I need to stop focusing on politics because it's making me go crazy, but all this debate about Sarah Palin as VP pick representing a step forward for women (feminism, even) makes me want to speak out.
Personally, I don't think it does. The purpose of feminism is to ensure equality between the sexes. That is, to remove the certain privilege one has by virtue of their gender. We currently live and have only lived in a society where men have the upper hand, but the reverse situation is not the goal. Women are not hoping to "supercede" the reign of man, but to create a level-playing field where their reproductive organs have no bearing on their professional abilities. This is similarly the aim of other civil rights movements focused around race.
With that being said, do you think Sarah Palin would have been chosen for Vice President had she been male? (Of course not!) Given her shortlist of political experience, is there any question about that fact? McCain was obviously pandering to the females when he picked her, but I'm still unsure why he didn't pick a more qualified female senator or governor.
So, even though something GOOD is happening for women (increased political visibility), the female in question is still being reduced to her most base value: her vagina. She isn't being treated like a man. She's getting special treatment precisely BECAUSE she's a woman. Just because her gender is advantageous in this situation doesn't mean it's a "feminist" move. The true point of feminism is gender equality.
And this doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of why her policies are bad for women. I'd rather have a man advancing women's reproductive rights than a woman taking them away. Female does not automatically equal feminist. What do you think?