I just read this article from the NY Times, which discusses what the Sarah Palin candidacy does to the debate on working mothers. The issue is fascinating. The choices that my husband and I have made in our own lives reflect our general opinion of mothers working outside of the home,* or, more accurately, of parents leaving the primary care-giving to other people. I don't think that mothers who do so are terrible mothers, or don't deserve their children, or anything like that. And I am happy that there is a woman in this race, if only for the sake of there being a woman in the race (hey, at least I can admit it!). I was actually quite disappointed when Hillary Clinton dropped out; on the other hand, if I now vote for a woman, I'm not also condoning abortion. Yet while I'm excited about a woman in the race, I also question the wisdom of this, considering that this woman is in charge of five young lives. And it's no secret that one is now facing a crisis of her own -- teen pregnancy and marriage -- while another has inborn disabilities that require a lot of care. I find it ironic that many social conservatives are so thrilled to have a pro-life woman on their side that they are apparently ignoring the fact that she is a working (outside-the-home) mother, which, I'm sure, is a species that no small number of them decry in most other situations. If she were a Democrat, I think that conservatives would be leaping out of the woodwork saying that she is essentially sacrificing her family on the altar of ambition. But because she's a pro-life Republican, she apparently gets a pass? This seems so hypocritical.
For all I know, Sarah Palin is an amazingly organized, energetic woman who will be able to 'balance' family and the second-highest office in the land. Just because I am always running late, scolding myself for wasting time on unnecessary pursuits and feeling that my house is perpetually a mess doesn't mean that every other woman suffers from the same faults. Our sons' godmother, for example, manages to cook, clean and do any number of other things that come with raising three kids while her husband is in law school full-time AND works full-time. It is truly amazing. And come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that, whatever else she might do, Sarah Palin doesn't do the cooking, the laundry, or the sweeping of the floors. However, regardless of whatever spousal or outside support she might receive, I am at least a bit uncomfortable with the idea of a mother of five young children taking on such a job, just as I am uncomfortable with the apparent about-face that many conservatives are doing regarding the issue of working mothers. The Times article is interesting at least in part because of the variety of opinions expressed by a variety of women, Democrat, Republican and undecided. The effect of Palin's choice on the election, if there is any detectable effect, will be interesting to observe.**
* I should say that I can see myself working outside of the home part-time, if there were a need (we're happy that there is not), or if some amazing, singular opportunity presented itself. I am NOT anti-woman, or anti-mother in the workforce.
** The Sept 5 post from the Ochlophobist is only loosely related to my own above; I just wish that I could be so funny regarding my own abiding political cynicism. Sept 3 is also a hoot, perhaps more so than Sept 5.
2 comments:
Maybe there's something about being from Alaska that makes amazingly productive super moms such as Palin and said Godmother.
It would seem that indeed a hardier breed of woman is produced up north. Question: If I move to Alaska, will I become hardier as well? Or will I be eaten by a bear? Nature v. nurture.
Post a Comment