The same day Senator John McCain announced his selection of Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President, NOW issued a press release entitled, “Not Every Woman Supports Women’s Rights.” The press release announced that NOW opposed Palin, “The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.”
NOW publicly opposed Palin because her positions supposedly did not speak for women, and endorsed Senator Joe Biden because he “…is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.” The press release flatly denied that NOW supports women candidates solely because they are women.
NOW’s position on Palin’s nomination implies that NOW supports candidates based on whether they “speak for women” and represent feminist policy positions, regardless of sex. Yet, the feminist critique of Obama’s Cabinet based totally on the sex of his nominees contradicts this position and advances sex parity.
As Obama announced his final Cabinet picks, feminist groups quickly dropped the rhetoric of wanting candidates “who speak for women” in support of sex quotas. They want ten women in Obama’s Cabinet. With the exception of the selection of Lawrence Summers, these liberal women’s groups criticize Obama’s nominees just because they are men, not because of their policy positions. Policy agreement is not enough.
Having lost the Cabinet battle, NOW and the Feminist Majority wrote a letter to Obama asking him to create a Cabinet-level White House Office on Women, and twenty other women’s organizations have signed a petition calling on Obama to create a Presidential Commission on Women.
Which is it? Either feminists support sex parity in higher office in which case they should have backed Palin or they support candidates who represent their policy preferences in which case they should evaluate the policy positions of Obama’s Cabinet selections. It would benefit the integrity of their movement to take a consistent position.