Holding Conservative “Feminists” Accountable

I recently came across  the following quote from Uma Narayan in her essay, Contesting Cultures: “Westernization,” Respect for Cultures, and Third-World Feminists,”

I have been struck by the fact that it is not only religious fundamentalists who believe they are continuing ‘ancient traditions’ while ignoring the changes they have collaborated in and participated in within their life-times, but women like my mother. My mother’s vision manages to ignore the huge differences between her marriage at twenty-one and her mother’s marriage at thirteen, and sees both her life and mother mother’s as ‘upholding Indian traditions,’ while my life-choices are perceived to constitute a break with and rejection of tradition.

Although Narayan’s words were written in reference to her Indian mother’s resistance to her daughter’s feminist-academic (i.e. “non-traditional”) choices and lifestyle, my mind couldn’t help but conjure up visions of women like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell. If I were to alter Narayan’s words to account for the  attitudes of these women, it would look like the following:

I have been struck by the fact that it is not only male religious fundamentalists who believe they are continuing ‘American and Christian traditions‘ while ignoring the changes they have collaborated in and participated in within their life-times, but women like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell. Their visions manage to ignore the huge differences between the opportunities and rights they have been afforded by second wave feminism and the social, economic and political limitations that were imposed upon the women in the generations prior, and they see both their lives and those of their predecessors as ‘upholding American and Christian traditions,’ while my feminist life-choices are perceived to constitute a break with and rejection of tradition.

Radical-conservative female politicians like Palin and O’Donnell have created a public-relations nightmare for modern feminists. First, although it is fantastic that women are in the position to be considered as legitimate candidates for political office,  women like Palin and O’Donnell aren’t the kind of candidates most feminists would support because of the non-feminist ideologies they espouse. By establishing the claim that it would be “unfeminist” for women not to support female candidates–regardless of an individual candidate’s policies–the conservatives have aimed to position feminists and feminism as an elitist and liberal movement that is out of touch with what the “mama grizzlies” (aka the so-called majority of women) of America want. Second, the appropriation of the term “feminist” by radical-conservative female politicians has led to numerous debates over what “feminism” is and who can legitimately identify her/himself as a “feminist.” This appropriation has served the radical-conservatives well: it has shifted the focus of the campaigns away from the actual histories, ideologies and actions of the conservative candidates and onto “feminism” as a movement and “feminist” an identity. By placing the burden of defining what “feminism” is onto feminists, the Republicans have aimed to distract feminists (and, American society in general) from the real issues at hand by forcing them to debate what “feminism” is amongst themselves. Luckily, most feminists have not fallen into this trap and have maintained their opposition to candidates like Palin and O’Donnell while they simultaneously define and re-define feminism for themselves and others.

Now, back to Narayan. Her quote stood out to me because of both its rhetorical urgency and applicability to the current dilemma faced by conservative female politicians. Palin and O’Donnell garner conservative support because of their so-called “family,” “traditional,” and “American,” values while they simultaneously break from such ideologies through their actions and political aspirations. Had the McCain-Palin ticket won in 2008 it is doubtful that Palin would have been able to provide the same level of emotional support to her family that she did both prior to and during her tenure as governor of Alaska. Moreover, her relationship with Todd, her husband, is non-traditional. From what I can see, Sarah is not overtly subordinate nor submissive to Todd in the Christian/Biblical sense. I also find it hard to believe that her family has not been negatively affected in some way by her quick ascent to political and cultural prominence. Likewise, O’Donnell, if elected, will most likely prove to be out of touch with the values and practices of contemporary mainstream America in her attitudes towards sex education, sex in general, HIV/AIDS prevention, and gay marriage. The kind of legislative action she would support would not protect families, men, women, children or love; instead, she would support policies that would disempower another generation of men and women through her radical anti-sex and anti-LGBTQ policies. Ultimately,  neither Palin nor O’Donnell can claim they are fully adhering to traditional family, Christian or American values.

Most importantly, it is urgent not to forget that neither Palin nor O’Donnell would be in the position they currently occupy if it had not been for the activism, strength, intelligence and “non-traditional values” of second wave feminists. Neither woman has adequately acknowledged the privileges the “non-traditional” second wave has given them. Therefore, I think it is time to start holding them (and all female politicians for that matter) accountable for their relationship to the legacy that has bestowed upon them the right to be considered legitimate candidates for political office. Tough questions about Palin’s, O’Donnell’s and other female politician’s relationship(s) to the legacy of feminist activism need to be asked repeatedly and strongly in public forums. Ultimately, for a conservative female candidate to identify herself a feminist while she simultaneously disidentifies with the beliefs and activism that made her current situation possible is a grave disservice to feminist women who have come before her and the generations of American women yet to come.