Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:51 PM
Original message |
Poll question: The only women allowed to run for executive office should be those who can no longer reproduce. |
|
Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?
|
Olney Blue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:52 PM
Response to Original message |
1. This is a terribly sexist poll. |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:54 PM
Original message |
Actually, I'm seeing how many people actually like the glass ceiling... |
|
I'm in the "disagree" camp myself.
|
Life Long Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:25 PM
Response to Original message |
43. I'm in the confused camp. |
|
This is a medical question.
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. This is a poll that exposes sexism on DU |
|
You should thank the OP for holding up the mirror for us.
|
midnight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:53 PM
Response to Original message |
2. So does this men who run should not be able to produce either? |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. No of course not, double standards rule the day on DU... |
|
I just wondered how many people will vote that way in this poll.
|
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:54 PM
Response to Original message |
3. And only people who are not sexist |
|
Should be allowed to post polls on DU. :mad:
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. Hey man, check this out: |
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
:thumbsup:
You are still allowed to post polls then. ;) :)
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. I decided not to editorialize my OP before the poll... |
|
Nor let people know my position before they vote, though now, looking at my responses, they can see, obviously, what's up.
|
bigwillq
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. I'm still just a bit peeved |
|
at all the sexist remarks here.
Please except my apologizes for assuming you were also sexist because of this post.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
34. No Apologies necessary, we're all good! |
Muttocracy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message |
5. WHICH executive office? nt |
lynne
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Welcome to the 14th Century - |
natrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:57 PM
Response to Original message |
8. is somebody that bored they have to think up worthless shit like this |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Hey, this was inspired by beachmom's thread... |
|
I just thought I'd roll with it and see how far DUers would be willing to take it!
|
NashVegas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
"I'm not voting with my vagina" references here today. That's about the ultimate example of mind-warping from this election cycle.
Hello? This is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and we wouldn't expect any member here to suddenly fall in love with a Republican ticket no matter what the circumstances. So why the need to say out loud you won't vote for a ticket with Salin?
|
Fearless
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:57 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Maybe... and I mean only maybe... |
|
It would be appropriate not to plan to have children during time in office as it is a justifiably large distraction. Yet, I don't think that one should be prohibited from doing it.
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 07:58 PM
Response to Original message |
11. This is a subversive poll. It reminds DUers who take cheap shots at Palin of our values. |
|
You magnificent bastard. We can beat McCain-Palin on the issues. We don't have to be uncivil or ungallant to win.
I, for one, intend to fight using Obama's example. Fight like hell, but fight fair.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. YES! Somebody get's it! |
|
:toast:
And I didn't even have to make it a push poll, and I decided not to editorialize.
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
21. It's not that she just had a child, at least not for me. |
sarge43
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Now that would be one hell of a Constitutional amendment. |
|
But hey why not, just as long as the only men who can run for executive office are chemically or surgically castrated - all that horndogging is distracting and often detrimental, don'tchaknow.
|
asdjrocky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:05 PM
Response to Original message |
19. How responsible is it to have a special needs child, KNOW you are having one |
|
and then decide to hand off the raising of such a child to someone else, all the while touting how your choice shows how very pro-life you are?
What a special gift God has given her, she says. What a challenge! For who? The nanny?
And what about parents who don't have the resources that she has at her disposal? Is she supposed to be better than they are for having made this choice to have this child?
Don't even get me started!
|
Tennessee Gal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
22. That is what is bothering me tonight. |
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
28. Glad I'm not the only one. Here in Freeperville, trying to iron out my thoughts |
|
as to why this woman irritated me so much, I started to feel petty and alone.
Y'all have helped me tonight by validating what I was thinking and letting me know I'm NOT alone.
I thank you all.
|
Bluerthanblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
30. bothering me as well- and I'm not ashamed to admit it.- |
|
McCain's description was someone who puts responsibility above privlidge-
Where is her own responsibility to that baby? To her other 3 children still in the home? To the state she's "Governor" of?
|
Ilsa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
32. ITA. And this is about her hypocrisy on "family values". nt |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
37. Does she bear more or less responsibility than her husband in this? |
|
Or to put it another way, IF she were a father, rather than a mother, would you still question whether she should run for executive office, even with a special needs child?
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
41. He's not the one holding up her choice to have the child as evidence of her |
|
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 08:21 PM by LittleClarkie
pro-life morality. Her husband is not running for president, and can't have babies. It doesn't have the same impact. It was her choice. Okay fine. But don't hold yourself up as some sort of bastion of pro-life morality when you're not the one who's actually going to be raising the child.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
44. So you admit there's a double standard! |
|
OK, that's all I wanted to know.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
48. Dude, are you going to lecture me on feminism? |
|
So you know more about my rights that I do? I see.
Let me know when you're physically able to have a child and make that choice. Then we'll chat.
|
qwlauren35
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
52. Actually, I don't question her timing at all. |
|
If she has a husband who is willing to play Mr. Mom, then she should go ahead. The Kennedys were young parents!
We're only talking about two intense months of campaigning, and then she can insist on a more reasonable schedule unless she becomes president.
Me personally, I would not have done it. However, I would add that if the kid is NOT hers, maybe her daughter will offer to look after the kid most of the time.
|
Bluerthanblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
23. Disagree, but if you have just given birth to a baby, have 3 other |
|
children in the home, a full time job as Governor, push the concept of taking your 'responsibilities' seriously, and are staunchly anti abortion and you choose to accept an offer to run for vice president, knowing that at the very least, the net 69 days of your life will be a whirlwind of public appearances, unbearable scrutiny of your entire family by the press, AND the public, and have already worked to twist your 'story' to fit the image required by the job offer, expect to hear people remind you of where your first responsibilities really LAY- according to your very own words.
|
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
27. you have a point there. |
CatsDogsBabies
(652 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
35. It is not a reproductive issue |
|
it is family issue. I also had questions about Edwards running given that his wife is terminally ill. I haven't lost a spouse, but have seen in others how traumatic and difficult an experience this is. The poll seems silly to me. Just because it rubs some people the wrong way that any parent would choose to be absent from the life of their newborn doesn't mean they are holding a double standard.
|
Bluerthanblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
45. it is a parental nurturing issue- |
|
and even more important because this little guy is special needs- For the first months at the very least. She is not living up to her own dictates for others.
It's all well and good to talk about 'being responsible'- it's quite another thing to do what you know is your responsibility even if you could buy your way out of it- or avoid doing what you say other people should do. She's being held to her own standard and falling short.
Elizabeth had her say in what she wanted John to do- The baby doesn't.
|
CatsDogsBabies
(652 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
49. I agree the situation with Elizabeth Edwards was different |
|
because she is an adult. However, I think it is inaccurate to say that people only consider a woman's family situation and not a man's.
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:09 PM
Response to Original message |
25. certainly don't think it's appropriate for women to reproduce WHILE serving as POTUS |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 08:12 PM by Solon
Is it appropriate for a man to reproduce while in office?
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
36. are you that desperate to kick your asinine thread? Men don't go through childbirth |
|
and hormones RAGE through various stages of a pregnancy.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
39. So, what, your concern is that a woman, in hormonal upswing or downswing... |
|
will what? Push the so called "Red button"?
|
CatsDogsBabies
(652 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
38. I think this would be much more desirable than |
|
embarking on the campaign trail with an infant.
|
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Extremely sexist poll, and I wonder who originally asked this question. n/t |
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #29 |
33. Of course its sexist, its a reflection of the pervasive attitude I see on DU tonight. |
|
I'm just letting them look in the mirror.
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
40. Then you're missing the point |
|
it is we who are holding up the mirror to this woman's hypocrisy. The party of family values. Holding up the choice to have a special needs child as evidence of her pro-life morality, and then handing off the raising of this child to someone else while she campaigns for VP. Others don't have the resources that she has, and shouldn't be made to feel inferior for the choices they've had to make.
|
Solon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
42. I would agree with that statement if it were consistently applied to men as well... |
|
as fathers who are equally absentee from their children's lives, unfortunately, too often in our culture, they are given a pass.
|
Bluerthanblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
51. I agree that too often fathers are absent from their childrens lives- |
|
and it also is something that they don't have much choice in- but your argument that the standard has to be held to both father and mother or it can't be held to either is a dangerous one.
I've raised my children without any father in their life for the last 13yrs, and if I didn't take my responsibility to them seriously, they would have been put into state care- something that would have benefited no one. Least of all my children.
Kids don't ask to be born, they have absolutely NO say- and they shouldn't be treated like cabbage patch kids that can be tossed aside when they interfere with our 'plans'.
:shrug:
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:35 PM
Response to Original message |
46. Sarah Palin's reproductive life is OFF LIMITS |
CatsDogsBabies
(652 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
|
but her family life is not. Reproduction and family are not the same thing.
|
Bluerthanblue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #46 |
54. not when she makes my reproductive life HER BUSINESS- |
qwlauren35
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:37 PM
Response to Original message |
47. I agree that the only PEOPLE running for office |
|
should be those who are not in the process of STARTING a family. It's just bad timing. And I think it should be delayed during the time someone is president. Moreover, if it were to happen, I'd rather that the VP be in charge for a few months before and after the baby is born. For those few months, I just think it's more important to be a parent than a president.
|
ismnotwasm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 08:42 PM
Response to Original message |
|
So far, three voted voted "agree" two "other". Now that's some bullshit right there.
I do respectfully ask Governor Palin to stay the fuck out of my uterus with her fucked up, forced birth laws though
|
Mass
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-29-08 09:12 PM
Response to Original message |
55. I guess she can run, but this shows how much she is interested by this baby. |
|
Edited on Fri Aug-29-08 09:30 PM by Mass
It is not about running for a local office, or about working for a company, even at a high position.
It is about somebody who claim she has family values (understand cares about her kids) and decides that somebody else is going to take care of her 4 month old, potentially for the 4 next months.
And the difference between her and Obama is that Obama recognizes that he is too much absent, while she is promoting family values and presenting herself as a " hockey mom".
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 11:29 PM
Response to Original message |