I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I suppose it bears repeating: Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are not feminists. They just aren’t. It seems simple, so why are we still confused?
Some may blame women like Naomi Wolf. On August 11th, the Globe and Mail published an article by Wolf with the eye-catching title “Reactionaries are Feminists, Too”. In it, Wolf describes the resurgence of a ‘historically overlooked’ thread of feminist politics, rooted in libertarian, neoliberal values. Palin and Bachmann, Wolf argues, are the heroines of this other, equally valid form of right-wing feminism that women in America have been aching for—one that must be taken seriously as a legitimate expression of feminist struggle:
The core of feminism is individual choice and freedom, and it is these strains that are being sounded now more by the Tea Party movement than by the left. But, apart from these sound bites, there is a powerful constituency of right-wing women in Britain and Western Europe, as well as in America, who do not see their values reflected in collectivist social-policy prescriptions or gender quotas. They prefer what they see as the rugged individualism of free-market forces, a level capitalist playing field, and a weak state that does not impinge on their personal choices.
What Wolf describes is an unfortunate misreading (ie. fabrication) of feminist struggle that disregards the historical roots and intersectionality of contemporary feminist politics. I’ll refer here to a response by a Feminsiting blogger for a more detailed explanation of how Wolf’s argument represents “one of the worst, most de-politicized takes on feminism out there.” Yes, agreed, Wolf’s is a take on feminism; but it’s also a dangerous manipulation of feminist history. Certainly Wolf isn’t so naïve as to confuse Palin and Bachmann’s women-oriented rhetoric with their patriarchal agenda. But folding such figures into feminism’s long and rich history excuses far more than explains—it does not make these women feminists.
Case closed, right? But here’s where Wolf’s last point gets me: if we aren’t listening, what happens to all those women who are? There is nothing to suggest that closing our eyes to this mutant strain of feminism is going to keep it from growing as we near 2012. It does not mean that women like Palin are going to stop manipulating history and hijacking feminist discourse to promote the agenda of patriarchal individualism, or that women like Wolf are going to stop manufacturing the validity of their claims.
It’s scary, or at least really annoying, but maybe we need to start listening to these ladies. If 2008 taught us anything about Sarah Palin, it’s that ignoring her does not make her go away. Discarding these interpretations of feminism does not change the fact that they are allied with the fervent populist demagoguery that continues to win freedom-loving hearts in the run-up to 2012.
Valid or not, refusal to engage with the potential strength of the “right-wing feminist” monster risks further legitimizing right-wing politics in a way that could do serious damage to longstanding feminist, anti-racist, and anti-imperialist struggles. Does this mean admitting that Sarah Palin is a feminist? If it does, I’m not there yet. But as a woman concerned with a deeply historical, collective, and intersectional struggle, I’ll start by at least taking Naomi Wolf seriously when she says “we ignore the wide appeal of right-wing feminism at our peril.”
