Bio
I am Heather, mama to two boys, Ryan, age 5, and Cole age 3.     When I have  spare time, I enjoy blogging at my blog, A Mama's Blog, reading, walkin...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Sarah Palin, Feminism, & Double Standards

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 57
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

It seems everyone has their thoughts and opinions about the first Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, these days, and I am no different.

I was surprised when I heard McCain had picked her, but I was also happy that a woman was now on one of the political party's top ticket.  It didn't matter to me what ticket she was on- as a woman and a mother, I thought it was a step in the right direction.

If you are a regular blog reader of mine, you may remember the post I wrote in May, about how I felt the media in particular, had portrayed Hillary Clinton in a sexist and discriminatory way, simply because she was a woman.  If I thought that was bad for Hillary Clinton, it has just been beyond belief, the attack the media and blogs have launched against Sarah Palin in just over a week. 

This just makes no sense to me whatsoever.  For years feminists like Gloria Steinem, have been advocating for women that they should be able to have a choice.  They shouldn't have to give up careers in order to be mothers.  Women should be considered as equals and they should have the same chances and opportunities as men.  One of Gloria Steinem's quotes I have always liked is, "I've yet to be on a campus where most women weren't worrying about some aspect of combining marriage, children, and a career.  I've yet to find one where many men were worrying about the same thing."

There is a woman in the national spotlight, in the running for one of our country's highest positions, (never mind her politics for a minute) who has combined marriage, children, and a career, and is successful at it.  Instead of feminists like Steinem acknowledging that this is indeed a breakthrough for women, she writes an article for the LA Times (Wrong Woman, Wrong Time) basically saying the only reason Palin was picked by McCain was "to please right-wing ideologues."   Steinem also asserts "that feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman, but making life more fair for women everywhere."  

 If Steinem really believed the above statement, why didn't she make a similar statement about Hillary Clinton?  Hillary Clinton was one woman, as well, running for one job.  How does it make "life more fair for women everywhere" if Clinton were to be elected president, but it would not make "life more fair for women everywhere"  if Palin was elected vice president?

Steinem continues,

"And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it.  Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children."

Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, is becoming a stay-at-home Dad.  Isn't this what Steinem was hoping for in part when she wrote, "...until there is a support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it? "

Futhermore, when a male presidential candidate picks a woman for his running mate, it sends a message to women and to men, that he believes his pick is qualified and capable of being an effective vice president.  What many have considered obstacles and reasons why Sarah Palin should not have been picked, McCain saw the very thing Steinem wants- "a male leader(s) who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it? "

It seems to me John McCain and the Palin family already figured out, what Steinem wrote about.  Palin's husband Todd, is equal in the home, and will be home with their children.  In my eyes, the support on a national stage for women, that Steinem talks about Obama and Biden needing to bring, is already here.

Why do we need "male leaders"  to bring support to working women, and to help make men equal in the house, when it is already been in place for years?  Not just with McCain, Palin and her husband, but with the thousands and thousands of working families, where the mother works, and the father stays at home.  It seems like a real insult to working mothers, and stay-at-home fathers.  

I can't help but wonder if Steinem would feel this way if Palin wasn't a Republican, but a Democrat?  It makes me wonder if the type of feminism that Steinem has been pushing for, for all these years, has more do with politics than gender?

The most repulsive part of the

  • 57
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
abeck 5 pts

SO, if Carville (who is definitely pro-bama) says there will be riots, it's not racist, but is anyone that's not voting for Obama says the same thing, it is?  Did I get that right?

Yikes!

Thanks for responding to my reply.  I've enjoyed your postings.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

amamasblog 5 pts

I agree that the Obama side and supporters are the ones using the racism card.

James Carville, on Anderson Cooper, said if Obama doesn't win, things will be "very,very,very, dramatic," hinting at riots. How racist is THAT- implying that blacks will riot if Obama doesn't win. Nothing is said about that being racist, yet when John McCain used the term "that one" in the debate, that was racist.

My grandmother uses that term, and so does my aunt who is 40- they use it when pointing out someone, usually a kid, but never towards an African-American. I never knew that term was racist, and seems like only the Dem.'s are trying to bring racism into the picture, every time they can. I doubt anyone running for the highest office in the land would be so ignorant to label their opponent by a racist term. It is just grasping at straws.

Thanks for your comments, Anne.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/...

* A Mama's Blog- A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com/ )

abeck 5 pts

Yes, the Palin interview WAS heavily and incredulously edited, seemingly to make Gov. Palin seem the idiot, which she is NOT.  I read the entire transcript and I knw that she came off in the televised interview MUCH differently than how the interview (and her answers) went.  It was wrong of CHarlie to do that!  Of course, as far as how the MSM has behaved  this year, it was sadly par for the course.

Sarah Palin is the most popular governor in ANY and ALL of these United States;  why else would John McCain pick her?  Well, there's her obvious strength, for one rationale..  I do not agree with ALL of Sarah Palin's 'feelings' or beliefs, but I do agree with her regarding the way she has done her job and how she has run Alaska.  At least Palin seems to believe in CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.., meaning she does follow it~  Anyone who says differently has not done his or her homework on Sarah Palin.  Of course, that seems to be a huge problem this year;  people believing every little blurb rather than looking it up.

By the way;  yes, I am a woman and I am an INDEPENDENT voter who will be voting McCain and Palin this year!  --Never did think I would vote for the Republican, but I also never thought that Rep would be McCain, a man I truly do respect.

 anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

abeck 5 pts

WOW;  I had no idea that the LA chapter had come out in support of Govv Palin.  But, I am happy to see it.  Thanks for posting that and, especially, thanks for the link~

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

abeck 5 pts

Comparing earmarks by a GOVERNOR and a SENATOR really is apples and oranges.  In fact, Palin could NOT have added earmarks to ANY bill  You would have to look to the Congressmen of the state of Alaske for that.    However, even when comparing this, you also have to make note that Alaska is still much undeveloped (and in need of ROADS, etc..)  AND is the largest Oil-Producing state in these United States. 

So, any comparison in earmarks really cannot be rationally made when comparing Alaska and Illinois.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

abeck 5 pts

The ONLY thing Gov. Palin has said about abstinance only is thet she believe it should be able to be brought up , "like in conversation or debate" in sex-ed classes.  THAT is ALL Gov, Palin has to say about it. 

She has never promoted abstinence-only regarding sex-ed.  She does not live in the dark ages and she realises that Sex-Education is an important subject and it should be taught (and IS taught in Alaska, too-- her daughter, Bristol, DID attend these classes in her school). 

Please get your facts straight.  If you would like, go to factcheck.org to find what HAS been debumked.  And, I am talking about ALL of the lies and smears perpetrated BY THE OBAMA CAMP and by Obama, himself, regarding Sarah Palin.  It amazes me how gullible some people are (I am not pointing fingers),  The FACTS are out there, though,  Please investigate!!

Anne\

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

abeck 5 pts

HA!  the ONLY racist wording I have heard in this campaign (at ALL) has come from Obama's lips.  HE is the one who tells us not be be scared of his skin color and his
not looking like presidents on the dollar-bill(s).  HE brought this up;  he warns that people will say these things, but I have not heard any one person say this (other than HIM).  Now, out of the mouths of the obama supporters, I have been CALLED RACIST.  WHY?  i WAS called this ONLY because I will not vote for him.  I have children who are of mixed race, and I am the racist???  These people began on this tirade when Obama came out with his statement of race;  Tim Wise then wrote his piece, telling the whole country that "our whiteness is showing".  THAT opened the door for all bama supporters to call ME and anyone who votes against him a racist.  THAT is wrong!!

Really, I have heard NOT ONE PERSON NOTE ANYTHING ABOUT HIS RACE- other than HIM.  SO, if you want to give me just ONE instance where his race was brought up in a negative manner, plese do;  Anything that has come out of the mouth of Obama does NOT count!!

 Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

abeck 5 pts

I would quote ANY source other than the Huffington report when emplying any argument against Palin, McCain, or any Republican.  The Huffington site has devolved into a smear-spot against the entire R-Ticket!  So, if you want to argue a point, I'd say use anything BUT Huffington.  Honestly!!

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

abeck 5 pts

Wow, it has been proven that OBAMA AND HIS TEAM have been behind the smears perpertated against Sarah Palin (and her family).  So you call this gracious?  Wow.  I think it is absolutely abhorrant and Obama has shown NO grace-- at least behind the scenes.   He's been nothing but UGLY there.  And, he has been found out!

from NoQuarter:  http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/23/obama-axel...

Now, does any of that sound "gracious"?  Just disgusting.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

VirginiaHarris 5 pts

Can you even imagine being a woman and not being able to vote?

Thanks to the suffragettes, America has women voters and women candidates, and we are a better country for it!

Women have voices and choices! Just like men.

But few people know ALL of the suffering that our suffragettes had to go through to get the vote for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Now you can subscribe FREE to an exciting e-mail series that goes behind the scenes in the lives of eight of the world's most famous women to reveal the shocking and sometimes heartbreaking truth of HOW women won the vote.

Discover how the cross-currents created by two beautiful and powerful suffragettes, a First Lady, a First Daughter, author Edith Wharton, dancer Isadora Duncan and two presidential mistresses set the stage for women to FINALLY win the vote.

Thrilling, dramatic, sequential short story e-mail episodes have readers from all over the world raving about the original historical series, "The Privilege of Voting." 

Read this FREE e-mail series on your coffeebreaks and fall in love with these amazing women!

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html ( http://www.coffeebreakreaders.com/subscribe.html )

abeck 5 pts

THANK you for this wonderful post.  You said exactly what I was thinking, especially regarding Ms Steinem's words.  Of course, you also remained calmer than I was and am when I read and re-read what Ms. Steinem has had to say.

As a Mom and a mom who worked up until both  of my children were born, and went back to work within  3 days of their birth(s), leaving my dear husband to care for the children as I brought home the "bacon", I find what has been said by all supposed feminists absolutely awful.  What would they think of me?  After all, my "chidren" are now 23 and 25, so it's been a long time since I had to have care for them...  I am disgusted by the double-standard Ms Steinem and MANY Obama suporters seemingly hold dear to;  this is the 21st century and I thought that what Sarah Palin is doing would certainly be something that the feminists would be proud to point to for their daughters education of what women CAN do;  I suppose not.  And, I find it disheartening. 

In this election season, we seem to have gone back by decades regarding race and sex and I find it distressing.  Hearing what was said by Gloria Steinem is worse because of her supposed stance when it comes to women,, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth, surely!  Women cannot sit idly by while this sort of thing is proffered.  Women MUST always support other women in their good deeds.

Someone needed to say it;  I am glad you did and that you did so very eloquently!  Good for you.  Thank you, again, for your thoughts;  I enjoyed reading.

Anne

Any woman getting ahead is good for ALL women, regardless of party affiliation!

mariaconz 5 pts

I agree.  What Hillary went through was bad, but the media coverage of Sarah Palin is much worse.  I haven't read a single media account in the last day or two (10/10-10/11/08) that spells out the facts of Gov. Palin's law-breaking, intimidating, abusive ex-brother-in-law.  Law enforcement heads who protect violent, abusive law enforcement officers are legion.  It's the firing part that should happen nationwide a LOT more than it does.  Sarah Palin did the right thing.

How many of us know police chiefs and local sheriffs who protect wife-beaters among their officers?  It happens everywhere.  What's unusual is firing law enforcement heads who refuse to fire those wife-beaters off of the force.  How many people know from news accounts lately that Palin's ex-brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper, tased his 11-year-old stepson, threatened the Palin family, grabbed a beer and jumped into his squad car, picked a fight in a bar and flashed his badge to get special treatment from the bartender, and hunted out of season with someone else's hunting license?  And that's just the beginning of his offenses against the law.

Maria Houser Conzemius

mariaconz 5 pts

I agree.  What Hillary went through was bad, but the media coverage of Sarah Palin is much worse.  I haven't read a single media account in the last day or two (10/10-10/11/08) that spells out the facts of Gov. Palin's law-breaking, intimidating, abusive ex-brother-in-law.  Law enforcement heads who protect violent, abusive law enforcement officers are legion.  It's the firing part that should happen nationwide a LOT more than it does.  Sarah Palin did the right thing.

How many of us know police chiefs and local sheriffs who protect wife-beaters among their officers?  It happens everywhere.  What's unusual is firing law enforcement heads who refuse to fire those wife-beaters off of the force.  How many people know from news accounts lately that Palin's ex-brother-in-law, an Alaska State Trooper, tased his 11-year-old stepson, threatened the Palin family, grabbed a beer and jumped into his squad car, picked a fight in a bar and flashed his badge to get special treatment from the bartender, and hunted out of season with someone else's hunting license?  And that's just the beginning of his offenses against the law.

Maria Houser Conzemius

shellie 5 pts

Being a chief executive of a community -- where the buck stops, responsible for a diverse citizenry's health and safety 24/7/365 -- is quite different from being a member of a legislature. Any governor or mayor or mother has better chief executive experience than Obama does!

Palin has run a family, a business, a city, and a state. Really Alaska is much like a separate nation, with no neighboring US states to lean on, and in an isolating, deadly climate.

To have achieved so much in Alaska, in a short time, starting from scratch with no powerful political family behind her, opposing the local 'machine' (Obama supported the Daley machine) -- shows great competence and ability. 

shellie 5 pts

I wish Couric had been persistent with questions like these: "As VP you would have to vote when the Senate is tied; if you become President you will have veto power. How would you vote, or veto vs sign, a bill that blah blah blah?" And tried to pin her down about what SC judges she would nominate.

However, what Palin has said -- and done! -- so far does add up to avoiding putting her religion's views into her public policy actions. I won't repeat the details, but does anyone have any evidence of her acting otherwise?

If she had tried to force her standards on the people of Alaska, she would hardly have such high approval from all sides. (Iirc 82% in general, 75% from Democrats, in January and again in late August; then the Democrats began polling differently, bringing her overall rating down to 68% iirc, about the same as Bill Clinton's. :-)

Hm, I wonder if Palin's critics would today be rejecting JFK because his church opposes birth control.

amamasblog 5 pts

EntrepreneurWomen10,

I respect your right to your opinion, and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

It is interesting how so many women can see this issue so differently. I think Palin is competent. Between the other three people on these tickets, she has the most experience actually running a state, which is a lot like being president. Governors are elected as president, never serving in Congress, so it is a valid credential. In fact, I believe the last 4 out of our last 5 presidents have been governors-never being in Congress.

Obama was only in the Senate for a little over 100 days, before he started his campaign for president. That is only three months! I fail to see what he ever has been in charge of on an executive level. Yet he is a man, and not very many people are questioning his qualifications. If Palin were a man, only having been in the Senate for 3 months, and Obama had been a mayor and now was the governor for just under two years in Alaska, I seriously doubt we would have this "experience" issue.

Furthermore, Obama has over 300 advisors right now! He will have many advisors if he is elected. All presidents do. If McCain were elected, and something happened to him, Palin would have advisors as well- maybe just as many as Obama does now. So I don't think it is a valid argument to cite her perceived lack of experience if she should happen to become vice president, when Obama has less executive experience than her now, and would BE the president. He would have advisors to assist with issues he was not familiar with, and in the event Palin were president (if McCain died), she would have advisors to assist her as well.

Heather* A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com/ )

amamasblog 5 pts

In case anyone is interested, on October 4, 2008, the LA's NOW (National Organization for Women) chapter president Shelly Mandell endorsed Palin. Mandell noted that she is a life-long Democrat, and has issues that she doesn't agree with Palin on, but she said, "It is an honor to call her ‘sister', and America, this is what a feminist looks like."

I thought this was interesting, since the National Chapter of NOW endorsed Obama/Biden. I guess the LA chapter did not agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJxIYQKmM0M

Heather
* A Mama's Blog

shellie 5 pts

Sarah has been governing Alaska very well and has accomplished a great deal against great odds in a short time.

It's not the age, it's the mileage.

amamasblog 5 pts

Shellie,

I agree with you on this, in that even though Palin is pro-life, she would not have the power to just start making anti-abortion laws if she were to become the V.P.

Bills would have to be introduced and pass in Congress before they were to become a law. Palin can't just move into the White House, so to speak, and start penning anti-abortion laws. I believe the states have the power to decide for themselves on abortion as well, and can make stricter or more lenient laws than what exists at the Federal level.

In case anyone is interested, here are Palin's own words on her abortion views- straight from the Katie Curic interviews. I did not watch these on TV, so I don't know if these were actually aired or not. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/eveningn...

Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?

Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people's opinions on this. Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.

Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ... abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.

Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?

Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and save, and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see ...

Couric: And so you don't believe in the morning-after pill?

Palin: ... I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.

Couric: I'm sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill.

Palin: Personally, and this isn't McCain-Palin policy ...

Couric: No, that's OK, I'm just asking you.

Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.

Heather

*A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com )

EntrepreneurWomen10 5 pts

I think when Sarah Palin brings her family into her speeches and the public eye, they are open for questions. I object to her because I think she's incompetent, not because she's a woman. Her history shows her to be vengeful, thoughtless and not fit to be Vice President of the USA, especially on a ticket with someone McCain's age. Her views, ignorance and arrogance of the issues frankly terrify me. I see her as close to a female version of George W Bush and we know how well that's worked out. If she were a man, her competency would be in the forefront of people's attention, without question. Since she is a woman and politically incorrect to challenge, that acts, to some degree, like a smokescreen.

shellie 5 pts

Do you have any evidence that Palin would force this policy on the rest of us? So far her record in Alaska has shown what we might call separation of church and state -- and separation of legislative duties and executive duties. Palin keeps saying that legislatures and voters make the laws; she is running for executive posts and her agenda is different.

Her official actions so far have included vetoing an anti-gay measure (she said it was unconstitutional), refusing to add anti-abortion measures to an energy bill, and refusing to increase 'faith based funding', saying Alaska has enough of that already.

shellie 5 pts

Thank you for acknowledging Palin's pro-contraception stance, Lisse. Yes, there are some people in the GOP who want to limit contraception also. Can you give us more information about those people? How many are there, what groups do they control? What groups in the GOP oppose them? How does the power balance out? Are there more of them than, say, Republicans for Choice?

I think Palin is sincere about wanting to decrease abortion, and about contraception as a good means to do that. Thus her own anti-abortion feelings will lead her to fight those in her party who oppose contraception.

 Given her record of fighting her own party in Alaska, and the oil companies, and earning a high approval record while she's at it -- my money is on Sarah to improve the GOP on such issues.

Btw, I hope you have signed Hillary's letter against Bush's anti-contraception attempt. Have Obama and Biden signed it?

shellie 5 pts

You're right, TW: Sarah Palin is pro-contraception. She just doesn't care if they talk abstinence too. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-...,0,3119305.story

==========

 A more recent interview  (Couric iirc) makes a stronger statement for contraception, in relation to lowering abortions by lowering pregnancies.

I have never seen any support for the claim that Palin's daughter had 'abstinence only' sex education. I have seen it denied in a reputable context. Shouldn't such derogatory claims be accompanied by cites?

 Imo talking about astinence in sex education class, like talking about
creationism in science class, is a good way to innoculate students
against those fallacies, which they will meet sooner or later.

shellie 5 pts

Mark Levin's less-edited transcript of the Gibson interview shows that sometimes a questio was printed, the answer omitted, following question omitted -- then the following answer shown as though it were the answer to the first question.

Many important statements were omitted, giving an opposite impression of Palin's position.

Toto 5 pts

amamasblog, I agree with you 100%.  Thank you for having the courage to share your views about this issue.  Without a doubt, we have seen some very ugly examples of sexism towards both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.   

VirginiaHarris 5 pts

Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

Even on the question of whether women should vote!

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Suffragettes were opposed by many women!

Now you can find out the shocking true story of the suffragettes in an exciting, new, free e-mail series -- The Privilege of Voting.

Go behind the scenes in a real-life soap opera and discover ALL that happened to set the stage for women to finally win the vote. It's a rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

Subscribe free at www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html ( http://www.coffeebreakreaders.com/subscribe.html )

miteegirl 5 pts

Heather--

You said:

"it seems like what so many people seem to be saying is, since Palin’s political party is pro-life,"

Heather, we are ALL pro-life.  I don't believe any of us are doing cartwheels over abortions, or executions, or any such thing.

Palin's party is ANTI-CHOICE.  Obama's party is against legislating control of a woman's choices about her body, her decision to reproduce or her health.

Anti-choice is the very opposite of feminism, which is all about choice.  I am not for abortions, I cannot imagine having one.  I am against unwanted pregnancies.  I am for sex education and contraceptives.  I am against heading down the slippery slope of letting the government legislate what any human does to their own body because it may not end with legislation of reproductive rights.

That is how an Evangelical Christian, ex-Catholic, Midwestern, white, feminist, over 40 mom like myself can feel very positive about voting against McCain/Palin.

tangog1rl 5 pts

 From Wall Street Journal today on earmarks

"It is difficult to compare Sn. Obama's earmark record with Gov. Palin's -- their states differ in size, for instance, and the two candidates play different roles in the process. But using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama."

tangog1rl 5 pts

Firstly,

I have to disagree with anyone who uses Camile Paglia as an example of someone who can fairly identify movements in the growth of feminism...although I did find her comment on Sarah's performance perfectly put

"I may not agree a jot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut" 

It is a perfomance and Palin plays it to the hilt; "soccer mom" "MILF" loving religious mother who moose hunts.. and it isn't until one looks at the facts- that are in every paper practically- that this charmingly offbeat 'boffo" falls apart and we discover that she indeed someone who wants to fly the plane with no pilot's license and god as her co-pilot.

 But re Paglia, lets talk about her "Charlie"... wasn't she  the person who said, for example 

"Let's get rid of Infirmary Feminism, with its bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives, rape victims, and incest survivors. Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses"

 If bloggers don't like people slandering others, surely this above qualifies as a quite childish "rounding up" of all the "infirmary feminists" that Paglia disagrees with. Its as Palin calling everyone who disagrees with her 'haters"; a juvenile and absurd linguistic move to remove intelligent questions from discourse by labeling people harsh and unfairly earned names that should come out of the mouths of MTV DJ's not politicians. And the quotes from Paglia are just a way for  her to get published with bellicose soundbites that serve her more than the 'feminists" she says she supports. Here is another perfect example

"The prostitute has come to symbolize for me the ultimate liberated woman, who lives on the edge and whose sexuality belongs to no one." 

Really? But there have been many studies done by the professional community that would show a strong link between childhood sexual abuse and prostitution...so if one is doing something due to lack of self esteem or mindless repetition of childhood experience is one 'liberated"? Don't get me wrong maybe there are indeed a few prostitutes out there who really love their job, feel it works perfectly for them and have no issues; good for them. My point is Camile says "the", thus using the average prosititue as an example of someone whose sexuality belongs to no one and who is liberated. Having worked with women who have done this as a job I would disagree. In fact the best day of my life as a feminist thus far was organizing the hiring papers of a very courageous woman who went back to school and became a LVN after she was on the street for years selling her body to pay for drugs. I don't think she feels she was 'liberated"  during her years giving oral sex for 20 dollars although she is now!

Re; rape kits, this is the worst; how in the world can someone validate this BUT Palin and Paglia who both have no sympathy for rape victims... so hopefully if one is raped it will  not  be in Alaska where Palin let rape victims pick up the tab for thier rape kits and where Paglia equates these same women as "bellyachers".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff...

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/20... ( http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/20... )

This is just one example of how, in my opinion, Paglia and Palin both sell out the same feminists that they link themselves to; they want to limit and define feminism with their own narrow self aggrandizing "I am a Maverick" stance, while throwing this exact accusation at others. SO to those who quote Paglia; are women who are raped and incest survivors "sob sisters"? If you don't think so, than why reference someone as bombastic and offensive as Paglia? Is there no one else who can be quoted here? Paglia is to fair intelligent discourse like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter; sound bites and nothing more maverick than that.

amamasblog 5 pts

Thank you all for your comments and keeping them respectful.  I really appreciate that.    

Mom101:  I view the feminist movement by Steinem to mean that women never give up their choices to stay in a traditional female role.  I view it to mean that the movement fights for women's rights. In that I assumed that would be mean acknowledging and supporting women that did make strives by having a careers, and holding what would normally be considered "male" jobs and positions.  

I think a more recent viewpoint from that movement was women do have the choice to choose whatever they want (career, staying home, or a combination).  I'm not sure if Steinem supports that, or if that has just evolved.  That is why I think that the movement should at the very least, acknowledge when a woman does have an achievement, especially when in this case it is a first (first Republican woman VP candidate).  That is why I am puzzled that Steinem dismissed Palin’s accomplishment, or breakthrough, or whatever you want to call it, yet says nothing when women like Clinton, put their careers on hold for their husbands.    

It seems like what so many people seem to be saying is, since Palin’s political party is pro-life, she (or any other Republican woman), could not be considered a feminist.  If that is the case, it makes sense, but I don’t think the feminist movement should claim to support all women, because they don’t.  It seems like they will support you and acknowledge your achievements as long as you or your political party is not pro-choice.       

Jane, I did catch that article by Paglia in Salon, and I liked it.    

The comments here have given me a lot of food for thought, not only how I define feminism, but how others define it.  Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.  

  Heather*  A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com/ )  

Mom101 5 pts

With due respect, I'm a little confused as to how you're defining feminism Heather. It seems that you're using it in every case here to mean "a woman who works." 

Feminism is about opportunity, and what you do with it is up to you--whether that's working, staying at home, or knowing that the temporary sacrifice of your own career for the potential of a greater role for the country may be a good deal. (First ladies generally are no slouches.  Case in point: HRC.)

Let me quote Gloria Steinem from an interview I was honored to conduct ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com/2006/10/ask-gloria-ste... ) with her two years ago. I asked her about whether there was a conflict between staying at home with your children and being a femiist. Her first line:

The goal of feminism is to honor and value all productive human work and open it up to everyone.

Just because Palin works does not make her a feminist. She would have to support, honor, value other women in thought and in deed. I have seen none of that from her. Not 100% of the time, not even 10% of the time. It goes beyond mere political affiliation.

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )

Jane Becker 5 pts

First, Tod Palin works a rig, so those who level charges that "he works for British Petroleum!!!" are obfuscating the reality of his job.  If he gets close to $100k for it, good for him.  It's nasty work.

Second, Camille Paglia had a great article in Salon last week, where she examines the history of feminism and locates Sarah Palin at not only the next stage, but also the early, pioneer-woman stage. It's worth a read, whether or not you agree with her.

Third, Ms. Steinem's POV seems to be that a woman cannot be a feminist unless she is pro-choice, which is an odd argument because feminism is supposed to be all about choice, including the choice to not terminate a pregnancy.

Finally, to excoriate a Vice-Presidential candidate simply because he or she is anti-choice is a scare tactic that goes nowhere.  Roe v. Wade has stood the test of time for over 30 years.  In itself it is built on Connecticut v. Griswald, which is about the right to privacy.  To overturn Roe v. Wade would be to open up Griswald and privacy of bodies and that's just not going to happen.

JaneBecker

http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com

Lisse 5 pts

Feminism is at a minimum about expanding and honoring choices for women and men.  Palin and her party are about limiting choices - mostly for women. Palin's pro-life stance can be honored as a personal choice, but not a a policy to be forced on the rest of us.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com/ )

miteegirl 5 pts

I don't think we can paint Todd Palin as a "stay at home dad" thus far.  He earned over $92,000 in 2007 between British Petroleum and commercial fishing.  Unless they have him on the payroll for babysitting the Palin kids, I can't imagine that someone who earns over $90K a year is home every night cooking dinner.

Palin spent nearly 20 years as a blue-collar employee in the oil fields of the North Slope. And every summer he heads west to his birthplace in Dillingham to work the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery from his property on the Nushagak River.
Until recently, he earned hourly wages as a production operator in  BP-run facility. that separates oil from gas and water. Palin was making between $100,000 and $120,000 a year before he went on leave in December to make more time for his family and avoid potential conflict  of interest. London-based BP is heavily involved in the gas pipeline negotiations with his wife's administration.
SOURCE ( http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8924080p-88... )

Lisse 5 pts

...does not have to be a matriarchy. That's a common misperception about feminism.

And while this IS about Sarah Palin's politics, it is not only about her pro-life stance. There are many, many other reasons that voting for her party will set women back. I've listed some in my previous comment.

TW is correct about her saying she is personally procontrception, but her party is attempting to change HHS regulations to equate contraception with abortion. Given her history, I'm disinclined to believe that she would fight such an effort.

Now, on to those other women - Hillary clearly returned to a career once her husband was out of office. Both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden will have that option as well. Most of us will not have that option. Either economics will prohibit us from ever "taking a leave of absence" or, as in my own experience, it will be very difficult to get back into the workplace after motherhood. In any case, traditional patriarchy would be if they never had those jobs in the first place because their only career was as wife and mother. I think the Democratic ticket will work to give women and men more options for work/life balance.

Todd Palin can easily afford to stay home with the kids. He is a freelancer/contractor and his wife and family have been the recipients of government sponsored health insurance at least since his wife assumed the governorship, if not since the beginning of her city council seat. Again, most of us do not have that option, and the GOP does not want us to.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com/ )

amamasblog 5 pts

Mom 101:

Thanks for the link to the clip of McCain laughing & not denouncing H. Clinton being called b**ch. I really hadn't heard that yet- I don't watch TV or the news, and had not come across that yet. I don't agree with that, and there is another example of sexism towards Hillary Clinton. About the other comment to his wife, I can't 100% say that he called her that or not. Anyone can write a book and say they witnessed an event. If he did call her that, it is disgusting and now that this allegation is out there, he should address it. On the same token, I have seen people posting pictures of T-shirts, that say, Sarah Palin is a C***. Using that word towards ANY woman is wrong.

Mom101, Tangog1rl, and Lisse:

I believe Tangog1rl said I misunderstood Steinem point. Let me ask you this:

Aren't Steinem's views only being applied when it is convenient or lines up with the Democrat politics? An example that I see, of this is in the stay-at-home status of Todd Palin.

An interview last year said Todd Palin "takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer, according to his wife. He divides much of his time between Wasilla, where Track is recovering from shoulder surgery, and the capital in Juneau, where the Palin daughters are in school."

Sarah Palin then said, ""He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. He says, ‘I can sleep when I die,' "said Sarah Palin."There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He's able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine." http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8924080p-88...

A situation like this is not uncommon in many households today. Yet, Steinem and many others dismiss this contribution and example of feminism. This is the very situation they have been wanting, yet Palin who has achieved this, is dismissed as anti-feminist.

To draw a comparison, the ticket that Steinem supports is Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Obama's wife Michelle, had a well paying, high level administration job, at the University of Chicago. To my knowledge she is on leave from this job, but some say she has quit her job. Quit or on leave, so Obama could pursue his career.

Joe Biden was a single dad when his wife died in 1972. His wife now, Jill, said if Obama and Biden win, she will still teach, but try to juggle both her job and her family, just as she did when Biden was in the primaries and was away from the family.

This is traditional patriarchy. Why is Steinem supporting this, when it could be considered anti-feminist? Can't it be argued that Michelle and Jill's choices are being restricted so they can support their husband's choices? POLTICS ASIDE there is no doubt that the arrangement between these two tickets that is not restricting a woman's choice in this example, and is the ideal matriarch arrangement is the Palins.

When politics are NOT aside, Steinem supports a traditional patriarchy arrangement. That makes me question the entire "feminist" view-point and reasoning.

You can only be considered a feminist if all of your beliefs, and politics line up 100% with what Steinem and Democrats say they should be. If you happen to be pro-life, but believe gender or traditional stereotypical roles do not matter in what you can achieve in your career, and you have created with your husband, an arrangement that supports this (like Palin), you are anti-feminist, and anti-woman. Yet, if you are pro-choice, Democrat, but give up your career to support your husband, that is not being anti-feminist, or anti-woman.

Hillary Clinton gave up a large part of her career and self to support her husband and his political career. Yet, that was not viewed as anti-feminism either. Why? Because Clinton is a Democrat, and is pro-choice.

Playing devil's advocate, suppose Palin announced she was giving up her spot as McCain's running mate, because her husband got a job offer, and she needed to stay-at-home, to take care of the children and the home. What do you think Steinem and others would say about her? Would they liken her to Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton- following in their footsteps to support her husband? I seriously doubt it. The criticism of her setting the feminist movement back light years would be relentless in my opinion.

I am NOT saying that women have to agree with Palin's politics or accept them. I fail to see why it is up to Steinem and others to decide who is a feminist and who isn't. Does any woman ever really live up to feminist ideals 100% of the time? If not, I suppose you are still a feminist, as long as you are not a pro-choice Republican. How is this supporting ALL women's rights?

The only reason I can see for this double standard from Steinem's is not because Sarah Palin is anti-woman, but I have said before, because of her politics.

This article of Steinem's showed that politics do matter in feminism, and even if you are achieving some standards of feminism, but are pro-life, you will be considered an anti-feminist. Other women like Clinton and Obama, who give up their careers so their husbands can succeed, even though that is anti-feminist too, are still considered feminists, because they are pro-life.

How would you explain or justify this?

Heather* A Mama's Blog- A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com/ )

Mom101 5 pts

Here is what cajones is referring to: McCain smiling at, not scolding, a woman who referred to Hilary Clinton as a bitch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

The c*nt story predates youtube - it was not on video but in front of three reporters. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/81588/

Here is Palin laughing during an interview as a shock jock dj questioned Palin's opponent's motherhood and then called her a bitch and a cancer (she's a survivor). 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-lau... ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-lau... )

She laughed.

Laughed.

Is that Head of State behavior? Or is that the cackling of an unapologetic mean girl incapable of empathy or diplomacy?

I'm not sure why feminists like Gloria Steinem--or me--should be expected to defend these candidates. The combo of ovaries, a family and a job are not nearly enough to earn my respect let alone my vote.

Mom-101 ( http://mom-101.blogspot.com )
( http://coolmompicks.com )

( http://coolmompicks.com )

tangog1rl 5 pts

..with the above comment, obviously Steinham was speaking of the fundamentalist rhetoric that Palin spews, that frankly is quite intolerant and scary for many people; it seemed as if the original blogger purposefully was misunderstanding Steinham's point, which is hard to miss.

I was  also shocked at how boldly amamasblog seems to disregard viewing Sarah Palin as someone who many many people, and yes many "independants" find shockingly arrogant. She has a proven track record of corruption, she has DEfunded special needs funding in Alaska by 60%. I am sure now that she has her own special needs child she will refund it; that is her historical way of 'governing"; appointing unqualified friends to offices, funding her own pet projects and defunding others. What about the 312 days that she charged PER DIEM travel funds when she worked out of her home? Its also interesting this idea of the interviews that she supposedly is having to endure being edited; I think Fox News is one of worst in the media for that and they love Palin!  I don't feel sorry for Paiin at all I feel sorry for her children because their mother is very dishonest and corrupt and power hungry and she seems to use her own special needs child, her pregnant daughter and her son who will go off to war as photo-ops, its frankly disturbing. 

TW 6 pts

 Sarah Palin is pro-contraception. She just doesn't care if they talk abstinence too. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-...,0,3119305.story

~TW ( http://ramblewoman.blogspot.com )
Retro-Food ( http://retro-food.com/ )

( http://ramblewoman.blogspot.com )

Lisse 5 pts

Steinem also asserts "that feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman, but making life more fair for women everywhere."  

Sarah Palin is on record as endorsing abstinence-only education, which has resulted in an increase in teenage pregnancy and disease in recent years.

Members of her party and her religion are against, not just abortion, but birth control.

Her party is against equal pay for equal work; has recently been working to chip away at Title IX; has a dismal record supporting adequate health care, daycare, and hey, science.

Palin herself has demonstrated limited knowledge of the outside world, and shown that she sees thing through the same narrow lens of end-times Christianity that lends itself to justifying war with religion. She seems to have no concept of the financial sector and its role in the current economic crisis. Her solutions to energy dependence are all destructive. Her claims of work against waste and corruption have been pretty much debunked. She is hardly the model of competent, female, leadership Hillary supporters were looking for, and I fear that Palin's nomination will have serious ramifications for future female candidates. Condoleeza Rice would have been a better choice; she's at least been to Russia.

What's the point of having Sarah Palin shatter the glass ceiling if the falling shards cut off the rest of the women toiling beneath her.

 -Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com/my_weblog/

judithL 5 pts

 The news media has run the b-word clip enough for anybody who isn't living with theirr head in the sand to see it. 

As for any man that would call his wife the C-word, well, there are no words for that level of disrespect to all women.

Remember, life is a journey, not a destination. Here's to Living Well! www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com ( http://www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com/ ) & www.lwbms.blogspot.com ( http://www.lwbms.blogspot.com/ )

amamasblog 5 pts

cajones7: Maybe you should write a post here about racism that Obama has had to endure. It would be interesting and shed light on that aspect of this campaign race too.

For what it is worth, I haven't seen a video of McCain calling his calling his wife that name. People like to speculate why McCain didn't answer the question if he ever called his wife that, but I saw it more like he wasn't going to dignify a question like that with a comment. I guess different responses mean different things to different people. As for him calling Hillary a b**ch, this is the first I have heard of that, so I am not in a position to comment on that.

I don't consider myself a traditional feminist, but as I have said before, it bothered me on the sexism and BOTH Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have been subjected to. Yes, I even wrote a blog post about the sexism Clinton endured back in May; the link to it is in my post.

So I am not trying to take sides here, but with Palin, this is the most common occurrence. Funny, how people can't even open their minds and read what I wrote- everyone is so quick to judge me that I am some conservative victim (I'm an Independent who has always voted Democrat), and throw insults my way, for writing about a problem as I see it in BOTH parties. We can't talk about how to change this, but we can insult and bash.

I was hoping we could have a respectful discussion about this, but it seems like everyone (at least who has replied to this so far) wants to bash and it seems like the comments are off the subject for the most part anyway.

I don't like bashing anyone, regardless of their political party, and it is clear we can't talk about feminism and the double standards facing women in both parties, without bashing going on. So I suppose if people want to continue the bashing that is your right, but I am not going to respond to it anymore.

It's not worth it to me, and it is so unproductive. We don't solve anything this way, and it is clear the posters here are more interested in bashing myself and the politics of the right, even though sexism affects women in both parties.

Heather- A Mama's Blog

cajones7 5 pts

I find it interesting that in all of this hoopla about Sarah Palin being subject to attacks by a sexist media I hear NOTHING from those same so-called feminists about the RACISM that Obama has to endure and continues to have to suffer through.

He has had to answer to question after nauseating question that has to do with his beliefs, his personal life, his past, and his professional life. Funny how Americans had to hear about Rev. Wright forever but Palin has not had to face one question about the extremist, racist views of her own pastor (whose church, she just stopped attending). How racist is it that he has his name mixed with a terrorist, Osama bin Laden? Or that he has two white men marketing waffles that has a picture of him with a turban on his head? Or that a fist tap (also known as the dap) with his wife was conflated with a terrorist fist jab? How about the fact that Sarah Palin called the burden of being black in America “light?” Are you serious?

I don’t hear a peep out of you so-called feminists about how Michelle Obama has had her image racked through the coals either. And no, I don’t think anyone should be questioning any woman about her supposed abilities to be a good mother if we aren’t asking the same questions about male politicians abilities to be good fathers. But at the same time you all are shouting with glee that “yes, we have a woman” you have failed to realized that she stands for everything contrary to the general feminist manifesto. And she’s on the same ticket as a man who laughed when a colleague called Hillary Clinton a B*tch and has been caught on tape calling his own wife a c*nt.

Please.

judithL 5 pts

I just keep asking myself how educated, intelligent women can be so focused on the portrait, that they are missing the big picture.  Do you think if Obama had chosen Hilliary Clinton as his running mate, any of us would have ever heard of Sarah Palin?  If you answer yes, then you are kidding only yourself.

A co-worker said to me at the outset of this incredible journey into the unbelievable - "It's sheer genius,"  It was only the morning after the announcement of Palin as running mate and my first impression was disillusionment.  I'd always considered my friend to be more discriminating, a better judge than that.  Well, do I have egg on my face.  She was right.  It is sheer genius from a marketing standpoint - and that's exactly, and all that it is - marketing.

So, all of you women who think Sarah Palin is being discriminated against in the media and the blogs and over the water cooler - Yes, intially there were attacks on her personal choices and her family.  Perhaps because it was so new, nobody understood the stakes yet. I say that not as an excuse, but as an admission of our mistake - and even sexism - in not taking the woman seriously.  Now it is about issues, about qualification and substance.  You who defend Palin are the ones who keep dragging us back into the arena of personal judgement when we keep trying to move away from that.

I am not against women and mothers working in careers that demand their time and attention away from their families.

I am not against husbands/fathers taking on - or over - family responsibilities.

I am not against women having strong opinions and expressing them.

Under the category - Her business not mine ~

I do not care what Sarah Palin's personal reproductive choices are.

I don't care if all of her daughter's become unwed mothers.

I really don't even care if she hires a nanny and hubby fishes, continues to work for BP and races his snowmobile 365 days a year.  That is their business. Period!

If you cannot see that the Republican body is using Sarah Palin in the most sexist way possible, you aren't wearing rose colored glasses, you are wearing blinders.

Talk to me about a woman who disregards her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, including it's ammendments, because some of those ammendments don't fit her personal agenda (freedom of speech)  Talk to me about a woman who intends to use her power to fire those who don't agree with her personal agendas.  It doesn't matter that she didn't try to ban any books, it doesn't even mantter that her inent in questioning what the librarian would do may have been only out of curiosity, it doesn't matter - no wait - it matters even more - if what she says is true. Her move to have the librarian fired had nothing to do at all with the subject of possible removal of books from the library.  By Palin's own admission it was because the woman didn't support Palin's agenda.  I don't care if the agenda was about books, or if it was some other issue of running the city of  Wasilla - terminating people who hold opinions different from an elected public official is wrong in every way.  It goes against the very grain of our country's founding principals.

Do you really want the second in command of our country - with potential to be the first in command to be so capricious( and I don't care what McCain's age is - Kennedy was a young man when he died.  Any of us could be hit by a bus tomorrow)? Do you want to risk that at some point, she may step foward with a personal dislike of something you are not in agreement with and then you will be at the mercy of her dictatoraial tendencies?

Remember, life is a journey, not a destination. Here's to Living Well! www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com ( http://www.themadgoddess.blogspot.com/ ) & www.lwbms.blogspot.com ( http://www.lwbms.blogspot.com/ )

amamasblog 5 pts

Just food for thought- I noticed Gibson's interview with Palin was heavily and poorly edited. At some points she was barely finished talking, when the sound would cut out, and Gibson would be cutting in with another question. Was she trying to explain her thoughts more, hence the editing? I don't know...it makes me wonder why they did that. No matter who the candidate is, personally I don't judge them on only one interview. Hopefully there will be more, but I understand everyone has the right to decide for themselves. * A Mama's Blog- A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com/ )

Soccer Swim Mom 5 pts

Kathleen Reardon's quote is one of my favs too.

Because when I saw the Gibson interview, I thought to myself, this person is not going to blink, and she's not going to THINK when it comes time to commit troops or aerial attacks that could not only send her Kid into harms way, but yours and mine too.

I'd like someone who didn't go to 5 colleges in 6 years. Academic rigor?  Not for this person.

Here's the link from the Anchorage Daily News:

http://www.adn.com/palin/story/516085.html 

I have a question though for Sarah Palin.  Has she ever been up to Big and Little Diomede Islands and looked across the 2 miles of water to see the Inupiat peoples who are relatives of the ones on American Soil? Doubt it, as it's very foggy there.

miteegirl 5 pts

Best line I've heard all week in regards to Sarah Palin.  This sums up my feelings exactly:

Is it sexist to want the person flying your plane to be a pilot?

OMG.  That is EXACTLY IT.  (Thank you, Kathleen Reardon.)

I don't even WEAR t-shirts.  But I would wear that one.

miteegirl 5 pts

Yes, Palin will have to catch up:

"Keep in mind too, that Obama has had almost TWO YEARS to divulge
whatever information to the public on his family that he wanted to."

Yes, Palin has less than 60 days to offer up everything that Biden, Obama AND McCain have already revealed.  If it seems intense, it is.  We need to know much more about her in order to level the playing field.

Look, have their been inappropriate questions/comments about Palin?  Yup.  I've defended her on other threads.  Daughter's pregnancy?  None of our business.  Until she starts using it in her speeches about her policies and qualifications.  Abortion or no abortion with Trig?  None of our business unless she uses it in her speeches about her policies and qualifications.

Anything that she wants to be kept private, she also needs to keep out of her speeches about her policies and qualifications.  Anything that she brings up?  Can be asked about.  Period.  She has control over this.

Obama has been much more gracious in this than I would be.  He has said--point blank,"Palin's family is off limits."  I believe that anything that she has brought up in her speeches is NOT off limits, but I am not as accomodating as Obama is on this.

My response to you up there, where I listed the articles, was to point out that your assumptions and remarks about the Obama's NOT being asked about their family life and work/life balance were flat out wrong.  Saying something like that, even if you believe it, does not make it true if the facts are otherwise.  So, I would advise you to do a little research before declaring things "to be so" in a debate about politics. Or else risk your credibility.

zchamu 5 pts

Futhermore, when a male presidential candidate picks a woman for his
running mate, it sends a message to women and to men, that he
believes his pick is qualified and capable of being an effective vice
president. 

Unfortunately, in light of the interviews Palin has given over the last 48 hours, if John McCain truly believes that Sarah Palin is qualified and capable of being an effective vice president, then he's already senile.

The sad truth is, Sarah Palin wasn't chosen for her experience or her intelligence or the fact that she is qualified and capable. She was chosen because, and solely because, she is a woman, and he wanted to appeal to the female voter base that he flt was drifting in the wake of Clinton. And if that ain't sexism, I don't know what is. 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

amamasblog 5 pts

I don't think posting an article from a writer saying that people who liked Palin's interview are idiots and are mentally ill has anything to do with the subject of this post. How is that productive?

In the US, we can vote for whomever we like- if we like someone who is inspiring to us, we are free to vote for them. If we like that someone is intellectual or down-home, we can vote for them. If you want to vote for someone based on their politics, you are free to vote for them.

I don't think trying to tell people how to vote is very productive. People will vote based on the issues that are important to them.

For the record, I think Obama presents himself as a very down-home person. Someone you would want to go have a drink with, and play a game of basketball with. Should I decide not to vote for him now, because of an article?

I was hoping the comments could stay on the subject of the post.