I admit when I first heard that the Republican vice president nominee was a woman, my interest was piqued. This was for two reasons, one that the Republicans have notoriously been stereotyped as misogynists and secondly that a woman had once more been brought to the top tier of the American political scene. However minutes after my first reaction, the realization sank in that this was a very political move. Firstly as McCain himself said, if he picked Joseph Lieberman who was one of the front runners, the Republican delegates would have walked on out him. Secondly, the hopes of (misguided) feminist America had been brought up when Hillary Clinton was in the running for the Democratic nominee. Feminists everywhere were saying that 2008 was their year – their year to finally prove that they were politically capable. When Clinton dropped out however, so did their hopes. By choosing Palin as a vice president, McCain knew that he would no doubt be able to pick up votes from the dissatisfied Feminists. Essentially picking Palin was a political move and nothing more.

I now turn to the brouhaha that has been brought up in the wake of Palin’s nomination. As expected rather pessimistically by me, women are essentially emotional creatures. I’m not saying that there is something wrong with being emotional because I certainly am – but the responses that most women have shown seem to lack any semblance of reason. Is this not then playing into the hands of misogynists by fulfilling a stereotype?

In today’s Today (6-7 September 2008) on page 24, there are two commentary pieces written by women on Palin’s nomination. The first one is purely emotional, written I believe by a reporter. The piece goes on to talk about Palin’s life, how she eloped with her husband and she raised her kids – therefore the writer sympathises with her AND THEREFORE SHE IS A GOOD LEADER. I kid you not. Nothing is said about Palin’s political stance or actions while in office (don’t forget that for someone running on an anti-corruption platform, she has done some dodgy things while in office).

The second piece was written by Constance Singam of Aware. She managed to live up to he organisation’s name by actually coming across as more aware of the issues at hand (Oh God I finally succumbed to making a pun). She mentions Palin’s anti abortion stance and even goes on to call her as a “role model…for pre-feminist days”. However at it’s very core the article expounds again largely on Palin’s personal life, even going so far as to call her a “superwoman”.

How how women? Mend your speech a little, lest you mar the fortunes of all womenkind. By turning Palin’s nomination into a feminist issue, are you not throwing us one step back? Yes, women have come a long way. We’re had Thatcher, Merkel, Wu Yi as examples of exemplary female political leaders, then we have the dodgy such as Megawati and Arroyo. So yes, women have already proven their ability at running a political office. So why then is putting a woman into the White House such a big issue?

By turning Palin’s nomination into some huge feminist issue “OMG SHE’S A WOMAN THEREFORE WE SHOULD SEE THAT SHE GETS INTO THE WHITE HOUSE”, are we not forgetting that fact that the main argument we’ve had for years is that Women Are Every Bit As Good As Men? If Palin is really as good as political candidate, should we not see to it that she if elected on the basis of her merit as a political leader instead of simply her being a female candidate? If a woman is elected based on her gender, we have already lost the argument because women need to trumpet their gender in order to be elected. It is only when a woman is given a prestigious position based on her own ability that females all around are able to say “We are every bit as good as men”.

Furthermore by espousing largely on Palin’s personal life, these women writers are shooting themselves in the foot. Yes she might have had an interesting life, eloping with her husband when she discovered she was 1 month pregnant to giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome, but how is this remotely relevant to how she is going to behave politically? Governing one’s home is vastly different from that of political office – sure you can argue that they all require good foresight and excellent multi tasking skills, but at the end of the day knowing the best places to do your marketing doesn’t equate to knowledge about fiscal and monetary policies. If someone is going to be having a big hand in running a very large and important country, don’t you think it is more important to look at her political record rather than simply talking about her background? In this aspect dear women writers, you have failed.

Lastly and more importantly the significance of having a woman nominated to the White House is that it is a triumph for women because the glass ceiling of the highest office one could ever aspire to be has been broken. Thus hails a new era of women rising to the top without being oppressed by sexism and sexual harassment with freedom and equality for all. Wonderful. Now only if that would actually come true if Palin made it to the top. Instead women would be sent back to the ‘dark ages’ where our lives would once more be dictated by our bodies.

The whole debate about abortion stems from the fact that some people consider a fetus an already living thing, therefore killing the fetus is tantamount to murder. Others however believe that the fetus is not a living being, therefore abortion is acceptable. Now I’m going to put my neck on the line here a little and express my own personal view: I do not believe in abortion but I believe in a woman being allowed to make her own choice.

My reasoning for this is that in the event of a rape, a woman would be further psychologically traumatized if she has to bear the child to term. Furthermore if a mother is unable to care for her child, then the child is worse off for being born. I do not quite accept adoption as a viable alternative because simply there are always more orphans than wannabe adoptees – there are bound to be children that remains orphans their entire lives. Therefore I believe in the woman being allowed to make a choice. If Palin was elected to the government, people who do not believe that life begins at conception will be forced to conform to something they do not wish to. Young girls who have made mistakes will be forever forced to live with them, their lives irrevocably altered. Couples who are struggling to earn a living will be further weighted down with an additional burden. Furthermore since the argument against abortion has its roots in Christianity, I will go so far as to say it is a deliberate imposition of one’s religious beliefs on another. So much for America being a secular state.

That dear women, is why I thoroughly refuse to even conceive the day they Palin enters the White House to take a Vice Presidential position. Not only will feminism take a step back because she’s been voted for the wrong reasons, it will forever be flung headlong into the dark ages where women would be mere birthing vectors once more.