is it unsisterly to think that Sarah Palin is horrid and the worst possible example of a woman in power

[beforesunrise]

ok, I used to think that as women we ought to support other women to almost unreasonable levels. i was totally for Hillary despite Obama's star appeal.... but then came Sarah Palin. i abhor her and everything she stands for. i am incredibly disgusted by the level of PC that prevents people from stating the obvious, ie that she is an incredibly BAD mother and she gives women a bad name.. i mean WTF, going back to work after 3 DAYS of giving birth, exposing your pregnant 17 yo to national attentionand not being there for her while she needs you most... she keeps banging on about being a hockey mom but having delivered 5 children is not the same thing about being a good mum. she is also incredibly, scarily unqualified for the job. i cannot find one ounce of feminist feeling for her... and it makes me question my beliefs!

That article makes the non-pregnant photos make sense certainly, but raises some other weird images. She apparently signed an e-mail as God "She signed it, "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

Nice to see how she manages motherhood and her career, but does not make me think that her family are off limits when she clearly involves them very fully in her public life. Personally I really don't think that children and a high profile/responsibilities role should mix to that extent. When I have taken my kids to work my work has suffered! Although it does make me understand how she could manage to look after her children with a husband who was away for long periods (fishing, snow sledding and doing whatever he does for BP etc). If she wasn't running for VP I would just say good on her for making it work, but I am not at all sure that model will work in te White House (although I guess there will be lots of people around to look after the children).

Well I think YABVU to judge her on her parenting - about which we know nothing - and it is not a criteria we apply to male politicians.

But Sarah Palin is an ignorant and fairly uneducated person with very little experience and some extremely odd beliefs and habits.

1. Creationist. How many people believe that God created the world in 7 days? Not many. Only loons.

1. Member of NRA and killer of bears. Dangerous loon

1. Anti-abortionist. Dangerous and sexist loon

1. Loud disbeliever of global warming, gets down and prays with her congregation for a pipeline. Dangerous, sexist and insular loon

Only in the US.

Dittany, earlier you asked why nobody ever goes on about Obama and his thin CV. They have, including you, on a number of occasions and is one of the sticks with which McCain has attacked him.

What Palin does in her private life is her business but nobody should be surprised about her off-spring being put under scrutiny. This has happened to all male politicians but I don't remember anybody screaming sexism. I remember when Clinton was President first time round and the media rounded on his ugly daughter (cos she wore braces like a lot of 10yo) and they were giving a severe ticking off for picking on a child. Now that was out of order imo.

Palin is the she-devil and heaven help the world if she ever becomes President. I tell you something else. She'll be like Thatcher too - hater of other women so I for one won't waste my precious brain cells thinking that her nomination is a triumph for the fairer sex.

She apparently signed an e-mail as God "She signed it, "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."

----

yeah, I've written pretend notes from the tooth fairy to my children, doesn't mean I skip about at night going into people's houses and checking under their pillows.

As for her anti-sex education stance, well what exactly did she and her husband teach their daughter then? Just sneeze 10 times afterwards?

pheh, it's 6 days, not 7. And from what I can see, she's not a creationist, she just espoused the view that it could be discussed in a school setting. That's not the same thing, and some creationist sites I read are quite crestfallen that she isn't actually even remotely proposing to force it on schools. Sorry to have to lower your blood-pressure over that one.

I'm not at all big on the gun-love and the invading-other-countries hyper-patriotism, but the creationist thing doesn't even look like it's accurate.

And her being as pro-life as I am isn't really that big an issue, given that a)McCain isn't, and b) the president/VP doesn't have a real chance of affecting Roe v Wade anyway - a pro-life president with a republican majority hasn't made any significant inroads on it.

I am celebrating a post from Quattro that I 100% agree with!!
And I thought my building site/rubble filled house, with massive 32 weeks pregnant belly and three children with the worst table manners ever (today only!!)and the loudest voices would ensure I had no smiles today!!

Maybe I'm being a snob, but, being American, I know the way the American education system works. So when you talk about Obama's thin CV compared to Palin's, we are talking apples and oranges. Let's look at education: Harvard Law including Law Review (which is serious legal academia) against 5 different non-prestige, hardly competitive colleges culminating in a journalism degree and from what I understand not even contributing to the college newspaper cannot be compared without laughter. Then, a stint in Alaskan broadcast journalism as opposed to community organisation in inner city Chicago is also a laughable comparison. And mayor of a podunk little town against the Illinois State Senate and then the US Senate, I mean come on! Oh yeah, she's governor of a state with fewer people than what most would consider a medium-sized city. Sorry, I don't think their CVs are in any way similar in their slimness.

Quattro - "Well I think YABVU to judge her on her parenting - about which we know nothing - and it is not a criteria we apply to male politicians."

The first point, which I'm sure would be preferable in a perfect world, but none of us live in one and we judge women (and men) for their parenting all the time on scant evidence allover this site (but again, it might be interesting to examine why women do look at other women's parenting choices when men seem not to. It might give us very good information about how best to do thinsg as well as what technoques to avoid - it's not all bad which seems to be the knee jerk reaction.

the second ppoint ties in wit the above - insead of saying 'men aren;t judged by this' why not ask why it happens. Shouting about sexism tells us precisely nothing about why women seem to be interested in these issues and it's a bit remiss of some feminists to not seem interested in even finding out, their minds are so closed to the idea of women actually wanting to discuss and judge, as if they already know their worst fears abour bitchy women will be realised.

I have a bit more faith in womankind actually. Yes we can be judgemental - we share that, and may other thinsg with men - but we are judgemental about different things.

Is equality all about ebing judgemental about the same things? That's what seems to be coming out of this debate?

and for all the bile heaped towards Blair and Brown on here based on just as much surmise and slander, I do find it disengenuous to hear cried that it's only women who are the victims

Sorry, bullit piosting agaion - but I think a biog issue here is cynicism, not sexism, and that it pervades everything. Women shoved in the spotlight aren't treated any different

MT- you are doing such a good job at arguing my case (and actually articulating in a much better way than i ever could the original reasons behind my OP).

i realise that much of my personal antipathy (as opposed to political disagreement) towards SP stems from personal experience. i have worked in american investment banks and there were quite a few so-called "alpha females", you know, at work until 2 pm on a friday, scheduled c-section at 4, back on conf call on monday morning. yes, they were working mothers, but a world away from the reality of most working mothers... they had stellar careers but had totally delegated parenting to an army of night nurses and nannies. and unfailingly they were characterised by extreme selfishness and self-promotion- by definition terrible people to work for, and terrible leaders. often worse, and harder, than their male counterparts. to me SP is a bit like this, with the added hypocrisy of trumpeting her mothering around as a winning card and going on about being just a hockey mum etc.

so perhaps i am being sexist. but i still think that there has to be a different way to be a successful, inspirational, working mother. someone i could point as example to my daughters and say "look, anything is possible" (ok stolen shamelessly from Hillary's defeat speech). if we are to really shatter the glass ceiling of the mind (the one that holds us back from even trying) as women, we desperately need role models we can aspire to, and can relate to. to me, SP is no role model. and that ain't got nothing to do with her politics, it has to do with her selfish manipulation of her gender, her children, her children's feelings etc. for personal gain.

i think Dittany would argue that we wouldnt expect that of male politicians. but actually i would argue otherwise...

There is an interesting element of critique coming at her from traditional conservatives who are questioning what they see as a cynical attempt to appeal to 'family values' in the traditionalist sense, when actually in her lifestyle she's quite a progressive feminist from their perspective. What I find so interesting is seeing people from the liberal wing espousing the same sorts of arguments.

From everything I've seen, though, the base she was pulled in to appeal to is largely happy about it. So she does what she was meant to do, although I'm at a loss as to why her touted conservatism as a VP cancels out the man who will be president who no potential Republican voter was very happy about before.

That's the paradox Kay, the key that just won't fit and why we should be examining her motives. Thatcher could well haev been seen as a progresive femininist - in action (of the 70s) but not in consciousness; she was no friend of feminism.

sorry, not motives - modus

Oh, I don't think she's a friend of left of centre feminism at all. She's an appeal to the trad right straight down the line.

I'm looking at it, and the more I look, the more it looks like giving with one hand and taking with the other - for both the Right of centre, and the Left.

She's a woman doing the 'having it all' thing, appealing to the 'modern woman' dream thing, but that doesn't sit well with the traditional Right. But she's a social conservative, appealing to the traditional Right and clearly giving the Left hives. Either she's going to appeal to everyone or no-one.

My money is on the everyone, actually. The palpitations of MNers aside, unless she or McCain make an enormmous mistake, I think she is quite likely to be the next VP.

No I can't stand her either.

Glad I'm not the only one, she looks so plastic,and to go on about being a "soccer marm" on tv, embarrassing for us all, and agree she seems to appeal to (lower) middle America.

I hate how they all bring their children into it.

I honestly don't know who I would vote for. I don't think either of them have policies to speak of, and Obama certainly doesn't have enough experience, even if he does come from a certain "minority" group. I don't think people should vote for McCain either just because he's got a female running mate...

Sorry, was driving along just now and remembered she's a HARKEY marm, not a sarccar marm!

Love your post Quattrocento
"Dangerous, sexist and insular loon". Couldn't agree more.
Isn't "Loon" a wonderful word? Must use it more.

Well I want Palin for president!

here

(its worth clicking, honest)

MT,
I refer you to wehaveallbeenthere's post of Sat. 06 Sept., when she said:

"Yes, she is a mother of 5, yes, she has a young baby. Does this mean her husband is going to leave her alone for the term if she gets the VP? What happens if she gets pregnant again? What happens if something happens to MaCain if she is pregnant? I can't see her being a good mother and doing this job requirements to the fullest.
Someone else will be raising her children, or doing the VP job. It just isn't humanly possible.
Okay, she uses guns. I'm not trying to be unsisterly but I think we all know that our hormones are whacked when we are pregnant. Would any of you (really) trust yourself with a gun in your hand while trying to get back to normal after a baby?"

This is where you will find the sexism and the remarks about how women are unfit because of their past partum hormonal changes.

The fact that one poster has some slightly weird views does not mean that everyone else does though. I do agree on the child raising or VP bit though, and I'm not at all sure the Palin family model will work well should she become VP (although presumably it is well paid enough for her husband to quit work/them to get extra help).

Of course the role of VP is a very variable one, some have taken very active executive roles whilst others have been much less visible. The reason why there is so much judgement about Pain is that the choice of VP is one of the very few things that presidential candidates actually do, rather than say. So it is the judgement of McCain that is being considered primarily. There is much less noise about Obama's choice because he has gone for the traditional approach in choosing a candidate who fills some of his gaps (experienced, blue collar, unthreatening...) McCain's choice is much more interesting, more risky and thus more talked about.