Although this news bit has escaped much of the mainstream media - except Fox News - the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, Shelly Mandel, endorsed Sarah Palin for vice president at a McCain-Palin rally a short time ago. Mandel, admittedly a lifelong Democrat, has caused a stir within the organization because NOW has formally endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket. Originally founded in 1966 by Betty Friedan and Pauli Murray, NOW is considered the first and one of the most influential organizations of second wave"" feminism that began in the mid 1960s.
In her speech, Mandel admitted that she doesn't agree with Palin on several issues. However, she stated that ""Sarah Palin will fight for women's rights, a woman who will fight for the middle class, and a woman who will - Lord knows - shake things up."" Mandel, however, did not cite any of Palin's credentials, or any specific instances where Palin has stood up for a feminist cause, which leads me to believe that the main basis for her support is the fact that Sarah Palin is a woman. Maybe Mandel didn't mention any of Palin's credentials because Palin actually has no credentials, further evidence that Mandel's support of Palin is only because of her gender.
However, Mandel's questionable support for Sarah Palin brings up deeper issues, such as the meaning of feminism and progress with respect to women's rights. I suppose that some people think a woman in a high position of power (regardless of her positions or credentials) is a sign of social progress and an advancement of the feminist agenda. But how can a candidate chosen as a pawn to get more votes from women really advance the goals of feminism? Personally, I think women should find this offensive. Underlying McCain's choice of Palin is the assumption that women will vote for a woman because she is a woman and not look at the actual positions of these female candidates. This kind of thinking can actually hinder progress for women in this country.
Furthermore, the whole debate over whether Sarah Palin is a feminist or not represents social progress toward equal rights for women and distracts from the real issues about women and feminism. Just because a few women such as Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton can have such influence does not mean that sexism doesn't exist anymore. Many women in this country and all over the world are hindered from social mobility and opportunity because of their gender, not to mention other factors such as race and class divisions that are often intricately linked with sexism. This is not because they have failed to ""pull themselves up by their bootstraps"" adequately. Sexism, nowadays, often takes a more subtle form because of our need to be politically correct (which seriously hinders the deep societal conversations we need to have about social stratification) - but it is still there.
Furthermore, just because a woman is in office does not mean she is going to fight to end gender oppressions. Whether or not Sarah Palin will work and fight to end these oppressions is uncertain, but her actions and ideology suggest that she will not.
Thus, when looking at gender inequalities, it's important to remember that women in politics is not the solution. The real solution lies in social education and policies that seek to end gender oppression.
Karlyn Tjaden is a senior at UW-Madison. Please send responses to opnion@dailycardinal.com.
