It seems everyone has their thoughts and opinions about the first Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, these days, and I am no different.
I was surprised when I heard McCain had picked her, but I was also happy that a woman was now on one of the political party’s top ticket. It didn’t matter to me what ticket she was on- as a woman and a mother, I thought it was a step in the right direction.
If you are a regular blog reader of mine, you may remember the post I wrote in May, about how I felt the media in particular, had portrayed Hillary Clinton in a sexist and discriminatory way, simply because she was a woman. If I thought that was bad for Hillary Clinton, it has just been beyond belief, the attack the media and blogs have launched against Sarah Palin in just over a week.
This just makes no sense to me whatsoever. For years feminists like Gloria Steinem, have been advocating for women that they should be able to have a choice. They shouldn’t have to give up careers in order to be mothers. Women should be considered as equals and they should have the same chances and opportunities as men. One of Gloria Steinem’s quotes I have always liked is, “I’ve yet to be on a campus where most women weren’t worrying about some aspect of combining marriage, children, and a career. I’ve yet to find one where many men were worrying about the same thing.”
There is a woman in the national spotlight, in the running for one of our country’s highest positions, (never mind her politics for a minute) who has combined marriage, children, and a career, and is successful at it. Instead of feminists like Steinem acknowledging that this is indeed a breakthrough for women, she writes an article for the LA Times (Wrong Woman, Wrong Time) basically saying the only reason Palin was picked by McCain was “to please right-wing ideologues.” Steinem also asserts “that feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman, but making life more fair for women everywhere.”
If Steinem really believed the above statement, why didn’t she make a similar statement about Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton was one woman, as well, running for one job. How does it make ”life more fair for women everywhere” if Clinton were to be elected president, but it would not make “life more fair for women everywhere” if Palin was elected vice president?
Steinem continues,
“And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.”
Sarah Palin’s husband, Todd, is becoming a stay-at-home Dad. Isn’t this what Steinem was hoping for in part when she wrote, ”…until there is a support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it? ”
Futhermore, when a male presidential candidate picks a woman for his running mate, it sends a message to women and to men, that he believes his pick is qualified and capable of being an effective vice president. What many have considered obstacles and reasons why Sarah Palin should not have been picked, McCain saw the very thing Steinem wants- “a male leader(s) who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it? ”
It seems to me John McCain and the Palin family already figured out, what Steinem wrote about. Palin’s husband Todd, is equal in the home, and will be home with their children. In my eyes, the support on a national stage for women, that Steinem talks about Obama and Biden needing to bring, is already here.
Why do we need “male leaders” to bring support to working women, and to help make men equal in the house, when it is already been in place for years? Not just with McCain, Palin and her husband, but with the thousands and thousands of working families, where the mother works, and the father stays at home. It seems like a real insult to working mothers, and stay-at-home fathers.
I can’t help but wonder if Steinem would feel this way if Palin wasn’t a Republican, but a Democrat? It makes me wonder if the type of feminism that Steinem has been pushing for, for all these years, has more do with politics than gender?
The most repulsive part of the attacks on Palin have been her character as a mother. The media and others criticize and judge Palin as a mother. The argument is being vice president would take too much time away from her family, and how could she possibly balance all of that, especially with a pregnant 17-year old daughter, and a special needs infant?
Why is that any of our business? Do we question other working parents, who have more than two kids, special needs, or other challenges, or do we assume they will figure it out? Todd Palin is going to be the stay-at-home parent. Why do we insist on the parent at home in this case has to be Sarah? Where has all the talk about fathers being at home gone? Does this mean that stay-at-home fathers aren’t quite as good as stay-at-home mothers? Isn’t this what women and feminists have been fighting for all these years for? Now that we see this on a national stage, suddenly women with babies and families, shouldn’t be at high profile jobs. They shouldn’t be taking on career aspirations.
The double standard here is amazing. Barack Obama has been campaigning now for about 18-months, and I have not heard one word, about how he will balance his family life, nor has he been judged on what kind of father he is.
During the last year and a half, how much time has Obama spent with his girls? Unlike the Palins, Obama’s wife, Michelle, has not announced that she would be a stay-at-home parent, should Obama become president. That is their private decision to make, and we assume they will figure it out. Why aren’t we granting this courtesy to Palin and her family?
If being vice president takes so much time away from family, (even though the father would be at home) wouldn’t being president take even more time away from Obama’s family (and we don’t even know if there will be a stay-at-home parent?) Yet we don’t hear the same “concerns” for Obama’s family being discussed. Don’t two young girls need their father around during their formative years? Why are we so quick to judge a strong woman as a mother, when we don’t judge a strong man as a father?
It is really interesting for me all the issues that have been brought to light by Sarah Palin running for vice president. It has made me question what “feminism” is all about to begin with. Is it only OK to advance your career when you have 2.1 kids, but not three or four, or seven?
Is feminism about advancing women, and breaking through glass ceilings from the board rooms to the White House? Or is it only “politically correct” to break glass ceilings as long as your politics don’t fall on the wrong side of those ceilings?
Subscribe to A Mama’s Blog's RSS feed so you never miss a post!
Sarah Palin, Feminism, & Double Standards says:
[...] post by WP-AutoBlog Import 43778 Add to del.icio.us Digg This Subscribe to RSS feed Leave a [...]
September 8th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Laura (3boys247) says:
Very interesting post. It really gets you thinking. I have disliked hearing all the negative comments about Palin and how her family will suffer. Who are we to judge that? I haven’t decided which way to vote, it should be an interesting few months.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Mary Prochaska says:
Heather;
Really enjoyed your views today on your blog. I took the liberty of pasting and forwarding to some of my friends.
Keep up the good work.
Your friend, (who faithfully reads your blog),
Mary
September 9th, 2008 at 8:20 am
crunchy domestic goddess (amy) says:
Thought-provoking post, Heather.
I agree with you that there’s definitely a double standard and that it’s unfortunate. (If you want to see some clear media examples of a double standard betwn the way they talked about Clinton and the way they talk about Palin, check out this Daily Show clip - http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card. Not saying it’s right or wrong, but just wow, it’s eye opening.)
I do think men and women are different (created differently, etc.) and that women (due to their anatomy) are made to be the primary caretakers of the children, which is why I’ve chosen to stay at home with my kids. I’m not saying that’s the right choice for everyone, but it has been for me. However, I think that a woman can hold a job (even a VP or pres. job) and still be a good mother. But honestly, whether someone is a mother, a father, a woman, a man, I don’t see what that has to do with their qualifications to be pres or VP. What I care about is their stance on the issues and I hope that is what matters most to others as well.
I’d love to see a woman in the White House, but I am not going to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I am going to vote based on who’s politics I most agree with.
As for Steinem, I certainly can’t speak for her, but I interpreted what she said about “feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman, but making life more fair for women everywhere” as a reference to her stance on Roe v. Wade. Everything I have read indicates that Palin is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade (even in the case of rape, incest or maternal health) and that if that happened, life would certainly be LESS FAIR for women everywhere.
You’ve certainly raised some interesting questions here today. I’m curious to read others’ responses as well.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
media girl says:
The assumption is that feminism is merely identity politics. If we were “good” feminists, we would vote for our identity.
But I look at feminism as the radical idea that women are people. Or look at the ERA.
Feminism doesn’t mean that I should give a woman a pass just because she’s a woman. To me that’s just silly. When I vote for someone, I vote based on what I sense that person is going to do, and I do not like what Sarah Palin does in political office.
It’s funny how the right has discovered identity politics. The misogyny out there is palpable, against Palin, too, but that doesn’t mean I have to support her in the name of “feminism.” No way no how no thanks!
September 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Suzanne Wells says:
Thank you for this post. Like Laura, I too am already tired of the attacks on this woman. Some “feminists” criticize her for pushing her “you can have it all” philosophy on the American woman.
I don’t see that at all - and “having it all” means different things to different people. Sarah Palin is an example of a strong, intelligent, accomplished woman, and that is threatening to some people. I don’t see her preaching career + mom + wife + etc as a lifestyle. I see her message as, “Women can have what they want, whatever it might be.”
“Having it all” to me is being able to have a successful home business, take care of my kids, do it on my schedule, and arrange my life the way I want it. I don’t want a career outside the home or to be part of corporate America. (Been there, done that.) But it refreshing to see a woman that I can relate to in the spotlight.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Naturemom says:
Great discussion. Amy I love that video you linked to…if you catch the last part it shows Sarah Palin calling Hillary a whiner…hmmm.
I think Feminists are in the right to come on strong against Palin. Not because of her gender or her choices as a mother but because her politics undermine everything Feminism stands for. She is trying to take choices away from women (and men) everywhere. She wants to be in our doctor’s offices with us, she wants to tell us who to marry, she wants to make sure our kids get HER brand of sex ed and that they don’t have access to birth control. She wants to bring religious teachings into religiously neutral schools…forcing people with different beliefs to be taught religious theory as fact.
Personally I think any feminist who belives in women calling their own shots, making their own decisions, and being equal to men would be crazy to support Palin who is clearly working against those beliefs. Palin wants to control us. Should fems try to elevate a women who will turn around and stab them in the back…I don’t think so. It is not about any woman…it IS about the right woman at least when you are picking the next VP of the country.
Who cares about the glass ceiling when that woman will pick up the glass of shards and stab you with them for your trouble. Yes this may be a bit dramatic but you see my general point. It does no good to elect a woman whose politics will hurt us in the long run.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:20 am
A Mama's Blog says:
Thanks for all of your comments so far. I am glad we can all express our views in a respectful way, talk about what feminism means to us, and how it all fits in with the election.
I don’t think that a man or a woman should be elected just because of their gender at all, and I doubt very many people will do that. Obviously Sarah Palin’s politics do not agree with the “left” side of the political arena, and agrees more with the “right” side.
It still seems to me that now all of a sudden, the term “feminist” is being redefined because of Sarah Palin. I don’t know if she even refers or thinks of herself as a feminist, but now it seems like we are hearing from feminists, that women who do seem to have found that balance between home, family, and career, are not really the ideal. We never heard this in regards to Hillary because her politics line up more with the left, who generally have the feminist activists. What if Palin were a Democrat? Would all this talk about feminism be happening, or would her praises be being sung, because here finally was a woman who achieved the feminist ideal?
I am eager to keep reading your thoughts…
September 9th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Susan says:
Who I am as a mom is a reflection on my character- Knowing if I put my hat in the main ring I am setting myself up for scrutiny. Questioning Palin’s mothering skills may go far- but questioning her stand on policies that reflect her personal life is, in my opinion, fair game. When Palin holds up the banner against sex-ed in school, high moral values,vetoes spending for programs for teen moms then has a teen of her own who becomes pregnant doesn’t that warrent questions. If she was a father would it be terrible to asks those questions.
Having children in no way should impede a woman’s desire and ability to become VP or President. But as women we know our character will come in to play. Until BOTH sides can come to an agreement on what is fair game we will see more of it. These issues play with our emotions- it effects our vote and that is POLITICS!! And the right can cry all they want, right or wrong, this attention has served them well!
I guess my main annoyance is the fact that the Right criticized Hillary are now applaud that Palin would receive the same treatment a bit hypocritical.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
The Diaper Diaries says:
I think you stated your point very well. It is clear that the main issue for those who call themselves feminists is abortion. And because Palin is pro-life, they refuse to acknowledge anything else positive about her.
Let me be clear that I am very pro-life so I support Palin on that front. But I have always found the pro-choice movement to be very confusing. Their strong support for abortion is so short sited when around the world abortion is being used to systematically eliminate their own gender. I am not saying this is true in the states, but around the world, many countries selectively abort females. How is that remotely making “life more fair for women everywhere?”
September 9th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Naturemom says:
I find the pro-life movement to be very confusing. Unborn babies should be sacred but as soon as they are born they go into an underfunded, chaotic foster/adoption system which conservatives resent paying for and won’t want to fund even more when millions of new babies enter in if abortion is abolished.
They don’t support your right to not get pregnant in the first place by blocking education and contraception at every turn.
They don’t feel that babies in Iraq or countries we are at war with are sacred..they get killeed and no one bats an eye. Adults in prison should be killed to. Why is it that conservatives get to pock and choose who is worthy of life? I thought pro-LIFE would mean ALL life.
But I think equally important to feminists is the right to marry anyone you want..regardless of gender and conservatives are VERY much against our choice in that matter too.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Annie says:
You said: There is a woman in the national spotlight, in the running for one of our country’s highest positions, (never mind her politics for a minute) who has combined marriage, children, and a career, and is successful at it.
My response: Has she really been successful? Perhaps in her career, but something is lacking on the family side if her teenage daughter is pregnant and now being dragged through the media.
You said: How does it make ”life more fair for women everywhere” if Clinton were to be elected president, but it would not make “life more fair for women everywhere” if Palin was elected vice president?
My response: Palin supports policies that make life LESS fair for women, e.g. being pro-life, anti-sex ed (who ends up pregnant when there is no sex ed? not the man), etc.
You said: Unlike the Palins, Obama’s wife, Michelle, has not announced that she would be a stay-at-home parent, should Obama become president. That is their private decision to make, and we assume they will figure it out.
My response: One big difference is that his children are all school-aged and no longer fully dependent in the way that a baby is. He also only has 2, whereas she has 5. We’re used to presidents/vice presidents having children, but it is somewhat new to have an infant involved, especially one with a disability. I think it is naturally curiosity that has people talking about it more than anything else.
You said: Is it only OK to advance your career when you have 2.1 kids, but not three or four, or seven?
My response: It is okay to advance your career no matter how many kids you have. But, you have to make different choices about what type of career is appropriate when you have a larger family, IMO, whether you are the mother or the father. One parent may be able to handle 2 kids fairly easily while the other jaunts off around the world on business, but managing a larger number gets trickier. The more kids you have and the less parents that are involved, the greater the chance that something falls through the cracks and a teenager gets pregnant, does drugs, steals, joins a gang, etc.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:49 am
wyndsong says:
Excellent post on the double standards when it comes to politics and women. I think that women need to take a good look at what we really want to say with our votes this November! Our voices will be what’s heard round the world.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Virginia Harris says:
Read this for your daughters!
Thanks to the suffragettes, women have voices and choices!
Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.
Even on the question of whether women should vote!
Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.
Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as ‘anti.’
The most influential ‘anti’ lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915, after the death of his pro-suffrage wife.
The First Lady’s role in Wilson’s decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other suffragettes will never be fully known, but she was outraged that these women picketed her husband’s White House.
I’d like to share a women’s history learning opportunity…
“The Privilege of Voting” is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.
It’s a real-life soap opera! And it’s ALL true!
Powerful suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.
There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!
Exciting, sequential episodes are great to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.
Subscribe free at
http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html
September 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
nia says:
I think the previous posters hit all of the important points. But I just want to make two points:
(1) Palin can’t have it both ways. She can’t be a “hockey mom” candidate, but then scream sexism when people question/attack her abilities as a mom. She put her motherhood at issue…not the press. Hillary never ran on that premise. She was always a PERSON running for office who just happened to be a woman. Now if the press had brought up her abilities as a mother then, that would have been sexist.
We’re all different. Some women want to “have it all” and some women want to “just be moms”. Both decisions are equally appropriate. But if you say you are a mom first and then don’t act like it, people are going to question you.
(2) Palin was picked because she was a woman with radical right beliefs. Period. Anyone who says that she was picked for her experience/credentials or because she was the most qualified for the job, just isn’t being honest or doesn’t know what they are talking about. There are way too many Republican women out there who are more qualified, more prepared and would be more of a breakthrough for women’s rights than Palin. No one supports tokenism, and that’s all this is. The choice of, and a vote for, Palin will just set the women’s movement back.
Oh…last point: Obama took a week long vacation with his family in August (a decision that was questioned by many) and I remember (because I was so taken by it) he flew home on Valentine’s Day to be with “his girls”. There may have been other things, but those two things jumped out at me and showed me that family is first for him.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Candiandsons says:
To say that no one bats an eye when a child is killed in war is a lie. We have rules of engagement. It’d be one thing to fight like our enemies and hide behind babies but we don’t.
Palin doesn’t lose credibility about abstinence because of her daughter’s choice. “Abstinence works every time it’s tried.”
(Why can’t we offer Abstinence as a choice of birth control?)
About the Right and criticism of Hillary, it had everyting to do with her political views and not that she was a woman. No one doubted she could do it all.
I, too, have a problem with the definition of feminism. AT first glance it seems you only qualify if you’re Democrat. It’s like you can’t be a real woman if you’re pro-life or agree more with the Right side.
A side note - I think it would be shallow to vote for her simply because she’s a woman.
I can only imagine the back lash if Palin hired a Nanny to help Todd take care of the kids.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Eternal Sunshine says:
The issues notwithstanding, the double standard that has been in place lately is appalling. My husband and I have had many discussions and I have had many screaming matches at the TV/radio based on some of these very points.
I am also having to withdraw myself from being in the presence of political discussion lately - I get so worked up and how unfair this race has been, how completely NASTY people are being. I’m very discouraged by it all.
But, that’s not the point - This was a fine article, and I think most people can see your point. Thank you.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Jenn (The Green Parent) says:
Thanks so much for this thought-provoking post. It takes a brave soul to open up this can of worms, but I’m so glad you did.
I completely agree with you that there is a double standard in the way Palin is being judged as a mother and not just as a politician right now. You’re right, nobody is asking how much time Obama is spending with his kids right now, so they shouldn’t be asking those questions of Palin. There are plenty of reasons why I don’t like Palin, but it has nothing to do with her mothering skills.
As for the discussion of feminism, I don’t think that Palin is the best representative of the cause. Just because she is a woman does not mean that she automatically represents feminists interests.
Feminism is about more than the finding equal footing in the workplace. Yes, feminism is about choosing to work and not having your skills as a mother questioned. But it is also about choosing to be a stay-at-home mom and still having the right to have your voice, your opinions, and your concerns heard. And it is about having the right to choose what happens to your body, what religion you will practice, and what your children will learn in public schools.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Krista says:
Amen, amen, and amen! This is what I want to say, but can’t find the words!
And to “media girl”, no one is saying you have to vote for Palin just because she’s a woman, all we’re saying is at least give her the fair treatment as a political candidate and leave her family out of it!
September 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Cindi says:
Naturemom ~ I wholeheartedly agree with you.
If it wasn’t for the feminists who came before you, no women would be in a position to “work at home, have a successful home business & take care of your kids.” No, Sarah doesn’t think of herself as a feminist, she is thinking only of Sarah. And why do you think her DH is going to be a stay-at-home Dad? Out of choice? I think not, but rather think it’s because Sarah tells him what to do.
Sarah is not “refreshing” nor a breath of “fresh air.” Everyone should open their eyes, and see this woman for what she really is.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
barefoot writer says:
Ah yes, the double standard; I often feel the need to explain my husband’s job and why he’s home while I’m working. It’s really none of people’s business, he’s not a deadbeat - he’s a good dad, and who says the dad has to be the breadwinner? Isn’t that the very opinion feminists have been trying to expel for the last few decades?!
September 10th, 2008 at 8:41 am
lookforthetruth says:
Just for the record, the Daily Show is broadcast on the “Comedy” channel. It’s disappointing (and frankly kind of frightening) how many people view this as a viable news source, or allow themselves to be influenced by this show. I know it might be a toss up, but if you decide to watch the Daily Show instead of a test pattern or static with the volume turned way up, apply this litmus test to measure, or more appropriately attempt to detect - the smallest amount of objectivity on the Daily show. Have they ever - ever- positively depicted a conservative or centrist policy, idea or political figure? Now compare the tactics of those producers with the popular cliques among 3rd and 4th graders.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Sarah says:
Great post! Come check out pictures of Palin in person! We went to see her yesterday. Amazing!
September 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
AMomTwoBoys says:
So, I’m no fan of Sarah Palin, but it’s based strictly on her policies/beliefs. I’ve tried to steer clear of her personal life.
While I think it’s GREAT that there’s a woman on the ticket, she’s NOT the woman for me. In any sense of the word.
And I patiently wait for the day when a woman I support is on the ticket. (I voted for Obama in the primary. Not Hillary).
September 10th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Naturemom says:
lookforthetruth,
Re: the Daily Show…did you watch the video? It was clips of actual news footage…not comedy skits. It clearly and accurately shows how the conservative party has done a hypocritical about face in many aspects after Palin was nominated.
Turthful and embarrassing if I do say so myself.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
crunchy domestic goddess (amy) says:
Naturemom -
Thanks for addressing “lookforthetruth.” I was just about to, but you said everything I wanted to.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
lookforthetruth says:
crunchy & nature
Um- you’re kind of missing the point in a forest for the trees kind of way. Its’ not about the clip. It’s about the way that the producers introduce selective, sound bites - whether or not they are in context - and use degrading (humor?!) to vilify or belittle anyone who thinks differently than they do. By the way what is “news footage”? It’s what producers (we really can’t call them editors anymore - journalism has died) from another tv “show” select to attract an audience and generate ad revenue. If a “news” show dosen’t reinforce the audience’s warm fuzzy feeling about their political righteousness, they turn off and advertisers pull their money. Try this - turn off the TV. For every newspaper and internet story you read, look for one with the opposing viewpoint and evaluate it. Read between the lines. Why are stories of equal importance positioned differently in a newspaper? Why do producers hold stories until the timing is right? Instead of reading a paper, pull out a pad of paper and tally up the number of photographs of each candidate for a week. Why are some candidates and elected officials always depicted in 8X10 full color posed portraits, while others always make the front page in an obviously awkward moment or unflattering pose? BTW I am sure that mamasblog dosen’t have enough server space to document the hypocrisy and flip flops in the Obama campaign. I acknowledge the about face depicted in the sound bites…. do you have the courage to examine your candidates…. Look past the campain promises. Does any politican ever really live up to them?
September 10th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
A Mama's Blog says:
Interesting discussions and I just wanted to thank everyone for keeping the comments respectful.
I think we can agree that there is hypocrisy and flip-flopping in both parties.
To Annie:
One of the points I was trying to make when I asked, “How does it make ‘life more fair for women everywhere” if Clinton were to be elected president, but it would not make ‘life more fair for women everywhere” if Palin was elected vice president?” was the women who supported Hillary Clinton’s politics would perceive their life as more fair, where as conservative women may not, and vice versa with Sarah Palin’s politics. If a woman believes abortion is wrong for example, chances are she would not view life as more fair to women if Clinton was president. Your point that women’s rights would decrease under Palin is the opposite of this, and is a valid point. But I think it is important to keep in mind, that just because some of us may feel our lives would benefit (or not) under a politician(s) not every one would feel this way.
I was trying to tie that in to Steinem’s assumption that women’s lives would suffer if Palin was elected. I think it is a matter of opinion, based on your political beliefs.
Finally here are two good articles I have come across after I wrote this post in regards to the double standard and sexism:
Leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton agree Sarah Palin has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats (from Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13129.html
Palin’s Candidacy Sparks Working Moms debate (from MSNBC.com)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26645070
September 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
crunchy domestic goddess (amy) says:
Here’s another interesting article from the Washington Post that’s on this very topic:
Who Do We Think She Is?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103630_pf.html
September 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am
crunchy domestic goddess (amy) says:
lookfortruth -
Honestly, I don’t watch the news. I watch very little TV in general because I don’t have the time or the desire. (Though I admit I did watch some of both of the Dem. Nat’l Conv. and Rep. Nat’l Conv., and I watched Obama on Letterman this week and Palin on Nightline.)
I saw the Daily Show clip because someone posted it on Twitter. I was amused by it and thought it applied to this post, so I shared it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’m not making my decision on who to vote for based on what the news or media tells me. I know stories and facts can get skewed; I used to work for a newspaper.
I’m deciding who to vote for based on which candidate’s views most match my own and I hope others will do the same.
September 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Candiandsons says:
Amen Crunchy - I know we’re on opposite sides and I’m glad we can be friends.
I agree that I decide who I vote for based on the same shared ideals/policies etc I’m not afraid to vote for a Democrat IF they line up with my beliefs.
I don’t vote merely for the Rep. ticket because I’m a Rep. or a woman because she’s a woman.
The dbl standard is sickening and quite eye opening.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Duane-PreppyDude says:
Fantastic blog entry.
I’d like to make one point-
I think women who vote for Gov. Palin because they feel the media coverage of Senator Clinton was unfair will set back the women’s movement 100 years.
What was the old rationalization for not promoting women to executive positions?
1) too emotional in business would take everything personal
2) incapable of separating their *feelings* from the reality of the issues
If you struggled to nominate the first woman to lead your party because of her stance on the issues and values, how can her polar opposite be an option?
September 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Theresa says:
Great post. As a conservative, I happen to agree with most of the views Ms. Palin is promoting including teaching contraception ed that includes abstinence. As a mom of 3 daughters myself, 20, 17, 13, I can also affirm that no matter how impeccable a parent you are - your children are independent people with their own personalities and predelictions and short of locking them in the house, if they feel inclined to have sex outside of marriage and get pregnant, it’s virtually impossible to prevent them from doing what they will. Thankfully, we haven’t had this situation in my house, but it’s only a tribute to my daughters’ good sense and very little to do with my impeccable parenting.
Found an interesting article on CNN that addresses some of the alleged “issues” we’re hearing bandied left and right… http://tinyurl.com/4pm49y
BTW, CoffeeBreak lady - thanks for the suffragette info - I’m at long last getting somewhat interested in history and appreciate your sharing.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Ami says:
I don’t agree with Sarah Palin’s politics. In fact, some of her political beliefs are anti-feminist (i.e., her views on reproductive rights).
That said, I don’t agree with anyone who attacks her based on her gender or stereotypical gender roles. Do I think she’s the right woman for the job? No. But that isn’t because she is a mother, nor because she is a woman. It’s because I don’t agree with her politics, plain and simple.
My boyfriend and I actually had a similar discussion when Palin was first announced as the VP candidate because I couldn’t understand why people were discussing her ability to raise her children, questioning her choice to run with a special-needs child at home, or talking about how “hot” she was, discussing her hairstyle or how her glasses would be the new trend. We should be talking about the issues.
No one seems to care about Obama’s ability to raise 2 young children (as you mentioned), or McCain’s hair color, or Biden’s suits? So why are we all tittering about Palin this way? (And this is as much–if not more so–on the part of women as it is on the part of men, in my opinion.)
Thanks for the great post.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Is Palin running for VP to punish her daughter? « PhD in Parenting Blog says:
[...] conservatives and some media are all raving about double standards. Why are people picking on Palin for running for office when she has a family when they don’t [...]
September 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
A Mama's Blog says:
PhD in Parenting:
For the record I am NOT a conservative or a member of a media. Before saying something like that in your blog, and linking this blog post to that statement, please check your facts.
But I do find it alarming, as a woman and a mother (like I wrote) the double standards that Palin is experiencing.
This isn’t just a conservative view point, because as I replied in a comment yesterday, leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton agree Sarah Palin has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats (from Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13129.html
I also think that linking here to a blog post again about Palin’s pregnant daughter is in bad form.
John Spratt, a Democrat from South Carolina, sums it up when he said this on Wednesday in response to another sexist comment by Dem. Chief Carol Fowler, when she said “Sarah Palin’s top qualification seems to be not having had an abortion.” (She did apologize later).
Spratt responded by saying, “Her statement about Gov. Palin is outrageous and wrong, because Sarah Palin’s qualifications are quite evident…she is the mother of five children who has been elected mayor of her town and governor of her state, and she has shown herself to be an effective public speaker and an energetic campaigner. Sen. Obama has said that ‘families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits.’ I could not agree more.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/ap_on_el_pr/sc_democrat_palin
September 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
PhD in Parenting says:
FYI, I edited the wording in my post.
And, I didn’t link here to my post. Your blog software automatically links to other posts that link to your post. I believe you can turn that off if you want. I have the option to approve or not approve “pings” on my blog.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
holli says:
Excellent.. just excellent post!! Gloria Steinem is a raging hypocrite. My guess is that she would have supported any woman - and I mean ANY woman, had she not been a republican.. and that is called discrimination, regardless of what your reasons are. I don’t care if you agree or disagree with Sarah Palin’s policies - that is your right, and that is why we vote.. and that is where we each get to choose who we want to lead us in this great nation. But when you start picking and choosing strictly based on sex and the amount of children a person has given birth to - you are discriminating.
My guess is - most of the people smearing Sarah Palin the worst never would have voted for John McCain in the first place.. and they’re just looking for reasons to drag her down. I may not agree with all of her policies 100% - I don’t agree with ANY candidate across the board on either side. I just don’t.. but I do think John McCain and Sarah Palin are more qualified - I agree with them on more issues.. and I don’t want anyone taking 50% of our taxes, be it male, female or dog. That just scares the CRAP out of me!!
Okay, I’m off topic now. Anyway, I wrote a similar post: http://www.baby-faith.com/?p=1010 and more people agreed than didn’t. I think the more people smear Sarah Palin.. the more I lean towards that ticket. I was a strong Independent when we went into this election - torn between Hilary and McCain.. but it’s pretty much over for me. All the bashing has shown me the lack of character on the left.
Thanks for being a strong woman and writing this post ABOUT a strong woman. HUGS.
September 12th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
To Think Is To Create says:
Great thought provoking post!
Full disclosure–I’m an Independent.
First–totally agree that the sexist treatment Palin has received has been brutal. I hope it stops soon, we have almost a month and a half to endure of this still!
Second–I don’t think Steinem’s whole piece was hypocritical, it was just anti-Palin. Why should Steinem, a liberal, write an article supporting Palin? Their politics are polar opposites. If Steinem honestly believes that Palin’s politics are anti-woman, regardless if you or I agree, then she’s not being hypocritical in writing that this is the wrong woman.
This is why I don’t agree with your assessment of the Steinem piece, because you’re essentially comparing oranges to apples. You don’t agree that Palin’s policies are anti woman, fine. But it’s not correct to take that position and use it to say that someone is re-defining feminism because they aren’t supporting a woman VP candidate regardless of the party.
It’s really not about Palin being a woman or a republican, but it’s about those folks feeling that she’s anti-woman. You asked if they would be supportive of no one except a democratic woman, well *their* politics (the feminists) usually line up with the Left, so that is likely, however those labels (Dem, Repub) are not the issue. It’s the politics.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
A Mama's Blog says:
To Think:
Thanks for your comment. They have all been great, and very thought-provoking.
My whole problem with Steinem’s article was I thought she was supposed to be supporting feminism and women’s rights, for ALL women- not just the women whose politics agree with her. For years, that has been my understanding of the entire feminist movement.
I suppose I see it like women’s rights. The suffrage movement fought to ensure the rights of women to vote. If a woman back then (for argument’s sake) decided she didn’t want to vote, or didn’t agree with some of the suffrage’s politics, would it be the right thing to do for the movement to declare that this woman really shouldn’t vote anyway, and she is anti-woman?
To me, when you start a movement and say you are fighting for women’s rights, then I take that to mean ALL women’s rights, no matter what the woman’s politics, religion, or nationality is.
If feminists like Steinem only want to fight for women’s rights, whose politics they agree with, then they have every right to do so. But, I object and think it does the entire movement a disservice when a situation like this of Palin arises. It becomes very clear that the rights of women Steinem and others like her want to advocate are only those with the same political mind.
I think, like you mentioned that since their politics do line up with the left, they should stop saying they are fighting for women’s rights, and are feminists. They should say they are fighting for Democratic, or liberal women’s rights.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Denise says:
Love your post! Perfect, every word.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
A Pretty Mess » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin, Feminism, & Double Standards says:
[...] posted on A Mama’s Blog on [...]
September 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
nelle says:
The attacks on Palin were very upsetting. I’m one who will openly embrace the word ‘feminist’ - feminist along with ‘liberal’ - and watched quite disgustedly as so many on the left tore her down not so much for politics - that is what the race is about and is fair game - but for having five kids and questioning her ability to parent, and for having a preggers 17 year old.
And so I called out the left in a few places. The response was predictable.
Sarah’s politics and my politics diverge from the moment the first issue is brought forth… but feminism cannot be about breaking glass ceilings in one political ideology, it has to happen across the board.
The left could have approached this as it normally would. Address issues, where there are differences, what that happens when Republicans win vs if Democrats win.
Inside of a few weeks, we’ve seen a huge blunder in the selection of Biden; McCain see opportunity and go for it, the consequences of both fairly predictable. Add to it the faux pas pig thing and the religion thing, and well… you can’t design a better strategy to lose than what has unfolded over this time.
I’m told my lamenting Biden’s selection is ’sour grapes.’ I’m told to not chastise the left and encourage a clearer and persisting effort on feminist issues because well, ‘look at the alternative. Is that what you want?’
So their view of my choice is for me to meekly get back in line and support a leftist policy carrying a hidden misogynist element, or see to the election the heathen misogynists of the right if I decide to cast a vote away from the two standard choices.
The trouble is, I’m asked to drop issues every election. 4 years from now, feminists would be told once again to get in line and support the status quo. Your candidate lost (as if Hillary is the only woman who can be president) and now you should shut up and support us.
I’m glad Sarah is running, though I am honestly conflicted over things like choice and gay rights and the war and taxes. She is obviously intelligent, obviously capable of leadership, of standing her ground, of taking the heat - and giving it back.
When a woman gets this close to power, stand back… misogynists you never know were there start surfacing.
nelle
September 13th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Annie (PhD in Parenting) says:
I’ve been reading this over and over again and I’m really trying to understand. You’ve repeated in several different ways, using several different examples, the following statement: “My whole problem with Steinem’s article was I thought she was supposed to be supporting feminism and women’s rights, for ALL women- not just the women whose politics agree with her. For years, that has been my understanding of the entire feminist movement.”
I do think that the feminist movement (and Steinem” support women’s rights for ALL women. The idea behind it is that the choices and opportunities for women should be as free as possible. If a woman wants to have an abortion, wants to vote, wants to have children, wants to work, etc. then she should be able to. If she doesn’t want to have an abortion, doesn’t want to vote, doesn’t want to have children and doesn’t want to work, then that is her right too.
However, anytime that someone supports a policy that restricts the choice of an individual woman, that is, in my mind anti-feminist.
To use your example of the “right to vote” situation, you said: “If a woman back then (for argument’s sake) decided she didn’t want to vote, or didn’t agree with some of the suffrage’s politics, would it be the right thing to do for the movement to declare that this woman really shouldn’t vote anyway, and she is anti-woman?”. No, that wouldn’t be the right thing to do. If that woman doesn’t want to vote, she doesn’t have to vote. The same as men that don’t want to vote, don’t have to vote. It is her choice.
I’m really really really failing to understand how giving more choice and more freedoms to all women can restrict the freedom of other women. Perhaps it restricts their ability to impose their values on other women (i.e. to tell them that they cannot have an abortion, to hide information about birth control from them, to tell them they cannot vote, etc.), but it doesn’t restrict their ability to make their own choices about their own lives.
Am I making any sense? Have I misunderstood you? Did I miss something? I’m really trying to understand.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
AJae says:
Wow. That just puts it all in perspective. I’m NOT crazy for thinking that Sarah Palin has been treated unfairly by many media and gossip reports.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
A Mama's Blog says:
Annie,
Thanks for your question, and I hope I can answer it.
Like I wrote, “My whole problem with Steinem’s article was I thought she was supposed to be supporting feminism and women’s rights, for ALL women- not just the women whose politics agree with her. For years, that has been my understanding of the entire feminist movement.”
I totally see where you are coming from that anybody who restricts a choice to a woman could be considered anti-feminist. But by that same token that is just what Steinem (and others) are doing here not only to Palin, but to any woman whose beliefs don’t line up totally with the feminist movement.
You say, “However, anytime that someone supports a policy that restricts the choice of an individual woman, that is, in my mind anti-feminist.”
I see your point, but from the writings of Steinem, this is only applied when it is convenient or lines up with the Democrat politics. An example that I see, of this is in the stay-at-home status of Todd Palin.
An interview last year said Todd Palin “takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer, according to his wife. He divides much of his time between Wasilla, where Track is recovering from shoulder surgery, and the capital in Juneau, where the Palin daughters are in school.”
Sarah Palin then said, “”He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. He says, ‘I can sleep when I die,’ “said Sarah Palin.”There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He’s able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine.” http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8924080p-8824177c.html
A situation like this is not uncommon in many households today. Yet, Steinem and many others dismiss this contribution and example of feminism. This is the very situation they have been wanting, yet Palin who has achieved this, is dismissed as anti-feminist.
To draw a comparison, the ticket that Steinem supports is Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Obama’s wife Michelle, had a well paying, high level administration job, at the University of Chicago. To my knowledge she is on leave from this job, but some say she has quit her job. Quit or on leave, so Obama could pursue his career.
Joe Biden was a single dad when his wife died in 1972. His wife now, Jill, said if Obama and Biden win, she will still teach, but try to juggle both her job and her family, just as she did when Biden was in the primaries and was away from the family.
This is traditional patriarchy. Why is Steinem supporting this, when it could be considered anti-feminist? Can’t it be argued that Michelle and Jill’s choices are being restricted so they can support their husband’s choices? POLTICS ASIDE there is no doubt that the arrangement between these two tickets that is not restricting a woman’s choice in this example, and is the ideal matriarch arrangement is the Palins.
When politics are NOT aside, Steinem supports a traditional patriarchy arrangement. That makes me question the entire “feminist” view-point and reasoning.
You can only be considered a feminist if all of your beliefs, and politics line up 100% with what Steinem and Democrats say they should be. If you happen to be pro-life, but believe gender or traditional stereotypical roles do not matter in what you can achieve in your career, and you have created with your husband, an arrangement that supports this (like Palin), you are anti-feminist, and anti-woman. Yet, if you are pro-choice, Democrat, but give up your career to support your husband, that is not being anti-feminist, or anti-woman.
Hillary Clinton gave up a large part of her career and self to support her husband and his political career. Yet, that was not viewed as anti-feminism either. Why? Because Clinton is a Democrat, and is pro-choice.
Playing devil’s advocate, suppose Palin announced she was giving up her spot as McCain’s running mate, because her husband got a job offer, and she needed to stay-at-home, to take care of the children and the home. What do you think Steinem and others would say about her? Would they liken her to Michelle Obama, or Hillary Clinton- following in their footsteps to support her husband? I seriously doubt it. The criticism of her setting the feminist movement back light years would be relentless in my opinion.
I am NOT saying that women have to agree with Palin’s politics or accept them. I fail to see why it is up to Steinem and others to decide who is a feminist and who isn’t. Does any woman ever really live up to feminist ideals 100% of the time? If not, I suppose you are still a feminist, as long as you are not a pro-choice Republican. How is this supporting ALL women?
The only reason I can see for this double standard is not because Sarah Palin is anti-woman, but I have said before, because of her politics.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Annie (PhD in Parenting) says:
Thanks! Now I understand what you were saying, but I just don’t agree.
My personal view of feminism is that all women should have free choices and then each family should work out what arrangement is best for them. I think those arrangements require some give and take and sometimes one spouse (male or female) gives up something for a while to support the other.
I think it is good and important to have role models of families where the mom works and the dad stays home (that is our arrangement). If both parties/tickets had policies that I considered to be equal, then perhaps I would lend my vote to the one that has that role model on it.
However, I would rather vote for a male that supports women’s rights (even if in his family they have chosen to have the man work and the woman support him), than vote for a woman that seeks to restrict women’s rights (just because she is working and the dad is staying home).
I guess I think that having laws, policies and programs that are supportive of women is more important than having role models at the top. I can go elsewhere to find my role models, but only the politicians can create the laws, policies and programs (well, I guess NGOs have programs to some extent too, but the laws and policies are just government).
September 14th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Annie (PhD in Parenting) says:
Here is another great post on the topic: http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-this-feminist-hates-sarah-palin.html
September 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Joe says:
Let`s face it, Bimbo Palin is no vice-President material. She has a pretty face and no substance for her qualifications. For those women who pray for her elevation to the second position in our government, I say you need help.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
A Mama's Blog says:
Joe,
Between the other three people on these election tickets, Palin has THE most executive experience actually running a state, which is a lot like being president. Governors are elected as president, never serving in Congress, so it is a valid credential. In fact, The last four out of our last five presidents (George W.Bush, Clinton, Reagan, & Carter) have been governors-never being in Congress. No one is calling them bimbos.
Obama was only in the Senate for a little over 100 days, before he started his campaign for president. That is only three months! I fail to see what he ever has been in charge of on an executive level. Yet he is a man, and not very many people are questioning his qualifications, nor calling him a ‘bimbo.’ If Palin were a man, only having been in the Senate for 3 months, and Obama had been a mayor and now was the governor for just under two years in Alaska, I seriously doubt we would have this “qualification” issue.
Furthermore, Obama has over 300 advisors right now! He will have many advisors if he is elected. All presidents do. If McCain were elected, and something happened to him, Palin would have advisors as well- maybe just as many as Obama does now.
So I don’t think it is a valid argument to cite her perceived lack of qualifications if she should happen to become vice president, when Obama has less executive experience than her now, and would BE the president. He would have advisors to assist with issues he was not familiar with, and in the event Palin were president (if McCain died), she would have advisors to assist her as well.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Is Palin running for VP to punish her daughter? | PhD in Parenting says:
[...] conservatives, some media, and other interested parties are all raving about double standards. Why are people picking on Palin for running for office when she has a family when they don’t [...]
June 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am