"How can I say this in a politically correct manner? A four-month baby needs a lot of time in the arms of its mother. Most mothers feel a similar need to be close to their baby. And a Downs Syndrome baby needs even more maternal attention. So what kind of family values is Palin exhibiting by going off on the campaign trail for the next 60 days? ..." Stripping away the delicate (smug?) manner in which Joffe couches his point, what's said is essentially, "A woman's career is not compatible with having a family. Women cannot simultaneously run for office and adequately care for their children."
Let's explore this idea and then rip it to shreds, shall we?
If Governor Palin was a man, father of similarly aged children, would such a charge be leveled? If I recall, John F. Kennedy had young children, and no one alleged that his position in government precluded him from being extremely active in their lives. Teddy Roosevelt had six kids residing with him in the White House with no charges of neglect. And when Bruce Joffe writes that condescending sentence about "most mothers" what he's saying is clear: Sarah Palin is not like most mothers; she doesn't feel the need to be close to her children.
I'm glad that Joffe has the freedom and the courage to articulate in a newspaper published and sold in 180 countries what most old guard leftists think about Palin but are afraid or reluctant to articulate: her decision to have both a career and a family is indicative of a character flaw. But while he has that freedom, we are free to say these views are ignorant, sexist, and oppressive.
Who else thinks it's ironic that we, as conservative Republicans, are relegated the task of pointing this out to our friends on the left?
Posts
7 comments:
While I am not a "professional" letter writer, I do appreciate the opportunity to add my opinion to the public forum, through letters to the editor.
Aaron Schwitters' letter has the same phrasing as every other Republican-surrogate's defense of Sarah Palin: suddenly they are all screaming "sexism." It's a great distraction to the very real problems of our country, problems caused by the last seven years of Republican administration of the government which another Republican term would only exacerbate. We need to clean out the arrogant, ignorant, incompetent, corrupt Republicans in Washington who have wrecked the economy, besmirched our international reputation, and who threaten to let our natural environment collapse through their denial of human-caused climate change.
The women I know, including the women in my own family, value time with their newborn infants. Many have taken leave without pay from their jobs during these precious first months. All wish they could have taken more time. A baby with special needs would make that desire oh so much more intense. Political campaigning, on the other hand, is perhaps the most antithetical activity to mothering an infant. Not only are you away from home and family and baby, but you are subjecting your family to public scrutiny that is rude, intrusive, and unrelenting. Men and women, but especially women who happen by quirk of nature to be mothers, need to protect their infants; they need to love and hold them in the quiet security of home during their first awakenings to life.
That is not sexism, it's common sense born of experience. Could Mr. Palin do it? Sure! Except that he's off drilling in the oil fields for half the year and fishing during the other half. Could Sarah Palin run for the office of her choice at a later time? GoForIt! But don't leave little Trig to be the burden of an older sister, and a coverup of her pregnant belly which itself is the result of Palin's relentless campaign against responsible sex education for teenagers.
Doncha just love hearing Republicans calling for "change" and "reduce big government" after they've spent nearly eight years expanding government bigger than any time in our history, intruding on the privacy of U.S. Citizens, and drilling the deepest debt in the history of humankind? And all then can do to try to get reelected is scream "sexism."
Cheers,
Bruce
Mr. Joffe, I trust you said the same thing of John Edwards, who is busy giving high-dollar speeches and whose wife is cancer-stricken. Surely you had concerns about he and his family's ability to raise their children should he have been President or Vice President. After all, his wife could die soon. What if he were Vice President when she passes?
Or maybe about Barack Obama himself, who will be oh so busy being president. Far too busy to raise his little girls. Let's not forget his wife works in Chicago full time at the UC Hospital. Who on earth will raise those babies? A nanny? GASP!!!
Or maybe you had some concerns about any other first family, whose dad was out being president and mom was busy tending to her busy, though tedious, First Lady affairs around the country. Ya know, giving speeches, cutting ribbons and such.
The fact is that your concerns are bogus. I have no doubt you THINK they are sincere. But that is because you have allowed your panic and fear of Sarah Palin to cloud your better judgement when selecting your critiques of her.
Let's ignore the alarmist cynical rhetoric about the economy, foreign affairs, and global warming (we're all gonna die!!!) which Joffe uses to try and change the subject.
The subject is: Mr. Joffe's unrepentant sexism. Mr. Joffe states "The women I know, including the women in my own family, value time with their newborn infants." By this he's meaning to (im)politely say, "Govenor Palin doesn't value time with her newborn infant." Has anyone (anyone!) alleged that Governor Palin is NOT spending time with her infant child? It appears to me that her children are within a hundred yards of her at every moment. Joffe presents no evidence that Ms. Palin cannot give a few speeches and shake some hands AND spend time with her child. Maybe Joffe resents that Palin has accomplished so much WHILE simultaneously being such a good mother. I understand how you can find successful conservative women to be very threatening, Mr. Joffe, but I think it would be constructive to work through and overcome those feelings of fear. :)
I believe it is hard to give a lot of credence to the Republican call for family values when John McCain cheated on his first wife and children before they were divorced and Sarah Palin clearly has problems in her family which probably wouldn't have happened if the Palin's had taken more time to monitor her activities.
However, my concern regarding her is that she has no foreign experience and probably no detailed interest in foreign affairs until last week. She is just not prepared. I don't find Obama's or McCain's experience particularly deep but at least they have followed what is going on and have taken the time to work out a plan for what they would do. Obama has been extensively vetted during 25 debates and a long campaign.
Bush planned to get us into the Iraq war the day he stepped into office and never listened to cooler heads. If he had had more experience and good judgment we wouldn't be fighting in Iraq.
I also believe intelligence and good sense are important and Obama seems to cover those bases very well.
Last night the Republicans never mentioned the economy, health care, or any of the other important issues. They never mentioned Bush and their platform is right from the Bush playbook. Four more years of this is a nightmare.
Chuck Drinnan
Chuck, who in God's name has been talking about "family values" in this comment section? This is about Mr. Joffe's blatant and unrepentant sexism.
Thanks for posting though. :)
This is from Bruce's first post "So what kind of family values is Palin exhibiting by going off on the campaign trail for the next 60 days?"
On sexism I believe that a woman candidate should be judged on what she has done and not done - just like any other candidate. In this case she seems to not have been there for her daughter. This is not sexism to consider this and could and probably would be said if the same situation happened to a male candidate. What would we say if a man's business went bankrupt because he spent so much time doing something else. As a voter I am trying to measure what I can expect of her in a very time consuming job.
For example Biden took a train home to be with his kids and I believe there is a place in my heart for him. However, I don't think that qualifies him for the act alone. I think it shows that he can manage both a Senate career and a family which is part of the job that we are considering him for.
Chuck Drinnan
Chuck, thanks for replying and sorry for my late response. Once these entries leave the front page I don't check them much.
I find it pretty presumptuous to say Sarah Palin wasn't there for her daughter. What evidence do you have of that? It's not very logical to presume that her daughter was not taught about abstinence or safe sex. And it certainly defies reason to assume that they did not have a very VERY long discussion when Bristol broke the news about the newest addition to the family. So, what makes you think she wasn't there for her?
Also, I think you're dead wrong about what a male candidate would be going through in her shoes. Indeed, we are seeing it. Barack Obama has two pre-teen daughters. No one, but no one, as bothered to be concerned with rather or not he can be president and tend his children.
Is it sexism? Eh, I'm not convinced, at least not this particular critique. I think its desperation.
Post a Comment