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!

Yes they are as capable - they just don't have such an instinct to do it ON AVERAGE

It would be wrong to force this kind of equalty on men as it would be to women - and it would be very dangerous for children. Children are much more ar risk of not making it to adulthood if they are looked after by a reluctant guardian - male or female

Which is why the minority of women who don't want to do it shouldn;t be forced to do it - their kids will prpably be better cared for by allomothers taking the bulk of that responsibity.

And you cannot/should not force men to be SAHD's anyway just as much as you should force women. Most women want to do it - they don't want to be exploited becasue of that however, which is a different issue.

As for women being better 'prepared' for that troika, they are designed for it - physically and psychologically. How can it be otherwise?

I know as a feminist you will be sniffing the 'biological determinsm' bogey in that - but it's vitally important that feminists know that the version of biological determinism taught them in women's studies is false - and embarresingkly so - it takes feminism into the realm of irrelevance and is one the most unforgivavle crimes of feminism today as it activly and knowingly disempowers women intellectually and renders their voice impotent in this discussion. That is unforgivable to me as it would seem feminism is trying to save face at the cost of many women's intellectual development.

We aren't talking about some averaged notion of female. We are talking about one particular female. Who has clearly deomonstrated by her behaviour that she does not fit that average notion.

So is it still a queation with regards to Sarah Palin, as opposed to women in general?

I am talking about both - answering a charge of sexism agianst SP which needs to draw on what we know of the 'average' female.

It's a reasonable question to ask. IMO. But it has been answered in this case. For people to continue to ask the question of Sarah Palin is unreasonable. It makes me wonder whether it is really acceptable for a woman to be outside what is undeniably the norm. And I think that is where the sexism maight start.

But that is plainly falsified if you actually look at all the women already in politics. Yes there might be an interest in how they balence tehir work and family life, but none of them poses such a paradox as thsi woman does. It is becasue she is a paradox that people are unnerved by her, not becasue she is a woman.

What is falsified?

wehaveallbeenthere that story is truly terrible (esp as Alaska is rich). BUT the Daily Kos was also behind the hidden pregnancy story, and whilst there was a story there it wasn't the one they were reporting. So I would want to get corroboration before deciding that's what actually happened.

It's proven false by evidence

What is proven false by evidence?

I know what falsified means LOL!

The evidence of many women in politics - perhasp not as many as men, but that may well be down to choice rather than sexism - we haev to analyise that possibility.

Instead of seeing it as a feminist failure, it could be seen as a triumph - finally women really are making decisions for themselves, not for men or feminism, but themselves.

aplos fo terrible spelling - grabing pc time while gerttng ds ready for beb

Nooka, I didn't know they were behind the hidden pregnancy story (not sure what you are talking about as this is the only story I see worth checking out).
Public records would make this very credible or very falsified. It looks to be credible considering all the other officials named and involved in it's aspects.

TFM, there is a story about rape kits having to be paid for by the victims in (can't remember the county) the county that SP was the mayor of at that time
It is about the money. Not about the victims. They mention that the cost can be recouped after the guilty party is convicted but I don't see that as a plausible argument for charging rape victims for their rape test kits.

The Daily Kos were the main proponents of the hidden pregnancy theory (the one where Bristol was supposed to be the mother of Trig). I agree that the sources would be in the public eye, but I'd still be at least a little careful about the story.

Maggie Thatcher is the worst female to have had a position of power!
We have a lot of catching up to do,as men have dominated

Thread far too long for me to read through but here is my reaction to OP:

-Palin does NOT strike me as a bad mother. Good on her for doing her politics and bringing up a family

BUT

-Her policies are on the opposite end of the spectrum to what I think the world needs

HOWEVER

-She has excited the campaign and connects in a way that Obama, McCain and Bidden can't for various reason.

CONCLUSION
Obama would have my vote everytime but he will lose

I probably won't have voted for Maggie but I think that some of the horror about her policies was/is because she was a woman. I suspect that if you list Cameron's and Blair's policies next to hers you will see less differences than her caricature conjures up?

Monkeytrousers - I don't get your point I'm afraid. Are you saying there is sufficient evidence to reject the idea that sexism influences women's political careers?

A tangential rant....

Modern politics seems to be so much less about substance and more about image. We didn't like Tony Blair because he was slick (also because of Iraq ofcourse). We then said that we want someone less image conscious and we got Brown. Then we say, actually we like Cameron as he is very much like Blair (except he didn't invade Iraq altho' he might have if he was PM). Confused.

And it isn't simply about credit crunch and the oil price as neither Blair nor Cameron could have reversed these global factors. Infact it is about presentation, caricatures and slick imagery.

This is probably explained by the fact that poltics is now more managerial and less ideological. In the crowed centre ground that is modern politics, it is about how you dress, your partner, if you ride a bike and all that.

I think that is probably true in the UK at the moment, but I think that although Obama and McCain are quite centre ground (which is one of the reasons why they appeal to independents and have some cross party support) they are not representative of their parties. I think that the people that Palin appeals to are the core republicans. The risk for McCain is that as a result he loses the centre ground, after all if his first real move is to appoint a right winger, then what does that bode for the future. The battle then moves to getting the vote out, rather than appealing to a wider audience. So far Obama, with his grass roots movement is doing better on that front.

Again you extrapolate on a theme rather than just take what I siad at face value.

Of course I don't. Of course sexism, terrible and institutional sexism, has occured. I have studied it!

But what we need to understadn today is, with all the choices women have in the west - and they do have huge choices, especially middle class and above; is the lack of apparent 'equality' in the boardroom becasue of this choice rather than that old fashined institutional sexism.

I am not saying either that some individuals will be sexist, sexists exist in all walks of life - sexist doctors, surgeons, scientists, politicians - but their predjucices are not institutioanlly supported anymore, and that is a triumph of feminism!

The quest for blanket equality in numbers misses this point entirely.

We need a better way of thinking about the issues of work/life balance that take in teh realities of what being a fertile woman who has or wants kids. Feminism needs to consider more options and listen to what women actually want here.

For the life of me I do fiond it difficult to even think that wrangkling at a boardroom level is a feminist issue. These women are not oppressed by any stretch of the imagination. It is a side issue at most, a curiosoty, an interest, but with everything else happeing in the world - the massive issues of child poverty and low waged working class women - and of women in real oppressive regimes around teh world - I find it insulting actually that feminismhas been colunised by middle class concerns that have nothing to do with actual oppression anymore and just common or garden human competition.

Elaboration on the theme?

I was questioning whether it was reasonable to ask whether this woman was likely to take an extended maternity leave in the event of her having a baby while in office, and using the possibility that she might do so as an argument against her election. I suggested that this was unlikely given her history.

I did not then extend this out to women in general. We are discussing this individual woman after all. That is elaborating on the theme.

I do however think stating that inequalities in the workplace are due to women's choices and not sexism is at least debatable. Do you think women make these choices free from any social constraints?

good points nooka

Well I'm defending myself against a charge of being sexist - of all things! So sexism, and its wider feminist defintions, needs be discussed, ragerdless of SP or not.

SP is quite dull actually. The questions she is thowing up are much more interseting to me. But if you wnat to retire feel free.

But if not:

I did not state that inequalities in the workplace are due to women's choices; I said feminism needs to at least accept and discuss that this might indeed be a much bigger case than is fashinable to admit.

It is precisely debateable, I agree; the trouble is, people are oft to be shouted down and called sexist for suggesting it. Which in practice means it's actually not debatable for many feminists, their fingers being a tad to itchy over the sexist trigger!

I think that there comes a point where these things (such as the luxurious amount of choice middle class+ women have) stops being a feminist issue and becomes a business issue - how better can this company support it's best workers, regardless of gender. Women are now, after all, indispensible now to capitalism!

But at this level social constraints affect women and men - and that does not necessarily mean oppresion of any kind is taking place.

After all, if there are no canetelupes in the supermarket, does me having to then choose another melon consitute oppression. It's a crass analogy I know, but the point is simply becasuse first choices have been squished, am I oppressed by having to make a pragmatic second choice?

No

We forget, I thin in feminism, that life is a series of hard decisions and many sacrifices. This is not to say that real sexism and oppression should not be fought where it is identified, but that we should as feminiosts be also mindful of just how far we have come, and celebrate that.