Maybe Sarah Palin's Motherhood is a Plus for Democrats

The conservative GOP base is embracing Sarah Palin's story of rugged Alaskan motherhood -- working her way though local and state politics with babies on her hip and toddlers pulling at her skirt, as well as bringing home the caribou bacon and frying it up in a pan.

The feminist in me believes that her motherhood status shouldn't have an impact on whether she, or any other woman, is qualified to be Vice President of the United States.  Tell me what you think about policy and the direction you would steer the country in.  Make sure I know how you would stare down Vladimir Putin or handle yourself at the next G-8 summit.  Little tidbits of info on those topics go a long way for me in deciding whether any politician is someone I'd vote for, not how many kids they have or what their soccer schedules are.

But some of the women in my family, who are true blue Democrats, have been voicing this concern -- how can Palin be a mother with young children, including one with special needs, AND be the Vice President? 

Not a new question, I know.  Loads of people have been wondering that since the Republican convention.  And intially that bothered me.

I've changed my mind.  Because if there are enough voters who think a mother of young children shouldn't be on this ticket, then they won't vote for the ticket.  And maybe that's a plus for Barack Obama.

Granted, my relatives weren't going to be voting for McCain/Palin anyway.  But for all the GOP women who find Palin's story of motherhood empowering, maybe there are just as many who won't vote for her because they think she needs to have enough time to be available for her children instead of moving into Dick Cheney's soon-to-be old digs at the Naval Observatory.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, as a general matter, to have people believe that being a mother to young children is a dis-qualifier for anything.  But maybe in this instance, it could work to the Democrats advantage.

A girl can hope, can't she?

Joanne, also known in these parts as PunditMom, is hoping that the Sarah Palin wave will soon be over!

Comments

[sandy]

It might work to the Democrats' advantage, and I'll take it, if it does. Dumb votes count the same as smart ones.

That said, it is the height of hypocrisy. Strangely, I don't hear this objection from Republicans. On the contrary it has *floored* me how many self-described feminists I have heard suggest that maybe Palin should just see to the needs of her family instead of making the biggest move of her career.

As we all know there are plenty of legitimate reasons to detest -- and fear, frankly -- the idea of Sarah Palin as Vice President. Book banning anyone?

[PunditMom]

I agree, Sandy. There are more reasons than I can count. And, you don't hear anyone talking about whether Barack Obama, as the father of two young girls, ought to be running for President and focusing more on their childhoods, putting his career on hold.

It is a conundrum.

[joe]

If you were to turn down an opportunity like Palin's been given because you wanted to raise your children, what lesson exactly does that decision teach your children? That a woman can't have a family and a job? That children are women's work? That only men can seize an historic opportunity? That a family is too fragile to allow mothers to do something amazing? (and what does that say about fathers?)

If she said no and her youngest daughter came to her in 20 years and said Mom, why didn't you run for vice president? What could she say that wouldn't both completely demoralize her daughter (I said no for you) and reinforce all the horrible lessons I just mentioned?

If Palin were my wife, I'd say the same thing I have already said to my wife. Go for it, we'll figure the rest out later. We did, and myself, my wife and my daughters are all the better for it.

I honestly just do not understand women who are making these arguments.

[Amy]

I just wrote a post about this. My point is that no, she can't be a good mom and be a good vice president, but that I really don't care if she's a crappy mom. Not my family, not my problem. Lots of families have crappy moms. I care if she'll be a good vice president, and everything inside me screams that the answer to that is a resounding NO.

[joe]

So Amy, you think women shouldn't work if they have kids? Or that they should only work in simple jobs which aren't too hard for them?

We are through the looking glass here.

[Lacie]

Several years ago I would have considered the idea that children are women's work insulting. Until I saw for myself just how critically important and labor intensive the role of mother really is. The true insult is the presumption that having full time responsibility for the life your new baby is somehow a lesser opportunity than becoming Vice President. I feel sad for the baby whose mother feels that way. In my heart I known with certainty that I will never do anything as important as ensuring that my baby not only survives but flourishes as a result of my love and attention.

It is absurd to argue there is no difference between what is required of a mother and what is required of a father especially in the first year. If our responsibilities as parents were the same then men would be able to breastfeed and they would have a fifty fifty chance of being the one to carry the pregnancy to term in their own bodies. Saying a baby is a mother's work is not an insult, it is a high honor. It takes strength, endurance, patience and wisdom to do this work well. Not all can handle the role.

I also can't help but scratch my head when I read or hear arguments that attempt to juxtapose the efforts required to care for an adolescent with those necessary to care for a baby. They are not remotely comparable. The Obama's daughters don't need every single thing done for them Sarah Palin's new baby does.

[Melisa]

You know, that's fabulous. Let's all work hard to secure the sexist and ageist vote for Obama in '08.

Damn woman! Where's your apron! Get me a cocktail!

[donna]

this was a once in a lifetime opportunity and there was no way Palin was going to turn it down. There aren't many women or men who would regardless of their parental responsibilities. They would wing it and figure things out as they go, the way most of us handled motherhood and working when we were faced with that learning curve for the first time and then subsequent times. Having said that, this opportunity wasn't presented to Palin because she was the most qualified candidate for the job. This was a campaign choice, a "hail mary" pass by the Republican Party that, so far, is working to great advantage. If Palin thinks she was chosen because the Karl Rove Republicans have faith in her governing ability, well, she is dreaming. Her role as a VP will be like that of days gone by.....she will attend state funerals and sit in on meetings with her mouth shut, and drop the gavel in the Senate when called upon. If McCain-Palin are elected, pray that he remains healthy and of sound mind. Having said that, I'm going to be proactive and register students at local college campuses for the next 3 weeks, then show up and encourage them to vote on November 4th!

[Emily]

ITA especially with Joe. Did Hillary Clinton run when Chelsea was young? No - Hillary was around for Chelsea and while she was busy with campaigning, etc. for Bill sometimes she clearly put Chelsea's needs first even if she had her own ambitions. Now look how great Chelsea turned out and the wonderful bond you see between her and her Mom.

And even when Bill did run Chelsea was already a young teenager.

[Mom101]

I'm going to say this until I turn blue but this is NOT a referendum on all working mothers. To ask "oh, so women shouldn't work if they have kids?" is absolutely not following the line of reason here.

It's a very particular mother with a very particular family situation at home, taking on a very particular job with a tremendous amount of responsibility there.

Moms know better than anyone that no, we CANNOT do it all. We can do a lot. But not all, at least not all at once.

Of you don't believe me, ask the Alaskan legislature who, in protest of all the days that Sarah Palin called meetings but didn't show up, started sporting bright yellow "Where's Sarah?" buttons.

We're at war folks, and our economy is in the shitter. I want someone in leadership who is going to be 110% on the job.

[WriterGal]

This is one of those questions that are never asked of men. Can I possibly be the only person who's noticed this?

In aggravation value, it ranks right up there with nobody batting an eye when a father apologizes for having his kids with him because he's "babysitting." Imagine the furor if a mother ever said that she was "babysitting" her own kids!

[Lawyer Mama]

People, people, Pundit Mom isn't saying she agrees, she's saying all those Republicans with that sexist attitude may be good for the Dems on election day. Let them shoot themselves in the foot. (-;

Maybe mothers can't do everything alone. I know I can't. But with a nice stay at home dad, I could.

[Nicole]

I realized Pundit Mom isn't saying she agrees, and I sort of agree that anything that helps Obama get elected is good, but the attitude still kind of bothers me. We can't do it all, perhaps, I would never say she is for sure going to be a bad mother if she becomes a VP. That it's one or the other. I'm certainly not saying being a mom/taking care of babies is less important, but I would not judge or make assumptions either way.

That said, her religious and social believes make me really not want her to be VP.

[Lacie]

What I dislike is the assumption that all progressive mothers are in lock step on this issue and anyone who disagrees is a stupid Republican sexist. So it is sexist for a mother to believe that taking care of a new baby is more important than any political career opportunity will ever be. That is so twisted. I mean come on, how long is a baby a baby? It goes by in a flash and so much takes place in that short time. You chose to have a baby and you can't put your political aspirations on hold long enough to get your new baby past its first birthday? That is a pretty sad commentary. Hey if a woman wants to be King of the world fine but don't ask me to agree that the empress is wearing a lovely ensemble as she struts around in her birthday suit.

A woman should be able to make whatever choice she wants for her life. She should be paid an equal wage and have the right to seize any opportunity available to a man. This still doesn't mean you can provide the mothering your new baby needs and be an excellent choice for Vice President. The problem is we don't know whether Palin's priority will be Trig or the country.

[Vintage Mommy]

I'm afraid that the very same people who would normally be outraged by this sort of thing (moms should be home with their kids) will now rush to support her.

Just one more example of the revolting hypocrisy all around us in this election.

UGH.

[Amy]

No Joe, that's not what I meant. Not even a little bit. And that's not what I wrote. Did you even read my comment?

My point is that I don't care if she's a crappy mom. If she wants to take a job like that, one that will essentially take her away from her family for the better part of four years, then that's fine. That's her family and her right to do what she feels is best for them. Her mothering skills are irrelevant to me.

I do consider myself a feminist, and if a woman wants to work after having children, then that's their decision. I support the right to do it.

However, my point remains the same. I don't care if she's a good mom. I care if she'll be a good Vice President. And I don't believe she will.

So in closing - let me be clear - working moms are fine, and Sarah Palin would be a terrible Vice President.

Clear enough for you Joe?

[cynematic]

Wow, I am spectacularly indifferent to Palin's family after having had them touted as poster children for x, y, or z and seeing National Enquirer-quality details about the older kids.

I personally think women should hold public office and nurse, like Zoe Lofren did, in capitol rotundas everywhere. Or have 5 children and be an influential public servant like Nancy Pelosi.

But if a portion of the voters who otherwise might go for Palin suddenly feel hesitant because they feel uncomfortable with how Palin combines parenting with governing, I won't stand in those people's way. It's like, *shrug*--whatever keeps them from voting a McCain-Palin ticket.

It's the women who identify themselves as feminists and also feel that Palin is giving short shrift to parenting/governing by doing both that I'd want to have a deeper conversation with. Because I feel these women are more likely to be friends and allies. And I think we're all keenly interested in the question of work-life balance.

[JCK]

I like your way of looking at things. I just had a discussion with 2 friends this morning who feel the same way as your relatives. I was surprised, but like you said...maybe it will work in our favor.

[joe]

Amy you're not clear and you're being dishonest with yourself. You stated, twice, that Palin will be a "crappy mom" because her job will (you assume) "take her away from her family."

I respect your opinion about her being a lousy VP, but you're parallel argument is that women with important jobs are crappy mothers. Your words, not mine.

[Amy]

Yeah Joe, no, that's not my parallel and that's not what I said. Or wrote. You just don't get it. I don't think I'll try to explain it anymore.

[Jonathan Trenn]

As a single father, I have only a slight problem with any parent/politician with young children that runs for such a high office. That "problem" wouldn't affect my vote, but I often think that young children - and not just infants - need active, involved parents.

So that would apply evenly to both Obama and Palin.

[Wendy]

I think a lot of the dissonance and seemingly contradictory reasoning on Palin is because women (1) think she should be able to make whatever choice she feels is best for her family but (2) can't imagine themselves under those circumstances feeling that's best for their family! Women also (more often then men I think) recognize more/operate more according to the idea that there are seasons in life and one might be more for family, one might be more for career, etc. Many women have put career on hold for a season, so to them this seems like a time she would, but they also don't want to say that she must. They want to respect her decision, but they just don't get it.

PunditMom's point stands: all the more questions about it makes people's support for her all the less clear-cut (or unconditional), and whether or not that's fair to women, on purely political terms, it's not bad news for Democrats!