I am hereby ascending my soapbox, only because I'm so irritated I can't stand to bite my tongue any longer.
Okay, I'm SOOOO disappointed that many of you out there (and you know who you are!) make the argument that Governor Sarah Palin should not be elected Vice President because she should be home with her children. I think any woman, including one with conservative values, is entitled the right to choose whether to work or not. Women are criticized for staying home to raise their children if they have college educations--remember that professor from ABC's Primetime special a couple years ago? Imagine little old me setting the woman's movement back 20 years all by myself! I thought I was just changing diapers and wiping noses. And now people, especially women, are criticizing Gov. Palin for having the audacity to accept a Vice Presidential nomination while she has (gasp!) children, and especially (shudder!) one with special needs.
Isn't the job of parenting in general, and mothering in particular, difficult enough without facing criticism from all sides? I believe that each woman tries to do what is best for her family and herself, even when some women make choices that I wouldn't. Wasn't that what the movement was all about, giving women the ability to choose what to do with their lives, professionally or domestically? Obviously, Gov. Palin's children, except the youngest, were all older when she began her skyrocketing political career. Ask yourself, those of you who know who you are, if you are as judgmental against other women who choose to work when they have school-age children. And to you in Mormondom (which is like 99% of my readers): Do you ever question whether the general Relief Society, YW, and Primary presidencies should serve in their full-time capacities when they have children?
As to the special needs baby, what if any indication is there that his special needs aren't being met? As the mother of two children with special, albeit different, needs and two needy, but apparently not special, children, the question I ask myself all the time is "Would I let him do this if he didn't have glaucoma?" I'm trying to be an equal opportunity parent: focusing on what my children can do, and not treating them differently, even though there are some obvious differences in capabilities. I'm not pretending to know the decision-making process involved--since it isn't any of my business--but I can imagine a mother asking herself, would I still work if my son was perfectly healthy? And I'd like to point out that, in many ways, special needs children are still perfectly healthy kids. Life throws you curves, you adapt, and "normal life" becomes whatever your life is now.
Also, I'm bugged by the attacks on Gov. Palin for having a soon-to-be-married pregnant daughter. Haven't we learned from all the pregnant bishop's daughters that you can't always judge the parent by the child's actions? I also find it disturbing that so many supporters of "a woman's right to choose" are so critical on this extraordinarily personal issue. Apparently for them, there's only ONE choice, and it isn't "keeping the baby." As a sidebar, I'm for choice and accountability--as my Dad used to say "You've made your bed, now lay in it." Indeed, I'm distressed by the tenuous distinction in the law which considers a fetus a person with rights for purposes of murder and wrongful death, but doesn't protect a fetus from it's own mother. Example, Scott Peterson is serving time for committing two murders. But if Lacey had opted for an abortion, she'd be free. How is that equal rights? But I digress, that's another issue altogether.
So back to my point. I'm seriously disappointed that personal issues regarding child care are being considered by some, again you know who you are, as factors in whether or not to vote for Gov. Palin. Such thought is sexism, pure and simple, regardless of whether a man or a woman is thinking it. If you're not convinced, ask yourself how many times you have wondered who is staying home taking care of the children of any male politician? Chances are, it's not his wife either. Or his second wife.
Please tell me you will consider the real issues and what's important to you: Do you want a bigger government? Do you want to pay more in taxes? Do you want a strong national defense? Do you want immigration regulations/control? Do you agree that government should increase it's spending on various programs? Because the issues are what it's all about, even if Gov. Palin is "cute" and Sen. Obama is "articulate."
P.S. Sorry to get fired up, but I'm really sick of the vitriol that is being spewed about Gov. Palin. I'm disgusted with the personal attacks on her (while still recognizing that's the political game), because I believe they've gone way beyond the attacks a pro-choice, left-leaning woman would be subjected to. Case in point: Did anyone question whether Elizabeth Edwards should have been staying home with her young children? Maybe if she had been around pleasing her man--instead of fighting breast cancer, writing books, and campaigning for him--he wouldn't have gone looking elsewhere.
P.P.S. I like what this guy had to say about it.
UMI In North Carolina!
5 months ago




