The XX Factor: What women really think.

Annals of One Smart Cookie

This whole debate about Lafferty's piece in the Daily Beast raises a question for me: Does it matter whether Palin is a feminist or not? Isn't it possible that she could be a net benefit for feminism without being one? I, too, am bothered by Palin's politics on a number of women-related issues, from abortion to abstinence-only sex ed. But before I go to the "she's terrible for feminism" place, I think of two 9-year-old girls I know, and I try to see this from their perspective. This is the first election they're really going to remember. And what they'll remember is that Hillary Clinton very nearly was the Democratic presidential candidate and that Sarah Palin was a dynamic, funny, personable VP candidate. Hopefully, they'll come of age thinking such an accomplishment for women is, if not normal, at least possible. Hopefully, they WON'T remember this campaign as the moment they realized there's a profound double standard for women--namely, that female candidates are criticized with more vigor than male candidates.

The problem that Lafferty doesn't acknowledge, alas, is that all these issues are tied together. It has to be fair for liberal feminists to criticize Palin on the basis of her positions, as Emily points out. At the same time, though, there's plenty of latent sexism tinging the discourse. Lafferty lumps all this together, which doesn't help further the debate. No doubt Palin is smart; but what troubles a lot of voters is whether she's intellectually curious and whether she's open to debate and advice. And as Ann pointed out, deeming a woman a "brainiac" after one plane ride smacks of overcompensation.

What She Doesn't Know Won't Hurt Her

I agree it would be terrible if Sarah Palin, despite being an avid reader of newspapers, really couldn't name a single Supreme Court case besides Roe with which she disagreed.  

But what if she's bluffing?

The woman vehemently criticizing Exxon v. Baker in this footage bares a striking resemblance to Palin and is, in fact, the Alaskan governor herself.  So if Palin chokes tonight and garners pity from the audience, does that mean she's remarkably forgetful, an amnesiac, or, as the prevailing theory suggests, entirely conscious of her sympathy-vote potential? 

Perhaps it is more likely that Palin is choosing not to mention this case to stay on message. In the case of Exxon v. Baker, Palin was pro-plaintiff and ran up against the Republican stance on trial lawyers and "frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America." Either way, she seems to be better at manipulating her audience than we give her credit for. I'm beginning to think that win or lose tonight, Palin will still walk away the victor.