Here we go again...the sexism card. First Hillary was whining about not being accepted into the all boys club and now McCain/Palin surrogates are crying foul in regards to recent criticism aimed at Governor Palin. Let's get to the bottom of this...
I think it is completely within the rules to ask how Governor Palin plans on giving her family ample attention as a mother (if elected)...IF one also asks Barack Obama how he plans to give his family ample attention as a father (if elected). Or any other male candidate, for that matter. It's not like Palin is the first parent of young children to ever run for office; Barack Obama's girls are younger than most of Palin's kids. Why haven't we held the same amount of scrutiny to all candidates and claimed that in order to hold such a high office one cannot also have parenting committments? The answer is simple: Sarah Palin is a woman, and to treat someone differently based on their sex is, by definition, sexism. I never thought I'd be playing the sexism card, but there it is.
Criticism of a woman is not, in and of itself, sexist, however, like many are claiming now. It's not sexist to question her affiliation with the Alaskan Independence Party, or her husband's DUI arrest, or even her daughter's pre-marital pregnancy (although some claim that such investigations are irrelevant and "out of bounds," a poisition I disagree with). It's not sexist to question her true stance on the bridge to nowhere or her foreign policy experience.
It IS sexist to say that because she's a mother she will have any more duty to her family than Barack Obama will to his family. After all, Obama has been the one claiming that more American fathers need to be a part of their children's lives. Doe she think the White House will give him more time to be a part of their lives? Will he take them with him to talk with Ahmadinajad, Kim Jong Il, or Vladamir Putin? Or will he leave them where they "belong," with their mother? Sexist?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Okay, after hearing Sarah Palin's speech tonight, here are my thoughts on this matter:
-the reason people ask about Sarah's responsibility to her family is because her husband works as well. If Michelle Obama works (?) outside the home, I would be asking Obama about both his and his wife's family commitments.
-after watching Sarah's speech tonight, I'm of the opinion that it's more important for someone who is in the trenches (of motherhood, of new grandmotherhood, of parenting a child with a disability, of working through a marriage, etc.) to represent, even if her children have to sacrifice a little bit.
The little question mark in your comment says a lot. Does Michelle Obama work? Well, until her husband ran for office, she did work. Here's a link to an article about it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002573.html
I've heard rumors and read in blogs that Todd Palin is going to take a leoave of absence from his fishing business and oil rig job, but I'm yet to confirm it. I can't imagine he would have time to do both. it's no different than when any other working mother quit her job when he husband was elected (Hillary was a lawyer).
If one is going to make the argument that her kids need her more than any other prospective VP's kids ever have, then one has to admit that women and men are different and have different roles in their families' lives. I don't mind such criticism coming from the right, where they believe in gender roles, but the left wants it both ways. They want to call her a bad mother but at the same time say that men and women are completely interchangable.
Post a Comment