In response to charges of sexism against feminist activists from the right-wing media (what alternate universe have we wandered into?), Ann over at feministing writes:

The real sexism against Palin . . . has been the flip-side of the sexism against Hillary Clinton. A sadly perfect illustration of the Catch-22 women face. You’re either a scary, ugly, old, mannish harpy. Or a ditzy, perky, fuckable bimbo. . . The sexist remarks about Clinton and Palin are like our hate mail (“you ugly man-hater!” followed by “gimme a blow job!”) writ large.

Rebecca Hyman, writing at AlterNet, expands on these same themes:

It’s obvious that the caricature of Palin to which we’re being exposed is the inverse of the caricature of Hillary Clinton. Even if you’d missed the first half of the campaign, all you’d have to do is flip the script. If Palin is “better suited to be a calendar model for a local auto body shop than a holder of the second-highest office in the land,” then Clinton is a dumpy, frigid, post-menopausal, castrating bluestocking who only got women’s votes because she was a victim of her husband’s indiscriminate — but hell, with that kind of wife? — sexual transgressions. At least the Right gets the “sexy librarian”; those of us on the other side are stuck with the saccharine Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits.

There are many reasons to be against McCain/Palin as the presidential ticket — not the least of which is their own sexist politics — but I’m proud that feminist writers are insisting on a more nuanced understanding of how sexism is playing out in this race, and how all women — Sarah Palin included! — are judged according to narrow, gender-based stereotypes.

From Rebecca Traister over at Salon.com:

The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin’s candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.

I’m torn between terror that she’s got it right and thankfulness that so many feminist writers and activists are speaking out on behalf of a feminist ethic that encompasses all women’s human rights. Go read the whole thing.

From this week’s RhReality Podcast, hosted by Amanda Marcotte:

I can’t reiterate enough—every single person declaring that the Palin family deserves privacy on this needs to answer for the privacy of all other women in this country. Do I have privacy? Do I get a right to make my own decisions about my body away from the prying eyes and grabby hands of right wingers? Anyone who supports restrictions on women’s access to birth control and abortion has forsaken the right to hide behind privacy on this. I’m sorry, but that’s how it is. Anything short of that is saying that people in power have privacy and rights, but the rest of us don’t, which is un-American.

I really have nothing more to add, except go listen to the podcast, which is excellent as always.

There’s so much great stuff out on the ‘net being written about Sarah Palin and her stance on issues important to feminist activists that I can’t hope to link them all here. But I can’t resist posting a note on this column from the ever-insightful Dahlia Lithwick of Slate on republicans and the illusion of reproductive choice. I think it’s important to respect Bristol Palin’s personal privacy when it comes to her pregnancy, but as many feminist writers have been pointing out, it’s a personal privacy that the Republicans don’t want any other woman to have. That’s what makes the Palin’s family decisions worthy of political attention.