Wow. It took maybe three hours for the various pundits on the tee-vee to ask The Question: is a woman with five children, including a newborn with special needs, really fit to be Vice President?
Newly-minted Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has a lot going against her. She's unknown, for starters. She's a social conservative; a energy-state governor who believes we should drill, drill, drill and to hell with all the little critters of ANWAR; a pro-life, pro-gun Repubican with a short political resume and apparently about the same foreign-policy experience as you and I.
So there's plenty to criticize there. But I have the feeling we're in for 67 days of variations of "what kind of a mother would...." commentary.
The assumption that women with small children can't do big, important jobs is one of several factors that tends to keep female politicians from gaining the highest positions in government. Most women don't enter statewide or national politics until mid-life -- after their children are grown -- bringing them in to government later than many of their male counterparts, and limiting the time they have to gain the type of senority that is the currency of political advancement.
(Since 1925, only 29 women have served as state govenors, with 12 elected since 2001. Twenty-eight states have never had a female governor. Since 1922, there have been 35 female US senators, 19 of them elected since 1992. Twenty-nine states have never sent a woman to the Senate. A total of 219 women have served in the House of Representatives since the 1920s. Until today, only Geraldine Ferraro ever made it as far as the #2 spot on a major party's presdiential ticket, and Hillary Clinton is the first female presidential candidate to win more than one primary.)
"What about the kids" is just not a question we ask of male politicians. If it were Governor Todd Palin, father of five including a newborn with Down's Syndrome, who had been nominated for Vice President today, that fact would be little more than an interesting highlight in his biography -- because it would be assumed that his lovely wife Sarah would be taking care of the kids while he was out on the campaign trail.
Or to be bi-partisan about it, let's take the Democrats:
Malia and Sasha Obama are very young children. Their daddy has already been away campaigning for 18 months of their short lives, and they obviously miss him terribly when he's away. They're of the age when little girls benefit most from having a strong and loving father around; if elected, the eight years he might spend as a busy Chief Executive will take up most of their adolescence. Yet this issue is almost never discussed -- because Michelle is taking care of the kids.
When John and Elizabeth Edwards decided to continue his presidential campaign after the diagnosis of her now-terminal cancer, there were questions about whether or not she was showing good judgement as a mother in spending so much time with her focus away from little Jack and Emma Claire, given that her time with them might be short. There was comparativly little discussion about whether John Edwards was being a good father for pursuing his goals.
(Although, as we now know, John Edwards was already busily taking himself out of the running for both Father and Husband of the Year.)
In this case, we have the wrinkle of Trig Paxton Van Palin, born just this spring, with Down's Syndrome. The Palins learned about Trig's condition fairly early in her preganacy, and as a vocally pro-life politician, she made the results public. Sound asleep in his big sister's arms as 10,000 people screamed and cheered at this morning's rally, the little guy doesn't know that he's about to become part of our nation's uncomfortable political dialogue.
"Trig is four months old," blogger Dan Conley here at OpenSalon notes in in his post on the slightly different issue of how Palin's very public decision to bear a handicapped child illustrates her social worldview. "Downs kids need lots of love from their parents."
True. All kids need lots of love from their parents. And attention. But little Trig has a father and three sisters and grandparent, and a mother who is clearly pretty used to striking the work-life balance. It's doubtful he'll be starved for attention. Plus, if she did become VP, she would have a household staff that could free up her time by take care of the maintenance details of daily life -- unless, as when she moved into the Governor's Residence in Alaska, she lets the personal staff go, preferring to do her own cooking, cleaning and laundry.
Being a parent is a huge job, an important job, but it does not necessarily have to be the sole, exclusive focus of a woman's life for her most productive, active years. The mothers of the developmentally delayed should still be able to reach for their goals, without guilt or criticism. And ultimately, children of all ages and developmental leveles benefit when their parents are happy, challenged, and engaged in the world around them.
Fate, chance, and the wierd identity politics of Election 2008 just handed Sarah Palin an extradordinary opportunity: the chance to be the second woman in American history to win a spot on major party ticket, with at least a theoretical chance to become the first female Vice President and the first female President. No one -- male or female -- would throw that aside. Hopefully, Governor Palin will be allowed to rise or fall on her own merits for reasons of policy and philosophy....not because she is failing to meet our culture's impossible standards of modern motherhood.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Tart & Soul
Nick Leshi
Kathy Riordan
Kate Bishop
Deborah Young
peacemonger
Salon.com
Comments
Sure, Cheney works hard. But that's only because his boss gave him the keys. Palin doesn't have to do anything unless McCain can't serve. By that time, if it ever happens, her kids are older and more independent.
The only problem Palin has is that if she is required to become president, she will have a tough time finding a nanny with citizenship papers.
If you have never had a special needs child, you have no idea how much more time intensive it can be than having a typically developing child. Both my husband and I had to go part-time in my son's early years to meet all the different therapy obligations. And the therapy appointments are just the tip of the iceberg -- you have to continue the therapy "assignments" in between appointments.
While I know that it is possible to work and meet your parenting obligations -- I do believe that it also requires a career with significant flexibility. For me, there is no way I could maintain the type of traveling schedule that will be demanded of her (although I suppose she will have the resources to be able to take her baby with her wherever she goes and perhaps she can have a whole entourage of full-time therapists at her disposal to travel with her).
The key for every child -- regardless of whether they are typical or atypical developing -- is to be able to form a strong attachment bond with their parents. Generally, it has been the maternal attachment that has been key to the emotional and developmental success of a child. Whether the paternal bond is sufficient to ensure that success -- I don't necessarily know since I haven't studied attachment theory in THAT much detail. I also don't know the level of involvement that Palin's husband has had thus far. That attachment bond is made during the first 12-24 months of a child's life. If Sarah Palin is traveling for weeks or months at a time without being able to see and hold her son nearly every single night, that will have a significant impact on her attachment bond with her son. And that COULD have a significant impact on the overall development of her son. Over the next 67 days (or is it 66 at this point?) how much time will she be able to spend with her son? If her son is traveling with her and she can do the night-time thing with him nearly every night, then great. If not, then, yes... I believe it could have a significant negative impact on her son.
I would say the same of fathers as well. There is a big developmental difference between a 4-month old and 8 and 10 year olds. You can keep in touch with 8 and 10-year olds on the phone; they have object permanence and abstract thinking abilities and memory to draw on. A four-month old does not have that.
It boils down to this: that child has to have a consistent caregiver who he can trust to be there for him day in and day out and be able to bond with over the next 24 months. Under the best of circumstances as a working parent, that is difficult. However, when you have a job that will require the type of time and travel committments that will be required of Gov. Palin, it could be nearly impossible. If she can't do it, then is her husband going to be able (and willing) to do it? If not, then I do believe they are not meeting their parental obligations.
While you can outsource many aspects of childcare, the unconditional love and attachment of a parent should not be one of those things (unless you have made the decision to give the child up completely for adoption).
Attacks should focus on the hypocrisy of Palin's nomination and whether she supports specific proposals which are important and relevant to women. She probably opposes anything that means a government program or legislation so nail her on those things.
Elizabeth, although I am sure you know a great deal about this first hand, many women have to work. Many women do work who have children with disabilities. If she can't do it, then is her husband going to be able (and willing) to do it? If not, then I do believe they are not meeting their parental obligations. I am sorry but that is exactly what the Pro Family values people would tell women. Glad to see that it comes from all sides.
Lincoln, as well, great to see that you also think moms should stay at home. Way to go.
Alex, nice to see you here. Thanks for getting it. The culture wars are getting strange for me right now.
(Progressives arguing that women must stay home cause their children will suffer) Ok I will go and stir up a great, big wonderful vodka martini.
There is a ridiculous double standard applied to women pols with respect to kids. However, doesn't it undermine her feminist "cred" just a little when she keeps bringing them up and making them almost the centerpiece of her political appeal? She should not be criticized for her parenting decisions, but nor should she get a free pass when she perpetuates the standard by using her kids to promote her political agenda.
It may be too difficult a line to walk in a political climate that thrives on the 30 second sound bite. But I think that there is a fair way to make the point.
There is nothing wrong with being a working mom. Governor Palin is fortunate; working for her is an option not a necessity whereas for most moms working outside the home is a necessity. What infuriates me is giving birth to a child with special needs, and choosing purely for the sake of ambition to neglect that child by giving up its care to others during it's first most formative years.
It's sad when a child is neglected or abandoned because of circumstances out of control of the mom. Poverty, health problems, dangerous environment, military deployments can all lead to mom's having to do the unthinkable and temporarily or permanently abandon or neglect their children.
In a country with a population of 300 million where a huge portion of that population is just as "qualified" as Governor Palin to be VP, and a few thousand are actually better qualified for the job, it can only be self indulged "ambition" that would cause her to choose the VP slot over being with her Down Syndrome child.
Should turn of events put her in the Presidency, I hope she gives the welfare of a nation more thought than she did the welfare of her youngest child.
So it turns out the Republican talking heads were right. Ambition is sometimes ugly.
Out of financial necessity, I had to return to work when my daughter was 8 weeks old. Yet I breasfted her for more than a year, and I pumped breastmilk for her to drink at daycare every day until she was 10 months old. As long as you have an opportunity to pump breastmilk during the day (which unfortunately, some women don't have, but I doubt that Sarah Palin is one of them), then it is possible to be a working mother and still breastfeed.
We're really talking about a battle between 19th Century social mores and 21st Century realities. In the 19th Century, the fact that middle-class women could stay at home and devote themselves to their "sphere" of hearth and home while the men went out into the wider world was seen as a sign of social advancement; it was also during this period that childhood became a sacred phase of life, with their mother designated to give their offspring limitless nurture and put them on the road to moral and spiritual purity.
Culturally, that's still woman's assigned task, but especially since the 1970s, we thrown outside work back into the mix. Prior to the 19th Century, it wasn't uncommon for women to work, primarily running farms, but also working and managing small businesses, or working in industrial factories. But since their children were likely to be working alongside them, there wasn't the same dichotomy we have today, when home and work are supposed to be two seperate worlds.
No, I'm not saying that we should put kids back in sweatshops. Nor am I saying that there is anything wrong with women working outside the home, or women working in the home. I'm pro-choice, which means I respect ALL choices, even if mine might be different.
I'm just saying that for centuries, women have awakened each day to seemingly insurmountable lists of tasks and small infants to care for, and they have figured it out. If Sarah Palin become VP next January, she will do what all those other women before her have done: she'll attach Trig to one or the other of her breasts, and get on with her day. And Trig will be fine. As will we. We don't need to worry about it.
I'm not being judgmental here when I say: Wow. I can't imagine worse timing.
I'm not being judgmental here when I say: Wow. I can't imagine worse timing.
My adopted daughter was special needs; she was born (of a 14 year old addicted mother) with FAE among other diagnoses. It took everything both my ex and I could do to raise her; right up through age 18. I took off of work for a year when she was born. In my humble opinon, having been there, it takes both parents, and even then it's not easy.
Please don't hear me saying that her gender precludes her from her choices. Far from it. I just know from experience how very difficult it is. Go ahead and savage me, if you wish, but walk a mile the shoes of children with disabilities before you judge.
That should have been "parents of children with disabilites