What? Really?

Rob Vischer, Should Sarah Palin thank Ruth Bader Ginsburg? (And can CLT help her do so?)

I don't always agree with Dahlia Lithwick, but I do appreciate this short essay on the feminism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and how her contributions to the law helped make the public and professional careers of women like Sarah Palin more feasible.  Can Palin express appreciation for Ginsburg's achievements without endorsing the entire legacy of those achievements?  Maybe Palin has, in fact; I don't know, but I do know that there is a tendency to demonize categorically entire worldviews and the folks who hold them, whether they be labeled "radical feminists" or "the religious right."  It seems to me that one valuable contribution of Catholic legal theory is its embrace of nuance and complexity; in its refusal to be captured by any particular ideological or partisan political position, CLT should have the capacity to stand back and applaud figures coming from a wide array of perspectives, even while speaking out about where those figures have lost sight of foundational values and/or the fundamental reality of the human person.  In other words, what can make CLT seem frustratingly elusive equips it to reach across today's sharply drawn lines and affirm the good, wherever it is found.   

 1. Sarah Palin is a feminist who owes a lot to feminism, there is no doubt about that, I don't think. The question is whether the achievements of feminism are actually positive contributions to Western society. Does Sarah Palin repudiate feminism? One sort, but she is touted as a symbol of a "new feminism." Still, even if it is not hostile towards men and claims to be "socially conservative" it is still rooted in liberalism and radical egalitarianism. It is like how "conservatives" and "liberals" may differ on specifics but share assumptions about the nature of society, freedom, and so on. The old school and new school feminists may disavow her as one of their own, but it is merely a question of who is less "wrong" and I do not see any indication that Sarah Palin is anything but a political opportunist who has failed to take care of her family properly, rather than a principled "conservative."

2. Is it to demonize a worldview to issue a syllbus of errors? And are some errors more serious than others because they are closer to the beginning, and thus there are many more consequences? How about worldviews that undermine a [traditional] Christian society? And what does Catholic legal theory have to do with anything, unless it has imported erroneous premises from liberalism? Is it the case that those who believe in "meritocracy" are unable to offer principled support of patriarchy? The toleration or admission of women to a certain office in accordance with custom (e.g., the question of sucesssion) is not the as "gender-blind" policies that look at ability only (which many who support the entry of women into the military, even combat roles, and other traditionally male-dominated professions like law enforcement, hold).

3. So what good is there to feminism that it did not already have from traditional Western morality? (Its opposition to certain unjust acts.) And how does it compare to the evils that it has promoted?