Good title. 
Wow. I wish I knew how to describe the arguments that you are making. I am sure there is a term of logic argument that is appropriate but I can't seem to pull it from the depths of my mind right now.
At best, I guess I feel that you are characterizing the intent of the Barack and Michelle Obama to bolster your vocal concerns about the Obama presidency.
Being a father requires a presence in the home yet there are seasons that a father's physical presence is absent but none the less, he is still there. When Barack challenged fathers to be in the home, he was talking about something different than just physically being in the home. His call was to step up and be the father.
You did not give a link to the quote where Michelle admitted her "Her peace of mind improved greatly when her mother decided last summer to retire and help take care of the girls, Malia and Sasha." Note that you wrote the mother began to take care of the girls. That is not what Michelle Obama said. She said her mother retired to HELP take care of the girls. As a mother of nine, I would have loved for my mother to retire to help me take care of my children. It was overwhelming!
I encourage your readers to check out the article for themselves. Taken as a whole, there is no doubt in my mind that Barack and Michelle work together as a team to raise their girls. The details of that are different than the details of my life. However, even this one article appears to paint the picture of woman who is confident in how her husband has invested in his children so that though he is gone for a season now, his presence is real. When he does return home, he is plugged into normal life. That wouldn't be happening if he hadn't already spent time doing that.
Hi, stopping in after your comment on my blog. I'm sure the questions will be pouring in from all sides. After all, this is politics!
Kim
IMO, Doug Phillips is extreme in his beliefs regarding gender roles. To come to some of his conclusions he has to completely ignore the variety of business activities the Proverbs 31 woman was engaged in.
But ditto on the double standards that folks often hold, sometimes unconsciously, but double standards nonetheless.
Cynthia, I did link to the article with that quote. It's the same article where it says that Barack was only "home ten days last year." Sorry, for the confusion. But that's typically how I do it.
"At best, I guess I feel that you are characterizing the intent of the Barack and Michelle Obama to bolster your vocal concerns about the Obama presidency."
Not at all, it was as Sunniemom said to bring attention to the double standard in a supposedly equalized society. Why is it Palin's job to stay at home, but not Barack Obama's? Isn't this 2008 and aren't women entitled to make the choices they feel are best for their own family. If Stagliano expects conservatives to be a little wary of Palin for the "family values" reasons, then the same wariness would apply to Barack and Michelle Obama.
"However, even this one article appears to paint the picture of woman who is confident in how her husband has invested in his children so that though he is gone for a season now, his presence is real."
Couldn't the same be said of Palin?
" IMO, Doug Phillips is extreme in his beliefs regarding gender roles. To come to some of his conclusions he has to completely ignore the variety of business activities the Proverbs 31 woman was engaged in."
Phillips may be at the fringe of conservatism, but he represents a fairly large segment of the Christian homeschool community. I wasn't surprised by his comments at all. But for the Christian conservative, a subset of conservatism, there is a biblical case to be made for a mother remaining home to raise her children.
I wrote a bit about my own decision to stay home here.
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot...osing-
home.html
According to Rod Dreher, Palin has decided to use the IDEA program to "homeschool" her daughter. this is public school at home (I'm not going to discuss that again here) but one of the requirements is,
Parental involvement - To participate in our homeschool program, at least one parent/guardian must be in the home actively engaged in the education of the children.
That sent journalist and Crunchy Con author, Rod Dreher firmly in the McCain camp.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/
crunch...ooler.html#more
In the Palin case, that one parent may very well be the dad. I read somewhere that he has been taking care of the cooking and taxi-ing the children around.
Palin as VP did indeed give me the reason I was looking for to vote for McCain. A reason that Obama could have given me as well but hasn't. Somehow, Biden seems like more of the same and less of the change Americans are supposed to want.
I am just glad to see a woman that actually represents me as a woman, a mother, a wife entering into politics. I am thankful for the obvious sacrifice she will be making. As opposed to the sacrifice that woman have recently been asked to make of entering the work force so that later generations of women can make more money. Somehow Palin just seems more relevant to me.
I am impressed to see this line of thinking. God calls women ruling a curse--He did not specify liberal women only. There is no way she can fulfil the role God gave her for those children and a helpmeet to her husband (and stick to the convictions of homeschooling and therapy for the youngest) and that of the world (fulfilling politics). She has GREAT convictions and may God bless her for it. Are we so potholed that we cannot find a man with the same convictions that the nation would want to embrace? I am proud of Palin but we women are the image of man, not of God like men are. Michelle Obama must be glad grandma did not embrace her feminism or she would be daycaring her children out. We ladies need to deal with it and fulfil God's role for us and let Him work out the details. When we rebel it might seem okay for a season, but eventually we will be held accountable before God for His role for us (I Cor 11 and elsewhere shows that creation of woman had a unique role different of that of men and we are to submit to that--like it or lump it ladies that is what GOD our creator designed us for) not for the one feminism has dangled like a carrot on a stick.
Todd Palin quit work in the oil fields to stay home with his family when Sarah Palin became governor of Alaska. He said he didn't want any possibility of conflict of interests for her. He has been taking care of the children. I am sure all of us agree that fathers can be (and should be) involved in their children's education.
He is more involved than most.
Spunky, I can't fathom the schedule she will have at all, yet at the same time I run a recovery home for women and homeschool too. God worked it all out for us. I am able to do much more than I ever imagined. If God allows McCain to be president and her to be VP, He will provide a way. I feel a mom is better suited to just be at home. Yet this door opened for me and we knew it was what God wanted for us. It may be just for a season too though. We'll just wait and see what God does with it.
I'm a Christian and a politically conservative one at that. And I'm so glad that Palin accepted this position!
I have chosen to stay at home to raise my children, but I fully support her decision not to. And I support her husband's decision to stay at home. It's not traditional, but tradition doesn't necessarily equate with godly. Why all of this Christian bickering and judging one another? Can't we get our eyes off of ourselves and onto God and trust that He can do great things in other people, even if they make different choices than we do?
Abiding Joy, no, I don't think we can find a man with the same convictions that America would want to embrace. The men leading our country may be in the "image of God" but I think our country needs more than just the image.
We need the qualities and traits that woman were given by God. The traits that men don't/won't have or develop. I don't see why Palin can't be a "helpmeet" to McCain. The same techniques, skills, and virtues that women use to get keep home and family running smoothly can get this country running smoothly.
The mere fact that the religious right is all ga-ga over McCain's choice gives me that trembling feeling of, 'Oh no! Here we go again!'
Putting all opinions aside about her being a working mom, the mere question of her experience and whether she's prepared to step into the role of president at a moment's notice is legitimate. I think this article
http://www.politico.com/news/sto...0808/
12997.html
has it right when it says:
"There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One.
"Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again — by phone — on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona.
"McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joseph Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain’s four yeasr in the House and 22 in the Senate.)
"The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don’t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin’s ebullient personality and reputation as a refomer who took on cesspool politics in Alaska matters more."
That last statement I think is apropos. I guess I'm just amazed at how little people really do care about experience and credentials. I'm also dismayed at the lack of judgment McCain has displayed. If he's so quick to take a gamble in this way, what will he be like when making decisions regarding war and such as commander-in-chief? I don't think he's displayed a whole lot of wisdom -- but then again, I was never going to vote for him anyway.
The above article also had this.
"The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama.
“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly."
Uh huh!
This guy's coming at it from the right angle. Palin is not going to have any redeeming effect on a John McCain presidency. She's compromising her own positions and integrity by joining him. How does a staunchly pro-life candidate endorse, support, and campaign for a man who has a dismal record on the life issue - for just one example? If her views are really as conservative as being reported, how is she going to make a stump speech praising John McCain without choking on her own words ?
Writes Rick Banks: "Wouldn't joining McCain mean that this woman, despite any good she has done, has decided to put that aside to be on this man's ticket?"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/...ves/
022585.html
And this is very interesting:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/2317
A year ago, she was being suggested as a VP for Ron Paul! If McCain wanted someone like Ron Paul, why didn't he choose the man himself? He has Palin's conservative views and more. He's definitely pro-life having sired numerous children of his own and delivered thousands of others. Grant it he doesn't have the neo-con foreign policy that the right seems to like, but at least having a foreign policy is better than none at all. And he definitely has the advantage of experience as a ten term Republican Congressman. Okay, so he does lack in the beauty queen department.
But in the end, Ron Paul outscores on the integrity issue - because he wouldn't have compromised and accepted an offer of VP from McCain. Maybe that's why the religious right wouldn't get as excited if Ron Paul had been chosen -his integrity highlights their lack of that very quality.
Spunky,
Yes, this intensifies a portion of the mommy wars. Unfortunately.
You know, the VF group wasn't going to vote for McCain anyway. I can't see how their thoughts hurt him in the slightest.
As I see it - McCain is running and Palin is his running mate. We - as Christians - aren't going to change that. We have the opportunity to grump about the concept of a woman not having the authority to be in leadership or we can jump in with both arms wide open and show the beauty of the choice for Life! We talk so big about being pro-life, and given a chance to illustrate it, some of us refuse.
Denise said, "A year ago, she was being suggested as a VP for Ron Paul! If McCain wanted someone like Ron Paul, why didn't he choose the man himself?"
Two gray haired men on the ticket does not photo well. In our telegenic culture that means a lot. Neither is a great speaker either nor does either one inspire confidence when you hear them. That doesn't mean I don't like Ron Paul, I do, but being honest about his negatives as a running mate to McCain.
Holly, I think part of my reservation is that McCain is still the top of the ticket. I was less than impressed with him in Detroit. He was came across and arrogant and condescending to a group that should have been his easiest to win over. But he didn't. He must have known how poorly he came off because he didn't even come to the rope line to shake hands as was planned. I like Palin and her positions, but McCain still has me a bit skeptical. I'll wait a few more months to see how this plays out.
While I can see the point of questioning Palin's experience, I cannot see that Obama has any high ground, there. If 2 years as governor isn't good enough, what on earth are people doing choosing 4 years as Senator. It might be 2 years more, but it isn't any decision-making, at all.
So we have the choice--do we want 4 years semi-experience for president, or 2 years, for vice president? Again, I'm not sure it's a comparison Obama wants to push very far.
2004 Flashback, Here's what Barack Obama had to say after he had just been elected as Illinois Senator. At this time he ruled out running for Prez in 2008. The reason, "I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people who might be comfortable doing that but I'm not one of those people."
Of course that's exactly what he did. He was a community organizer and through political luck became a Senator and then immediately began running for President. By his own admission he's not ready for this job.
You can watch the You Tube of Barack saying it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5...h?v=5BnLozS-
TnM
Actually, just reading it as you've presented it, you say he did start right then and so (as he said) he WAS able to be ready by now. Uncomfortable perhaps, but that's a different question than ready.
He's definitely pro-life having sired numerous children of his own and delivered thousands of others.
Yet he is not outspokenly pro-life, at least not in televised interviews. Plus, the above does not convince me at all. I knew of a man who performed abortions --- and who had sired numerous children as well as delivered thousands.
Palin is outspokenly pro-life. She has also proven her pro-life convictions in real life. Siring a lot of children does not prove much of consequence. Knowingly carrying a Down syndrome child to birth, and rejoicing at his birth, does.
Rebecca,
Ron Paul has publicly made his views clear that he is pro-life and we should make it clear here, so as not to mislead people, that Ron Paul has not performed abortions. As commendable as it is in today's society, bringing a down-syndrome child to term does not necessarily make one more pro-life than a man who obviously cannot bear children. There are many people who have never even had children who are staunchly pro-life even though they are unable to demonstrate it in such a way.
Spunky,
I guess when it gets right down to it (regardless of who the VP candidates are) when you look at our choices for president you realize, as a nation, what a dismal position we find ourselves in.
Spunky,
I didn't realize there were any links to my blogspot post...sorry! Deleted it, deciding to keep the politics on my personal blog and just keep the family blog for family news. But the same post is here, too:
http://inthisstorm.wordpress.com...umper-stickers/
Spunky, I didn't mean to sound as if I was accusing Ron Paul of performing abortions. I just think that siring many children and attending births is not evidence of being pro-life.
I also know that a number of my friends who were former supporters of Ron Paul have expressed grave disappointment in how he has soft-pedaled his stance to the media, especially during his interview on The View.
As a woman --- and maybe this is unfair of me --- I lend a bit more credence to those who have actually had their pro-life convictions tested and proven. It's easy to wax eloquent to the media (which is why I'm puzzled when pro-lifers drop that ball). It's harder to live it out in real life.
I am assuming that you are looking for all viewpoints on Palin and not just positive? If so, here is my link:
http://www.throwingmarshmallows....r-
politics.html
I personally have no issue with her having kids and working. Women do it all the time and I believe that it is the family's decision as to whether it works for them. I was actually really glad to hear that she is pumping while on the campaign trail.
My issue is that I do not get the feeling that she has even given national and international issues much thought and given the state of the world, that worries me.
I doubt McCain would touch Paul with a ten foot pole. Paul didn't attract enough of the vote to worry about the small faction that follows him as passionately as that may be and he is essentially running on the Iraq war.
It seems typical of campaigns, so far as my limited experience goes, to reach out to another, powerful faction within their own party to try to draw them together for the final vote. McCain is not a conservative, and Palin appears to be. He does not have strong support from the pro-lifers, Palin does.
Has a VP ever "made" a president? Did George Bush do it for Reagan? Somehow I doubt it, but he was a reach across the aisle to more liberal republicans...those that considered "trickle down economics" to be "voodoo economics" for example. Or did Dan Quayle provide much in the way of votes for Bush? Al Gore for Clinton?
If people are seriously voting for Palin, they are a little naive, I fear. Or just choosing to focus on something other than McCain to make it easier to vote in November. Unless they are banking on him not living for four more years. Don't get me wrong...I like her fine. But her stances don't matter much unless there is a tie in the Senate for her to break or if something does happen to McCain.
Dana said, "If people are seriously voting for Palin, they are a little naive, I fear. Or just choosing to focus on something other than McCain to make it easier to vote in November."
Well put.
Spunky: But will conservatives reject Palin simply because she's chosen a different path - that of the working mother? I doubt it, most conservatives were looking for a reason to like McCain and Palin's nomination provides the reason.
Me: Regardless of their principles?
Spunky: The larger question is how can liberal women challenge her decision to go back to work, when they would fully defend her decision to abort any of her babies prior to birth? And if we're supposed to reject Palin on her family choices, what about the Obama family choices?
Me: What you have written about, though, is how conservatives are questioning her choice. Not what liberals are questioning -- which is, btw, her positions, her grip on reality and her ability to even minimally fill the role of VP or Pres.
My question about all her mothering is whether she is a quiverfull wife and intends to keep on having babies. Anybody know?
Nance
And just to throw out there not all feminists are making an issue about her family and work. In fact some of them are taking her side on this issue (but usually only this issue!):
http://www.motherjones.com/
mojob...in_strikes.html
Nance, Denise indicated in another of Spunky's Palin threads, that there are reports being investigated that the Governor's 44-year-old quiver didn't even produce the family's fifth baby, that her teenage daughter did and the family made her have it and then deny her own motherhood. I checked around to see how this this is being looked at as a concern. The argument seems to be that whatever is true about the Governor's child-bearing, parenting and anti-abortion stance, either:
1) Governor Palin showed reckless disregard for herself as governor/mom and for her baby's well-being, by giving a speech and then, flying from TX to AK after her water broke without informing the airline what incredibly high risk she was, etc -- and then went right back to work three DAYS later (which as a mom would apall me instead of impress me as a feminist, because when I had my first at 35 while employed in a large state government supervising 250-plus education civil servants, I chose my baby absolutely over my own ambition and career and never looked back.
OR
2) Governor Palin lied to her own public media and the people of her state all spring and summer, and then to McCain and the American people today, in introducing herself as Trig's mother and his real mother as his "big sister." All while putting this false story forward about her faith in "chpoosing" to have the baby as a major focal point for her character qualification and policy integrity for the national office she seeks. After all Stephanie said for example, "I was actually really glad to hear that she is pumping while on the campaign trail.." Yes, it makes a great story . . .much better than telling us her 17-year-old is nursing the baby she was withdrawn from high school to have and hide, and now the Governor is claiming that too, for extra credit with us homeschool moms.
Don't shoot the messenger, this is just a heads-up to what may be coming this nasty hunting season when personal lives are being ravaged in the name of "voter information."
What I would suggest is that either way, it may be the next wild news story in this very strange election -- sounds like it WILL be probed in coming weeks, as awful and humiliating for everyone as that would be, at least as much as the Edwards baby story, say, and by the National Inquirer if not other media.
I have always found it interesting that Proverbs 31 never mentions the lovely lady rocking, cuddling, or carrying her babe in a sling. Nor does it mention her having any time with her husband. It does speak of her going out and doing business however.
Spunky,
I have stewed over this post since you put it up, and resisted responding because I don't see how discussion of this subject accomplishes anything. But JJ Ross's last post has officially pushed me over the edge.
JJ -
1) Sarah Palin leaked some amniotic fluid. To say 'her water broke', while not technically a falsehood, is certainly misleading. For the vast majority of people, "water breaking" = labor = delivery. She consulted with her physician several times throughout the day. Alaska Airlines does not have restrictions or notification requirements for pregnant women, so she wasn't violating anybody's policies. She was not in labor; labor was induced by her doctor in Alaska. A woman who has had four children, who is active and fit and knows her own body, is perfectly capable of determining (in consultation with her doctor) whether or not she can safely travel to deliver a child in her home environment instead of in a strange town, strange hospital, with strange doctors. Frankly, I find the insinuation that a woman is NOT competent to make that decision for herself insulting.
2) Why did you stop there? You didn't give us the rest of the nasty rumor-mongering. See, they have to explain why the baby has Downs Syndrome. It's not at all surprising that the child of a +40 woman would have Down's Syndrome, but a 16 year old? Answer is simple - INCEST! Not only is Sarah Palin a liar and a fraud, Todd Palin is a PERVERT! Next time, be sure you give us the whole story. There isn't any point in arguing about the truth of these rumors. People who spend their time digging up pictures of other people on the internet and engaging in debates about who does/does not look pregnant aren't interested in facts. I don't think a DNA test would solve anything, they'd just call it a cover-up. God help us all.
As far as the original topic of this post is concerned:
Spunky, I followed some of your links, and some of these 'lively discussions' are as ugly as I have ever seen, especially for people who claim to be Christians. These 'discussions' are full of the arrogance and judgment that discredits us in the public square. The perfect order of God's creation is broken by sin. This includes the social order, this includes the right-ordering of relationships between men and women, and this includes order in the home. A woman's ability to 'keep' or rightly-order the home is very dependent on social order. If men cannot or will not rightly-order society such as to make the right-ordering of the home a more attainable goal for more people, then why shouldn't I vote for a woman with the God-given talent and desire to do so? I am in no way saying Sarah Palin is such a woman, but if I determine to my own satisfaction that she is, I will not have any qualms about voting for a her instead of a him, even a her with a husband and five children. I grew up listening to my father say that giving women the vote was America's great, FAILED experiment. Finally one day, I turned to him and said, Dad, show me the men. Show me a majority of men who will vote for the good, who will vote for the right-ordering of society and not their own short-term interest, and I'll think about not voting. Until then, you've got no case. We haven't discussed it since.
The reason these mommy war discussions get so ugly is because it's so personal, and I admit that. I was married for eight years to a man who was legally blind, and the list of things I had to do to 'keep' my home included a vast number of items I never dreamed it would be necessary for me to do. I tuckpointed, roofed, guttered, gave myself a hernia changing the transmission in our ancient car. Now that I'm on my own, keeping my home means homeschool during the day, working evenings to pay the bills, staying up late into the night home-keeping and lesson planning, and doing all those other things like oil changing and sewer snaking on weekends. It isn't hard for me to imagine (now) that a woman could discern that it is God's will for her to help order society through government and politics. Is my home rightly-ordered? No. My family is broken by sin. I order it as best I can with the pieces I have left and the grace of God. But when some people, from the comfort of their intact marriages and happy families start arm-chair quarterbacking other people's home-keeping, it makes me, and a whole lot of folks like me, very angry on a deeply personal level. And far less inclined to take anything they say seriously.
Nance asked if conservatives will vote for Palin "Regardless of their principles?"
Answer: Some don't think Palin violates their conservative princples. Conservative doesn't not necessarily equal evangelical Christian. And even among evangelicals there is a variety of beliefs about whether women should work when they have a family. There are many conservatives who think a working mother is just fine.
"What you have written about, though, is how conservatives are questioning her choice. Not what liberals are questioning -- which is, btw, her positions, her grip on reality and her ability to even minimally fill the role of VP or Pres."
Answer: That catalyst for this post was a liberal writer questioning her choice. The first link is to Huffington Post writer, Stagliona. So it is not just conservatives, in fact Colmes even wondered in a blog if she took her prenatals and if that caused the Downs Synrome! That was just plain sick. He has since taken it down, but left a screen shot for those that linked to his ridiculous assertion to show that they weren't off base he was.
"My question about all her mothering is whether she is a quiverfull wife and intends to keep on having babies. Anybody know?"
Answer: Are we a pro-choice society or not? That's her choice. Certainly the right to get pregnant should be as "private" as the right to abort.
JJ, said, "AK after her water broke without informing the airline what incredibly high risk she was, etc -- and then went right back to work three DAYS later (which as a mom would apall me instead of impress me as a feminist, because when I had my first at 35 while employed in a large state government supervising 250-plus education civil servants, I chose my baby absolutely over my own ambition and career and never looked back."
Going back to work after three days is "appalling" but another women giving birth to a premature infant after an induced abortion and then walking out of the hospital empty handed while the baby is left to die in a closet is not?
As I've written about before, going back to work is not my choice, but at least Palin had the courage to bring this baby into the world, most Downs babies are aborted and the ones that manage to surive that procedure are left to die. She did neither.
Palin's choice was life and then back to work three days later, many other mothers choose death and go back to work three days later. If we're going to call something "appalling" I'll pick the latter.
As far as Palin's choice to "put her baby in danger." I agree with JM "Frankly, I find the insinuation that a woman is NOT competent to make that decision for herself insulting."
I agree.
As far as the rumor about Palin's child, I read that on Daily Kos yesterday. The photo that he credits to this March is not accurate, it's from 2006. The Alaska Daily News took the photo cited with the author and they have it on their website dated accurately.
http://www.adn.com/photos/v-gall...a509987-
t3.html
Here is another photo with an obviously pregnant Palin. It's been on many sites, I just picked this one because it has a large photo.
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.c...-feb-10th-2008/
I was just coming over here to post a link about this rumor being debunked:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlanti...ooks-
pregn.html
And no, this type of garbage is not any better coming from Democrats than it is from Republicans (thinking the "Obama is Muslim" emails that are circulating).
Thanks Stephanie for the link. I also just saw your other comment about your link and I'll add it to the post.
Spunky said;
I agree with JM -- "Frankly, I find the insinuation that a woman is NOT competent to make that decision for herself insulting."
********
Well so do I!
And Spunky also said:
Are we a pro-choice society or not? That's her choice. Certainly the right to get pregnant should be as "private" as the right to abort.
*******
Certainly!
If I understand correctly then, Spunky and JM above defend every female's right to make reproductive-related decisions "for herself" (even very old or young, very conservative or liberal females) without anyone else's judgment interfering.
I too am all for every female's constitutional right to career, family planning and parenthood choices unfettered by other folks' rules, beliefs and prescriptions, and for constitutionally faithful SCOTUS appointees who despite any private Catholicism and paternalism in their personal lives, are all for my guaranteed reproductive rights too, so great!
Now if only her party and Palin herself stood for every woman's right to the same privacy, autonomy, ambition and pursuits of happiness she's so freely exercised to such personal advantage. . .
Spunky, notice I said it would appall me as a mom rather than impress me as a feminist. The point being, I am both and I'm for motherhood AND women's rights, both 100%, so reconciling the oft-conflicting politics within my own thinking is a challenge I study and work at and revisit from issue to issue, not a kneejerk thing. Part of why I don't belong to either party or sign up to support either platform carte blanche.
The right to abort is a right declard by our Supreme Court based on what they perceived to be a right to privacy usurping the ability of states to decide such matters.
I'm not in agreement with the decision, but it is the law of the land right now. For Nance and others who support that right to privacy, the question her seemed oddly out of place. That's why I wrote the comment.
This comment box will not debate the abortion issue itself. I only responded to the question from Nance as it pertained to Palin. Any further discussion of abortion will be deleted. Not because I'm afraid to have the discussion, but because it is off topic and would take too much time to moderate along with the other comments.
Thanks for everone's consideration and cooperation.
JM - did you really mean to say the lack of an airline rule determines what is right or prudent or safe, especially for someone whose personal judgment we're being asked to credit as the best in America?
You know, JJ, my first reaction to Palin flying home was similar to yours, but then I realized that we are merely going off of news reports which I know from first hand experience do not always provide the most comprehensive picture of what was going on.
In this case I am inclined to trust that Palin would not willingly risk injury to her child (say what you will about her political views but she is a mother and I can not believe that she would not care about her child) and made the right decision for her. It is not my place (especially without all the information) to judge her for that. I certainly would not want some of my personal decisions judged by strangers who only have a cursory idea of the facts.
IMO, there are plenty of other policy areas on which to focus and talk about (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/
individual/2008_09/014496.php) that we liberals do not need to get into judging her personal choices. It seems a waste of time and not productive * at all * and incredibly distracting (as seen by the ridiculous way that the Daily Kos story played out).
Obama has called for a campaign that moves beyond making "a big election about small things" and I think that should go for us as well. If we focus the debate on the small petty personal things, we will only get bogged down and it will be politics as usual which is one of the things that I was hoping we could move beyond this election.
oops. THe link did not go through:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...y.com/archives/
individual/2008_09/014496.php
Stephanie, you and Obama are right imo. Show of hands then? Policy issues only, no more judgmental attacks OR pandering, gushing praise for any candidate based on this ridiculous personal stuff?
(Think we could get the candidates and their surrogates to go for that?)
Watching hurricane coverage just now, FOX news announced that the McCain just released a statement that 17-year-old Bristol Palin IS pregnant, as in currently. Huh??
Regarding returning to work 3 days after birth of her child --- what few are mentioning is that she had her baby with her, and the "return to work" was a visit to her office to take care of a few matters.
I think that those of us who are moms of many without the luxury of household help should not throw stones. I have "returned to work" within a day of giving birth. I had no choice. I didn't have household help to prepare meals, do laundry, go shopping for necessities, etc. I'm glad for all of you who do. But I've often had to do what most moms in my position have to do. Yes, I love the idea of staying home for four weeks after the baby is born, never venturing forth with my newborn, doing only the lightest of household chores, etc. It sort of worked for the first baby (except for medical appointments, meals, laundry, and light housekeeping). Impossible after that.
Going to an office with my newborn would have seemed like a piece of cake in light of some of the stuff I had to do.
I just wrote a new post about the NEA praising Palin and the pregnancy announcement of Palin's daughter Bristol. This could explain why they chose to homeschool her.
As far as the personal stuff, Obama has made this an election about personal and policy issues by calling for zero to five policies and asking fathers to get off the couch and start being dads.
Palin's personal decisions are indicative of her judgments and in my opinion worth discussion in an election. Congratulations to the Palin's for choosing life and making the decision to support their pregnant daughter.
Palin's daughter, Bristol, however should not become a part of this election.
Oops, here's the link to the post about the NEA and Palin's announcement.
http://spunkyhomeschool.blogspot...ises-
palin.html
Unless her public education position against teaching science as reality had something to do with it. . . .
JJ,
You said:
"If I understand correctly then, Spunky and JM above defend every female's right to make reproductive-related decisions "for herself" (even very old or young, very conservative or liberal females) without anyone else's judgment interfering."
Please. To go from saying that a 44 year old woman with previous childbearing experience is competent to make a prudential judgment about traveling in her seventh month, to saying that anyone with a uterus can decide to do any 'reproductive-related' thing she wants is a logical leap of such monumental proportions that I really don't think I'm obliged to respond to it.
You also said:
"did you really mean to say the lack of an airline rule determines what is right or prudent or safe, especially for someone whose personal judgment we're being asked to credit as the best in America?"
No. You said "flying from TX to AK after her water broke without informing the airline what incredibly high risk she was, etc", implying that she was somehow obligated to notify the airline about her condition. She wasn't.
You said:
"Policy issues only, no more judgmental attacks OR pandering, gushing praise for any candidate based on this ridiculous personal stuff?"
This seems like an easy out for the person who brought the nastiest, most viciously personal attacks into this particular thread with the rumors about Trig Palin.
A long time ago, Spunky had a point about conservatives AND liberals criticizing Palin. For the second time in history a woman is on the national ticket, and she's barely out of the gate before people on BOTH sides are jumping up and down doing the "What kind of mother ARE you?" routine. This is a perfectly consistent response from those conservative Christians who believe God ordains women to be wives and mothers. This seems hypocritical coming from liberals, and Spunky is right to call them on it. But it's always going to be personal. We've been having the discussion for centuries, and it's not going to be over any time soon, because in the end it's about a woman's personal discernment of God's will in her life. I would think we could recognize the futility of making or judging this discernment for others, but we keep on trying. It certainly isn't over for Sarah Palin with the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy. On one liberal site where yesterday people were certain Trig was Bristol's son, I saw someone offering bets on how long it would take for Bristol to 'lose' (scare quotes original) the baby, and Sarah Palin is being called out as a hypocrite for calling Bristol's decision to keep the child a "choice". How long do you think it will be before the conservative Christians, who yesterday were certain Sarah Palin was defying God's divinely ordained plan by running around the country playing politics instead of staying at home and caring for her family, claim that Bristol's pregnancy convicts her of it? That if she had be
Palin clarified her science teaching stance after the televised debate everyone is using to say she advocates the teaching of creation in science:
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
It is kind of hard to prohibit student led discussion, and if she has no plans to change the curriculum, the whole issue is rather pointless.
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics...p-
8243554c.html
Great comments Dana and thanks for the link.
Do you need a link to the wedge document, or do you already have it?
Great discussion.
I posted about it too:
http://highergroundtoday.blogspo...mmanded-
to.html
Love your blog and I agree with you most of the time! Keep it up.
I don't know if you've already seen this, but Voddie Baucham has something up http://www.voddiebaucham.org/
vbm...y_Pick____.html
Since you are posting opinions, I thought you might be interested.
Thanks for the link-rich post, Spunky. I haven't yet thought through all the implications of this, but there is a lot to think through. I am trying to read all of these things with a gracious eye, and also trying to read the scriptures presented by various "sides" on this Palin issue without letting my "political analyst" hat interfere with my interpretation of them.
It's hard. I'm thankful at times like this to have hundreds of other minds fully engaged on these issues.
~Jess
I know it's very politically incorrect for even thinking it (even among conservative Christians right now) but this woman had the courage to do it and I have to say - the same thoughts have gone through my head this weekend. So call me what you like and accuse me of what you want, but it just seems to me that this is a very logical question.
"What message was sent to the mothers of America as Sarah Palin took the vice-presidential spotlight while her children watched from the shadows?" - Olivia St. John
Read the whole article here before responding to the question:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=...ew&
pageId=74043 -- Sarah Palin's feminist folly
Jess, welcome back.
I heartily agree with your statement
"It's hard. I'm thankful at times like this to have hundreds of other minds fully engaged on these issues."
There are many parts to this to consider. I'm still digesting it all myself.
Thanks for the other links ladies. I'll take a look and add them to the post.
I posted this comment on your NEA post but meant to put it here. Oops! I've also added to it at the end.
As I think about it, for some the issue isn't one of gender per se but the fact that she's a mother of young children, very young children -- even a newborn with special needs -- and for some the question is one of priorities. Will her children be getting the short end of the stick for 'the sake of the country' and the conservative movement? Let's face it, the jobs of vice president and president (which she would be called upon to step into at a moment's notice in the event of McCain's death) are a demand on one's time on a 24/7 basis. Foreign nations don't schedule wars or terrorist attacks and such based on an infant's schedule. We've all seen politician after politician age dramatically while in these offices. And are we sure we want to go with the argument that the roles of mother and father are gender neutral. Can all those special qualities a mom has to offer her children, and that they truly need, really be filled by another? Just thinkin' out loud here.
The liberals are pro-abortion and the conservatives are pro-life. But once that life is here, they seem to be swapping places. You have liberals questioning the wisdom of a mother of a special needs newborn taking on such a demanding role, and you have conservatives crying that a woman can and should be able to have and do it all in spite of the newborn. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.
I've questioned before if conservatives would be as excited if Sarah Palin was a man with all the same qualities and limited experience. WFace it,the fact that she's a woman is huge poitically speaking. But the fact that she's a mother of young children is huge too. Some have mentioned how wonderful it would be to see the little one growing up before our eyes, but is that what this is all about, really?
And remember, McCain is still McCain. From all reports he really wanted Leiberman or Ridge for his vice president but they are both pro-abort and the religious right said no-go. Do you really think the mere choice of a pro-life conservative candidate really changes anything as far as McCain is concerned. After all, he was considering running on the Democrat ticket as Kerry's VP just four years ago? Why are the evangelicals and conservatives so gullible? I really think we're presuming on God if we start claiming that Palin is the new Deborah.
After first posting this I came across this article from the NYT
A New Twist in the Long-Running Debate on Mothers
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/0...ogin&
oref=login
It is rather bewildering to see the liberals and conservatives swap roles on this one!
Sure, I'll toss in my blog post into the mix, I wonder how you'll summarize it. =-)
http://dinghome.net/2008/09/01/t...h-palin-for-vp/
My mind is far from made up, but this is pushing me in an obvious direction: "Michelle Obama also admitted that her "peace of mind improved" when her mother began to take care of their girls." So when will Grandma be given full custody to raise "her" children? As for Barack being home only 10 days last year, well.....let's just say it's another push for me to look elsewhere. Not that it's surprising--running for President is more than a full-time job for many years. Homeschooling would seem like a good thing for this family--even with a paid teacher.
Hi Spunky,
I'm not sure if I posted this in the wrong place before. I've been enjoying reading all of the discussion going on here. I wrote a post about the Palin nomination myself last night, and thought you might like to check it out:
http://elisabethscorner.blogspot...gn-
tactics.html
I'll get that added to the list Elisabeth.
Abiding Joy,
"I am proud of Palin but we women are the image of man, not of God like men are. "
You need to read your Bible more clearly. This statement is patently false.
It tells us that BOTH men and women were created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). It NEVER says that women are the image of men and men are the image of God. Where in the world do you get this notion from?
I am so taken aback by your thoroughly unbiblical statement that I am highly exhorting you to study scripture and know what it says before you start speaking authoritatively about it.
And before you start accusing Palin of being rebellious, you had better understand that there are times God does call out individuals to do radical things. God did not create us to be only wives/mothers (1 Cor. 7). That is not our only purpose, calling or role.
No, it is not "normative" (blech, I hate that word) but either is God.
Maybe God is calling Sarah to love Him more than anything else right now? Maybe He is calling her to leave behind the things she loves for this season in order to love Him more (as the Bible exhorts all of us to do! Do we Christians even read our Bibles anymore?)?
She is not going to cease to be her children's mother or her husband's wife any more than Bush ceased to be his children's father and Laura's husband.
We are not being asked to be VP, so the whole "I would never be VP" thing is a moot point, not to mention ridiculous since 99.9% of us will never be asked to be in that position.
This is one woman, not every woman, not even some women.
Luke 14: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
John 12: 25The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
Matthew 10: 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Maybe Sarah is being called to pick up her cross and follow Christ without looking behind for this season of her life?
Motherhood is great and it is a responsibility but God always comes first. Always.
Who are we to stand in judgment of Sarah Palin when God may be calling her to obedience in this endeavor?
Mt. 12: 46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[g]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Fath
For some reason my post cut off.
Mt. 12: 46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[g]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
Sorry Corrie, there's a word count limit.
Thanks for your scriptures and thoughts on this. Well said.
Commenting by HaloScan
