Bottom line, this is a definite read. Sanchez takes a much more nauanced view of feminism and modern electoral politics. As a Republican Latina and DC insider, she has a unique take on the role of women in politics and examines the quest for getting a woman in the White House. Unlike many other conservative books, she doesn’t waste half of it continuing the “feminists are the cause of all that is evil in this world” mantra. Instead,  she analyzes Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the effect of Sarah Palin and compares Michelle Obama to other First Ladies. She also asks key questions that I’ve been wondering, such as why do feminists hate conservative women like Palin who represent views such as mine and what will it take to get a woman elected POTUS?

Throughout the book, I scribbled and highlighted notes. She provided some perspectives that I’ll be thinking about for a while. She wrote a grownup book that doesn’t take potshots at disagreeing sides. I rarely find books like that. While she does disagree with liberal policies that feminists take, she doesn’t demonize them.

I spend a lot of time attacking feminism on this blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with some of their positions or value what they’ve done for women in society. I am thankful that I had an opportunity to play sports in high school, vote, pursue my education and a career, and I don’t fear being a victim of sexual harassment. I’m thankful that I earn the same as my male peers and didn’t find my job under the “female jobs wanted” section. I appreciate that I can sit in a meeting with other men working in politics and my opinions and talents will be respected. Those are the positions of feminism which I agree. What I don’t understand and what I spend so much time writing and Sanchez devotes a significant part of her book questioning, is “why do feminists hate conservative women?”

After examining a number of polls and surveys, interviewing advisers and pundits from all across the spectrum, Sanchez wrote a statement that deserves further study and gets at the essence of the women’s movement problem:

However deep into Clinton’s psyche these voters may have wanted to go, what I am taking away from all the polls and comments is that women want to vote for other women who reflect their own life experience — perhaps a bit chillingly — are suspicious of a woman who has opted to follow a path too far departed from the one they themselves have chosen. And they are particularly unforgiving of a candidate who would go so far as to disparage the lifestyle that they  themselves have chosen: it’s my contention that Clinton has never really been forgiven in some quarters for the “cookie” comment. It lost her the support of women who actually had stayed home and baked cookies –and enjoyed doing it.

This makes sense. Older, second wave feminists supported Clinton because they identified with her politics and struggles. They saw themselves represented in her. They came of age in the 70s and 80s and fought a very different battle than young women, who overwhelmingly supported Obama. Similarly, conservative women finally saw a role model in Palin. Conservative women, by and large, have drastically different demographics than Hillary supporters. They’re more likely to be married with larger families, churchgoers and either not as educated or educated at state schools. They’re middle class whereas Hillary supporters are going to be much more affluent elites. Ask any Palin supporter why they like her and they’ll echo, “Because she’s just like me.” They would never dream of voting for Clinton just because she had two X chromosomes. Why would liberals or moderates do the same with Palin?

It also reflects how deeply women view politics on the personal level. Sanchez’s opinion works both ways. Women on the right were antagonized by Clinton way back in 1992 and have never trusted her. Women on the left were antagonized by Sarah Palin and made all kinds of noise about how she did not represent feminism. This was after they spent the ninties telling women in their teens and twenties (my generation) that a feminist was anyone who made choices for herself. There had never really been anyone on the right to challenge their assumptions, and it wasn’t very pretty when it happened. Turns out they lied to both themselves and the entire world. As Sanchez notes in an interview that Rep. Tom Cole did with Politico:

…to be a leader in the women’s movement, you have to be a liberal. This is clearly a very liberated woman [Palin] who is not a liberal. And I think there is some tension with that because again, she breaks a lot of stereotypes and molds.”

Sanchez continues on why the feminists did not defend Palin from sexist attacks:

In the case of Palin, it was a bit of the opposite: if you don’t support the “right” policies, you forfeit your right to our indignation — no matter the treatment you recieve.

And on Gloria Steinem’s comments:

In Steinem’s view –and one in which she was unfortunately not alone — Palin’s own issue positions and beliefs are so heretical to the rights of women that they simply cannot be for real. They are only politically expedient. This points to a fundamental problem, as Paglia and others have discussed — namely, that the feminist movement has become, more than a movement for change and the promotion of opportunity and fair treatment for all, a collection of policy stances to which all members must dogmatically conform. And to me, this doesn’t feel right.

Amen! I’ve often complained that modern feminists have lost credibility by selling out to the Democratic Party for short-term victories. They no longer represent (if they ever did) the equality of all women but only the equality of liberal women. However, this fragmentation problem is hardly a second or third wave issue.

Sanchez also captures a historic problem regarding women in politics– we’re too fractured to ever be one sizable voting bloc. The first wave feminists- Stanton, Anthony, Paul and others saw this. Every time a women’s organization got off the ground, it fractured again. Even when Alva Vanderbilt put her considerable fortune and social clout behind the fight to get the vote, women were in disagreement over the methods and strategy. Paul created the National Women’s Party because she believed that once women got the vote, they would vote together as a single sex. That proved to be a naive view.

If Sanchez is right — women will not just vote for a member of their own sex but only for a woman who represents her own walk in life — we’ll never solve the “feminist” issue. Women will always be fractured and hateful on both sides. Conservatives will never trust liberal women, and liberal women will never trust conservatives. Trying to find someone with middle ground, such as a pro-abortion Republican like Christine Todd Whitman, just doesn’t seem worthwhile. Pro-life women would only reluctantly vote for her, if they did vote. Many would choose to sit it out.

On a smaller level, we’ve seen this at play since the 1970s through mommywars. Both sides have dug in their heels. Women who choose to work are supposedly wracked with guilt or are judged by women who stay at home. Women who do stay at home are judged for wasting their education or not “contributing” to society. While I’m not a mother, I’ve seen both sides. I’ve found myself judging women for not working, and I’ve seen the judgement on other women’s faces when they talk to my mom.

After reading this book, it’s doubtful that we’ll find an answer. However, Palin’s popularity does show that conservative women should be represented and vocal. Sanchez also makes another point: it’s highly unlikely that a Boomer will be the first female president. Now that Millenials are voting, it’s far more likely that the first female POTUS will come from the Xers or Millenials. That puts an even more interesting spin on feminism. Second wave feminism will likely never reach the Oval Office. Third wave, and possibly the fourth wave that we’ve entered, will determine the future of women’s issues. Given the sad and whiny state of third wave feminism, I’d say we have the upper hand.

Update:  Kathleen McKinley at Right Wing News also has a review of Sanchez’s book.