Palin's a woman but not a pro-woman candidate

We've been inundated with comments on my blog about Palin, the Republicans new "supermummy", with posters jumping in on both sides, calling her "far more qualified than Mr Obama on a number of levels" and "just another God-loving, gun-loving Republican idealogue".

Beth Cohen from D.C. wrote in with this comment about Palin, which distills the issue to its sharpest point for working mothers:

What I want to know is who's her nanny and how many hours does SHE put in a week. I have no issue with a woman who has lots of kids having a big job, but only if that woman also acknowledges that that is not something the majority of American women can swing because childcare here is too expensive, too underfunded and too badly regulated to allow for that. And that is not something the Republicans are even close to confronting.

Can you be a devoted mother and a devoted politician at the same time? Of course. Insert here the female politicians who float your boat - Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, Ilona Staller, or whoever. The key is high-quality childcare. And as Beth points out, "Quality legal childcare for two kids in DC costs almost 3k a month."

I've been lambasted by posters for criticising a working mother, especially one with a disabled child. I should be ashamed to raise my voice against another. "It's catty woman-on-woman sexism!" they say. But why should women support a woman in politics simply because she's a woman if they find her policies and positions backward, antifeminist and social antiquated? (Interestingly, many posters assume I'm vehemently anti-hunting because I listed guns and hunting among the qualities that tick the boxes for the Republican party.)

It's not a question of whether mothers or pregnant women can effectively govern. Helen posted this well-phrased comment: "The Empress of Austria, Maria Therese, did rule a country while being pregnant. In the labour market, lots of women conjugate pregnancy and work. Pregnancy does not make women mentally incapacitated."

So let's take the conversation beyond that. Is this the type of politician who will support families in the modern working world today? There's a difference between being a woman and being the "pro-woman" candidate, points out an article in New York's Newsday.

The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old child, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women," said Kim Gandy, chairwoman of the National Organization for Women PAC. "But will Palin speak for women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly no."

And later in the same piece:

She proposed cutting $1.5 million in child care subsidies in her first budget plan, according to news accounts.

Palin has made the heavy demands of a big family and a high-profile job work for her. But will she help other families achieve that, with quality childcare and reproductive freedom? It certainly doesn't look that way.

Comments

[maria]

this is to the top 2% that would love to continue to use the american woman as a breeder ...and as a slave workhorse...we got news for you tax evaders and thiefs .......opressors of the people ..get your own woman pregnant ..you evade enough taxes to afford many children..and while at it..send them to your silly fabricated wars also.....a feminist.......

[Simon]

Eluned. I'm afraid to say that is similar to saying that the BNP has the odd worthy policy. Indeed it probably does. But the REALITY of the support for the BNP is that of an extreme racist party. Likewise the REALITY of feminism is unfortunately a malevolent one - I don't believe it is just down to bad press. I have met some very extreme, illogical women that are simply not very nice characters when it comes to what feminism is or what it stands for. When you criticise they come back to the 'different strains of feminism argument' which is rather convenient as it allows them to duck out of anything they know they are wrong on, appears illogical, unreasonable or darn right bigoted.

I praise the fact that you have noted some serious flaws in feminism as it is - many would not. Perhaps if you simply fought for principles that affect everyone in society as opposed to supposedly just 'female causes' and looked for fairness (not equality - the two aren't the same) people may see you as less extreme. However if feminism is to pull itself out of the gutter, a few more 'reasonable' 'feminists' need to speak up. Although I'm afraid to say it seems to me if you are a 'reasonable' 'feminist' you're just a reasonable person i.e. it has nothing to do with female specifics and you have left the man hating extremist cult of feminism?

I also agree that there was originally a cause for change - but not the conspiracy theory that is feminism. i.e. it was not down to a horrible women hating world. The vote was only available to the elite until very recently. So although women couldn't vote - neither could 99% of the non aristocratic part of the population. Although people claim women fought for the vote - it really didn't take very long in the context of the larger scale of history. It is only very recently that we have had any surplus wealth, hence women were just about holding it together at home (a tough job) while men were only just holding it together at work (e.g. My Great Grand Father who worked all the hours in a day down in v dangerous conditions in the mines). Try telling him women were 'oppressed' and men had it easy. The circumstances allowing for women to go to work etc simply weren't there, it was all hands on deck nothing to do with oppression. Following on from your point about an original need for feminism - the fact is LIFE HAS MOVED ON and to keep taking an extreme view from 30 years ago is flawed to say the least (we shouldn't (although some do) harp on about the German's in the war - it was 60 years ago, so thankfully we stop bombing them - feminism should 'disband' like the IRA etc etc). I give the example of my Aunt who's politics are stuck in the 1970's. She has some extremely dangerous views contributing to the backward child welfare system we have in this country that promotes the separation of children from their Father. All to do with retaining female power both over the emotional pain in separation and in the development of young boys. To its disgrace feminism uses the 'apparent good of the child' as an excuse to create a social system that is to the disadvantage of the development of young men.

It is interesting that so many feminists agree the 'pendulum' has gone too far and yet they keep harping on with their extreme views - in favour of it swinging even further! If feminists had any moral fibre whatsoever they would fight for children's rights to see their father etc. Fight for a fair system of education rather than one that favours girls. Fight for prostate cancer research as much as they do breast cancer, fight for research/treatment for potential suicide victims (predominently young men). Many feminists seem to have this almost, arrogant attitude, saying ahh yeah its gone a little far - without a further thought. The results are poor education/social upbringing of young men which results in drugs, crime, rape, murder. The problem is not Al Queda, it is feminism - a cancer within our society.

[Delilah]

Yes, LM, I think you'll find that behind every successful working FATHER you'd find either a supportive wife, relative, or nanny.

It's also as plain as the nose on your face that if both parents are in high-powered jobs, neither are going to be available to do a lot of childcare but will easily afford to buy it in.

The DC-style whining is often loudest from mothers who have done the most to fragment and disable their own family and community support network, and seem determined to bring in government policies to wreck family and community support on a nationwide scale so they are no longer at a disadvantage compared to working women like Palin - or even the many women in my community who get free childcare from friends and relatives while they start-up home businesses or take jobs like teaching because they have managed to convince those friends and relatives that they are worth supporting in that work.

[Eluned]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Simon but the feminism you describe is not *my* feminism or my mother's or my friends'. It's the feminism that gets the most press and has had the most recent influence. It's a destructive feminism, for sure. But feminsim is an umbrella term for a shit load of ideas, philosophies and aims. The ideas of Wollstonecraft are very different to Sanger's and hers are not the same as Friedan's whose aren't like Greer's who isn't like Wolf etc.There is bad feminism but there's a lot of good too. And it isn't comparble to the Klan, which, far as I know, has one agenda, one theory and a central organisation. You may think the pendulum has swung too far in favour of women in many ways but you must admit that a feminist movement was needed(?) I believe it's still needed in some important areas but also that the bad bits need to be reigned back in because when we hurt men we hurt ourselves and our children and we need you as you need us.

[Simon]

Eluned. Many of the points you have made are right however they are extreme sittuations that occur in few parts of the world. What you are proposing are basic human rights. However many of the so called afflictions of women (such as altering your body e.g. breast implants etc) to fit a certain type are also applicable to men (e.g. the use of steroids in young men etc). So you are not actually a feminist you just seek basic respect for all groups. Most of which is not relevent to western societies today. Rather than look at the ideology or your perception of the ideology of feminism from many years ago, we must look at the REALITY of what feminism means today. Unfortunately, it represents a bigoted view of the world that for most part seeks to provide power to women (as a group) and produce an underclass of men. Note power to women as a group doesn't translate to power to the woman as an individual. Sadly we now live in a situation where women act like a total disgrace in their twenties, get to age 30, complain that nobody wants to commit to them (because they are completely obnoxious both to the rest of the world and ironically to themselves), the then have children way too late and put a huge drain on resources that should go to fighting indiscriminate diseases such as cancer etc as opposed to age induced infertility (note there are some that deserve IVF treatment). Feminism is so inward thinking and illogical that it forgets that to have a loving relationship one has to appeal to a member of the opposite sex, that includes being reasonable, tolerent and not totally self obsessed. Not to mention the above. Feminism is far to strong in its ability to prevent freedom of speech. Nobody is able to criticise it - the only criticism is in such comments as this, which I'm sure the feminist lobby is working to out right now. Feminism has effects such as providing disporportionate resources to female specific diseases at the expense of others such as Alzheimers etc. Male causes are neglected such as high levels of suicide among young men. Men have no rights (in the UK) regarding access to children after divorce - note the reaction to Fathers 4 Justice group - they were told they were irresponsible and were likened to a terrorist group. Yet Emily P etc plotted to kill people - yet feminist Harman & co see her as a freedom fighter and F4J as 'terrorists' for what? Because they want to see their children!!! The result of not allowing children to see their father coupled with the systematic feminisations] of schools and its assessment system by feminists provides for a social system that disadvantages boys for the first twenty or so years of their lives.

If I seek to help the poor, I will help them male or female, whatever colour or creed. I don't just look to help women, which is sadly what our political system has come to. If the left abandoned its policy of only looking to fix discriminatory quotas in favour of gays and women i.e. look to help ALL disadvantaged people, maybe I'd vote for a party on the left, but until they get rid of their prejudiced bigotry, I won't.

I can see a number of people that would consider themselves feminists can be respectable people, however the way feminism operates as a whole is a total disgrace and consequently, I would be as likely to invite a member of the Klu Klux Clan into my home as I would a feminist i.e. NOT LIKELY.

The sooner society looks to fight injustice on a united front rather than clinging to extremes, the better.

[Victor Compton]

Think of Sarah Palin in this way. As a rich working mother, she is creating jobs for at least 4 other women....a cook, a housekeeper, a nanny, and a mistress.

[AshleyR]

I absolutely respect the call for two separate conversations here- looking at Mrs Palin the policy maker and the mother. These two converge in the questions asked ahead of this post, mainly, are her policies woman- friendly (put simply, will her policies promote more women in the workplace and in executive positions)? I invite more conversation on Mrs Palin as a policy maker.

On the other hand, we can look on Mrs Palin as a mother for all that is right and wrong about it. (Particularly poignant because the Republican party has been vocal about their brand of family values.) Can we not acknowledge that in the US, collectively Fathers (and a man's role as a father) are not valued equally, and sadly so. If the father has been the carer- let's acknowledge that and move on- to better policies.

The bigger question to me isn't about Mrs Palin as mother- but this assumption that a woman candidate is good for women- will she use the office to promote quality, available affordable child care, equal pay for equal work, and paternity leave?

[LM]

So Delilah,

It sounds to me that what you are saying is that Palin just proves the rule that behind every successful man there is a woman, or rather, that you can't have it "all" (being defined as two working parents in high-powered jobs, plus a family). Is that correct?

(It would certainly be entertaining to see Alaska's "First Dude" as trailing spouse of the US VP, but he'd be totally out of his depth in Washington).

[Delilah]

Go, Helena.

Palin has been working in elected roles since the age of 28 and popping out babies throughout. As her career has expanded, her husband has remained in relatively low-paid seasonal employment, ans is likely the primary caregiver for the children. Here's a quote from a July edition of the Alaska Daily News, in an article about the role of Todd Palin, the bluecollar "The First Dude" of Alaska:

"He's the husband of the governor. So I don't know how to quantify that. When I saw him in the office, he's usually there because he's the dad and they have children and kids needs to be picked up and stuff". How chauvanist is that?

Of course it's a huge slap in the face for the liberal establishment that she's done it all without all the free childcare abortion-on-demand and whatnot that allow women to manage despite unhelpful spouses and families and to work in low-paid, low-status jobs that barely cover the costs of employment. But, like most truly successful women from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Margaret Thatcher, the secret of her success as a working mother is spouse and family that have made sacrifices to help her succeed, to work full-time, and become the main breadwinner with benefits which are shared with the same family. And her pro-life, anti-government principles reflect that experience.

It beats the man-prop career choices of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama, anyroad.

[Maz]

So Palin is both anti-contraception, anti-abortion and anti-feminism. Why the surprise? She's a Republican.

Republicans hate women. That's why Republican women have to out-male men in order to succeed.

[Helena]

Juan: I agree with you that she is a republican robot, but thats exactly why I am saying she should be judged for her political values and not for being a woman. And voters shouldn't assume that just because she happens to be a woman she will represent the individual female voters needs and hopes.

[LM]

One thing that interests (and irritates) me about the Palin propaganda (sorry, positioning) is the way they're pushing her as qualifying for some mixed-race status because of her husband being part-Inuit. Well, I read in several places that he's 1/8 Inuit, which means one great-grandparent. Which is as Inuit as I am Welsh. And if I claimed to be Welsh, well, I think Eluned for one, would - literally - laugh so hard she'd be rolling on the floor.

So how come this counts as "mixed-race"?

[Eluned]

I never said it was strictly a male conspiracy. The abortion industry is run and controlled by both genders. The fact that abortion is a business frightens me to the core. It is in no way pro-woman, pro-family or pro anything good, to support the sucking and scraping of women's uteruses for the purpose of destroying perfectly avoidable pregnancies, in my humble opinion. I don't blame one sex for the situation we're in.

I'm sure everyone has their own take on what feminism is. For me it's just celebrating the beauty of women and supporting ourselves and eachother in being healthy and happy in our skin. Not feeling we have to modify ourselves to be acceptable whether through breast implants, abortion, genital mutilation, taking synthetic hormones, stretching our necks, binding our feet etc. I resent you assuming I'm in some way anti male or anti traditional family, simon. 'don't wish women to have harmonious relationships living in a family with peace and stability'(??) That is exactly what I have, what I've always wanted and what I believe is ideal for almost every human being. I've been with one man in my entire life, expecting baby number 6 and we are a peaceful, stable Christian family. I'm certainly not a follower of the Betty Friedan school of feminism :]

[Sylvia]

When women of means talk about "how tough it is to raise children" it is quite a different conversation on how regular everyday women have the same conversation. Ms. Palin undoubtedly has child-care that she can afford, schools that are privately funded that her children attend and this is not the case for most women. Sex is no indicator for empathy. I have known women who were harder on other women than most men. Is this person the right person for the job is the bigger question. And as a result of past experiences will he or she do a good job in the future for us as a nation.

[Juan]

Helena: She has a consistent record of turning down key women's issues, like contraception (the pill) funding and affordable childcare. Each of those issues have been addressed by both candidates. The main point of the article is that voters assume because she is a woman that she will be in favor of those key issues. She's not. She's simply another Republican robot towing the right-wing religious line. If you don't believe me, look it up. Her record clearly shows this.

[Rosie]

Nene is right - we should avoid the term "pro life". It is reminiscent of people campaigning "for peace" - implying that everybody else is against it. Let's all campaign for more individual autonomy.

[Matt]

Just because someone is anti-babymurder, does not mean they are anti-women.

[Helena]

no one confronts obama or mccain with whether they are devoted fathers and also suitable candidates who will support the modern families of america. though I don't support mccain or palin, palin shouldn't be given extra shit because she is a woman - haven't we experienced enough in our own lives? Not all women are the same.

[L]

Could someone translate Shocked's post for me?

[Nene]

We should never adopt the term pro-life. It's a word just like "politically correct", dreamed up by the extreme right and successfully planted in mainstream media. I retain my right to call myself Pro Life - even if I'm pro-choice.
About Ms. Palin - I really think we should leave her gender alone when discussing whether or not she'll be good for America. I think she's a disaster - but I think Mr. McCain is a disaster too. And their "disastrousness" to me has to do with their political views, records and ambition. Not their skin colour, their age or their sex.

[Shocked]

I am the parent of a child who's last day of daycare is TODAY. Not regulated enough? Maybe for a reincarnated nazi....the problem is the low-life inner city quote daycare endquote dumps that are rat infested garbage dumps. Overpriced? Well, I would like free anything- if I could afford it! $5 per hour per child. 5 children to one adult. Baby needs a lot of care. School age children can go potty by themselves. Sorry for the reality check.

JUST DONT SCREW UP DAYCARE WITH YOUR SOCIALIST B.S. AGENDA.

This is not a debate; this is our children.

HANDS OFF, NAZI LIBERAL.

[Carlos]

To Jenifer

"Palin has made the heavy demands of a big family and a high-profile job work for her."

I think you are putting your expectations on what a "working mum" should achieve when looking at work-life balance.

Many people (men and women) believe in work-life or work-family "balance". Just what that balance means is different to different people.

For example: some parents believe that you should leave a child to "self-soothe" (i.e. scream until it gives up) or not (i.e. cuddle it to death). Some believe that you should be back at work within 2 days (of giving birth) and nanny can do the rest, while others think they should take X-number of years off until the child is at school. In my view the truth lies somewhere in between. That said there is a huge gap between the two poles, leaving a lot of room for interpretation.

My point? Using these extremes, you can see a lot of room for ambiguity. She (Palin) may view that she is supportive of feminism in her own way... just because it doesn’t match your view of what it should be doesn’t mean you are right and she is wrong.

That said, if I was American, I’d be worried.

She's obviously there to get the women's vote, but to those that think she represents "normal" mums by balancing work and life - get real!

[Carlos]

Hi Delilah – on your point "Obviously abortion and gun control are fascinating to secluded urbanites..." yes and no really.

Yes, day-to-day these things don't concern me. However, having someone who believes in creationism and has narrow values regarding sex education, amongst other positions/views, speaks to someone's politics (and in my opinion state of mind) on a number of other issues. These things tend to come in packages.

Based on your point of focus (i.e. economy and education) it is like saying the Nazis were a good thing because they created jobs and turned the German economy around... let's just forget about all the other nasty bits eh?

Another point is that there is often little to choose between politicians and policies at an economic level (especially in the UK, where in the battle for the middle class middle ground, New Labour has taken a distinct light blue shade), so it does start to boil down to views on pro-life and gun control and other “secondary” policies. My recollection is also that these have always been hot topics in the US anyway (back to the policies "package").

Finally, the fact that a US Senator, running as VP, has a 17-year old unmarried daughter who is pregnant suggests that abortion is not just the realm of "secluded urbanites" (unless you are of course referring to the other end of the spectrum – and here was I thinking you were referring to poor people).

Ultimately, would you want someone with what, quite frankly, are oddball/failed views only a failed heartbeat away from "the button"? Let's face it, McCain is no spring chicken.

Not to mention these are more juicy topics to discuss and always get a reaction!

[Marita]

Why are women are catty about other women? I am reminded of the Great Simone (de Beauvoir) saying somewhere that she wouldn't call herself a feminist because she couldn't support women to the exclusion of humankind.

[keith bentham]

I would argue the feminists are actually anti-woman and anti female. What is more natural? to produce babies and nurture them as half the parental team, just as happens in Nature among pretty much every species. Or for a woman to aspire to the worst examples of behaviour in a minority of males; greedy, selfish, materialistic. promiscuous and power obsessed?