Ross Douthat pretends to understand feminism

Image via Wikipedia

Normally I’d stray from critiquing a column in which the New York Times’ Ross Douthat attempts to examine feminism, because honestly, where would one start? We’re talking about a guy who, despite being by far the youngest in the venerable paper’s stable of op-ed writers, is also its most prudish, often expressing no less than shock that women could possibly enjoy sex outside of marriage. But you see, he went and quoted yours truly, which makes me feel compelled to respond.

I don’t think I necessarily disagree with Douthat in his ultimate conclusion (excluding his condescending description of feminism as being chained to the “prejudices of American liberalism”): that the candidacies and successes of female politicians – conservative and liberal – are “not a setback for the women’s movement, but a happy consequence of its victories.” In fact, in the first several drafts of the piece of mine Douthat quotes, I wrapped things up saying: “While both Fiorina and Boxer will undoubtedly make appeals for the female vote, that they’re both powerful, recognizable and accomplished means that the fact that they’re women will seem decidedly less remarkable – and that’s a win for women in itself.”

Douthat seems to mistake feminists not necessarily thinking conservative women advance feminism with feminists not wanting conservative women to run at all. Any race is going to include at least one candidate with which people identify and support less. Those candidates might as well be women – no one is arguing otherwise. But feminism doesn’t mean simply voting for the candidate with two X chromosomes any more than it means voting for a gaffe-prone, hip-hop-reference-littering black man as a way to advance the black agenda.

Similarly laughable is Douthat’s characterization of “the peculiar left-wing misogyny that greeted Palin’s candidacy.” Can we dispel this notion once and for all? Again, Douthat assumes that Palin, by virtue of having ovaries, should have been deserving of feminists’ support – this despite backing decidedly anti-woman policies (in Palin’s world, it’s not enough that a woman should be stripped of her right to choose – she should be forced to carry her rapist’s baby to term). A woman billed as a pit bull with lipstick – and with the same qualifications as one.

Douthat forgets that virtually every statement of outrage over Palin’s ascendancy also included questions like “Why wasn’t is Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe?” – references to women who feminists might not necessarily vote for but who could actually be counted on to name a Founding Father when asked.

No, the left’s continued rejection of Palin, and its ongoing contemplation of whether candidates like Nikki Haley or Carly Fiorina can be considered feminists, is an affirmation of the fact that women are smart enough to recognize what Gloria Steinem called “the difference between form and content.”