Anna Quindlen on Sarah Palin

[desertvixen]

The link below is to her column for the back of Newsweek. 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/157543/page/1

Hypocrisy is only bad when it is improperly used.
-George Bernard Shaw

I never thought I would live long enough to see the day when the
Republican presidential candidate would cite membership in the PTA as
evidence of executive experience, when the far right would laud the
full-time working mothers of newborns, when social conservatives would
stare down teenage pregnancy and replace their pursed-lip accusations of
promiscuity with hosannas about choosing life.

The Republican Party has undergone a surprising metamorphosis since
Sarah Palin was chosen as its vice presidential candidate. In Palin I
recognize a fellow traveler, a woman whose life would have been
impossible just a few decades ago. If she had been born 30 years
earlier, the PTA would likely have been her last stop, not her first.
Her political ascendancy is a direct result of the women's movement,
which has changed the world utterly for women of all persuasions. It is
therefore notable that Palin has found her home in a party, and in a
wing of that party, that for many years has reviled, repelled and sought
to roll back the very changes that led her to the Alaska Statehouse.

 This. 

But expediency is an astonishing thing, and conservative Republicans
have suddenly embraced the assertion that women can do it all, even
those conservative Republicans who have made careers out of trashing
that notion. James Dobson of Focus on the Family once had staffers on
his hot line saying, "Dr. Dobson recommends that mothers of young
children stay at home as much as possible." He now applauds a woman who
was back at work three days after her son, who has Down syndrome, was
born.

Even to state that simple fact resulted in outrage among those at the
convention, who screamed double standard. But the double standard was
mainly theirs. The governor was aggressively marketed in terms of her
maternity, yet questions about how she managed to mother five and lead
the state were dismissed as sexist.

This as well.  They're playing this issue well.

The governor's two years leading
Alaska, which in terms of citizens served is the equivalent of being
mayor of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., was said to be the linchpin of her
appointment, but questions about her breadth of experience were
dismissed as sexist. Her surrogates wanted the press to write about
mooseburgers and ignore how the governor had once pursued the kind of
earmarked federal funds she now insists are anathema to her.
Conservatives have probably used the word "sexist" more in the past week
than they have in the past 50 years.

 This as well.

This would all have been entertaining if it were not such rank
hypocrisy. These are people who have inveighed against affirmative
action, a version of which undoubtedly played a part in this selection.
These are people who inveighed against personal attacks on their new
nominee when the wingnuts of their own party elevated such attacks to a
fine art by accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of fictitious misdeeds
ranging from treason to murder. To try to suggest Sarah Palin might
garner the Hillary Clinton vote, that one woman is just the same as
another, that biology trumps ideology, is the ultimate evidence of true
sexism, and I hope Senator Clinton will travel the country and say so.

Amid the drumbeat of female Amazonian competence occasioned by the Palin
nomination ran one deeply discordant assumption, the assumption that
women are strong and smart and sure and yet neither sentient nor moral
enough to decide what to do if they are pregnant under difficult
circumstances.

The governor has talked about the choice she and her
pregnant teenage daughter have made, but would deny other women the right to make their own choices.

This is my biggest problem, right here.  I know there are other issues, but for me this is the important one.  It's great that they made the choice that is right for them, for their beliefs, for their situation.

But Sarah Palin is not me.  I would not want my daughter to decide to marry someone at 17, whether she was pregnant or not.  I would want my daughter to be able to make the choice that is right for her.  Abortion might be that choice.

She talks about fighting the old boys'
network and corrupt politicians, but would turn over the private
reproductive decisions of American women to both. This is not choosing
life. It is choosing unwarranted intrusion into the family lives of
women.

This is an interesting way of making the argument.  I like it. 

Which, ironically, is exactly what the Republicans accused the
press of doing in the case of Governor Palin.

When Democrat James Carville said he found the choice of Palin
perplexing on the merits, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said
she found that "offensive to American women." I found her offense
offensive to American women, since at its core was the notion that
Governor Palin should not and could not be judged by the same standards
as her male counterparts. In fact, all the cries of sexism suggested
that, yet again, the Republicans had underestimated the ability of women
to lead; when the governor finally took center stage, it was clear that
she needed no protections or excuses. If she is as sharp and
self-assured as her convention speech, the first thing she will do, in
the parlance of the sport she played under the nickname "Sarah
Barracuda," is to slam-dunk the notion that she can't take an elbow. She
certainly knows how to give one.

John McCain has been no advocate for women; when asked during the
primaries, on the subject of Senator Clinton, "How do we beat the
bitch?" he responded, "Excellent question." (Note to the GOP: that IS
sexist.) He has been either hostile or clueless on issues like
contraceptive funding, workplace protections and aid to poor mothers.
And his running mate will likely walk in lock step with him on all those
things. But she could certainly help move the inevitable tide of women's
rights, the tide that has floated her own boat, by demanding that she be
honored with the same tough scrutiny the guys in this race get. Which
was, in case these improbable born-again friends of feminism missed it,
the entire point of the exercise in the first place.

*** *** ***

I know choice is not the only issue, but for me it is a major one.  A candidate who is not pro-choice would have to have A LOT to make up for that flaw (in my eyes).  Choice is important for me, for my daughter.

 Also, it's really great that Sarah Palin had a job where she could mesh work and family.  I mean that, absolutely, without sarcasm.  I think it is wonderful that she can manage to fit her kids in her schedule, that she has a support network she can depend on, that she understands that family is important.  So this is what I'd like to know:

 What would Sarah Palin do to ensure that all mothers, not just mothers able to tailor their own job, are able to mesh the commitments of work and family without making one suffer unduly?

 (Since Sarah Palin is unlikely to drop by here, please feel free to contribute your own suggestions.)

 DV

 

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The Republicans are opposed to abortion. That doesn't mean that they are opposed to the overall notion of equality for women. The Democrats don't get that, and until they can get that they are never going to be able to deal with the challenge of a woman like Sarah Palin, because her SUPPORTERS get that.

[bobmage.livejournal.com]

Actually, they ARE opposed to the idea of equality for women.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Actually, they ARE opposed to the idea of equality for women.

The Republican Party, as a whole, is not. You're thinking of the Dominionists, who are on the extreme right of the Republicans.

But if you want to lose this election, go right ahead assuming that the Republicans want to subjugate women, focus your effort on "educating" Republican women of this "fact" -- and then gape in astonishment as the women's vote goes Republican.

Better yet, blame it afterward on corrupt judges, or rigged voting machines. That way you won't learn anything from the defeat, and the Republicans will go on to do the same thing the time after that as well.

[bobmage.livejournal.com]

OK, I'll buy that the Republican Party as a whole does not "want" to subjugate women.
However, they are WILLING to subjugate women if that's what it takes to keep the far right happy. So, even though they may not think it's really "right", they have supported:
1) Pharmacist conscience laws: These allow a licensed pharmacist to refuse to dispense legally prescribed medicine because he has "moral objections". Odd, how the only moral objections are to birth control for women, not sloth, gluttony, or male performance.

2) Selecting anti-feminist supreme court justices on the sole litmus test of abortion, which coincidentally got them a bunch of anti-feminists. This led to a conservative majority on the bench declaring that federal anti-discrimination laws don't really count - the plaintiff has to sue within X months of the discrimination starting, regardless of when she finds out about it. Hows that for legislating from the bench? (Google "Lilly Ledbetter") Of course, a case could be made that this is anti-labor instead of anti-woman.

3) Selecting a VP candidate, and then squawking "OMG! You're so SEXIST!" both BEFORE any serious criticism has occurred, and as an excuse for refusing to allow ANY questions about the Governor's record.
"Governor, could you explain your flip-flop on earmarks."
"Hey! That's SEXIST!"
"Governor, If you are so gung-ho about reducing spending, why did you receive per-diem for living at home?"
"Hey! That's SEXIST!"
"Governor, putting aside your recent personal issues, can you explain why you support abstinence-only sex ed, when it has been proven that it leads to higher pregnancy and STD rates than contraceptive-based sex ed? And NO, I DIDN'T say your daughter has an STD! This isn't about YOU, it's about the COUNTRY!"
"Hey! That's so SEXIST, only a LIBERAL would ask it!"

Not that that last question will ever be asked publicly - the chickenshit news media wants a horse race, and they may just drag the elephant across the line. Pointing out the fraud and lies behind conservative ideology just plain isn't fair.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Two of your three points are about abortion.

Now, difficult as it may be for you to believe, some people genuinely consider abortion essentially infanticide. These people include both men and women.

A woman who considers abortion to be infanticide is likely to oppose it, even if the effect of opposing it reduces the relative earning capability of women versus men, and even if she otherwise believes that women should be equal to men.

That's the thing you're not getting, and the reason why large numbers of women are conservative on this issue.

[bobmage.livejournal.com]

Point 1) Is NOT about abortion - the pharmacists in question have refused birth control prescriptions as well as the morning-after-pill. In a prime example of conservative lies, the right calls the morning-after pill an "Abortion Pill" when it is NOT.

Point 2) is about the effect of using abortion as a sole criteria for public office. If you use that issue as the only deciding factor, you get side effects - in this case, a reduced ability to provide for the kids you already have.

Point 3) is NOT about abortion. Real sex education prevents unwanted pregnancies, and prevents abortions. Abstinence only sex ed leads to more teen pregnancies and more abortions. In the happy fun imagination world of conservatives, abstinence-only "should" work as well, so they just pretend it does.

So, 1 out of 3 is "about" abortion, and supports my premise - the right is willing to subjugate women to try to keep part of the base happy.
The other 2 points support my general thesis that the right will lie about anything to keep that same part of the base stirred up.
Seriously, if the Republicans actually cared, there would have been a serious attempt at a "pro-life" constitutional amendment by now.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

isn't Palin a Dominionist

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

I understand that there are people against abortion.

I disagree with a great many of them.

I don't feel the issue is black-and-white. Sometimes I think abortion is the lesser evil. And I will not vote for someone who thinks that the only acceptable reason for an abortion is the mother's life.

When it comes to my body, I will make the decisions. I am the one who has to live through the pregnancy, and live with the results of pregnancy, both positive and negative.

I will not question WHY a woman feels the need to have an abortion. Because no woman WANTS to be in the position where an abortion is the best or only answer. I will not set myself up to judge another woman for her decision on that realm.

Sarah Palin, if she had her way, would see that choice taken from me, from my daughter, and from the other women in the world.

And if you think that contraception and decent sex ed are not also on the list, I think you are mistaken.

I do understand that other women (some of them, in fact, on this very friends' list) feel differently.

DV

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

When I look at what the Republicans have put up, I don't see concern for women's issues.

I don't see concern for choice. Which yes, includes the CHOICE to have children.

At best, I see "not listening" as the default, unless they think women have something they want (like our votes).

At worst, I see a desire to control women.

I see the center of the party shifting more socially right.

Sarah Palin has some accomplishments, I grant that. Which is why I asked my question.

DV

[rockahulababy.livejournal.com]

So what was all that bile the Republicans spewed at Hillary?

My favorite today was hearing them say that an insult to Sarah Palin was an "insult to motherhood". So what were all those insults to Hillary? Isn't she a woman? Yes. Isn't she also a mother? Yes.

Wasn't the Democrats the FIRST to nominate a female Vice President? Yes, yes they were.

And John McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" comment before - I believe in reference to none other than Hillary Clinton. For the Republicans to start screaming "OMG SEXISM!" now is just a little too late.

Hillary needed to "man up" to the insults if she wanted to run for President, but everyone better play nice with Sarah Palin?! PLEASE.

And while not ALL Republicans are opposed to aboriton, it seems to be their general MO. Abortion has been an issue that Republicans are NOTORIOUSLY UNFRIENDLY to. And yes, there already has been someone - two people so far - to point this out to you. I'm just here to back them up. The Republicans, generally, ARE NOT PRO-CHOICE. This isn't a "few and far between" thing. They, for the most part, do not support choice. I am talking about the politicians, not the general Republican-voting populace.

And more people support Obama than you may want to believe or admit. Obama, whether you or the Republicans would like to admit, has a real chance of winning. And honestly, HE IS qualified with ten years in politics, a political science degree, a law degree, his time as a community organizer, etc. What is Palin's degree in again? Journalism? If McCain wanted to criticize Obama for his experience (which we all know he did), then he should have picked someone with experience himself. Otherwise, experience isn't an issue with him.

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

I am wondering if she does fit her kids into her schedule. From what I am hearing, it sounds to me like we might need to look elsewhere for women who are juggling both.