Track Mangoes

Sarah Palin is a talented politician whose moment has not yet come; that she holds views completely opposed to mine is irrelevant.

If one defines feminism as the liberal dogma, spoon-fed to academics, then no, Palin is a not a “feminist” in that sense of the word. Palin’s contribution to feminism comes from her ability to destabilize those firmly held convictions so characteristic of the liberal feminist establishment. I discuss this contribution, for this reason, in terms of “persona”; it has more to do with American sexual symbolism than it does with policy reform.

My first article, published in the Sept. 26th edition of the Mac Weekly, suggested that those who cannot see the nuance of the Palin nom are trapped in their own narrow parochialism. Unfortunately, I did little to define the parameters of such parochialism.

I could care less if Palin is a “feminist." I am more interested in examining the implications of mainstream feminism (MF) for those exiled from it. Using the Palin nom to elucidate this, I’ve learned, is pointless at Mac. (Most liberals can’t see past their own pigheaded political stalwartness.) So, instead of asking why MF has abandoned Palin, let me ask my largely liberal audience why MF has abandoned Michelle Obama, an/Other dissident of sorts.

How does one reconcile the storm of press following Hilary’s “Iron My Shirt” fiasco, and the silence from the press when the LA times “honored” Obama with a column about her "politics of fashion," a slide show of her in 10 different outfits, and a poll inquiring whether she’s too frumpy, matronly, flawless, or sexy?

MF’s silence in matters Obama indicates its preoccupation with the freedom of rich, white, liberal, women. (However, this isn’t surprising: MF has never cared about race struggle. In the seventies MF urged white women to get out of the kitchen and into the workforce, thereby disregarding the women of color already in the workforce, who did not see labor as a means of liberation.)

MF turned its back on Obama for the same reason it turned its back on Palin: it does not perfectly mesh with any persona that directly challenges it. Any body-politic that casts a light on the holes inherant in MF must be, as it were, squealched or extinguished, or in some cases, simply ignored.

Why is it permissable, I ask, to perpetuate sexist norms against the Palin nom (read sexy bikini pictures) through aggressive attack and passive defense? It is, it would seem, because we are well meaning liberals with "good hearts" who mean no harm but in jest have fun. When progressive cultural figures, like Margaret Cho, reduce Palin to her fuckability (or lack thereof), MF remains silent in defense but asks the quesiton "why can't you take a joke?"

Sexism functions on a more superficial level and is more easily rooted out than most feminists would have you belive. Most feminst assertions of male-hegemony's war against women is rooted in Freudian and post-Freudian psychoanalysis, two disciplines which have since been largely discredited. For liberals, hegemony exists on a liquid level of irreducible semioticity. For conservatives, it surfaces through tropic inter-species companion exchange. One's too broad the other's too narrow. However, the particular neurotic tendancy of liberals to see ills everywhere (coercion, coercion everywhere but not a drop to drink) does discountenance to the kind of agency that is, ironically, afforded to the statist right.

Only an outsider has enough perspective to expose establishment-dogma for what it is. Real reform begins on the outside too. Mormonism, for example, has long been seen as misogynistic when it was the almost exclusively the Mormon Utah territory that pioneered women’s suffrage nearly half a century before east coast elites.

The first woman who makes it to the presidency will not be a liberal-feminist, but a feminist who can synthesize liberal-conservative polarities, as well as masculine-feminine personae. Women like Gloria Stienem, Susan Faludi, Noami Wolf, and the Clinton’s Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, have failed to provide practical personae for the presidency. More tenable presidential personae models come from intelligent conservative women like Ann Richards and Janet Reno.

While mannerisms alone do not a VP make, we ought to be looking at conservative women like Palin to understand what the new face of feminism will look like, not to understand what the new face of feminism is. Palin’s moose-shootin’ persona, like that of her baby cradling husband, evidences an unequivocally huge step forward in American sexual symbolism.

Should we, for Palin, forgo the scrutiny we apply to any cultural figure? Of course not. But we shouldn’t deny that Palin has contributed something to feminism. What that something is I cannot entirely say. She has shown a brand-new way of defining female ambition without losing femininity, spontaneity or humor. Who’s to say that won’t affect future feminisms?