« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Sarah Palin and the Mommy Wars
Sarah Palin it seems has successfully started the next phase in the “Mommy Wars”. Interestingly enough, though, the combatants have switched uniforms and I find myself watching in amusement as conservatives stand up and scream “sexism” as some progressives question her responsibilities to her family versus those of her career. I grew up expecting to have it all – career and a family – and to think that this was not possible was heresy. This whole discussion has caused me to reflect on my own choices and to question whether or not this issue is as black and white as I used to believe.
As a mother of three children and a professional with a Masters degree, I understand how difficult those choices are. After my first daughter was born, I returned to work for intellectual, professional, and financial reasons. I was lucky enough to have a pretty stress-free job with easy hours, an understanding boss, and my husband was equally involved in taking care of our little girl. Regardless, it was still a heart-wrenching decision to leave my daughter at 12 weeks because I knew that whether I stayed home or went to work, I was going to have regrets. As my career took off and I watched my daughter thrive and grow, however, my doubts began to subside and I believed I had made the right decision for both me and my family. When my twin sons were born 5 years later, I reversed course and made the difficult decision to stay at home: I had changed jobs, my hours were long and erratic, my husband had changed jobs and was travelling a lot, and the financial burden of having to provide childcare for two infants meant that there would be no net gain from my paycheck. On paper, the decision seemed like a no-brainer, but it was still painful because I knew that stepping away from work for a couple of years was going to effectively stomp out my long-term career goals. I don't regret my decision (though I will admit to yearning for a bit of intellectual stimulation after a long day of chasing two 20 month-olds around) and I often wonder how I could've possibly handled the pressures of the job and the responsibilities to my family, especially with my husband's travel schedule. The truth is that my co-workers would've had to cover for me at times - just as they did when I was pregnant and had to limit my job duties. Is that fair to those who have to take up the slack? I don't know...but I think that's a whole other discussion for another time.
Because of the anguish I experienced making these decisions myself, I'm a bit uncomfortable judging any other woman's decisions in this area and since these issues have arisen with Sarah Palin, I have struggled to wrap my head around how I feel and to try to remove those feelings from any political biases. I think that we as women can at least admit that these choices are not made in a vacuum. These choices have consequences and I don’t believe that the answer to the question “Can a woman have it all?” is the same for every woman and every situation. The environment in which I made the decision about working was far different with my daughter than it was when I made the decision with my twins. Sarah Palin is not being promoted to head teller at a bank. We're talking about the Vice Presidency and, possibly, the Presidency. We're talking about an incredibly heavy travel schedule, unfathomable responsibilities, and, realistically, a 24-hr a day job. Her situation is complicated by the fact that she will apparently have a steep learning curve and she has a 5 month-old with DS and a pregnant 17 year-old whom I'm assuming would like her mother to be around to help guide her through this. Can she juggle the responsibilities of having 5 children? Is any of this our business? Does she owe us a detailed explanation of how she intends to handle this? Are we morally obligated as mothers to provide those answers to those who hire us? Is it flat-out sexist to raise these questions or can there be mitigating factors? Should different questions be asked of mothers of young children vs. mothers of older children? Would we be asking these questions of a man? Do we believe that mothers and fathers are truly interchangeable? Are these questions allowed because of the nature of the job? Has she opened the door to these questions by her use of her family to shore up her image? Would we be asking these questions of a Democrat?
I think that each voter is going to have to answer each of these questions for themselves based on their own experiences. Personally, I feel that anyone with children, be they male or female, who plays an integral role as caregiver has a responsibility to themselves, their children, and those around them to decide what is going to take precedence when push comes to shove. From my experience, there are times when difficult choices will have to be made. For Sarah Palin, that could mean choosing between her family and the rest of the country. I believe that this is an extraordinary situation and I think that it is disingenuous of her to suggest that she can be president of the PTA and Vice President of the Country at the same time. Just like I expect and want my leaders to be the brightest and the best, I also expect and want my leaders to be the most dedicated. She may have her husband at home to help her, but unlike most mothers with careers, she won't have co-workers to step in and take up any slack.
Comments (89)
I appreciate your dilemmas in thinking your way through this. I think it is absurd to pretend that Sarah Palin is qualified, number one, to be Vice-President, possibly President, just based on her lack of education, lack of travel, lack of evident thought on world and national affairs. So that throws her out of any meaningful discussion from the get-go. I think we all sort of assumed that the first woman VP or Prez would be a woman past her childbearing and child-rearing years, which this woman, most assuredly is not. Has anybody yet realized that she doesn't believe in birth control... at all. Meaning if she continues to have sex with the First Dude, she may have other babies, with or without special needs. Are women and men interchangeable in regards to parenting? Perhaps, but I would argue not in the very early years. She is, I have read, breastfeeding. Now, there's a quandry.
Anyway, all speculation aside, let's all work very hard to get Barack Obama elected so we can return the Abominable SnowWoman to the tundra where she belongs.
September 6, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to support the Republican ticket, no matter who might be the nominee for Vice-President.
With that said and as someone who marched for the ERA, I'm a bit troubled at the idea that a woman could be "disqualified" because she has young children. It seems to me that it should be her choice and it's a slippery slope from saying that she can't be Vice President to a potential employer refusing to hire women in the same position because their focus wouldn't be on their job.
According to the rumor mill, Gov. Palin's oldest (Track) has been at a boarding school in Michigan and her two oldest daughters have mostly been staying with friends. And, from what I can surmise from scattered things, here and there, she has a nanny that has traveled with her and her two youngest children throughout Alaska.
My wife isn't the VP, but she travels quite a bit because of her job, which leaves me, the stay-at-home/work-from-home Dad with both kids, sometimes for more than a week at a time. And, though I don't mean this as a slam by any means, but one could also argue that if either of the Obama children were to get sick and if Michele was already scheduled to speak in Yugoslavia, then President Obama wouldn't be able to perform his duties because he'd be needed at home.
Speaking only for myself, but I'd say "choice" should be the operative word.
September 6, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS & BTW: I'm a stay-at-home/work-from-home Dad because it's my wife's career that determines where we live.
September 6, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't necessarily disagree with you and I certainly understand where you're coming from.
I guess I would just like to see her address some of these issues. What are her plans? It's my understanding that when she ran for governor she said that her husband would be staying home with the kids, but then backed out of that when she was elected. I guess I would just like her to acknowledge that she CAN'T be supermom...she needs to admit that her husband is going to have to be primary caretaker because her priority is now going to shift to every single one of us. And, quite frankly, if she can't make each and every one of us her priority, then she shouldn't get the job.
P.S. I salute you for being a stay-at-home Dad. While I was working, my husband and I both played equal roles and now that I am staying at home, he still carries quite a bit of the load. I couldn't do any of this without him.
September 7, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you and the reality for me is that Sarah Palin's general lying from day one and in her past along with her abuse of power are all I need to know to realize that she should not be vice president or president. I don't know what is right for Sarah Palin's family. I would not tell her how to be a mother. As I said it just doesn't really matter because she has proven herself unworthy to be president.
Besides in my opinion Sarah Palin was brought on as a puppet for the Bush/Cheney neocons to put a pretty, fresh, new face on their ugly, tired, old politics. They hae no intention of letting her run this country herself. They won't even let her speak to the press.
September 6, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree that there are a million other reasons that she shouldn't be VP.
September 7, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
When your party portrays you a certain way, voters have the right to ask questions...
They've said she's a great mom...Dr. Dobson says that teenagers get pregnant because of parental neglect. Yet he finds a neglectful parent to be a wonderful choice for VP.
She doesn't want sex ed/birth control taught in school...just abstinence (how's that working for your family?)
THEY announce her daughter's pregnancy and talk about how proud they are of her, then parade her and her boyfriend around like they've done something wonderful. Where I come from, there's still a bit of shame involved in a teen-aged pregnancy...but the press is supposed to leave the kids alone...If they wanted them left alone, they shouldn't have plopped them them down right in the middle of all this. Amazing to me that the "Right" is thrilled about this...I can only imagine if it had been Barack's daughter that showed up pregnant...
September 7, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Dobson on this.
For the record there is no Planned Parenthood in Wasilla.
I grew up in Anchorage and Planned Parenthood was THE place to get birth control and other health care.
Young women should have legal, reasonable access to low-cost birth control WITHOUT parental consent.
I for one am appalled that Bristol Palin was not on The Pill. Did her mother not know at all that her daughter was sexually active? Did she know and choose to stick her head in the sand and NOT take her to get the most basic of contraception? My mom was livid when she found I was sexually active and didn't hesitate at all to get me a Rx for The Pill, Planned Parenthood made it affordable for me to maintain - I think in the early 90's I paid about $12 a month for it.
September 7, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant is that I agree with Dobson that teenage pregnancy is due to parental neglect.
Unfortunately not everyone has parents that look out for their best interests.
Considering the amount of acrimony in divorce and custody suits - it seems too many parents use their children as pawns in their own selfish games.
I would argue that divorce is the leading cause of teenage pregnancy - people wrapped up in their own failed relationships and legal battles rarely heed the subtle signs of teen rebellion or self sabotage.
September 7, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I kind of wish that we could use all of this to pivot to a serious discussion about abstinence-only education, teen pregnancy, and access to healthcare. Unfortunately, the right-wing has shut off all debate when it comes to St. Sarah.
September 7, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The political aspect of this is precisely how you talk about it.
Palin's views would be used in a McCain administration hellbent on repealing Roe v Wade, to bolster their arugment. Her positions on sex ed, birth control, teen pregnancy, underage drinking (see PerezHilton for pics of Bristol partying hardy!), support for single parents, healthcare for children, tax breaks for grandparents parenting their grandkids, and so much more.
You can talk about all of these issues without mentioning Bristol Palin directly.
You can tackle "mommy war" issues by hitting on skyrocketing health insurance costs, equal for equal work, daycare, evening care, job training, all economic issues. This isn't about the choice to be a stay-at-home parent, it's about providing the best environment YOU choose for your child regardless of whether you stay at home or work. How do you afford it?
Sarah Palin is not just any politician running for office. People are expected to believe that she is prepared to lead this country should McCain get elected and pull a William Henry Harrison. You have every right to ask the toughest questions of her. And as the second woman to seek that office on a major party ticket -- and apparently still in her childbearing years -- and with young children, questions of family and commitments are appropriate.
The bar for this woman has been set ridiculously low, and we cannot tolerate 8 more years of incompetence.
September 7, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jade. As usual, you cut straight to the heart of the matter. I agree that the bar has been set ridiculously low for her - even removing the "Mom" factor from the equation - and as a woman, I'm more than a little offended. Does anyone remember Hillary being treated so gingerly at anytime in the past 16 years?
September 7, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had this conversation with many of my friends, who are also mothers.
I gave up my college education to stay home and care for my youngest son who has epilepsy. He's since recovered and doing fabulous. I never pictures myself a stay-at-home-mom but couldn't picture myself anywhere else when my children needed me the most. My husband and I took great financial risks (going without health insurance etc) to start our own business so that we would never be caught flat footed again - we would always maintain some control over our professional and personal lives, as much control as anyone can have. So far, so good.
My personal opinion on the mommy wars is as follows:
#1 Priority number one is always the kids, especially when the choices can affect their physical or mental health. For some this might mean arranging appropriate care if mom or dad are not able to provide it due to job responsibilities or a variety of other reasons. There are extenuating circumstances mentioned below that make this a bad choice for others.
#2 In order to be a good mother most women need to pursue some interests outside of raising their family - for most, eventually there is a time "after children". I focus on this because I am a role model to two boys - it is important to me that they learn women are more than just moms.
#3 Motherhood isn't a hobby. It isn't a "side project". Failure at being a mother negates just about any other accomplishment.
In summary my friends and I came to the opinion that motherhood is a task one takes on at the exclusion of any other. Most are lucky to have the support of partners or family to help them achieve success here and still pursue career or other ambitions.
I know this isn't popular but Sarah Palin is the only one qualified to be with her son Trig who has Down's - my friends and I feel it is extremely inappropriate for her to "outsource" this job. Her son will need intensive time with her, (and her alone) in order to achieve the best possible quality of life, his diagnosis will likely limit his understanding of "mommy's work".
When my son starting having seizures I felt strongly that no one, not even my husband, was as qualified as I to care for him, to anticipate his needs and advocate for his health and development.
Some jobs only a mother can do.
September 7, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
...but shouldn't it to be her choice?
And, though possibly the majority of mothers believe they're the best one to care for their child, there are some who would prefer to outsource.
September 7, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree.
But when one makes the decision to get pregnant, they accept all the risks that that entails.
When one decides to carry to term a disabled child aren't they accepting full responsibility for that child?
Doesn't Trig's Down's limit HER choices?
Like I said, my position isn't popular but it is born of experience.
I'm not a 'values' voter and my position isn't dictated by my church, (I'm an atheist).
BTW I was told my son had Down's when I was pregnant with him - despite my fervent belief that abortion should always remain an option, I knew in my heart that I didn't have a choice. I took the responsibility of getting pregnant, it was up to me to take responsibility for whatever that brought us.
We feel extremely fortunate that the doctor's were wrong.
If/when my son's epilepsy returns with a vengeance (which we've been told it will) my husband and I are prepared to care for him (or provide it) all his life if needed - that's what families do.
As I'm sure you know, early childhood is the most important time developmentally - the attachments and bonds forged at that time shape the self esteem and self worth of a child.
How is Sarah going to provide that bond while being the Vice President of the U.S.?
To me it's akin to saying "Mommy is an astronaut and won't be around you for months and months at a time" - to an infant or young child. The job of VP is actually as intensive and important as that of astronaut - or at least I think it is.
That time is limited and lost forever if not provided during that crucial period in a child's life. I fully understand that many don't see it the way I do, I begrudge them nothing.
Just my 2 cents. I also happen to live in Wasilla, not far from Sarah.
September 7, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I generally don't get all that personal on a blogsite, but my wife and I didn't start reproducing until I was in place where I could continue working from home and we could maintain our standard of living, even though I'd be part-time for several years.
Back when we were having this conversation, my wife had no desire to pause her career for more than maternity leave and though she's come around some since, we probably wouldn't have had children, if she thought that it'd overly impact her life.
And, if nothing else, think of the resentment factor -- I could've been Vice President of the United States, if it weren't for you...
As far as I'm concerned, whatever works in the Palin family is fine with me and they're free to make whatever choices, they desire. I'm not going to vote for them because I don't agree with their politics, but whether or not Sarah should want to stay home with little Trig is not a factor in my decision and it's nothing that I'll criticize them about.
September 7, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does having children NOT overly impact your life?
September 7, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 7, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies...the blockquotes ate my post.
September 7, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have managed to succinctly state what I am trying to get at. Before I had children, I believed that it was all a level playing field. Now, I don't think so. I've learned that sacrifices have to be made. The extent of those sacrifices, I believe, vary depending on a huge number of factors: job responsibilities, paternal involvement, age of the children, illness, etc., but they're still there.
I think I'm just a little dismayed that she has almost chosen to compare her situation - infant with disabilities seeking a job that requires total commitment - to, let's say, an elementary school teacher with healthy children. Are we comfortable as a society judging those things to be the same?
September 7, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has made judgment
a huge issue in this campaign, and Palin's being a hockey mother of of 5 a resume builder for her...I think we have the right as voters to question the judgment of a mother of 5 (one a brand new special needs baby) who chooses to leave the primary care of that infant to someone else. AND they are saying how wonderfully she is juggling all her responsibilities as a mom and Governor of Alaska, yet she has a pregnant teenager...who was protecting her while her mother was juggling so well? Just as we will disagree about many other issues, we are allowed to disagree here, too. As it turns out, I wouldn't vote for Palin for a whole host of other reasons, this is just one of them. I find it particularly interesting that those on the right, who normally have much more conservative views on this issue, choose to overlook them in this case.
This isn't sexism, it's reality. If Palin wants to do something in addition to being a mother, she has the responsibility to make sure SOMEONE is doing her job as a mother...No one was, and as a result Bristol will be growing up way faster than she should have had to.
September 7, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit that they hypocrisy really bothers me. Imagine Obama parading his pregnant 17 year old daughter and her baby-daddy around the DNC. I beieve that it would be devastating to his campaign and Michelle Obama, in particular, would be raked over the coals for selfishly choosing a career over her children.
September 7, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Peggy Noonan wrote on Wednesday;
I'll tell you how powerful Mrs. Palin already is: she reignited the culture wars just by showing up. She scrambled the battle lines, too. The crustiest old Republican men are shouting "Sexism!" when she's slammed. Pro-woman Democrats are saying she must be a bad mother to be all ambitious with kids in the house.
Apparently, she's prescient.
September 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that I had coded that middle paragraph to be a quote, but I took an extended break from this site and I must have not remembered the proper code.
September 7, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the first post I have seen here in weeks that is trying to look at this issue honestly and without partisanship. I think you sincerly for this.
I think we should be talking about balancing family and bringing up children and making a succesful career.
But I'm not sure if it's intellectually honest for us to say - well, she can be a secretary but not a VP.
That's the only angle of this that I find objectionable - because subtle sexism is inserted (whether or not for political reasons, I don't know).
Other than that - I love your post and it made me look at the comments you made before in a very different light. Thank you.
September 7, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Lalo. I appreciate your comments.
I understand your issue with the subtle sexism, and quite honestly, I can't say that it isn't sexist and I don't even feel that it's all that subtle.
This is what the struggle for me is about: are there mitigating factors involved that justify asking these questions? She's not running for head dogcatcher or even Governor - and it's not hyperbole to say that her ability to handle her job could be a matter of life and death for some people. I do not believe that on its own she should be disqualified on the basis of having small kids or having a child with learning disabilities - but I do feel that she needs to provide some answers to the voters about how she intends to juggle all of these demands. She is asking all of us to put our futures in her hands and I think that such an extraordinary request requires extraordinary scrutiny.
September 7, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand.
To be perfectly honest with you, I think Sarah Palin is now in exactly the same position Hillary Clinton was when she decided to run for the senate seat in New York.
She was caught in the cross-hairs of the on-going campaign, her own merits in view of her marriage to a president, her political "baggage" and so on.
I think it's impossible to separate our opinions on Sarah Palin from our opinions on the candidates we support.
For example, a few weeks before her announcement Newsweek ran an adoring profile on her and other "new wave" confident successful female governors. I wonder if the "terms" of our discussions change because she is on a Republican ticket. Imagine if she was a Democrat and Obama picked her. We would be defending her tooth and nail now, exactly as Republicans are defending Palin.
So, she is in cross-hairs. From that point alone (as well as from the point of view of running a campaign strategy), I understand why she wants to talk to the media on her own terms.
Maybe we need to wait until the election is over until we can have a truly honest discussion about a mother being a VP, on any ticket.
September 7, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I wonder that, too.
September 7, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree on the point that it is impossible to separate our views on the issues from the candidates we support.
I think that's what McCain is banking on.
Your perception is your reality, as is mine.
I was never a Hillary supporter, having nothing to do with gender or issues, simply that the Presidency of the United States should not be a royal succession.
350 million + people in this country, let someone else, (or their family) have a turn.
I have felt all along that Hillary was much more valuable in the U.S. Senate, Presidents come and go - Senators seem to live forever, (and vote on Supreme Court appointments).
September 7, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I am weighing in as a mother of 2- one 4.5 (with epilepsy) and one 18 months (a handful). I have been talking with friends who are mothers of young children- all of us professionally educated from masters degrees to high powered tech jobs, to doctors and lawyers. All of us are struggling with how to "balance" career and family and all of us are striking different "balances." But it seems to me that being VP or President does not allow balance - it is an all or nothing job. I resent Palin's attitude that somehow her "choices" are easy and it is sexist to ask how it can be done. Being a mom is incredibly taxing- even without special needs.
And let me tell you about special needs- yes you CAN get extra help- and she will. And mayeb whoever helps VP Palin will be fantastically loving and qualified- but when your child is sick- and DOwns children have MANY health problems- you as a mother need to be there. Even if you can not physically be at the ER or the ICU or by the bedside- you are mentally there.
Perhaps in the world of the Christian right she is morally superior to the rest of us for choosing to have a Downs baby- but then she should choose to be there for that baby. By their reasoning she may be a better person and a better mother- but by that same reasoning she will be a worse VP. OF course it is taboo to say these things.. but man does it make me mad.
Every choice I have made as a mother balancing career has been tough- I turned down a dream job that required 40% travel because my husband travels and I found out I was pregnant with the second child. I knew it was too much for our family. I knew my children would suffer. I knew I would not be the best employee for the small company that offered me the job. I walked away because having decided to be a mother- i knew some things had to give. I can have my dream job now or I can be great mother now- I can't do both at the same time. Maybe Sarah Palin can do both (I doubt it) but having engaged in the mommy wars for so long- the Republican party can't just do an about face. It is offensive to all the rest of us who are struggling with very real difficult decisions. For all their talk about Bristol's condition showing them to be "real"- I would like people to be "real" about this discussion.
September 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uuurrrghhh...blockquotes.
September 7, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agrree that there is no formula - every situation is different because every woman and every family is different.
But to pretend that hard choices have to be made between motherhood and what is the 2d most powerful position in this country is to belittle the responsibilities of both those positions.
Where Sarah is not representative of women, Schrodinger, is how she got where she is. She has been waltzed into a position of incredible power and authority by an old guy who needed something she had. Not her expertise, not her experience but her looks and her charisma and her ability to be nasty.
She was in effect promoted over more qualified women, like Kay Bailey Hutchison. That is not a situation that is guaranteed to go over well with some women, like me, who actually worked to get someplace. It's damned easy when you don't have any function or responsibilities other than to represent an ideology and be nasty, which apparently comes naturally to her, to project the idea that women can have it all.
That's why I think it's so unfair to present this idea about Sarah - that you can't criticize her feminine aspects without getting accused of sexism. She's a walking example of SEXISM - for god's sake. She was given this job - she didn't earn it. A man gave it to her. Because she's a woman.
What a fucking insult! That's not feminism - that's bullshit.
September 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, Tena, I think you left something out: he needed her FAMILY. What were the first two things I heard about her when she was rolled out? Mother of five including an infant with DS. She's advertised as some sort of Supermom and this seems to be one of her big selling points. If so, do we not have a right to question how she can be fully committed to both her role as Supermom and her role as VP?
September 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - I've just caught so goddamn much shit for saying that myself I went on to something else - her lack of experience and what an exercise in the most outrageous sexism it really is.
But over half the reason they put her on the ticket is Family Values. Do not tell me that hers aren't an issue.
September 7, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
hard choices don't have to be made.
dammit.
September 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification. I read the sentence like three time and thought "Wow, Tena sure seems to have changed her tune". It makes more sense now.
:-)
September 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This all reminds me so damn much of how it has gotten to the point where you cannot criticize the government of Israel without being accuse of anti-Semitism.
This is bullshit political correctness that the Repugs are using to keep us scared to say anything at all.
Just fuck the consequences, dammit. Women will respond more positively than not if someone points out that this woman has absolutely no claim to feminism - she has no right at all to cry "Sexism!"
Sexism got her her fucking job on the ticket.
September 7, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main point I get from this fabulous thread is this:
The Vice Presidency is not a job one can quit or take a leave of absence for "personal reasons".
Someone should ask which slogan Sarah signs on to.
"Country First" or "Family First" - in my mind they actually ARE mutually exclusive in this very unique case.
September 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think Elizabeth Edwards thinks about this?
September 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't begin to guess.
Her situation with regards to a terminal illness, small children, a philandering husband with an out of wedlock child...
Completely out of my realm of understanding.
If I were dying, I would think of nothing else but my children - including my husband's adultery.
September 7, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
To respond to Tena's point on HOW Sarah got to this point.
It's common knowledge that she won the governor's race here in Alaska on the dick vote - if she had looked like Janet Reno she wouldn't have made it past the primary.
I happen to think Sarah as VP gives the Republican base cover to vote on race - they can claim to be progressive on women's rights while still fundamentally rejecting the other candidate for no other reason than he is black.
Aska yourself how it would have gone over if Sarah were black or asian or actually an Alaska native. s
September 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the most outrageous comment on this thread.
Wow, just wow.
September 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I don't think so - I think yours about Elizabeth Edwards was a far more outrageous comment.
A tad sexist, perhaps?
Go away Lalo. Grown-ups are talking.
September 7, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not outrageous it is the only question that should be asked.
Here's another.
What if Sarah were white and her husband was black?
How would that play to the RNC Hate Convention?
September 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if you agree that Palin won the dick vote in Alaska, I guess you would also agree that Obama won the nigger vote in South Carolina?
September 7, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously I've touched a nerve.
The real question is:
Do dicks outnumber blacks?
I guess we'll find out November 5th.
September 7, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you proved that you're a total jerk.
September 7, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take that as a compliment coming from you.
September 7, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
@witty1
Coupled by the fact you live in Wasilla,I was struck by some details you have provided in this post:
"BTW I was told my son had Down's when I was pregnant with him"
......
"We feel extremely fortunate that the doctor's were wrong."
Were you living in Wasilla at the time of this pregnancy and was your prenatal care the responsibility of local physicians?
Where and what kinds of tests were administered to determine the likleyhood of a Down's syndrome child?
Sorry for the OT nature of my questions; I'm still trying to wrap my head around the strange saga of Sarah's labor and delivery. I had assumed she had access to medical care that would insure that the proper determinative testing was ordered to ascertain the presence of definitive indicators for Down's syndrome.
Your comments have caused me to question my earlier assumptions.
September 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Were you living in Wasilla at the time of this pregnancy and was your prenatal care the responsibility of local physicians?"
Yes I was living in Wasilla and no, none of my prenatal care took place there. I had a very high risk pregnancy for other reasons and had to travel often to Anchorage (50 miles away) nearly every week for testing and care. There was never any question I would deliver in Anchorage, Wasilla does not have the facilities to deal with a seriously ill newborn - ALL are transferred to Anchorage.
Where and what kinds of tests were administered to determine the likelihood of a Down's syndrome child?
I had an ultrasound that indicated a thickened "nuchal fold" it is the thickness on the back of a fetus's neck - my son's was 3 times the normal thickness. It is one of many physical signs they look for, another might be webbed fingers.
When they found this we were immediately notified and told the risks of further testing vs. doing nothing.
We immediately scheduled an amniocentesis and had it done on Thanksgiving Day that year.
We also had extensive testing on my son's heart even after the amnio came back negative for Down's. The nuchal fold thing was EXTREMELY concerning to the Doctor's involved in my care.
My son's epilepsy may or may not be related to this finding - other genetic abnormalities were found on the amnio.
My son is extremely bright and developmentally "ahead" for his age. His seizures were difficult and devastating (dozens a day).
I was 26 at the time and my husband's union medical coverage took very good care of us during and after my son's birth.
I can only guess that Sarah also enjoyed the benefits of union medical coverage while building her family.
McCain is an absolute enemy to unions.
September 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obamas have specifically answered the family care questions actually. The daughters are cared for on a full time basis by their grandmother -- Michelle's mother -- and continue with their routine in Chicago. Michelle says she flies back home frequently to be there for them. I am under the impression that her schedule is less busy than his. Clearly, they do not get to see their father that often, and seem to relish the time that they can all be together.
I think it would do Sarah Palin good to talk about her child care arrangements, just as the Obamas did. I do not necessarily think the press should push it, as there are more vital concerns in regards to her record and her positions on a variety of issues. But she must know there are many people wondering about how she plans to care for a family and take on one of the most grueling jobs on the planet: campaigning for Vice President. I do not think it is sexist to wonder about these things, especially if she is breastfeeding (sorry, men can't do that).
I wish we didn't have the "Mommy Wars" but we are stuck with it. I have a feeling it is rooted in the doubts every Mom feels for the choices they have made. It seems that there is always a tradeoff, and no choice is without its downsides. Therefore, we lash out at each other to mask our own self doubt in whether or not we have made the right choice. Obviously, a presidential campaign will not be a good platform to re-fight the Mommy Wars. So perhaps in a couple of years, we can then have a reasoned discussion on the heart wrenching choices Moms and Dads must make when they become parents.
September 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You completely hit the nail on the head. That's why it's such a difficult discussion to have. Everything gets clouded in defensiveness.
September 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
I read this on a thread on the website "Republicans for Obama"
http://www.republicansforobama.org/
September 7, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm reading this thread, and I'm thinking of an old West Wing episode, when Leo's wife is talking divorce, and he says "This is important."
"More important than your family?"
"Yes. For right now, this is more important than my family."
I've got three kids -- 4 year-old girl and twin 1-year-old boys. I love them very much. I know how important they and their quality of life is to me. But I'd have to say that if Palin believes -- in her heart and in her mind -- that she has been "blessed with inspiration" (another WW line, no religious stuff intended) then I can't begrudge her choosing to pursue that even at the expense of her family. After all, we're not saying the same things about Obama putting his daughters in this situation, living in a SS bubble. I think it's a bad, and honestly, kind of hypocritical, argument for us to pass judgment on Palin for this. As you pointed out, if she was one of us, we would be vigorously defending her choices.
Just to make sure I'm clear, I consider Sarah Palin the single scariest person/movement I've seen in my lifetime. I'm not defending any aspect of her in anyway, I'm just saying we can't be who we are and blast her for this one.
September 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting that you, too, see her as a very scary person, as I do. And yet a whole lot of other people seem to find her attractive and it doesn't seem to be just based on being partisan, so I'm having a hard time understanding what it is. I know on my part it's her snarky manner and the research I've done that has revealed so much about her. So maybe the ones who like her so much would like her less if they knew more. There are of course that other sector that would like her even more IF they knew a lot about her.
September 7, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a large part of the American public that likes, for lack of a better term, to kick ass. They don't like diplomacy -- they like to get in your face. They don't like nuance , they like black and white, right and wrong. They Lee Greenwood singing "where at least I know I'm free." They think the government takes too much of their money and gives it to "those people," and that they have earned everything in their lives while everyone else has had it handed to them. They think that prayer in public schools never hurt nobody, that all politicians are liars and that the speech GWB gave after 9/11 was the greatest thing they have ever heard.
She is their poster child. She is their wet dream. She's the mom who gets the sex offender thrown out of the neighborhood; she's the PTA president who gets "Slaughterhouse Five" pulled from the library shelves.
I've mentioned a book called "It Can't Happen Here," which was written in the 30s. Take a look at it. Very frightening -- how easily people fall into line for jingoism, even here. The Germans weren't stupid, or even inherently bad as a people -- they just allowed themselves to become enraptured by a leader.
I keep going back to the scene in Broadcast News where Albert Brooks says "Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the devil." That's the way I'm starting to think about Sarah Palin. She appeals to our -- to their -- lowest common denominator. And if one thing has been proven true in the last 20 years, it's that Americans will take the path of least resistane when it is offered to them.
Sarah Palin offers it to them. That's why she scares me.
September 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I think you know enough about me to know that I am not completely full of crap, and I heartily disagree that if she were on our ticket these things wouldn't be issues for me.
I have SERIOUS doubts about her judgment based on how she traveled during the early stages of her labor, turning the care of a special needs infant over to someone else w/i two days of delivering, who was caring for her family while her teenager was out getting pregnant, how she could possibly think that someone (be it us or her family in crisis) isn't going to get short-changed by her decision to accept such a challenging job. And that is not even mentioning how a mother could expose her teenage daughter's morals/irresponsibility to national scrutiny is way beyond my ability to comprehend. There is not a job in the world that would have been worth doing that to my daughter, whether or not she was on board with it.
All of you who believe in the fairy tale that women can have it all are deluding yourselves. There are flat out not enough hours in the day for us to have it all. We can find jobs that let us fudge a little on the amount of hours we need to put in, or find employers that recognize that mothers need a little more flexibility w/ their schedules, or give over care to our precious children to people who love them (like grandparents) or make the decision that our working is important enough for whatever reason that strangers are going to basically raise our children...but let me be perfectly clear, WE CANNOT HAVE IT ALL. And as women we anguish over it...
The McCain campaign has made her personal situation an issue in the campaign by presenting her as a woman who can do it all and do it all well...It doesn't take much digging to realize that this is not true.
PC? Maybe not...but at least it's honest. And after 8 years of GWB, I'm ready for a little honesty.
September 7, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd never think your'e full of crap. I just think this is a non-winner for us, and we need all the winners we can have here.
Can we afford to say to the woman who, for necessity or choice, decides to go back to work within days of her child's birth, that she is irresponsible? Can we afford to let that woman believe that the repubs identify with her more than we do? Can we, after years -- and years -- of saying that women can and should have it all, now say that they can't because the opposing candidate happens to fall into that category?
We can argue the philosophy of it all day, and what it says about judgment all we want. But when we do, we look like hypocrites. Palin is living one of our dreams -- we can't condemn her for it.
September 7, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the overall point, but I disagree with this statement. Sarah Palin is where she is solely because she has a set of ovaries and five children. I, as a professional who struggled in a male dominated field for years, strove to be taken seriously and to be accepted as an equal because of my cv, not because of my chromosomes.
September 7, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thought: it's not about Sarah Palin being a Republican, it's about acknowledging that maybe, for some of us, it was wrong.
It's just like the abstinence-only debate: great, in a perfect world, most of us would probably agree that we would like our children to refrain from sexual activity - but we know that the world isn't perfect and so we reluctantly agree that education about birth control and STDs should be provided. In a perfect world, it's great to say "A woman can have it all", but I'm afraid that the reality does not always match the rhetoric.
September 7, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska has one of the highest rates of Clamidiya infections - getting pregnant means one could have been exposed to it.
However, I really don't want anyone to ask Sarah or Bristol about her STD history. Please don't in fact.
Just a thought.
September 7, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have actually thought a lot about the Obama girls. Back when Obama was deciding to run, I thought about his kids and thought- what a tough choice- I really felt his country needed him- we needed him- but that it would be his family's loss- He could help us at the expense of his family (also because of the extra risk he is at because of his historic candidacy). I felt conflicted for him- and for my own desire for him to serve. But he has admitted that he is not the primary care giver (Michelle carries that along with her other jobs) nor has he ever used his being a father as an example of his qualification for the job of President. I DO think Malia and Sasha will lose out on a more normal childhood if their father is elected and I think the Obamas have been candid about their concerns and indeed, their girls are older. I just resent that Gov. Palin treats this as so much sexist questioning.
If she is really interested in shattering the glass ceiling ( I do not believe she is) then she could use this as an opportunity to discuss that women are in a difficult bind - not belittling the choices we all have to make (but then again-she doesn't believe we are responsible enough to make our own choices.)
September 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
In all of the polls I've seen so far, it seems that women are far more skeptical of her than men. Maybe that's because she has painted her life as a working mom as some sort of gleeful mission. I can't speak for everyone, but when I was working, I didn't feel like that at all. Most days I felt like that guy in the circus who twirls plates on top of a bunch of poles - racing back and forth so that none of them would fall. I think a lot of women just instinctively have a hard time relating to her because of that...or maybe they just don't believe her.
September 7, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record I had no doubt that Sarah was capable of maintaining a family balance while being Governor of Alaska, even after her son Trig was born.
Alaskans are actually compassionate in the extreme.
From all accounts she maintains offices in Anchorage and Juneau and spends MOST of her time commuting to Anchorage from Wasilla, (as do 30,000 other "Valley" residents).
Governor of Alaska just isn't as demanding as the Vice Presidency of the United States.
Can you imagine her son in the room during Defense briefings?
I feel the VP spot is not the kind of job that allows a "balance", and I think the Presidency forbids it.
She will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
My children have classmates whose parents (some single parents other dual-active duty) are overseas and are being cared for by grandparents.
No one can tell me that these kids don't suffer because of it, I admire in the extreme the family that steps in to care for these kids - but it doesn't negate the fact these kids aren't with their parents and probably fear for their safety on a daily basis.
Not much different when it comes to the Vice Presidency.
September 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of all the concerns about Sarah Palin (there seem to be many) this is the one that I disagree with the most. Barack Obama has two young daughters, who require a large amount of attention, yet no one has been concerned about how he will manage to insure that they receive it.
Equal rights and equal pay for women has always been a major issue for the Democratic party. Sarah Palin has benefitted from the efforts of women who have come before her. They have paved the way for her to have a career, and to raise a family.
We should applaud her for taking advantage of the opportunities that she has been provided, and for proving that women can have an important job and a family. Yet, some now seem to feel that a woman cannot have an important career position and care for a family too. Nothing has changed except for the fact that Sarah Palin is a popular politician from the other side of the political spectrum.
There is so much about Sarah Palin's policies and history that can be opposed, without having to take a stand that women with small children need not apply for important jobs. We are believers in equal rights for all. Sarah Palin should be treated as if she was a male politician for the job. Anything less is hypocritical at best, and sexist at worst.
September 7, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, and for the most part I agree. I just disagree in this circumstance.
She doesn't just have small children. She has a special needs infant who is still breastfeeding.
I've yet to meet the parent of a special needs child who claims their life and plans for it continued without any interruption.
She has 17 year old daughter who is pregnant.
Trying to find absolute equal rights WITHOUT limitations seems very hypothetical to me.
Families are complex and only the people in them understand the dynamics of their personal situation.
I'm not saying Palin should drop out, I'm just saying the questions are legitimate.
If we don't ask these questions and she IS successful in her new job - how will anyone learn from it?
September 7, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope I make it clear that I am not opposed to Sarah Palin because of these "Mommy " issues. Just off the top of my head I can think of 15 other issues that give me cause for concern.
I was just using her situation as a means to open a discussion. I always thought I knew the answers to all of these questions, but Palin's candidacy combined with my children, my experiences, and my fleeting youth has caused me to reflect on whether what I believed was really true.
I disagree with your statement here, though. I do not believe that the POTUS is just "an important career position". It's not. It's requirements are entirely unique and should not be compared to any other job.
September 7, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said that either and I resent the fact that it keeps being presented as either/or and I don't think I said that. I did say that a woman who has 5 children, including one who is special needs and only 5 or 6 months old has chosen family - or she should have.
I also said because I know what every woman I went through law school with went through vis-a-vis her marriage and family or her possible marriage and family, that women of child bearing age do have to make choices between families and their careers. It wasn't something that anyone I knew didn't take seriously. Certainly the law firms I interviewed with did, because the first question I was asked every time was what my plans were about marriage and children. You can tell me it's illegal all you want - they ask.
Women can do amazing things - but nobody can do them willy-nilly. And that's how it seems Sarah goes through life.
September 7, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think I went to law school and went through the Old Boys system to make it possible for Sarah fucking Palin to be waltzed right into a position of incredible power by some old boy needing a boost then you are crazy.
I did not pave the way for a pretentious and wholly unqualified woman with a 5 month old special needs infant to walk away from that infant she bragged about having, into a job she has absolutely no qualifications for.
September 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't mean to imply that she was in any way qualified for her position. I only meant that others paved the way for a woman to be a professional, and to have a family.
My wife began with a public accounting firm as a CPA before there was a single woman partner in the firm. I know how hard it was for women to work through the good old boys, and I have nothing but respect for their efforts. As a paramedic, I worked 24 hour shifts every three days, so I did a majority of the childcare for our children. (ages 18, 17, 15, 13, 12) She was able to achieve a highly successful career, because of the women who forged the path ahead of her.
My point was that it is unfair to question Sarah Palin about her family and caring for her children, and I don't believe it is helpful for Obama either. In fact, in a typical job interview, I believe it is illegal to even ask about children and child care etc. My wife is a huge Obama supporter. She has canvassed on his behalf and made the maximum donation. When she heard that people were questioning how she could be VP and a good mother, she wanted to vote for McCain just to show her support to working mothers.
After a time, she realized that it wasn't Obama, but some of his supporters that made the comments. I just don't think this line of argument has much of a positive side, and a large negative one.
September 7, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
O god do not tell me that CinderSarah was the beneficiary of women who actually made tough choices and sacrificed and did not benefit from lowered expectations - don't you dare tell me that.
She is the beneficiary of SEXISM. An old man needed her youth, looks, etc - HE put her there. NOT ME.
September 7, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah got where she is on her good looks. She's not the first or the last and I can confess to using my looks to my advantage when it seems like I can get away with it. No one spends that much time on their hair, makeup and wardrobe can claim their looks have nothing to do with their professional life - it is a myth.
Every single conversation I had with men with regards to her bid for Governor ALWAYS mentioned she was hot as a qualification.
Her participation in a shock jock radio show was demeaning in the extreme. No professional women should laugh and giggle along when someone talks about her looks and sexuality at the exclusion of every other topic.
Prior to her nomination Wonkette had the most information on her.
http://wonkette.com/tag/sarah-palin
The threads on Palin reflected almost exactly the "street" conversations taking place in Alaska.
September 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone, somewhere (I forget who it was, so forgive me) wrote that Palin's candidacy was never about attracting Hillary's voters....instead, it was about attracting men and particularly right-wing men. Attractive woman who hunts and shoots a rifle....it's porn for the wingnuts.
September 7, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said upthread it also gives them the perfect cover for voting against Obama because he's black.
She totally won the dick vote in Alaska, I have to go somewhere right now but when I get back I'll see if I can get some polling data that might give some insight.
Polls in Alaska are usually pretty limited thought, don't hold out too much hope =-)
September 7, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. My father in law, who is a right leaning independent wasn't planning on voting, because he didn't like McCain. He took one look of the video of Palin firing the rifle, and he never looked back. He even called the voter registration office to make sure he was registered to vote. His comments, "she is pretty, and a reformer. Just what we need."
September 7, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Palin got the nod because Monica Goodling was unavailable, and doesn't have any babies... yet.
September 7, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, inasmuch as this is about Mommy Wars, the thing I gave my career up for was my mother.
IT was either take care of my mother when she was dying, or take care of my deadlines and my clients. Otherwise it was possible malpractice or I let strangers care for my mother.
That's the way it is in real life. It's all very well to talk about equality for women - it's something I've believed in since I was a little girl - I never saw that there was any basis for our freedoms to be restricted in ways that men's aren't. But with those opportunities come responsibilities. There is no free lunch.
September 7, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Family is precious and finite Tena, time lost can never be regained.
Fundamentally, life is hard and unfair. I do my very best to make the choices that are right for me - and for me that means "no regrets".
I always ask myself how I would reflect on my choices at the end of my life.
My Economically minded thinking always returns to the basics:
The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
September 7, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are one wise woman.
I certainly don't regret my choice. I wasn't always the most patient daughter and caregiver, but I was there.
September 7, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't take credit, it was my Econ101 professor that drilled that into us.
Showing up is half the battle, I think that's the point of this thread.
Which responsibility is Palin going to "show up" for?
BTW I didn't finish my Econ degree due to my son's seizures and I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. If forced my husband and I to reevaluate our prioritize and structure our life and goals around it. My son is now seizure free and although I think luck had more to do with it than anything else - perhaps my advocacy on his behalf helped a little.
September 7, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck to you and your family and thanks for your input on this thread...you've shown great insight, knowledge, and humor. :-)
September 7, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likewise, I hope this topic remains alive.
The last thing equal rights is meant to do is shut us up about anything.
September 7, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absofrickinlutely! And don't we get to ask her who is she going to shortchange - us or her family? Because to say SOMEONE isn't going to get shortchanged is the height of hypocrisy...Asking the question isn't sexism, it's being responsible.
Ask the question of Obama...I would bet his answer is that Michelle and her mother will take up the slack...
September 7, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose that it is possible that Sarah Palin would get better care for all of her children by being the Vice President. I would think that being VP would open a lot of doors to schooling, child care and special needs resources that Sarah Palin might not have access to in her position as governor. It isn't a substitute for being with mom, but it could certainly be argued that there is a trade off.
September 7, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely ga medic.
I think everyone who has a child with special needs is asking what advantages Sarah might pass on to them.
"A Servant's Heart" ... remember?
September 7, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there is a model in place. Jane Swift, LT. Gov. (R), and then acting governor of Massachusetts for 2 years. She gave birth to twins while serving as acting governor (the elected one stepped down, or something.
How'd she do? Not too well. She got slammed for using aids for childcare, and long taxpayer funded commutes. Her popularity was in the single digits, so she did not seek to be elected after the term ended.
She, of course, supports Palin, but this model we have does tell us something the author of this OP alluded to. Is it FAIR to the taxpayers or to her small, special needs child, or to her staff to be put through the extra work, and unhealthy atmosphere? Doesn't the responsibility of deciding to have a special needs infant count for anything? If she ran 4 years from now, it wouldn't bother me, but now? Yes, let's be real.
I do have to question her sense of personal responsibility here. If she can't act in the best needs of her own family, why should I think she'd act in mine?
Responsibility is a serious issue. Perhaps if she were the best qualified person for the job, such a sacrifice that she will be calling for from her family and the VP staff might be worth considering, but she isn't. Not by a long shot.
September 7, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feminists never said women "can have it all" in the world as it is. I believe it was cigarette advertisers who said that.
Feminists say women should be able to "have it all" (family + work) -- so they fight for antidiscrimination workplace laws, equal pay for equal work, access to sex education, contraception and (in case these fail) abortion, paid maternity leave, publicly funded high-quality child care, and other innovations that might make it conceivable that women could meet the demands of working for pay and supporting their families.
Those conditions just haven't been met. Palin, unlike the overwhelming majority of women, is lucky enough to (a) have enough money to support a family of seven (soon to be eight or nine, if you count Levi) from her own finances alone, and (b) have a spouse who is willing and able to stay home and care for the children without pay.
More to the point, Palin and her conservative-right supporters oppose equal pay for equal work, paid maternity leave, government-supported child care, etc. -- yet their "morality" condemns other women (especially younger, single and poorer women) who fail to make the same "choices" as themselves.
And don't even start with Feminists for Life -- that organization doesn't even take a position on whether contraception should be allowed.
September 7, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and good healthy discussion. I don't have kids but many of my friends are working mothers. My mom and my husband's mother were working moms -- that is the model I grew up with. I have seen working mothers, married or not, give up alot -- a promotion, a business trip, a project, drinks after work, et al - for their children. I see the sacrifices they make -- and they rarely complain, other than wanting the need for more sleep.
The problem I have with SP, as it regards to this topic, is two fold. (like others, I have other issues with her as well). One: I don't see any of the women in my life, past or present, ever putting their job/career ahead of their children. Given the nature of this VP job, the nature of ugly politics, the 24/7 intrusion of the press and public in your life, WHY did she put her daughter in this position and why did Sarah force her to hide her pregnancy? From what I read, Bristol didn't even know what was what until they were half way to Ohio for the announcement. That doesn't seem 'family' to me. Doesn't Bristol need her more than the rest of America? Given Sarah's age and young political career, what is the hurry to accept this position? What is the harm in waiting another four years?
2. It just feels to me that she is not connected to her baby. The way she holds the kid in photo ops - it just seems so staged and forced. And why would you have that baby at the convention, with all the noise and late hour? We all know that she has an infant -- the baby did not have to be there. Couldn't they find some day(night) care while she gave that speech? It just seems cold and calculating.
I'm all for ambitious women -- I am one! And I'm not trying to set any woman back 20+ years. There is just something unnerving and scary about Sarah --and whether she is Rep or Dem, I just don't want her as VP.
September 7, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment