Yeah, that gave me a 'huh?' moment as well. I actually spent a minute or two trying to recall whether there had been some unfortunate gaffe recently by a major feminist or organization, and nothing at all came to mind. I think it's been pretty clear that most feminists came out quite quickly with a stance similar to what I've seen here on Feministing: We respect Palin's right to run for office and her right to be treated in a non-sexist manner, but we disagree with much of what she advocates and have refuted the suggestion that she somehow 'stands for women.'

But wow, rigid categories? Like what? I guess if you consider it rigid to believe that the category of 'woman' includes all women, regardless of age, shape, color, size, marital status, sexuality, nationality, religion, political ideology, or adherence to norms of behavior, dress, physicality, or genetics. Yeah, I guess that is a pretty rigid definition of who is allowed to be considered a 'real woman.'

The more accurate statement would be that feminists don't consider Palin a real feminist because she doesn't represent a lick of feminist ideology. Also, as I've heard it put being a woman doesn't make one a feminist... I've never heard anyone, for a single breath, suggest that Palin is not a real woman. What a nutjob... and how the fuck did this get in the NYT? I'm so glad I don't still have a subscription to that rag.

Apologies in advance if my comment showed up twice. I got an error message and hit submit again, but it looks like it showed up right the first time!

I think your response was great courtney, and the comments too... but I don't think he heard any of us. I feel that nobody is hearing us! and we need to get heard right now. Not just for ourselves but for those women who are heard even less than us.

Wendy Doniger in the Washington Post:

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman".

While you could cavil that this sentence doesn't include the word real, I don't think it takes a great leap to get from what Doniger said to what Brooks said.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/wendy_doniger/2008/09/all_beliefs_welcome_unless_the.html

So one woman making a statement that could be construed as "she's not a real woman" = feminists saying she's not a real woman. Generalize much, Brooks?

Cintra Wilson, Salon:

"Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain't no woman."

Not sure what that even means but another thing Brooks probably had in mind.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/10/palin_feminism/index.html

This is silly. If she is not a woman then what the hell is she? What is a "real" woman anyway? There are many closed- minded individuals(feminists are not included) in this country and in other countries who wants us to believe that a woman is not a "real" woman until she has children or until she marries or judge her on her femininity.If we are to believe these individuals, which I doubt are feminists, then Sarah Palin is one of the "realist" women I know. Since all the women and men I know do not judge a woman's worth or "realness" in terms of children or looks or whether she is married,then I can honestly say that I have no idea who the hell David Brooks is talking about.

RTotale,
thanks for the heads ups... i hadn't read either of those articles and i think questioning Palin's womanness just by virtue of her being an anti-woman reactionary is a terrible idea, especially in light of the points that penny rose brought up.
enough people who agree with Palin's policy points question how "real" men and women are that we can leave that to them and there will be quite enough insecurity to go around.
we should just stick to point out how, clearly and unequivocally, Sarah Palin is not a feminist, is not fiscally responsible, and will not be good for our country, regardless of one's "values."

that said, for Brooks' summary of feminists' views of Palin to be hinged on one-off comments of a couple of writers with more vitriol than is really necessary is not only too reductive, it's absurdly inaccurate.

As RTotale shows, Brooks’ charge was not a wholesale fabrication. I’d also say, generally speaking, anyone who doesn’t hew to a left-wing economic policy is denounced on this site as wrong, out of line and not worthy of serious consideration. It doesn’t take much of a leap to imagine this is what Brooks had in mind when he wrote that line.

I think the plan here is to make people who already hate feminists to get more angry at us and then vote for McCain/Palin out of spite.

Spite is powerful stuff, man.

It is not about being a real woman whatever that is for me it is that Palin is not a woman who cares about the rights and choices of other women. I have seen some random articles that have made that comment, but seriously as Morgan La Fey says "Generalize Much?"

"Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."

-Wendy Doniger

There was a debate about academic freedom based on this quote this morning on Fox and Friends that pit the "Spokesman" for Young America's Foundation Jason Mattera against Erica Williams, the director of policy and advocacy at Campus Progress.

Just for fun, I should also add that while making the (correct) argument that feminists don't have the right to re-assign someone's gender because she doesn't believe the same things we do, Mattera made sure to call out the "she-hims in women's studies departments.

That's right. No one has the right to re-assign Palin's gender because she's not a feminist, but he can call feminists in women's studies departments "she-hims" because they don't agree with him.

I have to give them credit, conservatives have a special way of undermining the points they are making while they are making them.

I was listening to Talk of the Nation yesterday on NPR. Somehow, my frustration level must have knocked out the internet in the whole neighborhood, because somehow I was not able to email or blog during the entire show, and when I called the provider to find out why, apparently our whole area was experiencing some mysterious outage.

Anyhoo....
The show was on Feminism and Sarah Palin. An attempt at a balanced guest pool included an "independent" libertarian journalist who loves Palin, the executive director of the Women of Color Network, and a Republican woman who also loves Palin.

Beth Tweedle, the Republican, repeatedly gave her reason as supporting Palin as that she was a "real" woman. She must have used the argument that she was "real" and the only "real" person on the ballot ad nauseum. It was the only argument that I heard her give to support her. I found it confusing and ridiculous, frankly. Are the other candidates robots? Clones?

I have not heard the same argument coming from feminists.

I had to look-up the "anxiously" part of "anxiously masculine men" and conclude that the insinuation is that Brooks is worried about his own manliness (whatever the fukk that is). Yes, it is rather goofy that Brooks tried to create a corollary to "real man" when no such concept exists. Of course the slur "real man" does exist and is routinely used by women as a shaming tactic to manipulate straight men and by straight men (generally poor and uneducated) as an insult toward men who do not fit social norms or as a hackneyed anti-intellectual ridicule. Granted Brooks is an idiot but it's rather tedious to read gender-slurs in any context.

I get the point you're making, Courtney, and generally agree with it.

But I'd say that this isn't really true:

"Most women don't insult other women by calling into question whether they are "real."

It happens ALL the time for transwomen.

I'm not trying to derail your whole post, and I know you're talking about Sarah Palin and election politics here, but I just thought it was important to point out. I'd totally agree with the sentence if it said:

"Most [cis]women don't insult other [cis]women by calling into question whether they are "real."