AmericanPapist Comments
It's true that the left can't stomach her, and would like nothing more than to destroy her.
Which is why it's kind of sad that she hit the scene half-baked. In another few years, with the right preparation, she could have been everything (or nearly everything) she portended to be.
The fact is, though, she's not - and her conservative critics have caught on, and are catching hell for it. It's too bad that we're more interested in being factional or uniting mindlessly against media bias than we are about, oh, finding the truth.
Palin was a cynical ploy by McCain to get pro-life conservatives on board. It worked because she appeals to that sensibility. What didn't work was her believability as heir-apparent in the possibility of a vacant Presidency two years in. She's not ready, doesn't have her issues straight, and is far too willing to espouse those of McCain, which are by no stretch of the imagination conservative.
I'll be curious to see what she runs on in 2012, when she can stand on her own feet. The McCain baggage might just be something she can shed if she doesn't get blamed for his defeat.
But she does have the underpinnings to do what is right. This is a major requirement in running this country. Look what she is up against, a party that will do anything, anything to win and fumble up left and right and still not be called on the carpet to explain themselves. How much differnt would Gov. Palin look to the country if the media had taken on the Dems with the same scrutiny and hold their feet to the fire when they do not speak the truth. Joe Biden screws up each and every day and if it ends up in the news at all it is in section Z of the papers and not even quoted on the news programs.
She is a fast study and has the integrity to lead, and the morals to hold this country and congress to a higher standard.
If they lose, she will run again, and come loaded for bear!
I'm curious as to whether or not any other Catholics are concerned about the fact that Palin is a feminist in everything other than abortion. Is feminism Christian? Does Todd have the equipment necessary to feed that baby of theirs while Sarah is running for Vice President? There is a reason why God intended Moms to be the primary caregivers of children and that is connected to our very nature as human beings. Is disposing of it in favor of some sameness norm Catholic? Is Sarah Palin good for American Catholics or does she manifest more of the same feminist garbage save her pro-life stance?
Didn't I read in JPII's teaching on Theology of the Body that sometimes in the relationship of marriage, the woman has the greater skills and abilities to be the wage earner? What did St. Gianna do with her children? I see Sarah Palin as a great role model for mothers. Her children are with her, not in daycare. I know from experience that you can work and nurse an infant; with the proper support from family, it is very doable.
A first-term governor, age early 40s, who fights corruption and hunts big game, is unqualified to be the vice-presidential candidate of a major political party.
McKinley shouldn't have picked Theodore Roosevelt as his running-mate.
This country is divided right now spiritually between good and evil. Palin is not perfect - but it is obvious which category she falls into in the moral divide. Vote McCain/Palin. The only hope we have for now, morally, and that is the biggie.
"name", feminism is not inherently wrong. Radical feminists have taken it and twisted it to mean butch, pro-choice, pro-gay, very nearly anti-God. Their religion is themselves.
However, God created man and woman. Inherent in our gender is how we are to be-and that doesn't exclude holding ajob, being a breadwinner, being in public service and speaking out strongly on issues esp morality.
Feminism is not anti-Catholic at all. What is should be is a recognition of how God created us to be. As women we are called upon to bring our gifts to the work place, to the world, not just to our families.
She appears to be handling both-she takes care of her children, nurses her baby and governs Alaska. My guess is she is extremely talented, bright and organized. But no where in Church teaching does it say that this is wrong or that motherhood and service can't be compatable.
Thing is that women have certain things that men dont have that tie them naturally to the home because the home is where the children are or where they should be. This is why men are more equipped to be the wage earner because their manliness is more outward, prodcutive, and strong. A woman is more inward, sensitive, and nurturing. A woman's greater ability in sensitivity and nurturing comes form the fact that she is not like a man, not as equipped to go out and, for example, collide with the land or with other people in the all too often hostile work place. A woman's body speaks of the home, of the inner sanctuary, the place where we go to feel loved, protected, and nurtured. This is expressed in the reality of her body in that it is inward and points to that which is within (think infant, baby in the womb, baby nursing) as opposed to the male body which is outward and points to leading productivity as opposed to inward sensitive nurturing ability. A woman's body speaks of the home and not so much, as much, of the hostile difficult world in which we collide with others and scrape a living together. This kind of work needs a man's harder edge, and his stronger, more outward physique. His body reflects his manliness and that is why men are suited to run for political office whereas women are really probably not suited for it. Of course they can do it but the question that comes to mind is why would a woman want to do it. Why would a woman want to act like a man and constantly be mired in all kinds of political conflicts that ultimately come down to power and ego struggles. We have been for the last fifty years in a terrible mindset of equality in which we think of women as the same as men, and that goes not only for the radical feminist but also for the Catholic feminists. We need to redisocover the reason why women are suited for the home and men for the work place. It has to do with our very nature as created in God's image in our mutual complementary roles as men and women. Feminism is a silly idea that puts too much focus on women and trying to make them like men and shifts the focus from the compliment between women and men which is the WHOLE point of living in marital and family community. If Feminism is Catholic what about Masculinism? Ever thought of that? How miserable would explicating a masculinism be? Just about as miserable and boring as feminism because it only counts one piece of the body and not the whole, not Christ, for every part of the body is one part of Christ. Yes, feminism is anti-Catholic because it goes against our nature. Are there certain cases when a woman might have to work, sure, but the big problem comes in when women want to be like men and would rather work then raise their children. I ask again, does Todd have the equipment to care for these kids, in particular the infant baby, while Sarah is running for VP, which has to be one of the most time consuming jobs in the country. If one is honest with oneself h
jenb,
I agree that motherhood and service can be compatible but a mothers primary and overarching responsiblity is to her children especially when they are young. I definatley support women exercising their varied abilities for the good of the Church and for society but these things shouldnt interfere with her role as a mother, and I think they must also be considered fundamentally secondary to the home and not just multiple things that must be balanced. For a man with small children it is very different as his primary responsibility is providing for his family, and this is most often a terrible drudgery not a happy cultivation of ones abilities. Again, a man's abilities carry him away from the home to work for the sake of productivity for the home while a woman's nature is closely associated with the home, in inwardness, sensitivity, and nurturing. I would argue that these principles are also operative in the various jobs that women are more suited to and being a politician is not one of them.
Name
name:
Sometimes a woman comes along who defies the generalization. Some call it possessing the "force of male genius". Sarah is one of them.
Todd Palin took a leave of absence from his job to care for the children while Sarah campaigns. They are all traveling together.
"Some call it possessing the "force of male genius"."
Your comment has captured all that is wrong with the feminist mindset, that somehow women in order to be as good as men have to have some gift of manliness.
PPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Women dont need the force of male genius and to be sure no FEMALES have the force of MALE genius. Women are created in God's image with their special gifts and they are no better nor worse than male gifts. Please stop trying to make women into men, that is so depressing because women are women for a reason, and that is just wonderful if we accept that male and female are different each with their own gifts that come from their own nature given by God. The point is the Complementary WHOLE not "the force of male genius." The wonder of female genius is that it is not like male genius, that it compliments male genius and never replaces it or tries to be it. It is not about a generalization either; women are actually and metaphysically women and men are actually and metaphysically men. We are not generalizing when we talk about maleness and femaleness we are speaking about reality. All of our experiences are either male or female experiences because we are either male or female and not androgynous beings. It can be difficult at times to understand since first and foremost we are all human beings who exercise reason and will. But we always express our particular reason and will through our sexuality because we always speak through our bodies since we are embodied spirits.
I would also like to say that as much as you think you know that Sarah is such a wonderful person you actually have no idea because you dont konw her personally. I hope she is a good person but we shouldnt assume that she is just because she is pro-life like we are. What people are going through with Sarah is the sentimentalism of the democratic mindset, and just because you feel like she is a good person does not mean that she is. I would suggest that one try to think about this in more depth as opposed to hype.
Consider this passage from John Paul II.
...women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine "originality". There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not "reach fulfilment", but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.
The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her "fulfilment" as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the "image and likeness of God" that is specifically hers.
name:
Is your name really Katherine??
I'm sorry, name but you're way off. Nowhere did I say that women need to cultivate masculinity. However, I believe that women should cultivate manly virtue, as St. Teresa of Avila advised her nuns when she was reforming the Carmelite Order.
Secondly, if women want to work and participate in public life, they would better serve society by studying military history than feminist studies.
And sorry to burst your bubble, but some women are BORN with the force of male genius.
How in the world did St. Joan of Arc manage to command the French Army as a teenager?
A first-term governor, age early 40s, who fights corruption and hunts big game, is unqualified to be the vice-presidential candidate of a major political party.
McKinley shouldn't have picked Theodore Roosevelt as his running-mate.
This is an empty caricature, signifying nothing. Palin and Roosevelt shared some hobbies, but you'd have to make a much stronger case to equate them.
The fact is, that she hasn't manifested great leadership qualities - yet. She has manifested a natural political talent. Considering that I find natural politicians inherently untrustworthy (they're all power-seeking opportunists, whatever their reasons for it) I'll maintain my skepticism.
And according to the McCain camp, she's not a quick learner:
“Her lack of fundamental understanding of some key issues was dramatic,” said another McCain source with direct knowledge of the process to prepare Palin after she was picked. The source said it was probably the “hardest” to get her “up to speed than any candidate in history.”
Hyperbolic, no doubt, but most pols wouldn't crash and burn in several major media interviews in a row. That's what media training is for.
As for name's contention, you're absolutely correct. Feminism as an "ism" is absurd as "masculinism" (a word I've been using for some time, and it's nice to see it here.) We should be focused on the whole person, and the compatibility of genders, not advancing one gender to the exclusion or detriment of the other.
Mrs. Palin has an infant with special needs and a seven year old. Her position as VP would be a conflict with her primary vocation, no matter how capable Todd is. Just because there are times when women have to do something like this, doesn't mean that when they have the choice to, they should.
It makes me curious when a pro-life, pro-family woman puts career ambitions ahead of her family, no matter how strong her support structure is at home. My wife is an ex-feminist and former business co-owner, and she wouldn't do it, despite her capabilities. She recognizes that career woman (by choice) and mother are a contradiction in terms.
"compatibility of genders" should have read "complimentarity of genders".
Steve:
Your "quote" from an alleged McCain advisor is suspect. I suggest that you utilize more credible sources.
Sarah Palin HAS exhibited leadership qualities, except people like you have chosen to ignore them and have chewed and swallowed MSM propaganda.
PS - more fool you.
Atheling,
The source is CNN. Take it up with them:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS...sion/
index.html
And can you please explain what "more fool you" means (in English)?
Steve, be careful not to do what CNN does, take a single, disgruntled, anonymous source as "the McCain camp." Surely there are individuals that are trying to scapegoat Palin, as if it is somehow important (not to mention possible) to protect McCain's prestige in the face of defeat. But that is not the "camp" as a whole.
She's got a lot of raw talent; I hope she's the real thing. She had to come up to speed on many complex issues that were not part of the Alaskan political environment in a very short time. For crying out loud, she's only been a VP candidate for the last 8 weeks or so. Frankly, I think she did extremely well. Had McCain named her in July or at least had gotten her started on the learning curve, she'd have been way ahead by the time of the convention.
Ultimately, main-stream Republicans will blame many lots of people (like the perennially biased media), and they'd be right to a degree, and they'll be reluctant to blame McCain and his strategists. Yet in their hearts, they will know who's to blame and it will sooner or later come out.
Part of the "McCain camp's" problem with Palin is that she's not sticking to the script. It's making the head honchos look bad, because, frankly, she's more on target than the top of the ticket is.
So, like someone said, if they lose this year, she'll be back "gunning for bear." Although I'd rather not see Obama as president, I think she'd languish as VP and over time become a Robopublican, which will make her ascendency afterward all the more difficult. A McCain win now will not ensure a McCain second term; if McCain-Palin lose a second term, she may never win the Whitehouse. The best thing for her (I'm not saying I hope for this scenario, I'm just bringing it up) would be to win now, and then have to take over for McCain, and then kick *ss.
And as for you who think a woman's place is in the home: Women have ALWAYS done more than take care of the kids, the house, and the cooking. Many, for instance, contributed to the household economy with various cottage businesses, like tailoring, brewing, baking, canning, and so forth. And if she were really good at what she did, the family would run with it as a family business, which can still be done without usurping the husband as head of the household.
Atheling, I think she objects to your use of the word "genius". Maybe you could substitute "genus"; or, in the case of bar room decisions, "Guinness".
I love anonymous sources. I just received an anonymous tip from an Obama advisor that "he and Biden were caught kissing in the men's restroom" and that Obama was quoted as saying "'Kill Whitey' just before he slapped Biden hard across the face".
Can I get that printed? The source wants to remain anonymous, so I can't give you any names.
And as for you who think a woman's place is in the home: Women have ALWAYS done more than take care of the kids, the house, and the cooking. Many, for instance, contributed to the household economy with various cottage businesses, like tailoring, brewing, baking, canning, and so forth. And if she were really good at what she did, the family would run with it as a family business, which can still be done without usurping the husband as head of the household.
Doc, You are misrepresenting my position. The idea is that women who have children should consider raising their children as primary and all other pursuits as fundamentally secondary. Also, women have particular gifts that compliment their feminine genius that do not go well with certain more masculine jobs. Also, women are more interior and receptive which is a quality that is more complimentary of home life and things that are close to home life than it is with things that are further from the home such as plowing a field, fighting in wars, or running for Vice President.
By the way, my name is not Katherine, lol. I'm actually a married man.
atheling, You are very aggresive. Are you a woman with male genius? Maybe I have met my match, lol. Heaven forbid! Like I said before these are depressing, miserable ideas that make women take on male attributes as John Paul says. That is the heart of feminism, trying to make women into men and it is garbage.
Perhaps it would be better to say that both men and women posses human qualities and virtues. But perhaps some of those virtues men are more prone to because of their masculinity (ie calmn in crisis), and others that women are more prone to because of their femininity (ie. sensitivity and nurturing as opposed to aggression). So when some speak of taking on male virtues perhaps what they really mean is that one should cultivate human virtues that men happen to possess to a higher degree, that they come more naturally to men. And on the other hand men really should work on virtues that come more naturally to women such as sensitivity and nurturing. So, does that make sense? Truce?
I would still be very leary of women who go around describing themselves as having male genius, ugh. It seems like they might be uncomfortable with their femininity or something, not happy with being a woman (what they are). But I am willing to concede that certain women have human virtues that are more associated with gifts that males more often possess. This does not mean, however, that a woman should neglect her children for her career because no matter how gifted she is (even above her husband) with virtues that happen to conincide more with masculinity that does not mean that she should leave her kids at home because she alone has the equipment and the feminine genius to care for them. Or at least she should and if she does not she should rediscover it if possible.
As for the credibility of CNN - true, it's a single-source. But there have been rumors coming out of the campaign for some time that this stuff is going on. I work in Washington with a number of political insiders, and when I hear something in the office that winds up in the news (more than once) I grant it the benefit of the doubt.
I never said Palin didn't have talent. In fact, at my own blog I've argued against the McCain strategy for her, even though I believe she was a cynical pick.
Doc Angelus:
And as for you who think a woman's place is in the home: Women have ALWAYS done more than take care of the kids, the house, and the cooking. Many, for instance, contributed to the household economy with various cottage businesses, like tailoring, brewing, baking, canning, and so forth.
Nobody said "a woman's place is always in the home". I do believe, however, that a mother of young children's primary vocation demands that she be with those young children, unless circumstances necessitate that this be otherwise. Voluntarily joining up to be VPOTUS doesn't, in my book, qualify.
I'm a big fan of home-based and family run businesses, and as the husband of a woman who grew up in an entrepreneurial family, I know she spent most of her childhood in various family stores and enterprises.
But when the family is together - really together - it's different than what a high-profile, sensitive, and time-intensive jobs like the two highest offices in the nation demand.
There's really no comparison.
I think people dislike Palin, not because she has 'successfully' navigated motherhood and a career, but because she does not present herself as exceptionally intelligent or receptive to such ideas as freedom of speech (at least not in small-town libraries).
"I (think people) dislike Palin..."
Remove the words in parenthesis and the meaning will be clear.
"...she does not present herself as exceptionally intelligent or receptive to such ideas as freedom of speech...)
See above.
"...(at least(sic) not in small-town libraries)."
Despite the fact, inconvienient to some, I'll grant, that she never asked that any books be banned.
I'm not sure where I made a grammatical error and deserved a sic.
Anyway, you are correct that she never asked for any books to be banned. But she asked the librarian about the possibility of banning books. A few months after responding negatively to that possibility, the librarian received a letter notifying her that she was soon to be fired. Popular support of the librarian stayed Mayor Madame's hand. This all reported by an Anchorage newspaper, where one would think that she would be popular.
But you are right to infer that I don't like her. But I think the sentiment reflects the feelings and reasoning of many people. She does not attempt to embody the ideas of classical liberalism to which the conservative American party rhetorically aspires.
Commenting by HaloScan
