000 that Hillary Clinton was elected to any public office.
I do not mean to belittle Senator Clinton, whose accomplishments and qualifications are many, but instead to draw a comparison between her and Governor Palin.
Had Senator Clinton chosen another path earlier in life, she may have gone on to be a great political star; she certainly seemed to have the initiative and intellect for such a life.
But she did not pursue that path.
Instead, she chose a more private career until her husband's prominence and success catapulted her own political aspirations into high gear.
Don't kid yourself: Mrs.
Clinton would not now be a Senator from New York, and she would never have made such a respectable run at the democratic nomination, had she not first been the First Lady.
Which make Governor Palin's political accomplishments at her youthful age remarkable, whatever your political views, and it is a mistake to dismiss her.
Not only is Governor Palin's husband not a fellow politician, he is not even a registered Republican.
Everything she has achieved politically, she has accomplished on her own initiative, with confidence, guts, and tenacity.
And this, while having five children, and married to a man with his own interests and his own career.
It is apparent, then, that feminists disparage Governor Palin because they still believe that "women's liberation" means shunning marriage and children in the interest of beating men at their own game, and adopting the attitude that all traditional roles for women--"staying home and baking cookies," as it were--are somehow beneath them.
Indeed, many feminists seriously contend that marriage amounts to enslavement and that children are a burden that may be cast off capriciously.
But Governor Palin and women like her have rejected that notion, and embraced a more complete concept of womanhood: being a wife, being a mother, being feminine, yet still using their minds and talents to pursue and achieve whatever goals they aspire to.
In this sense, Governor Palin is truly "liberated": free to accept or reject those roles, duties, and interests that suit her personally, and free to adopt and espouse her own opinions, without reference to what someone else thinks women ought to be.
In short, Governor Palin is a portrait of American womanhood suited for the 21st century: independent-minded, unencumbered by the pre-packaged stereotypes of either traditionalists or modern feminists, and not intimidated by taking on grave responsibilities or big-name politicos.
That being said, I would sooner subject myself to the leadership of someone like her--independent, self-assured, confident--than to that of a bunch of Washington insiders and lifelong politicians who do not know where their own opinions start and their polling data ends.
For the record, "experience," by itself, is no guarantee of capable leadership.
The ability to lead is a quality, not an entitlement.
So while we have yet to learn more about Governor Palin, so far, I don't think the objections to her, qua woman, are particularly meaningful.
As for male voters, let's take an objective assessment: Governor Palin is a former beauty pageant runner-up and Miss Congeniality; she can not only cook a mooseburger, but will go out and shoot the moose herself; she is, to all appearances, a loving mother, and a supportive wife who not only has no hang-ups when her husband wants to race snowmobiles or go fishing, but who will actually go with him.
Are you kidding?!McCain didn't pick Governor Palin to appeal to women voters, he was targeting men.
Most men I know would follow a woman like that anywhere.
By: Anne Hayes, Copyright 2008
And while I, like many Americans, know little about Governor Palin, one of the more laughable angles, to me, is the proposition that the choice of Governor Palin as a running mate is a bald attempt by McCain to "reach out" to women voters who were in Hillary Clinton's camp.
It is ironic that feminists, many of whom supported Senator Clinton, should express outrage by drawing the conclusion that Governor Palin's sole qualification is her sex.
By inferring the insult, they insult themselves, because their assumption amounts to a declaration that sex is the most important, if not only, criterion for Senator McCain's choice--as well as their own.
If they respected their supposed non-sexist principles, they would measure these candidates on a more objective scale.
Because while Governor Palin's sex certainly is important, it matters for an entirely different reason than they propose.
Governor Palin represents a new generation of American women.
And she rightly gives credit to women who have pioneered the political frontier, as evidenced by her respectful nod to Senator Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro in her initial speech.
But Governor Palin's appeal is quite unlike Mrs.
Clinton's, and strikes a completely different chord of American womanhood.
Because for all Governor Palin's relative inexperience in the national political spotlight, the experience she does have, unlike Senator Clinton's, she earned entirely on her own.
Governor Palin was the mayor of a little town, and then ran for and became the Governor of Alaska.
Senator Clinton was .
.
.
mayor of nowhere, and Governor of nothing.
Her husband was Governor of Arkansas (hardly a pivotal state, politically), and then he became the President of the United States.
And in 1992, Bill Clinton, a youthful 46 years old, could hardly have laid claim to foreign policy or military experience.
Hmmm.
That seems to make the sneering criticism of Governor Palin's "inexperience" (as a VP running mate, mind you) sound a little .
.
.
sexist.
I mean, it wasn't until 2000 that Hillary Clinton was elected to any public office.
I do not mean to belittle Senator Clinton, whose accomplishments and qualifications are many, but instead to draw a comparison between her and Governor Palin.
Had Senator Clinton chosen another path earlier in life, she may have gone on to be a great political star; she certainly seemed to have the initiative and intellect for such a life.
But she did not pursue that path.
Instead, she chose a more private career until her husband's prominence and success catapulted her own political aspirations into high gear.
Don't kid yourself: Mrs.
Clinton would not now be a Senator from New York, and she would never have made such a respectable run at the democratic nomination, had she not first been the First Lady.
Which make Governor Palin's political accomplishments at her youthful age remarkable, whatever your political views, and it is a mistake to dismiss her.
Not only is Governor Palin's husband not a fellow politician, he is not even a registered Republican.
Everything she has achieved politically, she has accomplished on her own initiative, with confidence, guts, and tenacity.
And this, while having five children, and married to a man with his own interests and his own career.
It is apparent, then, that feminists disparage Governor Palin because they still believe that "women's liberation" means shunning marriage and children in the interest of beating men at their own game, and adopting the attitude that all traditional roles for women--"staying home and baking cookies," as it were--are somehow beneath them.
Indeed, many feminists seriously contend that marriage amounts to enslavement and that children are a burden that may be cast off capriciously.
But Governor Palin and women like her have rejected that notion, and embraced a more complete concept of womanhood: being a wife, being a mother, being feminine, yet still using their minds and talents to pursue and achieve whatever goals they aspire to.
In this sense, Governor Palin is truly "liberated": free to accept or reject those roles, duties, and interests that suit her personally, and free to adopt and espouse her own opinions, without reference to what someone else thinks women ought to be.
In short, Governor Palin is a portrait of American womanhood suited for the 21st century: independent-minded, unencumbered by the pre-packaged stereotypes of either traditionalists or modern feminists, and not intimidated by taking on grave responsibilities or big-name politicos.
That being said, I would sooner subject myself to the leadership of someone like her--independent, self-assured, confident--than to that of a bunch of Washington insiders and lifelong politicians who do not know where their own opinions start and their polling data ends.
For the record, "experience," by itself, is no guarantee of capable leadership.
The ability to lead is a quality, not an entitlement.
So while we have yet to learn more about Governor Palin, so far, I don't think the objections to her, qua woman, are particularly meaningful.
As for male voters, let's take an objective assessment: Governor Palin is a former beauty pageant runner-up and Miss Congeniality; she can not only cook a mooseburger, but will go out and shoot the moose herself; she is, to all appearances, a loving mother, and a supportive wife who not only has no hang-ups when her husband wants to race snowmobiles or go fishing, but who will actually go with him.
Are you kidding?!McCain didn't pick Governor Palin to appeal to women voters, he was targeting men.
Most men I know would follow a woman like that anywhere.
By: Anne Hayes, Copyright 2008
