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!

So, if motherhood prevents a woman from being VP, why the does fatherhood not prevent a man from being a VP?

And, yes, I dare say the role pays her enough to employ a nanny or two. Not to mention 17 year old Bristol may soon be a stay at home mum and could probably help out a bit as well. Who klnows what the childcare arrangements will be. But I think the Palin can probably work this out for themselves.

I'm just saying there will be trade offs (if you read one of the articles about her it is all about how the Palin children go to work with her, and I just don't think that will work in the White House). There are always trade offs and it is foolish to imagine this is not so. I wouldn't have thought Obama spends much time with his little girls either, but they have not had the same level of visibility as Bristol and Trig have they?
Personally I would not choose to actively pursue a career with such an impact on my home life whilst my children were little. I reserve that for when they are older, and have their own lives/are less dependent. I did seriously think about pursuing a political career when I was younger (my degree is in International Politics) but there is a very big price to pay, and it's one that affects the whole family (if you have one).

And I'm just saying that if it isn't a problem for a man then it isn't a problem for a woman.

And I think the journalist was exercising a bit of a poetic license. Nobody can really do their work and have their children there unless there is another adult looking after the children. Of course this depends on whether the child is a toddler or a 12 year old. But, generally speaking, children disrupt work. Of course they do.

Well that was my point. I don't think that the family of a candidate should appear publicly at all. They should be left in peace, but that's not how the US system works, and Hockey Mom in particular brought hers very much into the public arena. Maybe she knew they would get the publicity anyway, or maybe she forgot that the rest of the US is not like Alaska. Who knows. I just find it unedifying.

If I was running for public office my dp and children would not be running with me.

AN- surely poor Bristol needs all the help she can get?? i find it shocking that you even suggest she would be lending out a hand! i mean, it's ok for SP to go and have her great career break but her daughter has to sacrifice her youth for it??? that's not just unsisterly, it's unmotherly!

Oh good grief. You missed the point. Was just saying there are a world of childcare options. I'm sure the Palins can work one out for themselves.

And I'm under the impression that the Palin kids are not deprived of opportunities. I'm sure Bristol will cope. Let's face it she not first 17 year old to get pregnant. Others manage and she will too.

Didn't Obama point out (very graciously) that his mum had had him at 18...

Wonder if the 'wedding' will be quietly cancelled if the Democrats win in November?

I think when discussing the whole abortion thing, too, it's important to note that there are basically no restrictions in the US. You can be 39 weeks into a perfectly healthy pregnancy and get a termination, no reason needed. Even for pro-choice that's appalling....

I don't think that is true. I think the cut off is around 25 weeks in Illinois.

Also, here is a tid bit of trivia. Did you know Obama's step mum (his dad's first wife) lives in the UK, in Bracknell.

Every state ia allowed to introduce restrictions to abortion at 'viability'- when the child could survive outside of the mother with medical assistance. When Roe v Wade was decided this was presumed to be about 24 weeks. Now I'm sure that it could be sucessfully argued down a couple of weeks. In 2002 only 1.4% of the abortions carried out in the US were to terminate pregnancies of over 20 weeks. CDC stats

The gun comment yes, is sexist, but the above I don't see any sexism in.

It is humanly impossible to do a job like VP and be a ftm

and

"And I'm just saying that if it isn't a problem for a man then it isn't a problem for a woman."

Men and women are different, not in all things, but in things pertaining to reproduction and childcare most explicitly so. Most women do not want to forgo parenting to persue a career. That isn;t to say a the minority that do are wrong - they make their choices based on their personalities - but it is unusual and talking about how unusual it is isn't sexist.

and people in Washington will be asking what will happen to the job if she should get pregnant - discussing something is not discriminative. Presidents and VP's are on duty 24 hrs a day, that would be a consideration for most single childless men, never mind women in taking on such a job.

I posted this on another Palin thread, but it bears repeating here as it directly addresses many untruths that are circulating:

I have serious misgivings about some of Sarah Palin's policies/experience, but found this article about the smear campaign directed at destroying her reputation very enlightening.

Anyone interested in separating fact from fiction, rumour from truth, and smear from reality should find it of interest:

www.newsweek.com/id/157986/page/1

I did like her comment about the neanderthal and leading him (or her in your case, MT) back to the cave.

Besides, I think all of this talk about Palin getting prgnant again is a moot point. She is 44, and if I had to hazard I guess I'd say she probably didn't plan her last pregnancy.

It is illegal to discredit a candidate for any job on the basis of being a woman. I am shocked that we are still having this debate in this day and age. I suppose this is evidence that we need more women in power to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument, MT.

The baby thing would rule out all unsterilised premenopausal women then?

Well I'm not talking about ideals abity what people should think or say - people can think anything they want. What kind of a world would be wive in if we even attempted to ban certain thoughts. People cannot be educated if they aren't allowed to think for themselves.

But anyway, most women in high office are post menopausal. I am all for women of all ages in high office, but they know if they want to compete with men - who don't have to contend with such biological facts - they have to make certain decisions if they want to compete on the level playing field, which is incredibly competiative in these areas and just wouldn't have any truck with positive discrimination. Same with corporate business. If yiu are not there, someone else will exploit that - that's the dog eat dog world of high power jobs.

A woman, whatever her feminist persuasionwould know that she risked losing her status in her job is she took a year out. That isn't how I want it to be but is is the way of the world in that world at least. Which is why a lot of women just say 'no thanks' and they actually don't feel cheated by it as they have made their choice. They go for a compromise. Compromise is not the enemy of feminism - stats that ignore the element of female sgency in these issues are.

" I am shocked that we are still having this debate in this day and age."

We will be having this debate for a slong as women are women. The debate on femininity and femaleness and how we negotiate that and maintain it in the (few in the west) male dominated professions is very important. I;m not going to stip thinking about it and discussing it just becasue someone says it's moot. It isn't moot at all. Not unless you think women are a closed book.

Life is about endless negotiation, always has been. The moment you stop assessing yourself and the constantly changing environments you inhabit you are lost.

The only thing I said was moot was the likelihood of her getting pregnant again. I think you are confused, MT.

A view the states that one can not do a job because she is a woman is by definition sexist. It has no place in this century. If we were talking about a job that requires physical strength (say in the infantry on the front line) then I could agree. But this does not apply to the position of Vice President (or even President).

Your views on this matter constitute little more than a modrn day application of Victorian Bigotry.

I am ansewering generally, to your posts and others AN, and with knowledge of the general feminist consensus

and O nevetr said she @could not' do a job - or any woman could not do a job because she was a woman - just that discussion of wrok life balance is not sexist, as we know. I am not saying that a premenopausall woman cannot be VP or even P, but she would have to face questions from her self about her fertility, how to manage that etc, and as I said, dfiscussing something does not equate to discriminatuion.

I am dismayed as a feminist that a lot of feminist discourse is about shutting people up by labeling them sexist bigots rather than debating and learing why people have certain bias towards certai views - women included when it comes to juding other women on partrenting.

I agree with MT. These are questions I have asked of myself, so why I am not allowed to think them of someone else? Is it sexist for me to consider the impact of my career choices on my children? My husband does the same - is that sexist too?

Seems a bit foolish to try and disregard the fact of our feminiity - that's like trying to be "colour blind". Apart from anything else it is pointless. That Sarah Palin is a woman is not the reason why I do not want her to be VP. I don't want the Republicans to win, and I think her personal /political views are abhorent. However that doesn't stop me speculating on how as an avowedly active mum she might manage it.

and meanwhile.... www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/sep/10/women.uselections2008

Questions of balancing family and career for a potential VP will be a valid line of questioning when it is applied equally to men and women. But, it is not. These questions are flying all over the place in relation to Sarah Palin because she is a woman. If these questions are applied equally to you and your DH at home, Nooka, then they are valid in your home as they appply to the two of you.

i dislike her intensly and dislike the fact that because of her I really think the democrats will win

Why do you intensely dislike her? And why do you think the democrats will win because of her?

Actually, although I'm generally against involving people's personal lives in political campaigns, where a person chooses to put their personal life at the forefront of their campaign then I think that it becomes fair game. She has consistently emphasised her beliefs, her family and her family life in pushing the nomination and in appealing to the voters. Just looking back through her acceptance speech here she devotes approximately the opening fifth of it to her family, member by member. Why? Well, unless I'm being particularly stupid, it was in a very clear message to voters to position herself as just the average "hockey mom". One of them. She's done it to try and win the election. Nothing more. Nothing less. And if you choose that line of attack, you deserve all the flak that goes with it.