On Saturday, hundreds braved the first snow of the year outside BJ’s Wholesale Club in Fairfax to get a live glimpse at Sarah Palin, there to sign copies of her new memoir, Going Rogue. Having filed into the shopping center’s parking lot, the Palinites were sitting ducks for reporters with questions like this one: What does Sarah mean for women?

“I think she speaks her mind, and I think sometimes she speaks a little bit unguarded, so she is a little—she’s not conformed to speaking planned speech. Planned. It’s not planned,” Dee, a Palin supporter from Haymarket, Va., explained. “So I think she speaks her thoughts, and I think that she goes ahead and talks. I think she’s a strong woman. And she allows herself to express that … she’s not afraid to speak. And she’s fairly attractive, and that doesn’t seem to interfere with her being intelligent.”

“As a younger female, I like the fact that she has her own opinions and is not afraid to share them with others,” Chantilly, Va.’s Celia Coughlin submitted. “Also, that she can stand on her own and pave her own path and not really follow the line of any particular thing.”

Elizabeth from Gainesville, Va., says: “For women, she represents principles, life principles, and for the country she represents principles also.”

“I think she’s representing the women the way they should be,” says Patrick Darby of Rockville, Md. “You know, independent, strong, capable of doing whatever she wants to do, standing up for moral issues. And rights.”

Who could ever argue with “rights”? Or with refusing to conform to “speaking planned speech”? Therein lies the appeal of the Palin as culture warrior. Since she debuted on the national scene last summer, conservatives have attempted to corral this outspoken personality into a politically expedient persona: Palin as feminist. The November issue of conservative magazine Newsmax featured Palin on the cover, under the headline “Sarah Palin and the Leaders of the Newer Feminism.”

In the issue, Newsmax situates some notorious female conservatives, like Palin and Dr. Laura Schlessinger, alongside more traditional feminist icons, like Ms. Magazine executive editor Katherine Spillar and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Pegging Palin, darling to anti-feminist voters everywhere, as America’s hottest new feminist is a clever trick. As the crowd at BJ’s attests, Palin’s feminism contains none of the messy political agendas of former feminist waves—it is all personality, all self-reliance, and no politics. It’s about speaking your mind, even when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

It’s a bizarre twist on the old feminist adage that the “personal is the political.” Instead of identifying the structural influences over the day-to-day lives of women, this feminism focuses tightly on choices that have been fully operational for decades: Pants or skirt? Family or career and family? Maybelline or Cover Girl?

In “newer feminism,” every woman’s choices are valued—no matter what those choices mean for other women. Schlessinger isn’t an enforcer of rigid gender roles; she’s a facilitator of women’s choices. Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and comprehensive sex education isn’t anti-feminist; it is her choice to deny reproductive choices to other women. Under this model, Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis isn’t an exploiter; he’s a liberator of women’s breasts.

Last fall, Palin did some yeoman’s work in the rebranding of the “F-word.” After telling Katie Couric that she was a “feminist who believes in equal rights,” Palin quickly added that she believed that all of feminism’s work had already been achieved. This “newer” feminism isn’t shy about devaluing feminism: The Newsmax report casually accuses Gloria Steinem of “man-hating,” celebrates Schlessinger’s statement that feminism has “turned the family life upside down” as a welcome “departure from the feminism of old,” and raises the bogeyman of feminist “bra-burning” four times. In her contribution to the Newsmax piece, FoxNews.com writer Andrea Tantaros floats a new definition of feminism: “choice.” Feminism, she writes, is now “defined by each and every woman.”

The democratization of feminism brings us back to the parking lot outside of BJ’s Wholesale Club. If feminism is now “defined by each and every woman,” why not by Mary Ellen Hood, a D.C. resident who eschews politics but loves Sarah Palin?

“I’m not so sure I would put a label on her as a feminist,” says Hood of Palin. “She presents herself feminine … The impression is that feminists are women who don’t like to value their feminine qualities, and they like to put it down and be like a man, and I don’t think that’s appropriate for women. I kind of like her in that regard, that she’s sort of celebrating her womanhood as well.”

Loretta Teele of Fairfax is also more comfortable defining Palin in opposition to feminism than in concert with it. “She’s more godly, loving, and she’s more into her family,” says Teele. “She’s not out there like some of the past feminists—and I do not want to call names—that are bashing men and everybody around them. Feminists have a tendency to bash men. They’re cruel, and she’s not that.”

Caroline, a Herndon resident, is open to seeing Palin as a “new” feminist. “I think in a way. You know, not in the classic kind—you know, I came of age in the feminist revolution and there was a lot of kind of anti-male and anti-traditional female roles, like kids. There was a touch of that, there, back in the old days. And so, in that sense, she’s surely not. She kind of does kind of integrate it all—family, husband, everything, so I do think that that is really good.”

Others aren’t budging. “A feminist? Maybe borderline a little bit,” says Coughlin. “But I don’t really see her—no, not really.”

“I don’t even know what that means,” confirms Dee.

Feminism is now “defined by each and every woman,” and some women are still content to define the movement as those godless, mannish, childless specimens of women who hate men. The latest wave of the women’s movement is all about women having choices—as long as they make the right ones. Call it “newer” feminism, or Sarah Palin feminism, or anti-feminist feminism—just make sure you get a woman to say it, to make sure that it will be above all criticism.

AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that facilitates extramarital affairs, has never been too popular among moral conservatives. Earlier this year, Deroy Murdock argued on Human Events that Ashley Madison has edged out gay marriage as the number one threat to traditional matrimony. Now, cluck-clucking conservatives won't have to choose between the cheaters and the gays: Ashley Madison has begun marketing itself as a place where the married can pursue their same-sex attractions, too.

Ashley Madison's gay (and bi-curious) population is modest, but growing. Worldwide, the agency hosts 4.7 million members seeking extramarital affairs. Of those, only 143,427 are seeking some same-sex action. About two-thirds of Ashley Madison's same-sex seekers are women looking for women; one-third are men seeking men. Noel Biderman, Ashley Madison's CEO (married, two kids), says that his service provides a necessary sexual outlet for gay men and women who are trapped within the confines of traditional marriage. "There are men and women who, for whatever reason, might have been motivated to pursue a traditional marriage because they did want to build a family," Biderman says. "Unfortunately, in our culture, their sexuality is still at odds with that arrangement."

In an age when marriage equality is gaining serious steam, helping closeted gays escape their repressive straight marriages seems downright altruistic. But Ashley Madison isn't so progressive as to encourage gay men to marry each other. "They're not looking to leave their families," Biderman says of the same-sex contingent. "They're looking to have this on the side." Ashley Madison is not here to release gays from the closet—it's here to offer them a peek outside before returning them safely to nuclear family life. Meanwhile, it invests in the repression. "I don’t want to call it ironic, because people who find this ironic assume that we're a home-wrecking service," Biderman says. "We're not. We are a marriage preservation service."

Nobody relies on the preservation of traditional marriage like Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison's motto, "when divorce isn't an option," seems strange in a country where no-fault divorce makes it easy to reset one's relationship status to single. But Ashley Madison is not designed for folks willing to ruin their home lives so transparently. The service relies entirely on secrecy and discretion—what skeptics might call "lying" and "self-delusion." "This is not a service for people in open marriages," says Biderman. "There are sites out there for the courageous ones—the swinger couples who have found the courage to say, 'I love you, but I need to do something different in the bedroom,'" he says. Ashley Madison, on the other hand, is for people who "can't voice their sexual concerns to their spouses, because they are terrified of the repercussions," he says. "There's this notion that people who engage in infidelity are lying and deceitful," he says. "But people wouldn’t have to lie if these more realistic sexual options were socially acceptable."

As soon as those "realistic sexual options" are accepted, though, Ashley Madison goes kaput. The service wouldn't be making any money if people weren't terrified of communicating with their spouses. Besides, secrets are hot. Ashley Madison's branding centers around the service as a sexy, hush-hush taboo. Ashley Madison may have built an empire out of facilitating transgressions, but its continued success lies in reinforcing the traditional. Biderman's business will only remain viable so long as its members continue to invest in conservative, heterosexual marriages which reinforce monogamy. "People have told me, 'Oh, you should open Ashley Madison in France,'" says Biderman. "I tell them, 'You know, I don’t think they need me.'"

To date, Ashley Madison has only identified a need in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. In order for the service to expand, Biderman has got to locate other cultures that are currently struggling between the repressive and the progressive. "Places like Brazil offer an interesting dynamic, where infidelity among men is extremely high and among women it's much lower," he says. "There’s no reason to believe you can’t be wildly successful there. There is an incredible opportunity for a global phenomenon."

Biderman's latest campaign to make this an Ashley Madison world has, so far, failed to reach its full potential. "We always thought there would be a marketplace for same-sex affairs, but it's been difficult to cultivate it," says Biderman. "We could probably stretch those legs further, but there are so many obstacles to advertising our brand. We have enough difficulty advertising infidelity—think about the problems we'd have marketing to same-sex infidelity. I cant even tell you one avenue where I could effectively market that."

Ashley Madison's target demographic —people who lead conservative lifestyles but secretly yearn for a transgressive kick—is difficult to target. Social conservatives, remember, are obligated to respond to businesses like Ashley Madison with concern, outrage, and calls for banning. Ashley Madison claims to support the institution of marriage. Other American institutions have proven less than supportive of Ashley Madison. Recently, police kicked a tanker truck advertising Ashley Madison affairs out of the city of Philadelphia. Earlier this year, an Ashley Madison commercial was deemed too hot for the Superbowl. "We've got the Parent Television Council saying these ads are reprehensible," says Biderman of the Web site's conservative backlash. "There's this huge fear to have any sort of conversation about sex."

[youtube:v=EwJSD46JSoM]

As a result, Ashley Madison's marketing strategy has attempted to awkwardly straddle the divide between the conservative and the progressive. In one television spot, targeted toward women, Ashley Madison is offered as an alternative to a life married to a sexist pig. This husband arrives to an anniversary dinner late, leaves early, and in the meantime, ogles other women and implies that his wife is fat. Cheating on this guy practically constitutes a feminist act. The ad targeted at men contains no such progressive bent. In this version, the poor man's wife isn't a jerk—but she's fat, and she snores, too! This man is encouraged to cheat on his wife for more, shall we say, traditional reasons: he just wants to fuck someone else behind her back. And there's nothing progressive about dudes doing that.

[youtube:v=mZLjwhEp7nU]

Ashley Madison's new PR push advertising same-sex affairs may further alienate the conservative base it requires to stay relevant. Then again, perhaps the gay element is just what Ashley Madison needs to keep conservatives abreast of its services—and curious about exploring its taboos. Every time a religious conservative declares a sexual practice an affront to human decency, a new conservative kink is born.

Illustration by Bonnie Kennedy

How long ago was it that a black woman would be denied entrance to a whites-only restroom? Well, at one point in the afternoon, a white woman wearing a shirt that said "Kill Fags," which appeared to be a homemade silkscreen job, felt a similar call of nature. At the door of the Penn Quarter Sports [Tavern] she met Matt Hunter, the bar's marketing and events manager. He told her that she could not use the restroom.

"So you're refusing?" she asked.

"Yes," Matt said. "There's no public option here."

"Bastard," she said.

"I can do you one better," Matt said. "I suck cock."

He then put his tongue in his cheek and cupped his hand, moving it back and forth in front of his mouth in the internationally-recognized gesture for fellatio.

"I'm one of those," he said, pointing at her shirt. She left to find a bathroom more accommodating to her sort.

On the phone, Hunter was more conciliatory to the "Kill Fags" set. "There was a lot of stuff said down here," Hunter confirmed over the telephone. "It was a nightmare down here."

Hunter says that at the Penn Quarter Sports Tavern, "everyone is welcome"—but that the tea bagger protest stretched even the most inclusive bar's resources. "Everyone had to put signs out that said 'restrooms for customers only,'" says Hunter. "It was a big public event, and the city should have helped assist by putting public toilets out." D.C. also could have done Hunter a solid by informing him that hordes of out-of-town tea-baggers would be descending upon the bar. "This whole thing just came out of the blue," he says. "I guess because I don’t watch FOX TV, I had no idea what was going on."

[youtube:v=ywvqMAnHZd8]

This time, it's the American Right to Life Action group repeatedly harassing Ann Coulter for her support of Mitt Romney, who is maybe pro-choice and also Mormon! (She gets pissed). This is all still relevant because Romney might come back in 2012 to secure his polygamous alien reign and abort your teenagers, or something.

Recently, a study was released by the Harvard Business School showing that "culturally conservative states are America's biggest purchasers of Internet pornography." The revelation gave D.C.'s liberal bloggers an opportunity to descend on their Republican prey like ruthless, moral vultures. Observe:

First, Paul Fidalgo, the "DC Secularism Examiner," weighed in with his requisite gloating commentary, calling the news "delightful" and "hilarious," and informing readers that "it's okay to love every minute of this." What's so funny? "It turns out that the ultra-red Utah was #1 in online porn subscriptions," he writes, "and eight of the top ten porn-loving states voted for John McCain in 2008." He then cites his favorite "schadenfreude" moment in the report: "In states where more people agree that 'Even today miracles are performed by the power of God' and 'I never doubt the existence of God,' there are more subscriptions to this service," because, apparently, people who believe in God aren't allowed to watch porn or they're mean awful hypocrites.

Then, "DC Ethical Issues Examiner" Laura Harrison McBride chimes in and blows the secularist out of the water with her own gloating gloaty gloat. McBride, for her part, paints conservatives as Puritanical overlords who are districted from their mission of preventing Laura Harrison McBride from politely drinking her martinis only by the prospect of hypocritically jacking off in the privacy of their darkened home offices.

So, has this study proved once and for all that conservatives are horrible hypocrites worthy of a good smiting from the liberal bloggers of the world? Or perhaps something else can account for the amount of Internet pornography consumed in these great Republican centers?

a) People in Utah have to get their porn on the Internet because it's, like, kind of hard to buy it anywhere else, DUH.

b) Conservatives don't care about the war on porn anymore, they're on to more important things like shunning abortionists and preventing the gays from devaluing their marriages.

c) Actually, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE WAR ON PORN ANYMORE, except for the "experts" who blog for the Examiner's peanuts and write long, ranting blog posts thoroughly shaming anyone who watches it, making them, actually, yes, the sole brave warriors left in the moral crusade against pornography.

d) People who actually buy porn on the Internet are total Internet n00bs: Of course they voted for John McCain. While these red staters are busy plunking credit card numbers into pay-for porn sites, tech-saavy Obama voters are downloading teh pron free of charge because they've been navigating this series of tubes long enough to know that you don't pay for this shit.

Photo by bella731.