The use of the word "feminist" in reference to Palin has gotten so out of hand that even uber-conservative Kathleen Parker of the National Review, a woman who calls the mainstream feminist movement the "hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood," admits that "to express reservations about [Palin's] qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman." As I've noted before, questioning Sarah Palin's "feminism" is a losing battle, because she probably thinks she is one.

The dictionary definition of feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men," and in her own fractured way, I'm sure Palin believes she upholds this doctrine. And many many people believe that the fight for equality has already been reached, and we're in a "post-feminist" era — to which Gloria Steinem says, "I’ll know that we’re getting someplace when I go into Central Park and see white men wheeling babies of color and getting well paid for it. There is no postfeminism—it’s like saying 'post-democracy'!" Feminism has been declared over by some, its meaning co-opted by pretty much anyone with the proper genetic equipment, regardless of their actions or actual beliefs. The word itself is so maligned and misinterpreted that it's almost ceased to mean anything at all, and many women, particularly women of color, feel abandoned and ignored by the mainstream feminist movement. So perhaps instead of declaring the feminist movement dead, or pretending its goals have been accomplished, maybe it's time for a new word entirely and a more precise definition.

The word would include the notion that being pro-female does not just mean benefiting from the feminist movement, as Sarah Palin undeniably has. As Katha Pollitt notes in the Guardian today, "The glass ceiling is the invisible barrier of gender prejudice that prevents women, as a class, from rising to the level that their qualifications and abilities merit – the level they would reach if they were men…As has been known to happen in less exalted workplaces, Palin got the promotion because the boss just liked her. She will do no more to shatter the glass ceiling for other women as a group than such women usually do." The new word could be for women who actively promote the advancement of the interests of other women, not just the narcissistic advancement of themselves. I don't have any great branding ideas for the new movement's name — "womanist" is already taken and it sounds painfully retro; "community organizer" is also unfortunately taken. What about wombanist? Hmm, that sounds too close to wombat. Cuntrarians? Catchy, but the MSM probably won't print it. If you have any clever names for the new movement, we're all ears.

In Conversation: Gloria Steinem and Suheir Hammad [NYM]
The End Of Meritocracy [Guardian]
Palin Problem [National Review]

Earlier: Sarah Palin's Feminism Is Irrelevant To Her Irresponsible Record
Sarah Palin: Feminist? Victim Of Sexist Smears? Or All Or None Of The Above?

Pogrebin articulates what a lot of old-tyme feminists seem to be feeling, but the most interesting thing about the PBS clip is how all mothers are annoying in the exact same way. Abigail, who somewhat absurdly claims that she has never ever experienced sexism, is very staunchly for Obama despite her mother's protestations. After her mom says she's "hurt" by the fact that Abgail won't, "when push comes to shove...vote for a woman!" Abigail whines back, "I'm not changing my mind, mom. MOMMY!"

Mommy indeed! Gloria Steinem, another co-founder of Ms., was also on the public airwaves, but with NPR. She basically rehashed her now-infamous New York Times op-ed "Women Are Never Front-Runners," but adds that she thinks racism and sexism are deeply intertwined, and that "they can only be uprooted together." She says that "much of the media is ranking [racism and sexism] rather than linking them," but Steinem can't help herself. She then mentions that African-American presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm "thought it was more difficult being a woman in her political life than being an African American, but that can only be judged by the individual."

I know we've talked a lot about how older women are voting for Hillary on this site because of the good fight they waged against sexism in the 60s and 70s. I don't think that the former indignities they suffered are a valid reason to vote for any candidate, but hearing Abigail Pogrebin say that she has never encountered sexism makes me wonder if we do take the women's rights movement of the 60s and 70s for granted. Letty Pogrebin said on PBS, "Racism is mutable, it can change with class. If you look at Barack Obama or Colin Powell...color drains when class rises. Sexism is immutable. If a man has a sense of what women should be doing, it's really hard to break that up. Even if he has a very accomplished daughter." It's not even a question about what's worse, racism or sexism. It's about acknowledging that sexism still exists. Have we stopped fighting a battle we didn't win?

One Family's Split Decision [PBS, via Feministing]
Gloria Steinem On Gender, Race In Election 2008 [NPR]

Gloria goes on:

Sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects "only" the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more "masculine" for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren't too many of them).

Steinem also posits that the younger generations might be failing to see what she terms the "sexual caste system," (i.e., the idea that women are always considered inferior to/ taken less seriously than men) while "Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age."

U.S. News & World Report also believes that the failure of young women to support Hillary in Iowa might signify a " decline, or perhaps the maturation, of American feminism." Because our generation was not constricted by the shackles of domesticity like our mothers' generation, U.S. News senior writer Michael Barone says, we don't "feel a need to be liberated from restraints that were never urged" on us, and therefore don't feel "transfixed" by a female running for President.

I "feel" like that argument is tenuous at best, because I would hope that our feminist foremothers thought about what a candidate's politics were instead of just voting based on gender lines. All the same, do you think the younger generation is ignoring Hillary because they think sexism no longer exists?

Women Are Never Front-Runners [New York Times]
Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton [U.S. News & World Report]

Earlier: Moe: "It's Not Crying If There's No SNOT." Megan: "No, I Cried Without Snot At American Pie!"