Don't Dis Sarah Palin for Working While Mothering

Look, I don't agree with Sarah Palin's politics.

You want to criticize her unconstitutional stance on teaching religious doctrine as "science" in public schools? Go right ahead. I'll join you.

You think her support of the out-of-the-mainstream Republican Party Platform statement that all abortions should be totally banned, period, with no exceptions even for the life or health of a mother, is scary? Ditto.

Want to pick on her for suing the government to try to prevent protection of polar bears as an endangered species, and supporting hunters shooting wolves out of helicopters for sport? Be my guest.   

Worried about her total lack of foreign policy experience? Thinking it's awfully hypocritical of the "Experience Counts" McCain campaign to pick a V.P. candidate with such a thin political resume? So am I.

But please, don't criticize the woman for running for Vice President while being a mother of five.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has five children.

My own Senator, Democrat Claire McCaskill, was the first Missouri state lawmaker ever to give birth while in state office, back when she was in the Missouri House.

John F. Kennedy's son Jack was born just weeks after he took office. But as far as I know, no one criticized him for having a newborn at home.

Sarah Palin's husband recently quit his job to stay home with their kids. As far as I know, they're not being neglected.

As a feminist and mother and a woman who supports other working women, I have to say, I fully support Sarah Palin's right to work at a high-powered job while her husband stays home.

I do wonder what she thinks, though, of John McCain's staunch opposition to equal pay protection for women. Do you think that if McCain and Palin won the election, she would settle for being paid less than a male V.P.?

Comments

[Karoli]

completely agree. It's a loaded issue that will distract from the real negatives Palin carries with her.

[Natalie]

oooh, WELL SAID! Bravo!

Especially that last line. Thank you for bringing the *real* issues up. I don't care that she is a mother, I CARE about her political history. The fact that her husband cares for her children while she works could actually work for her in the feminist aspect.

[KrisUnderwood]

Yes, very well said. I totally support her as a working mother. I just do NOT support her political views and history. No abortion, period? Even in the cases of rape and mother's health in danger? No birth control? Creationism is schools? No thanks.

[bugsoup]

I mostly agree with everything you have said. One thing I haven't heard being talked about is Palin's use of her months old baby as a political prop. Does a baby with Down's Syndrome deserve to be on stage in front of 15,000 (supposedly) people cheering? Wouldn't a better place for that baby be at home or, at the very least, backstage away from all that noise and campaign music? I can only assume that the campaign would want as much noise as possible to make McCain seem popular, and if that is the case, she must know that isn't the best place for a baby. In my opinion, she is putting her own needs ahead of her baby's needs. I'm not trying to be critical of her status as a mother, just of her poor choice during her first national display of motherhood.

[prescott]

Not that this makes her view on women's rights much better, but I've read in several places that stated Palin's position on abortion is that she wants it banned in every instance *but* when the birth threatens the life of a mother.

(Not a Republican, just believe in accuracy)

[Jupiter]

Ok, I admit...I was being overly critical of her working mother status but that was before I knew her husband was staying home with the kids. That makes a huge difference to me. My biggest beef was that a newborn with Downs deserves and needs a full time commitment from a parent. I don't care which gender that parent is.

I also agree with bugsoup... while I commend her for seeming to be "hands-on" in the parenting arena and having the baby near her, it does seem a little like the baby is being exploited a little bit and that the exposure to all the hullabaloo is not in the baby's best interest

[Victoria]

Be careful also with misquoting the fear mongering spins that other people are putting on half quotes and mis quotes. Sarah Palin never said that creationism should be taught as part of any curriculum and clarified this half quote already:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

As someone who lives in an area where plenty of children are taught creationism at home and in church, I welcome the debate in the classroom. It has come up already in and out of school, and my kids are learning how to handle themselves in such debates.

http://tinyurl.com/66tq5m

I don't want creationism taught in school, but I also don't want to smear someone on Internet sensationalist rumors.

There need to be some sites that fact check before publishing posts, and this should be one of them. People already think moms are all a bunch of women in ponytails who can't think beyond their hormones.

And from what I'm reading of Sarah Palin, I'd be damed surprised if she didn't sit John on his butt and let him know exactly what she thinks of unequal pay.

[jaelithe]

Ahem. I did fact check this post before I wrote it.

Sarah Palin and John McCain both support the Republican Party Platform. The Republican Party Platform currently calls for a blanket ban on all abortions, with no exceptions even for the life or health of the mother. John McCain has publicly stated he will not change that plank. Whatever Sarah may have said in the past about exceptions, as long as she supports that platform plank, she supports a blanket ban.

And she HAS stated, more than once, that she supports the teaching of creationism in schools. Visit this link if you don't believe me:

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

I fact check every post I write, Victoria. And I don't see what bearing my hairstyle has on my thought process.

[Rox]

Awesome post, thanks -- I've been trolling the blogs, and it seems like everyplace is tearing her apart for going back to work quickly after having children at best or perpetuating internet rumors about her children's origins at worst. It just makes me sad. I am encouraged that Palin speaks openly about choosing to keep a baby with Down Syndrome, too; because, even if she doesn't believe in choice, it reminds those who do believe in choice that the answer isn't always "no." I won't vote for her/McCain because I don't agree with most of their social agenda; but I respect her and her husband and won't be dissing them in the blogosphere or anywhere else.

[bugsoup]

@Ron

Why is appropriate to have a baby in that condition on stage if not to use the baby as a prop? How loud do you think it is there? How many of those 15,000 people have contagious illnesses? Were you aware that Down's Syndrome can cause immune deficiencies?

It is my opinion that the baby shouldn't be on stage with her. I don't know why that is controversial. I don't understand why I'm an idiot for suggesting the baby could be in a safer environment. There are, of course, other options for where the baby could be. Do you deny that? Do you deny that she didn't need to have that baby in front of a screaming crowd or loud music? Having the family on stage is not a problem, but it is a purely political decision. Do you have any other explanation? What other reason was the baby there for?

[Kristin]

I totally, completely agree --

I abhor the choice of Palin but if we start criticizing the choice because of her motherhood, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Nearly every woman leader in Congress and in governor's offices either don't have children or have children who are grown, from Pelosi to Sebelius.

So, if we oppose women with young children, what we are doing is opposing the representation of *who* *we* *are*.

While older mothers may remember the struggle over quality child care, education and health care, we *live* it everyday. Mothers with young children NEED to be in the room talking about policies that affect families. They just NEED to.

So, Sarah Palin, bad. But more mothers in politics, good.

[Jo-Ann]

@ Ron Ross

Nice work. You show yourself for who you are and reduce your credibility with every post.

[Kristin]

I wrote an article, pre-Palin on this subject...

http://www.mothersmovement.org/features/07/08/teigen-1.html

One of the things that I found when I wrote it was how many more people would be opposed to voting for a woman with small children than a man in a similar circumstance.

[Redstocking Grandma]

I have always thought it was great for babies to be in the thick of things. This idea that babies belong in the seclusion of the home is bad for babies and their moms. My kids were riding the NYC subways by the time they were a week old. They had gone to concerts in central park with 50,000 people by the time they were 3 months old. My daughter took her son to a Mets game when he was 3 weeks. Babywearing protects them from too much contact with other people. Too much worry about germs and babies compromise their immune system.

Could you refer me to links that establish she doesn't believe in birth control?

Abortion isn't the only feminist issue. I have to contrast Palin with Michelle Obama, who has put her career on hold to support her husband's campaign. Pictures of Palin with baby in sling signing bills or meet with legislators are wonderfl for mothers.

[jaelithe]

Okay, I have changed the post to clarify that it is the Republican Party Platform that calls for a blanket ban and not a specific quote from Palin. Palin and McCain have both been quoted in the past as saying they would make an exception for the life of the mother, but as the McCain campaign has said they will not change the platform plank, they have essentially endorsed a blanket ban WITHOUT an exception, because that is what the platform plank says.

Redstocking Grandma, how is Michelle Obama putting her career on hold any different than Todd Palin putting his career on hold? I am staying home with my own son right now. Does that make me less of a feminist? I'll dare anyone to tell me so.

Mothers need to support other mothers, whether they work OR stay home. Isn't supporting women's choices what feminism is all about?

I believe by the way that people are assuming Palin is against birth control because she is a prominent member of Feminists for Life:

http://feministsforlife.org/news/ffl-member-sarah-palin-vp.htm

And Feminist for Life members generally oppose hormonal birth control. I am not personally aware of any specific statements Palin has made about birth control, which is why I did not include a stance in this post, because I do not know what her stance is.

[bugsoup]

@Ron

I accept that the mother gets to decide how to treat her baby, but it is my choice to judge her character based on the poor decisions I think she has made. If there are other places the baby can be, then having it on stage is a political move that's not in the best interest of the baby.

I do not know the exact condition of the baby, and from what I've read, neither do the Palins. Not all developmental problems are apparent, especially in baby's that young. They are risking the future health of a sick child for political gain. It's laughable that you call me the sick pig.

It's also ironic that you accuse me of making assumptions, considering you know nothing about me and claim I just don't like her from the start. The only assumptions I've made are that the combination of loud music, loud cheering, and almost certain sick people are not the ideal or responsible environment for that baby. I make no assumptions about the mother, father, or family. I conclude that I don't think they are making the best choice for the baby. Again, I ask you, do you deny that there are better places for the baby?

And speaking of not liking her, I don't know. I'm sure she is an intelligent, interesting woman. I've made no claims about liking her or not liking her, but if her motherhood is seen as a campaign platform, shouldn't the quality of her parenting be open to examination?

[Donna]

Great post, Jaelithe. I've been thinking the same things. From what I've seen and read about Palin in the last 48 hours, she is an admirable woman on many levels - but her views and experience are just WRONG for the office of US Vice President. I have plenty of reasons to oppose her candidacy without resorting to personal attacks.

[Jo-Ann]

@Ron

Excuse me? Did I mention Governor's Palin's child at all. No, I did not. I was simply referring to your namecalling. I did not mention the baby, I did not call anyone names. MY credibility is intact, thank you very much.

[Stefania/CityMama]

Right on, Jaelithe. The one thing that connects me to Sarah Palin is the fact that she is a mother. When I saw her on stage with her beautiful family, my first thought was, "Right on, sister!" I would never, ever fault her ability to give her all to her work because she is a mother. As a working mother, I know the challenges she faces. And I work FROM home which I would venture to say is harder.

That's where my affinity for Palin ends, however. I disagree with just about every issue she stands for.

[Interested American]

Kinda sad that an Obama supporter questions the experience of someone who's held elected office longer than he has, and held executive offices (which he hasn't). She's also governed a state two-thirds the size of the continental US that is effectively bordered by two nations, and has dealt with more energy concerns than Obama by far.

Best not to bring up the experience AT ALL.

[PunditMom]

Totally agree. I also think we Dems should be careful about dismissing her candidacy out of hand. I certainly don't think she is qualified, but there are a lot of voters in this country for whom she will resonate.

[Interested American]

A person who cuts pork projects, refuses federal funds for others that are ridiculously unnecessary, acts on her own beliefs about abortion, and stands up to corrupt politicians in her own party... why should she resonate with anyone?

I hope you didn't mean because she's pretty. Or a woman.

[bugsoup]

@Ron

I have no idea who you are talking about. If you have a link that somehow shows a candidate let a baby die, then I would consider the evidence. To this day, nobody has been able to show me that this has happened or that anyone would allow that to happen. Please enlighten the audience.

I will work backwards through your second paragraph. First, have you ever heard the expression, "Hate the sin, not the sinner"? How is it demeaning to point out when I think someone has made a poor choice in the care of a baby? It is really ironic that you just got finished lambasting another candidate for supposed poor treatment of a baby, yet when I do it for actual poor treatment, it's somehow demeaning and out of line.

Second, she may be intelligent person, but that doesn't change the facts. I really do think she should have kept that vulnerable baby somewhere safer. By your own admission, there are better places for the baby during a campaign speech. Parental choices are sometimes tough. There is a risk/reward for every decision. I'm just wondering what the reward is for bringing her baby on stage with her. You cannot possibly argue that it benefits the child, it only benefits her as a politician. She even has you defending her. She clearly chose political gain over the risk to the baby.

Third, it may upset you to point out facts and to relay my opinions of her decisions, but can you understand why it may upset me that you are dismissing the potential health risks to a baby to defend her honor? Did it ever occur to you that I'm actually concerned for the baby? Why do you seem not to be concerned?

Fourth, I await your reply to my questions before I accept an apology.

[Victoria]

You need to read your own link. It refutes what you say about Palin and her clarification of her initial statement.

We all should be used to clarifications and explanations of sloppy first statements. We've been through a lot of them with Obama during the primaries.

The Alaskan Republican Party has different ideas, but Palin has a record of going head-to-head with the party, and I don't see why this is any different. Her own father was a science teacher. She said right out that this isn't an issue for her.

[Victoria]

Oh brother. Michelle bringing those girls on that stage and allowing them a speaking role was beyond ridiculous and a complete exploitation of those children. Next thing you know she'll be blogging about them.

[bugsoup]

Oops, I meant to say she clearly chose political gain over the safety of her baby.

[bugsoup]

@Victoria

Are you trying to defend Palin?

I said I have no problem with the rest of Palin's family being on stage. Likewise, I don't have a problem with the Obama's being there.

[Victoria]

Unless you are that baby's doctor, you are choosing to make a negative character judgment of someone else's parenting and based upon your own parenting and heresay or incomplete information.

It's sticky business getting between some other mother and her child.

First we're complaining that Palin most likely isn't spending enough time with her kids. Then she's with them and you're complaining that the baby is in harm's way. Honestly, that baby was most likely in just as much danger if it were at daycare or the supermarket.

A kid in a car is in more danger.

Politicians exploit their kids. This is not a surprise is it?

[bugsoup]

@Victoria

Nobody is complaining that Palin isn't spending enough time with her kids, at least not here. Go back through the posts and find me one person who doesn't agree with Jaelithe. Everyone hear has agreed, so far, that we, "fully support Sarah Palin's right to work at a high-powered job while her husband stays home." In fact Jaelithe even gave three examples of other politicians who are successful parents while in office. And I'm not complaining that she is spending time with the baby. She most certainly is on stage with the baby, but is that really the kind of time that is beneficial to the baby. Why are people so willing to defend her in this case? What is at risk if you admit she made a poor choice? Is it that you can no longer use the "mother of 5" slogan? Is that talking point really that important that you are willing to overlook the harm to a baby for political gain?

[Victoria]

BTW, as far as equal pay goes, Sarah Palin is better off working in John McCain's office than in Obama's:

CNS News dot com:

"On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)"

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

[Victoria]

You're starting to sound hysterical. Sarah Palin has raised 4 children before this baby and we have no reason to believe that she does not have this baby's best interest in mind. You are going purely on conjecture and I'd advise being careful that it doesn't become an open projection of your own parenting insecurities. You have no proof that this baby is being harmed by being on stage. You have no proof that Sarah Palin is a neglectful or uncaring mother.

And now "mother of 5" is reduced to being just a slogan in your mind?

That's extremely ironic given the title of this site.

[Kristin]

Victoria,

Your comment about Obama's staff is one of those examples of political hyperbole that drives me so crazy.

Instead of looking at the candidate's actual policy, let's make broad assumptions about a situation we know absolutely NOTHING about. Do we know any of his staff members? What do they do? What is their levels of seniority? What are their qualifications? You know pay figures -- nothing more.

That would be like me doing what you seem to abhor -- making judgements about Palin's job as a mother, a situation I know NOTHING about.

Rather than focus on interiors, which we know little to nothing about, how about if we just stick to the exteriors?

John McCain voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, effectively squelching any chance women have of suing for redress for pay inequity.

Sarah Palin supports McCain's vote.

Barack Obama voted for the Act. So did Biden.

Or, we could just stick with non-empirical assumptions. I guess I *have* really gotten used to those over the past eight years.

[Kristin]

try again -- "what *are* their levels...."

[jen]

stefania said it best already, so i'm here saying here, here!

[bugsoup]

@Victoria

What benefit is there to the baby for it to be on stage? Is it better for the baby to be on stage or off stage? If your answers are "none" and "off-stage", then you agree that she doesn't have the baby's best interest in mind.

I don't think you are in the position to question my parenting. because you don't know me. If showing concern for a baby a reflection of my parenting, I have no problem with that. What do you think it says about me? Why is it insecure of me to want the best for a baby?

I find it interesting that the two defenders of Palin have not given another reason (other than political) for that baby to be on stage, yet I'm being called "insecure", an "idiot", a "pig", a "class act", and prejudice against Palin for pointing out that I think a political stage is not the appopriate place for a Downs baby.

I'm really trying to be fair here. Please point out when I haven't been.

[Victoria]

What benefit is it for any children to be on stage?

The baby knows least about what is going on. Obama's kids get that they are being made pawns, or will soon. Pick the right monster.

"I don't think you are in the position to question my parenting. because you don't know me."

You answered your own question.

You want to talk about what is best for babies? Day care? Breast feeding until they are two? Moms not working at all? No putting kids in cars? You really want to go there?

[Victoria]

Political hyperbole? You mean as in the second sentence of this post?

Seems we've come full circle.

[bugsoup]

@Victoria

Do you really think the baby is aware of being on stage and not just in a really loud environment around 15,000 that could make him sick? Do you really think it's a benefit to the baby?

The difference here is that you also don't have any examples of my parenting. I do have something to go by in regards to Palin. I don't need to know her whole history to think that she made a political decision to bring her baby on stage. I haven't said she is a bad mother, just that she has made a poor decision that makes me question it. You, on the other hand, think I'm insecure for pointing it out.

Again, I will ask you (just like I had to keep asking Ron), what is better for the baby, being on stage or off stage? I have no problem with her running or even bringing the rest of her family on stage, but she could have made a better choice in regards to her newborn. That is really all I'm saying.

[bugsoup]

I will say one more thing for today. If people don't think the baby is at risk, fine, but it really makes no sense to call me names for being concerned.

[Rob]

WHY NOT!?? It's not always self-righteous to take issue with someone else's life choices, sometimes it's world-righteous. Why is that women, particularly those of you who CHOSE to work AND raise children insist that this choice is personal and that they should not be judged for it? Where is it written that you DESERVE to have it all? Why do working women (especially those who can afford not to) insist on being able to hold a job and raise (often) more than one child insist that this decision has no negative effect on that child or his or her upbringing? Most, is not all major studies dispute that.

Sure, if one parent is home that is a different story. But how often is that case?

It is not misogynistic nor sexist to suggest that one shouldn't be having some, many or ANY children if one is not willing to take care of them in as IDEALLY a way as is humanly possible. (Ideally in this case, means having at LEAST one parent home at all times) Why do working women insist that they deserve this, that it is somehow a RIGHT? That you are entitled? It's not. And you're not. And the same is true for the men, too.

You want equal pay for equal work? Great. This is America in the 21st century, for Chrissakes, that's a no brainer. Equality is equality, across the board. So, if you want equal pay for equal work that you must accept all that comes with it. That means that you're not allowed to leave early to go to your kid's soccer game, that means that you won't be given a little more of a raise because you have a family to provide for, and that means that you can't leave early on Friday because you are going camping with the kids. And that goes for you Dad's, as well.

Having children is choice, not a right. If you chose to have them then take care of them and take them well. And don't even get me started on the social irresponsibility of having more than one or two...and that's not a personal judgement, either. It's actually quite compassionate.

[John]

I don't blame or condemn her for doing what she has done while pregnant.
What i condemn her for is being in a position to force her views down our throats example she is against a woman's right to choice, she is against equal pay for equal work and thats only two of the many things she is against she says she is against the old boy network but upholds its principles just the same in her double talk.
A persons right to decide is granted to everyone in the Constitution but given her stance she would remove that right not only from women but all of you.
So i say think very carefully before you vote do you want your right to decide for your self removed ?
Ok she made a choice but think on this her son when he reaches adulthood who looks after him when the parents pass on we the taxpayers do as he will be granted SSD.
So i say to Sarah Palin you took it upon your self i do hope you thought ahead to provide for this child when he is an adult and his last link to your family is gone because i for one find it repugnant that you expect me and the rest of us to pick up the cost and expense of your decision.
When you and those that matter are or maybe gone you have condemned him to a very iffy life way to go MOM!

[Mom101]

@redstocking grandma

You deserve an answer to the question and I searched around quite a bit. In 2006, Palin, in an interview with the conservative Eagle Forum Alaska answered the question: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

Her answer was yes, she would not support sex education programs.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Palin_opposed_sexed.html
http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html