Women: Vengeful, Stupid and Petty

[La Lioness Priyanka]

Women have always been stereotyped as coy, manipulative and yet stupid. These persistent stereotypes of women as unfaithful, lacking in loyalty and stupid have existed for centuries. A lot of these ideas of a womans inability to understand important concepts such as policies, politics etc were the basis of denying women equal rights. However with the defeat of Hillary Clinton and McCain's picking of Sarah Palin it is obvious that not much has changed.

Picking Palin assumes that women are incapable of separating one woman from another. McCain didn't pick a black man, he and his advisor's didn't think that black people would confuse the difference between Alan Keyes and Obama. No, no one thinks that would happen. However we women are so stupid as a group that clearly we cannot tell the difference between Sarah Palin and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What the difference between a pro choice, pro gay rights candidate, an environmentalist vs an anti choice, anti gay rights, environment destroying candidate? They both have vagina's. That as far as we treacherous and stupid women can see.

We don't care about the quality of our candidates. We don't certainly understand the implications of picking one vs the other. Oh no! All we can understand in our infinite pettiness and stupidity is that we will support one vagina when the other has failed.

In fact we are too stupid to even understand that second seat is not shattering a glass ceiling. Second seat has been done before.

Of course so far I have only addressed how the Republican party views women as stupid and petty and vengeful.

Let us look at the Democratic party's response to Palin on the blogospheres. The liberal blogs could attack her on any number of issues. She is everything HRC was NOT. She is anti women, anti gay, anti environment etc but what do they pick? Her ability to mother.

Mostly whether a mother of a three day old child can be a good person if she wants to be Vice President of the United States of America. Apparently she cannot be a good mother. How dare she leave her infant? As far as anyone knows this infant has a father. However apparently this father is not expected to take care of his child, though through hundreds of years women have taken care of babies while their husbands have gone on to do ambitious things with their lives. This baby is going to die from neglect since it will left in its father's care between Sept-Nov. The outrage!!!!

She doesn't have to work, she chose to do this. Hence the immorality. Reinforcing the belief that only men have a right to ambition. We have a right only to supplement income. We should only work if there is no choice in the matter. Our ambitions are never to super cede our children. It doesn't matter if this does not hold true for men. Their ambitions do matter since their work is not considered supplemental.

I don't want to defend Sarah Palin, she stands for everything I don't. I think like Mccain and Bush and Cheney, she is pure evil. But I will support her right to work for ambition and not because she has to.

The twofold attack against the intelligence of women and our desire to control our fates this week have been very disheartening for this feminist

[Murdock]

1. Thank you...

Very well said.

[roguevalley]

48. I was surprised to see her back after three days but not surprised.

she is a nervous busy sort of gal. Her work or family jibe is the last thing that worries me about her.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Colbert King's column this morning thinks this.

He doesn't have Hillary C to kick around - or Condi Rice to defend - so he goes after HillaryC's supporters.

[pecwae]

3. K&R

[Cleita]

4. You outrage is well expressed, however, for the reasons you stated

McCain and the Republican Party leaders have proved their misogynism for the nation and the world to see. Why didn't they just select Bo Derek? LOL! It couldn't be more obvious. My bigger worry is that the M$M will ignore Obama/Biden and concentrate it's favorable coverage on grandpa/beauty queen instead. Another big worry is the election itself. How do they plan on stealing this election?

[awoke_in_2003]

35. Bo Derek

is the VP I would most like to see running down the beach in slow motion :)

[NeedleCast]

5. Excellent Post

[Nikki Stone1]

6. The hypocrisy of the right and the left has been overwhelming

If there is one thing both sides seem to agree on it is woman-bashing--and for traditional reasons, like motherhood.

DU has been guilty of intense woman-bashing during the primary and many Hillary supporters who were women felt unwelcome here. I myself have not posted much here in a long time because as a feminist woman I have felt unwelcome. When the left looks just as misogynist and scummy as the right, I wonder how much has been accomplished after all.

In my mind, Palin has not earned her VP position and her stand on the issues is so reactionary it's frightening.

But I will not go after this woman as a working mother, a woman who exercised a choice in having a special needs child or as a woman who chose to have 5 children. Those are all legitimate choices in my mind and they are all ones supported by actual feminists.

I will go after her positions on women's issues, her lack of experience, her connection to Big Oil, her appalling environmental stands, etc.

[PeaceNikki]

11. Well-said.

:thumbsup:

[awoke_in_2003]

36. DU was not woman-bashing...

the bashing was coming mostly from people who migrated here shortly after Rush's Operation Chaos came out. They were disruptors with profiles showing thousands of posts in several months of being here, and many had hidden profiles (like you) to hide that fact. DU did not do this.

[NashVegas]

63. Unfortunately

There was a good number of long-timers I used to respect who joined them.

[awoke_in_2003]

88. I guess I didn't see it...

as I said to another poster, once the shit started getting ugly I usually checked out. Guess I didn't hang around long enough to see the long timers chime in.

[Chovexani]

64. Oh, you must be naive as hell to actually believe that

Not everyone engaging in woman bashing was involved in Operation Chaos.

I find it disturbing that every time DU collectively shows its privileged ass, the finger of blame is immediately pointed at freeper trolls because DUers couldn't possibly be <sexist/racist/homophobic>. We're liberals! Liberals couldn't ever be ignorant or prejudiced!

I've been here since 2001, under two different screen names. Believe me, liberals can be that ignorant and prejudiced, and have proven so time and again on this site. All those assholes who blamed LGBT community for Kerry's loss and made homophobic remarks to the point where EarlG had to step in and make a rule against it were not all Repuke trolls. The people here and on Kos who make alarmist posts in immigration threads about brown people having so many babies are not all Repuke trolls. The people who continue to make "Mann Coulter" cracks even after LGBT and straight allies have explained time and again that those comments are transphobic are not all Repuke trolls.

The fact is, DUers (and liberals in general) are raised in the same sexist, racist, homophobic society as freepers are. The difference is many liberals acknowledge that fact and consciously try to work through their ish instead of reveling in ignorance. A lot of them don't, even when they're called on it. And a lot of those people are long time, loyal Democrats. A lot of them are long time, loyal DUers.

What is so difficult to get about that?

[awoke_in_2003]

87. "you must be naive as hell"

Well, I will admit I didn't spend a whole lot of time in GD:P. Maybe about 20% of the time here. And I usually checked out early. Once I started seeing ugliness in a thread (I guess the newbies popped in early) I checked out.

[spooky3]

79. if I could rec your post, I would. Well-said.

[Marr]

80. There were also a lot of people who seemed to equate any criticism of a female candidate as

inherently sexist. I won't deny that there were some truly sexist statements being made at that time but, at least from my point of view, I saw more unfounded cries of sexism than actual sexism.

No group is perfect, and you're always going to have people stepping outside the bounds of common sense and decency. I hope you can admit that some people from your own group showed their asses during that interlude as well.

[emilyg]

7. k/r

[stillcool]

8. I feel for this woman..

in a certain way, because she is being used. But she is a willing participant. In my mind this is not about her, but it is about on what grounds she was selected as the next in line for the President of the United States. It is a slap in the face to a plethora of capable, intelligent women who could easily fill those shoes, but were not considered. It is the exploitation of a woman used for imaging purposes, and in regards to the office of the Presidency of the United States.

[Nikki Stone1]

14. It's a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton..but then DU did a lot of that slapping too

right/left--often makes difference when it comes to the attitudes people have and the words they use.

[stillcool]

16. Yeah..DU does a lot of slapping..

down. I've seen some of the worse traits of human behavior, but then again, I own them too.

[Nikki Stone1]

20. It does a lot of misogynist slapping down

There's a difference.

[stillcool]

24. No..I don't think there is...

there are norms of society and attitudes that we are all surrounded by as our minds develop. Some of us evolve sooner, some later, and some not at all. I know the lessons of life and humanity that I have learned best have also been the hardest learned.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Oh yes there is. Just like there are racist slapdowns

And no one would argue that they are legitimate, right?

Racism and misogyny come from the same bad source. To validate one is to validate both.

[stillcool]

29. Legitimate? No..

but so much of what we take in, what is handed down through generations is not legitimate. And yet, it defines who we are, not only to others but to ourselves. I find it an interesting dynamic that sometimes people have to feel it is permissible to let go of false beliefs. In other words even though they themselves might feel something is not right, they still hold on however capriciously until the first signs that attitudes are changing allow them to free themselves.

[PeaceNikki]

9. K&R

Thank you for a well-written post. I agree whole-heartedly.

[northernlights]

10. I haven't seen too many women going after

her for having children, or for having a special needs child, and thinking she can do both jobs well.

Although Justice John Roberts did bring that topic up.

I *have* seen women go after her here for apparently jeopardizing that last child's life by traveling very late in her term and then, when her water apparently broke, instead of going straight to the nearest hospital, giving a speech and taking a long flight back home.

Beyond that, I've mostly seen people go after her on her lack of qualifications and accomplishments.

Also for sharing her *job* with her husband, and then claiming executive privilege over the emails she sent him.

And I've seen people go after McPrick for thinking with his.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. You mean you haven't seen all the TMZ-like threads saying that baby wasn't hers?

And you haven't seen her attacked for not breastfeeding her baby? There are threads all over DU and there were yesterday as well.

[Quantess]

17. How can she breastfeed a baby? She hasn't been pregnant for years. (no text)

[Nikki Stone1]

21. Thanks for the unsubstantiated rumors. You really like hitting and running don't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3882806

[countryjake]

25. lol! Good one, Nikki!

I'm gonna kick that post everytime I see the others pop up.

[Quantess]

28. "hitting and running"?

:eyes:

[greguganus]

47. You could say it's also a rumor that the baby is hers. n/t

[CatWoman]

13. I've seen pretty much the same thing as you have

:shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

15. I disagree somewhat- If Hillary had a newborn special

needs infant, and had as little experience in the political world as Palin, I'd have questioned her wisdom and decision to drag her family into a situation that is challenging under the best of circumstances.

The other night while watching the end of the DNC with my sons, I watched Sasha and Malia interacting with their Mom and Dad, saw Sasha swept up into a big 'Daddy hug' and felt so .... protective of their innocence- I turned to my oldest child and said,:

"the only 'negative' to all this, is that those sweet little girls are sacrificing their opportunity to have a private "normal" childhood- and they have no real say in this happening at all. But I do believe that Michelle and Barack are very well aware of this, and will do everything they can to balance it out"


Men and Women ARE built differently- Neither one is 'superior' or of more value- We cannot deny our maternal aspects, which do influence our life- in a very real and dramatic way at times, but that reality doesn't mean we don't have a right to a full meaningful life.

I may be alone and weird- but I would really like to see a woman compete with a man for a position such as "President" and not need to "man-up" or abandon any nurturing, gentle, patient qualities that she has.

I credit IBM's mother's influence in his life, with some of his most valuable characteristics- His ability to mediate a situation calmly and patiently, his empathy, concern for how people will react and respond to situations, and desire for fairness and equality. Those traits aren't necessarily "female" traits, but they are often dismissed by more aggressive people as being "not manly".

FWIW.

[Raksha]

39. I agree...there are times when maternal instinct takes prededence,

no matter how much clout the woman may have otherwise.

Re Men and Women ARE built differently- Neither one is 'superior' or of more value- We cannot deny our maternal aspects, which do influence our life- in a very real and dramatic way at times, but that reality doesn't mean we don't have a right to a full meaningful life.

The example that comes to my mind is Jackie Kennedy after JFK's assassination--actually after RFK's assassination. She was probably the most widely admired woman in America at the time. Nobody could understand why she married Aristotle Onassis, and she never gave any explanation until many years later.

It turned out that after RFK was murdered, she decided that it was "open season" on Kennedys. So she was determined to raise her children out of the country and out of harm's way. Can anyone possibly fault her for that decision?

I may be alone and weird- but I would really like to see a woman compete with a man for a position such as "President" and not need to "man-up" or abandon any nurturing, gentle, patient qualities that she has.

You aren't weird! There is NO reason why a woman should have to prove her leadership ability by turning into Margaret Thatcher aka "The Iron Lady." From what little I know so far about Deborah Palin, she strikes me as the worst of both worlds--a "submissive" Dominionist female who defers to her husband AND Margaret Thatcher!

[Bluerthanblue]

44. Thanks-

and I'd never heard that about Jackie. What an incredible woman she was in so many ways.

It's nice to know there are others who see this differently.
Thanks

:hi:

[whathehell]

45. Well, she probably could have done that without marrying Onassis

if that's what you're saying (that she married him to raise her children out of the USA)
...Jackie liked money a lot, too, I'm afraid.
I was alive and kicking when she was married to JFK and I remembered reading that she and he argued about all the money she spent.

[whathehell]

46. Not to be contrary, but I would have to add that, men and women

may be built differently, but I'm not sure that necessarily makes for one parent being innately more caring.
I don't think I'm alone in having had a father who was far more nurturant and sensitive than their mother.

[riverdeep]

18. Kick it. n/t

[countryjake]

19. Well said...

I haven't been reading any other forum but here, so that thing you mentioned about having to feel like some perspective needs to be in place, and defending her rights simply as a woman, reminds me of the "babygate" posts that keep popping up to the top. The only two places, besides the original two blogs from March being used as proof, that I've heard this being gobsmacked around, are here and with a group of real-life gals I know, religious right-wing fundies mostly, who are aghast at Palin's pregnancy, birthing, and her failings as a mother. As tho someone's reproductive affairs, or her children, are fair game, not an extremely personal matter. As tho all the marching we did throughout the sixties, to gain privacy for our vaginas, is no longer relevant, when an election is at stake.

One thing I did discover the other afternoon is that the right-wing may have under-estimated the medieval mind-set of some of their evangelical base, cause some simply cannot get past wondering how devoted Palin could be to her offspring, to abandon kids for a political office. Those harpies would snatch away her ability to support her family, in a new york minute, and while some think that voting McCain may be the way to do it, there are others so hard-core, they don't. I kind of think that Palin is being offered up as the sacrificial lamb, the means to an end, the final Jezebel to end all Jezebels.

I'm not only disheartened, but pretty disgusted with much of the talk I've heard these past two days. While I get a kick from fucking with the minds of my fundie friends, and the Palin subject does offer much fodder in making headway in prying open some of those type minds, it leaves me drained to come home, log on, and find similar processes at work, from the supposedly opposite stratosphere.

[Chovexani]

68. That is some real talk CJ

It is draining :(

[Duppers]

22. the only way I can see justification for the attacks on her ability "to mother"

is that Palin and the McSame people put that issue out there as one of her greatest assets.

Knock it down, knock it down. I do not believe this woman is a good mother.

But I'm sick of the petty attacks on her appearance and
I don't read most threads about her pregnancy.

Otherwise, damn good post, lioness. Damn good.

K & R

[Nikki Stone1]

23. I would never attack anyone on being a good mother: Too much blowback.

Unless the Palins are routinely beating their kids, leave it alone. Concentrate on stuff like this:

http://community.adn.com/node/127769

[Duppers]

27. I couldn't agree more

however, Palin doesn't meet MY standards for good mothering.

[bertman]

30. While I tend to agree with most of what you said, I want to give you some insight into one

woman's take on this: my mother-in-law. 75 yrs old, voted for Bush in '00 and '04 ostensibly because she thought he was nicer than Gore or Kerry. (I know. I'm just telling you.)

This woman was railing the other night about how Hillary Clinton was much more qualified to be the Democratic nominee than Obama. Her daughter, my wife, was a staunch Hillary supporter who cried during Hillary's speech the other night, but is now supporting Obama.

But, more to the Palin point. Last night, my mother-in-law asked me what I thought about Obama's vice-presidential pick. I told her that I thought he made a very good decision to pick Biden. Then she asked what I thought of McAnus' pick. I said something to the effect of she seemed like a lightweight to me. That's when she started telling me in no uncertain terms that Sarah Palin is a very smart woman with just as much experience as Obama, and she handles herself very well in front of the crowds and would make a good Veep.

I knew there was no use in arguing, that I would only entrench her in her defense of Palin, so I just shook my head.

So, just in case anyone is wondering why McAnus picked this white, Christian, good-looking, crowd-savvy, reich-wing tool, well there you have it folks.

[Cleita]

32. Well, let's hope this stays with the 75+ demography of gullible elderly

people who still don't get that politicians need to be studied thoroughly behind "that nice smile". btw I'm pushing seventy and have friends who are in their seventies who look very closely at all candidates at election time so hopefully those will cancel out the ones who think like your MIL.

[bertman]

76. Yes, Cleita, let's hope this is a very small group. And I agree with you that there are lots of

older citizens who are much "deeper" thinkers than my mom-in-law. She's a wonderful person in many ways but she's addicted to network TV. Thankfully she stays away from Faux News most of the time.

[bertman]

31. While I tend to agree with most of what you said, I want to give you some insight into one

woman's take on this: my mother-in-law. 75 yrs old, voted for Bush in '00 and '04 ostensibly because she thought he was nicer than Gore or Kerry. (I know. I'm just telling you.)

This woman was railing the other night about how Hillary Clinton was much more qualified to be the Democratic nominee than Obama. Her daughter, my wife, was a staunch Hillary supporter who cried during Hillary's speech the other night, but is now supporting Obama.

But, more to the Palin point. Last night, my mother-in-law asked me what I thought about Obama's vice-presidential pick. I told her that I thought he made a very good decision to pick Biden. Then she asked what I thought of McAnus' pick. I said something to the effect of she seemed like a lightweight to me. That's when she started telling me in no uncertain terms that Sarah Palin is a very smart woman with just as much experience as Obama, and she handles herself very well in front of the crowds and would make a good Veep.

I knew there was no use in arguing, that I would only entrench her in her defense of Palin, so I just shook my head.

So, just in case anyone is wondering why McAnus picked this white, Christian, good-looking, crowd-savvy, reich-wing tool, well there you have it folks.

[MzNov]

33. good post. but the liberal blogs I read are pointing out her

lack of experience, ties to corrupt Alaskan politics, her complete cluelessness on foreign policy, etc. I haven't seen so far the Democratic Party attacking her motherhood. Maybe I just read different blogs.

[riverdeep]

34. And a somewhat alternate view:

Already the Democratic pundits are worrying about whether to attack Sarah Palin -- will it look like bullying? Will it make voters sympathize with her? Will it make voters identify with her and vote for her? Women are supposed to lay off her because -- she is a woman! The thinking goes that we can't question her choices because women's choices are sacrosanct. Nor can we investigate her life (beauty queen, Christian Dominionist, links to Ted Stevens, childbearing history) because those are private issues. But what Sarah Palin shows is that once again, the right wing is adept at turning the women's movement upside down and offering us a woman who reinforces patriarchal power rather than challenges it. Palin is another Margaret Thatcher or Ann Coulter, a woman who attaches herself to men in power and then does them one better. She uses the freedom that the women's movement has brought her quash the liberation of women with other views than hers. The bitch is in there, as it is with Coulter and Thatcher and Katherine Harris. The Democrats have to bring that bitch out and she has given us the right to do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/make-her-whine_b_122648.html

[JerseygirlCT]

58. There's nothing wrong with attacking her!

Plenty to do there.

But the objections to her really don't need to center on her mothering skills.

She's unqualified, she's a reactionary nutjob, she has little interest or curiousity in the world at large. Let's attack, without concern or regard for her gender.

But I don't much care about how good or bad she is at mothering, or how many children she has or whether a mother ought to work with a special needs child. The kids do have a father, presumably?

[NashVegas]

61. Oh Jesus Fucking Christ

Huffington Post and its editorial board have played a huge role in creating the wedge between the Democratic netroots this season with their inflammatory essays ("I'm not voting with my vagina") that disparaged Clinton's campaign and its female supporters.

I read the full article and think Smiley is a fucking idiot for getting on this soap box and insisting Palin be attacked on uniquely female personal issues.

Why doesn't she just adjust her strap-on and go play with Camille Paglia?

[LisaL]

37. There there.

It bugs me when people claim there is something wrong about this woman going to work so soon after giving birth. Hello? She's got a husband. No one would bat an eyelash if the father immediately went to work. In fact, it would be expected. That said, this woman ain't Hillary Clinton. I am shocked as to why McCain picked her. What qualifies her as VP and potentially president (especially considering McCain's advanced age?.)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. exactly. its not like these children dont have a father. its that no one expects

a father to make sacrifices for their child

[Raksha]

40. There is nothing "wrong" with it,

but most women aren't physically up to it for several weeks. Hell, I couldn't keep any food down for a week afterward, let alone go to work!!!

Remember, they don't call it "labor" for nothing!

[BlooInBloo]

41. Links to major lefty blogs attacking women for having a family and working please?

Thanks!

[rosesaylavee]

42. You nailed it.

Thank you.

I don't think this will be lost on republican women as well. I think the rw ploy will backfire. This is unifying women against the McCain camp... not the positive response and support they hoped for.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

43. I'm sorry, I am an old woman who has been in politics all my life

Ms Palin is just a surrogate.

[Matariki]

49. Amen Sister!

Tell it!

[knitter4democracy]

50. How is the dad going to be able to take care of the kids?

VP candidates travel all over, get up early for TV interviews, and get no sleep. Their families often aren't let out of much of that. Her husband's going to be travelling all over, getting up early for interviews (especially because he's a man and therefore a novelty), and getting little sleep. The kids are going to be dragged all over, which the older ones might be able to handle better, but the baby shouldn't be. The best way to handle that would be to hire a nanny just for the baby, and that means neither parent's going to be seeing much of him. Considering he's got a condition that can mean many surgeries and medical scares and treatment issues and meetings with doctors, it's borderline neglect. Neither parent is going to be able to raise him right.

This isn't about her being a woman to me. I'd be pissed if it were her husband running instead, leaving her to deal with a special needs infant all by herself--plus the interviews, the travel, the speaking engagements, and more that the VP spouse has to deal with. They live in Alaska, which means that, if the husband and kids stay home, Mom's not going to be home much, since it takes so long to get there from anywhere, and time is of the essence at this point in the campaign.

I'm a SAHM, and my husband's a doctor. We had our kids when he was in med school and residency, and it was damn hard on me. While he was working 120 hours a week, I was trying to raise two babies pretty much by myself. At least he was able to come home, though. Palin won't be. She won't be there for the surgeries, she won't be there for the medical meetings, and she won't be there when he has trouble in the night. You know what? Her husband probably won't be, either. From what's coming out of Alaska, he's a shadow governor, getting e-mails and sitting in meetings he has no business being in. He's not going to be okay with being left behind with the kids.

The one I really feel sorry for is the baby. The youngest daughters are also at very important times in their lives and will need their parents, but at least they can feed themselves and most likely won't need surgery any time soon. That baby is at high risk of all sorts of problems, and I think it's unconscionable that either parent would do this to him.

[Lyric]

51. Pri, I would normally agree with you 100%, but

in this situation, it's a bit different than usual.

Firstly, the Vice Presidency isn't just a job--it's a full-time, 24-hours-a-day, massive lifestyle shift, and in this case, even MORE so of one because Gramps is ailing. Palin would have double-duty--regular VP functions, with the added weight of learning to run the country on the fly, so to speak.

Yes, she has a husband, and if she had a typically-abled baby, that should (and would) be enough. But special needs babies are different. One parent is often not enough to deal with what can happen; honestly, it wouldn't be fair to either of them to set up a situation where the bulk of childcare for a special needs baby fell to one parent. I have a disabled sister, so I have some very real memories of what the challenges can be to speak from. That baby is desperately going to need BOTH parents as it gets older, and with one parent largely unavailable, the child is the one who's going to suffer. Yes, they can hire "help," but a nanny/caregiver is not a parent.

My issue is not that she's going to work full-time and leave the baby home with Dad. My issue is that she's going to give over her life to her job, completely, when her own child needs both parents FAR more than America needs Palin as VP. And yes, I would absolutely 100% feel precisely the same way if the situation was reversed, and it was Mr. Palin running for VP rather than Mrs. Palin. The same objections would apply--that the child needs both parents, full-time, in order to be as functional and developed as possible.

In the end, the problem is that both of that baby's parents have seriously fucked-up priorities, and that incompetence in prioritizing could be very indicative of an overall incompetence that would make her very much unsuitable as a Vice President.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. do you think you would have brought this up if john edwards had a special needs child?

or john kerry or obama?

no, this would only be brought up if the MOTHER needed her ambitions met

[Lyric]

83. Of course I would have.

Please don't ask me a question and then answer it yourself. I'm a woman living in a same-sex relationship in West Virginia. I don't hold women to higher standards than men, because I know exactly what it's like to be HELD to a higher standard than a man. It's horrible, and wrong, and those outdated gender role ideals need to be ancient history sooner rather than later. But this is not about gender--it's about the needs of the child, and the disregard that both of these parents appear to be demonstrating.

The most crucial time period for a special-needs infant to develop vital social and physical skills is within the first few years of life, and the attention and care given at that time is very important to said child having the fullest, most abled life possible. Special-needs children at that age, children like my own sister who lives with cerebral palsy, need an incredible amount of attention and parental involvement--care that no nanny or hired caregiver can be an adequate substitute for.

Not only would I feel exactly the same way if it had been Edwards or Kerry, I would feel exactly the same way if we were talking about a gay male couple with an adopted special-needs child, or a single Dad, or three mothers, or any other combination of genders and identities. The gender of the parents are not my issue; the best interests of the child, and the responsibility of his parents to look out for it, is my primary concern.

There is an enormous difference between expecting all mothers to stay home with their kids (what you seem to be angry about), and expecting both parents to honor the kind of commitment to parenting that's part and parcel of choosing to raise a special-needs child (what my point actually is.) It's sexist and wrong to expect women to be held to a higher standard of parenting than men, but it's just as wrong for Sarah to neglect her share of the enormous responsibility of parenting this baby who needs both of his parents to a degree that most other babies do not. Diving headfirst into the all-encompassing role of Vice President (with the added duties of learning to be President too, just in case) is not a wise or competent decision for a parent of a special-needs baby--mother OR father. That role is life-consuming, and perhaps even more so in Palin's case because she has so very much to learn.

If nobody here has spoken up about this before, it's only because it hasn't been an issue that's come up before. Sarah is unique--she's not only the first Republican female VP candidate, she's also (so far as I know) the first parent (of either gender) of a special-needs baby who is a candidate for VP or President. If there was some other VP or Presidential candidate in the past with a special-needs child, then it was before our society had evolved to the point where we fully understand how wrong it is to expect women to automatically be the "caregivers," and that is the reason that the father's conflicted responsibilities were not publicly criticized. We know better now.

Sarah Palin is a horrible choice as VP, and this is only one of a thousand reasons why. It's not the most important reason, but it's not something to be ignored, either. Criticizing Palin for making a choice that conflicts with the more important responsibilities she has chosen to take on is not the same thing as slamming her for daring to put shoes on and step outside of the kitchen.

[S n o w b a l l]

84. Thank you ...

:thumbsup:

You communicated my exact thoughts in a way that I couldn't.

[sasori]

52. LOL!

:rant: Who here can imagine Sarah Palin doing important things?

[Nikki Stone1]

53. Careful, careful

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3890285

[Zuiderelle]

54. Agreed!

:patriot:

[Beausoir]

55. I saw some DU nutjobs having an in-depth discussion about Palin's lactation.

Yesterday, on the GREATEST page, this ridiculous News Of The World type slobber was front and center.

When one tries to point out the sheer lunacy of these stories, you get called out for being a GOP supporter.

The primaries brought out the nutjobs and they have elected to stay.

[Nikki Stone1]

56. I saw that yesterday too.

That's why I posted this article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3890285

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Good points

I don't much care what sort of mother she is wrt being in line for the presidency.

(I do find it interesting that a parent - or either gender - with a child about to ship over to Iraq wouldn't have given the war much thought. That troubles me greatly, tbh)

There's plenty of substantive stuff about this candidate that should be deeply, deeply troubling. Her positions are hard-right. Her intelligence and curiousity about the world seems about on a par with GWB. She has virtually no experience. She's thoroughly unvetted, untried, unqualified.

And I'm insulted that some idiots on McCain's campaign thought that women would go for all that - simply b/c she's a woman. As if.

[Chovexani]

59. K&R

You are on point as usual, sister. :yourock:

[ToddRodd]

60. Very very sad

You have to admit, although McCain's choice to grab Palin was blatantly High School, a lot of Clintonites will bite!

[Chovexani]

65. Oh bullshit. What fucking "Clintonites" do you know?

Because I don't know a single Clinton supporter who is falling for this mess, myself included. If anything it is getting those of us who were lukewarm about Obama to come out and fight for his victory.

Way to prove Priyanka's point though. I hope you enjoy your pizza.

[ToddRodd]

69. Crossing fingers

You know, I hope you're right. Although I personally don't know of any Clinton supporters who would instantly flip and run to McCain just because of Palin, you can't declare that 100% of Clinton supporters would not be influenced.

I salute you for continuing to stay democratic. Let's just hope that McCain's VP choice doesn't make the difference that they're claiming it would.

[kiva]

73. Have you read any of the posts here?

Did ANY of the posters here, many who identified themselves as supporters of Hillary during the primary, sound as though they would "bite"? But that doesn't matter, right? Because all those other "Clintonites" will run right over to vote for an anti-choice, anti-environmental, anti-gay candidate because she's a woman. Enjoy your stay.

[ToddRodd]

78. Cool

You make a very valid point and yes, I have read the posts in this forum. But you can't say that 100% of "Clintonites" come to this forum. Although there are a million reasons to not vote for McCain/Palin, I'm sure there will be at least SOME Clinton supporters who would not care about the policies but are acting in some form of revenge of Obama winning and not choosing Clinton. There are still a lot of vindictive ones out there.

I would love to think that 100% of Clinton supporters are well in parallel with your comment, but that wouldn't be realistic.

[TahitiNut]

66. If Joe Biden were from Alaska (or anywhere in the west) he'd not be a Senator.

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

67. This Is a Great Post

FWIW, I think it's less about suggesting Democratic women will cross over, as much as giving Republican women who were considering Clinton a reason to head to the voting booth. More than that, I think it's about freaking Democrats into campaigning against Palin rather than for Obama.

[Iris]

70. as to be expected from lionesspriyanka.

And you make a good point as well, Crisco.

In fact, I got my wake up call this a.m. when I was railing about the "she refused to have an abortion" - just who, WHO, told her she had to have an abortion b/c the child she carried had Down Syndrome?

And then my husband reminded me that those words were chosen to piss women like me off and to pander to women not like me. So, now I'm looking at this more like you are.

[ThoughtCriminal]

71. So, did McCain actually buy into their own PUMA propaganda?

Did somebody forget to tell him who these nuts really were and how many really exist?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. i dont think he bought into puma. i think he thinks of all women supporters of hillary as

supporting a vagina. so you take one vagina and replace it with another and how will we dummies even be able to tell the diff?

[Nikia]

72. I agree

Now that I know about Palin's stance on abortion, gay rights, and the environment I oppose her (not that I would ever vote for McCain no matter who he picked). I do not oppose her for being a female politician and a mother.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. well stated. there are hundreds of reasons to not vote for her

a private decision as to how the palins parent isnt one of them

[JitterbugPerfume]

77. this inexperienced and silly woman

wants to be one 71 yr old heartbeat from the Presidency. She is fair game, but we have to be smart about how we go after her.

[Marr]

81. I'm not seeing the attacks you're describing.

The only person I've heard making an argument that her place is in the home was a Republican. The vast majority of Palin criticism I've read around here and other liberal sites has centered on her lack of qualifications and what this pick says about McCain.

Wait- actually I do recall a thread here yesterday morning in which someone recounted a conversation with a Republican cousin or something, where the cousin said Palin was a bad mother. That's the only thing I've read on the subject. The rest has mostly been reasonable criticism or muckraking timelines of her last pregnancy. Frankly, neither of those bother me.

[galledgoblin]

82. excellent post, but...

there ARE morons who can't tell the difference. they're not a rarity, either, they are the ignorant, spouting the same sexist and racist nonsense that the rest of the country dropped a century ago.

for them, the race is now a black man vs. a white woman. that's all they see, and it's up to us to try to give them a crash course in the 21st century.

[Dark]

85. About the mothering thing,

I don't believe the conspiracy theories, but I do have to say, about the water breaking and her giving a few hours later aspeech , that does show a great lack of judgement.

Giving birth is a wonderful thing, but it isn't a privilege. If a woman decides to carry her child to term, she needs to behave responsibly.

What Palin did wasn't responsible, and speaks to her character.

[jonnyblitz]

86. outstanding post, pri! how did I miss this until now?

:thumbsup: :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Republicans have two idiotic stereotypes about women voters:

1. Women will always vote for a woman over a man. To take extreme hypothetical examples, this is definitely not trueThe if the woman is Phyllis Schlafly and the man is Alan Alda.

2. Women will automatically vote for a handsome man. I first heard this stereotype when the Republicanites nominated Dan Quayle for Bushdaddy's VP. Some of the advisers actually came right out and said that they were nominating Quayle because he "looked like Robert Redford" and would appeal to women voters. Well, sorry, but Dan Quayle a) Never looked like Robert Redford, b) looked and was rather dimwitted, and c) reminded me of the drunken fratboys who used to run around at parties trying to grope every woman in sight.

The next time I heard that stereotype was when John Kitzhaber beat Denny Smith (a Congressman so stupid that even many Republicans noticed) for governor of Oregon. Republicans complained all over the place that Kitzhaber had gotten in only because all the women voted for his (admittedly) good lucks. No, sorry, it was because Denny Smith couldn't answer a question without sounding like the student who hasn't done his homework and is trying to bullshit his way out.