No one has ever tried to combine presidential politics and motherhood in quite the way Ms. Palin is doing, and it is no simple task. In the last week, the criticism she feared in Alaska has exploded into a national debate. On blogs and at PTA meetings, voters alternately cheer and fault her balancing act, and although many are thrilled to see a child with special needs in the spotlight, some accuse her of exploiting Trig for political gain.Is there really a public issue here to be discussed? What exactly is it?
But her son has given Ms. Palin, 44, a powerful message. Other candidates kiss strangers’ babies; Ms. Palin has one of her own. He is tangible proof of Ms. Palin’s anti-abortion convictions, which have rallied social conservatives, and her belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers. And on Wednesday in St. Paul, she proclaimed herself a guardian of the nation’s disabled children.
“Children with special needs inspire a special love,” Ms. Palin said....
“Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy,” Ms. Palin wrote. She added, “Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed-up world you live in down there on Earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome.”
ADDED: Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life.
Posts
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216My point was clear, Ted. Ann speculated that conservative women's embrace of both work and family was a political flip; I responded that I see it less as a flip and more as a logical development of generations of feminism.
Great. Let's do that will rights. We're a straight democracy, right? We can just run everything through propositions on the ballot. No need for legislatures or courts. Anything else is "antidemocratic."
Actually, Beth, we can, and have, done that with "rights". Your gender did not have the right to vote until enough men voted to make it so. I am in no way trying to diminish the role of the heroes of women's sufferage. But ultimately they had to prevail upon men to agree with them.
The abolition of slavery required a constitutional amendment---and a war!---as well.
Likewise with abortion. Roe v. Wade was a horrible, abysmal decision. Even many pro-abortion advocates agree with that. The Constitution in no way guarantees the right of women to at-will abortion. But if Scalia is to be believed, it doesn't address the rights of the unborn, either. Hence it is an issue left to the legislative arena---until such time as a Constitutional amendment (in either direction) is passed---democratically.
Do you have an alternative? I'm sure we can both concieve of a list of rights that are so absolute that no democratic process ought strip them away. But that's the structure we've adopted. At some point you have to trust the will of people to protect your rights, until such time as you are willing to take up arms against them.
Jeff with one 'f' wins the thread by his mere mention of Phyllis Schlafly.
After two generations of poisonous feminism, we now have a woman who may well be elected the first woman vice-president despite the feminists.
Did the "belief that women can balance family life with ambitious careers" just become right wing? If so, wow! That is perhaps the most amazing political flip I've seen in my life.
Uh, I'm Gen X, and this has been a standard trope of the libertarian and small-business branches of the conservative tree for as long as I can remember. Wife and hubby working together to keep the business afloat, the books balanced, and raise the kids in a partnership that melds as seamlessly as a championship ballroom dance team's waltz has been at least the aspiration of almost every conservative couple I've known.
- Brian
Beth wrote: 'Great. Let's do that will rights.[sic.] We're a straight democracy, right? We can just run everything through propositions on the ballot. No need for legislatures or courts. Anything else is "antidemocratic."'
You might want to step back and take a deep breath, Beth. What I said was, "abortion advocates would have the opportunity to make a case before state LEGISLATURES."
Does that seem to you to equate with "No need for legislatures or courts?"
Peter H wrote: "elHombre, Beth used the term "feminist," which does not mean exclusively liberal, identity feminists."
Thank you, Peter. Actually, a fairer reading of her comment is that she distinguished between "conservative women" and "feminists."
Other than that, what is there about her comments to suggest that her use of the term means anything other than liberal, identity feminists? I suggest to you that it is implicitly her adaptation of the term, not mine.
I appreciated NYT reporting this story in such a straightforward manner, and I continue to be impressed with Sen. McCain's bold choice.
Patm is exactly right: "For the last 30 years, conservative women have been caricatured one way, and because the caricature was easy, no one bothered to update it. Conservative women have been who they are for a while. Liberals have simply not kept up."
Speaking of not keeping up, how is it that the New York Times has only one single passing reference to Annenberg Challenge, the outfit Sen. Obama and Bill Ayers were responsible for? When will we get any real reporting on that deeply tantalizing story? JustOneMinute had a good take about their silence here: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/09/with-a-straight.html
You might want to step back and take a deep breath, Beth. What I said was, "abortion advocates would have the opportunity to make a case before state LEGISLATURES."
elHombre, I assumed that her response was meant basically to suggest that some rights aren't to be left in the hands of legislators. In a way, she is right, and the Constitution recognizes that by taking certain rights out of their hands. But it doesn't completely eliminate the ability to make adjustments to our "rights" through democratic means.
mcg wrote: "elHombre, I assumed that her response was meant basically to suggest that some rights aren't to be left in the hands of legislators."
If that is what she meant it would have been easy enough to say so, but that is not what she said. As long as we're making assumptions, why not assume she would prefer to have it all left in the hands of the oligarchic courts?
And: "In a way, she is right, and the Constitution recognizes that by taking certain rights out of their hands. But it doesn't completely eliminate the ability to make adjustments to our 'rights' through democratic means."
Where, exactly, does the Constitution explicitly address "taking certain rights out of the hands" of state legislatures? Sorry, I don't get this.
Where, exactly, does the Constitution explicitly address "taking certain rights out of the hands" of state legislatures? Sorry, I don't get this.
I was actually referring to national legislators when I said that. But the 14th Amendment ties the hands of state legislatures in many ways as well.
I suspect all the outrage we're seeing from the left about Palin is masking something else -- fear. They see the election slipping away from them, and they just don't know what to do about it.
And now they're tripping on the landmines they themselves laid.
They can't criticize Palin for her lack of experience, because Obama has less than she does.
They can't attack her on the "Bridge to Nowwhere" issue because both Obama and Biden voted for the earmarks.
They can't criticize her about the "book banning" incident -- which has been way overblown -- because Obama consorts with a racist, a terrorist and a felon.
They can't criticize her decisions as a working mother, because anything they say merely betrays their own purported feminist ideals.
In fact, they can't criticize any aspect of her record because they've already established the ground rules -- if any criticism of Obama can be characterized as racist, then any attack on Palin can be interpreted as sexist.
So in their frustation, they take to petty, shallow, mean, nasty sniping remarks -- remarks that if the were made about a female Democrat would have them howling with rage.
And they fail to understand that with every base and shallow attack, they push more independent voters over to the McCain/Palin ticket.
Boy, it's just got to suck to be Democrat right now.
I didn't say that. I said conservative women have benefited from feminism. I can't help your drawing wild and unsupported conclusions from that.
Beth, this is disingenuous. The sentence is worded to make the two sound mutually exclusive.
I happen to agree with you that all "trail-blazing" women were/are feminists -- but the left wants to adopt them all as their own.
I would add that feminism as we all understand it today has largely rejected anyone on the right; certainly anyone who's pro-life. And that's why so many conservative women, in turn, reject the feminist label. Liberals assume it's because they are home baking cookies, but it's really because feminists largely treat them with scorn.
The sentence is worded to make the two sound mutually exclusive.
I don't think so, knox, but if you understand it that way, then I haven't communicated fully. I don't regard feminism as an orthodoxy.
Jblog, nicely written post! I agree 100%.
As a liberal and a feminist, I admire Palin's ability to balance work with family. I disagree with her politics. Are those statements somehow incompatible? I don't see why it should be assumed that, simply because one does not intend to vote for her ticket, one must therefore dislike every aspect of Palin's character and lifestyle right down to her very existence. I can respect the woman without wanting her in office.
Those statements shouldn't be incompatible at all.
That's what the furor is about: Supposed feminists attacking Palin not on policy but on not staying home to take care of the kids.
Post a Comment