Right now there is a heated debate in our nation about the place of women in the political world sparked by the vice president selection for the Republican ticket. Like Mr. Tuesday Pants (), I don't think women are incapable of serving in politics or that they should not serve because of some antiquated gender related issue. What I do strongly believe is that women should be held to equal standing as men in politics, but this is where I see problems emerging in two ways.
The general public response to Sarah Palin's vice president bid, at least from the female population that even remotely follows politics, is either "You go girl" or "How could she?" The "You go girl" camp are women who feel empowered that a woman is in the running for vice president and probably believe, as they should, that a women can do any job a man can. I'm not contesting this fact at all. I'm certain women have just as much intelligence and skills to run a nation as a man, I'm just not sure I want that. Again I'm aligned with Mr. Tuesday Pants, so refer to his post on Women in Politics for details on this. The "how could she?" camp pipes up this question because Sarah Palin has a 4 month old child with down syndrome and a 17 year old expecting a child of her own, and, I'm speculating here, this camp believes Sarah Palin should be more concerned with her own family right now than with running a country. "You go girl"s would say that no one has the right to tell a women how the manage her family. I pose this question though: would they feel any different about this issue if it were Obama with and a mental disabled infant? I certain hope not, but we can never know.
So do we hold Palin to a different standard because she is a woman and we criticize her decision to run despite her family situation because we think a mother should care for her family first or do we make this judgment of her simply because the we believe the needs of her family take precedent over national affairs for her as an individual? The Republican party would ask you to not consider her gender when assessing her motives and priorities. But here's the kicker as I see it.
Why did McCain choose Sarah Palin? Was it because of her political record, her experience, or other a combination of other factors related to professional career as a politician. Well these factors may have influenced McCain, but I firmly believe that he chose Palin because she is a woman, he needs to win over Clinton supporters and he thinks people will vote based on the chromosomes of his running mate and not her political history. But voting for McCain simply because there is a woman on his ticket would mean you are giving special consideration to Palin because she is a woman, but yet when considering other elements of her political career and personal situation we are expected to look the other way and not treat her any differently than we would a male candidate. You can't have it both ways. There seems to be a double standard emerging but I'm not sure many people see it. This is my take on the matter. I'm open to hear what yours is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I must say that I am torn on some matters concerning this. It is not a stretch to say that a mother is the most important person to a 4 month old baby, especially one with disabilities. But the father definitely has the ability to raise children as well. On the other hand Obama has small children also which he will be away from a lot of the time. So through the years what has made it acceptable for a father to be away from the family but not the mother? My only guess is that it is the Leave It To Beaver stereotype where the mother stays home and cares for the home while the father brings home the bacon. These days we have many working mothers but there is still that intuition that women naturally exhibit to care for the home and family. And I must say that I agree with that.
ps. This doesn't mean that I think you should stay at home with the kids.
The crux of the matter is whether or not McCain chose Palin for cynical reasons, or on the basis of merit. I submit that this is Washington we're talking about, so the rest of my comment writes itself. (In other words I agree with you.)
As to whether swing voters will vote cynically or on the basis of merit, I submit that this is Washington we're talking about, so the rest of my comment writes itself. Often I wonder, though, if swing voters determine all that much, or if the successful ticket is the one that most energizes the base. Palin has certainly done that.
Post a Comment