I had the opportunity to meet Christine O’Donnell, a tea party favorite and former candidate for the U.S. Senate, after her debate with now-Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) at the University of Delaware in October 2010. I asked her to speak with my newly formed, nonpartisan Women in Politics group on campus. She was very friendly and agreed to speak with us, and then she offered me a couple of very interesting nuggets of information: “Gloria Steinem is one of my biggest heroes!” and “Hillary supporters are some of my biggest supporters!”
Wow, really? I thought. Fascinating.
After this experience and researching the idea of feminism within the binary structure of American political parties, I now know that there is such a thing as so-called “conservative feminism,” and I want to explore this a little bit.
I think it’s fair to credit Sarah Palin, ol’ mama grizzly herself, with making the original conservative candidate move of self-promotion under the feminist label. Though she was not the originator of this idea of conservative feminism, she has certainly been a visible embodiment.
About a year ago Meghan Daum wrote about this for the Los Angeles Times:
After struggling with its definition and connotations, Palin has apparently made peace with the “f-word.” She freely used it in a May 14 [2010] speech for the Susan B. Anthony List, a political-action committee for anti-abortion women congressional candidates. And given Palin’s extraordinary influence in certain circles, you can bet untold numbers of women who might once have never considered it will now be dropping the f-bomb with alacrity.
Daum went on to say that Palin’s use of the “f-bomb”—obviously feminism is the f-bomb we’re talking about—is conditional. Palin is talking about an “emerging, conservative, feminist identity,” not the feminism of Steinem.
I have some thoughts on this reality and its relationship to my experience with O’Donnell.
To begin, I’m elated that this word is not scary to these women and that they are willing to champion the label; however, I will be really disappointed if traditional feminists have to distance ourselves from women who are using the language to win votes — women who very explicitly wish to enact policy that will limit the choices of all women. The women’s rights movement is about extending rights, not taking them away.
So my challenge for these self-proclaimed feminists is to put their money where their mouths are. The women of the American populace, whether they champion the feminist label or not, need more than lip service — we need equality for all women, conservative and liberal alike, and we need to move forward, not backward, ladies.
This post was written by National Student Advisory Council member Meghan Wallace.
AAUW Dialog 
The women’s rights movement is about extending rights, not taking them away. This statement really hits the core of what the movement should strive to put forward. Yes, we need more than lip service.
Conservative, right wing women taint the word feminism by using it in their campaigns. It reminds me of the same way the conservatives have stained the words,” family values”. If you are for family values, you don’t cut Medicaid for children, you don’t insist on no abortions then abandon the child after it’s born. Their policies have nothing to do with family values or feminism. They use these words to promote their own agendas hoping that they can brainwash the populace with all their ads.
Christine O’Donnell admires Gloria Steinum like Clarence
Thomas admires the Rev. Martin Luther King. Unfortunately
there are people who don’t see the fallacy here.
Thank you for taking the extra steps to hear and understand “the other side.” We need to know what and how the seemingly opposing political sides feels about issues so we can plan middle of the road campaigns so as to not alienate many voters.