Cathy Young has an attempted feminist defense of Sarah Palin (endorsed, naturally, by Ann Althouse.) The fundamental problem with the argument is that there's no inherent value to having lots of people call themselves feminists, per se. The point is to get people to endorse feminist principles, and on this count Palin's record is utterly dismal, at least the way most people would define feminism.
Young and Althouse are welcome to try to argue that feminism can encompass forcing (poor) women to carry pregnancies to term, imposing a effective tax on rape victims and interpreting laws in ways that make it easier for businesses to pay women less for the same work (even if your interpretation is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the statute and not compelled by its language). But somehow I'm guessing most feminists aren't going to find the Palin vision of feminist policy very attractive.
It's also unclear in what way the pork-begging, culturally reactionary Palin in any way represents "can-do" feminism free from government assistance, as Young claims. Is it perhaps the substantial per diem she gets from the government to help her feed her family at home? Does it only count as government support if you aren't already affluent?
--Scott Lemieux
