Before I even start this, I just want to say at the outset, I am an Independent. I’ve always been an Independent. I’ll always be an Independent. The reason I’m an Independent is that there are too many important issues that I fundamentally disagree with the major political parties on. Also, I’m not exactly fond of certain patterns of behavior exhibited by both the Republicans and the Democrats. So please don’t go making assumptions about my own political affiliations based on the observation I’m about to make, because honestly, the observation has nothing to do with allegiance to either candidate, as the candidates are not responsible for what I have a problem with. This is about people, pure and simple, and where those people seem to be leading our social attitudes.
That said, I’m also a feminist. And I have to say, I couldn’t be more disgusted with the way people have been acting lately. It seems like feminism is great, that so many women these days are really striving to uphold the ideals that women are equal with men, that women should have the freedom of choice to lead their lives how they see fit. Whether to be a mother, to strive for a career, or both, the point is that women should have the freedom to choose what is best for them and that no man, no person, no society should dictate to them the choices that they make regarding how they live their lives.
Just as important as the aspect of choice is the aspect of equality in treatment, both in polite society and in the workplace. There’s that whole idea of equal pay, equal opportunity – that no qualified woman should be denied a job opportunity for which she is qualified, and that women deserve the same pay that men receive for the same job. That seems like pretty basic, straight-forward feminism, right? It seems understandable, reasonable, and fair, right?
It’s such a shame that all of that gets flushed down the toilet the minute the woman in question happens to be of a different political persuasion. It’s such a shame that feminism has suddenly become such a selective ideal.
As you might have guessed, this is about all the talk lately about Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. I have no problems whatsoever with anyone asking questions about her job experience, her resume, or her stance on policies – those are understandable, important, and obvious questions that should be asked of all the candidates equally.
What I have a problem with is all this incredible talk that she’s somehow neglecting her family because she has the unending nerve to actually pursue a career. Um, didn’t we dispense with all this talk back in the 80s? Whatever happened to the idea that women can have it all, that they can have a family and a career too? Whatever happened to the idea of choice? If you’re going to say that about Governor Palin, shouldn’t you also be pointing the finger at all the other high-powered women out there who are also juggling families and high-profile jobs? Shouldn’t we have asked this of Hillary Clinton when she ran for office? What about all the women CEOs out there? Nancy Pelosi also has five children, why aren’t we asking the same questions of her?
The reason none of those questions have been asked before is that we’d progressed beyond that point decades ago. Feminism had actually accomplished something – society doesn’t seem to think twice anymore about women having jobs and families too. In fact, most women are praised for it! I can’t tell you how many magazine covers and episodes of Oprah I’ve seen and heard about, praising those successful women who juggle career and family. Why is it that all of this has disappeared overnight? Are we really that fickle? Or have we been two-faced and insincere about this whole feminism thing all along?
I couldn’t be more disgusted right now with this whole mess. And here I thought politics were bad enough as of a few weeks ago; never did I imagine it would get this bad. Never did I think we’d be telling a female political candidate to shut up, put on her apron, and get back in the kitchen. This is 2008! What the hell is everyone thinking!? Can people really not think about this before the words spew out of their mouths? What about all those female news anchors who are repeating this backwards garbage – don’t they have children at home? I even heard Katie Couric say it, she still has young children at home! If she’s saying it about Palin, why isn’t she quitting her job and going back home to her own children too? Cause come on, fair is fair, right?
I seriously can’t believe everything that’s happened. Is the world really so messed up, are we really all so angry, that we can’t even be civil anymore? So single-minded that we can’t even keep our own ideals straight? Do our political persuasions run so deep that we contradict our own sacred ideals at a moment’s notice? Is getting one man elected to the office of President really worth setting society back decades, contradicting our own hopes for equality, and generally looking like a bunch of hypocritical idiots?
Perhaps more importantly, should we be asking, is it even necessary? Why are these attacks even happening? If Obama is such a wonderful hope for change, if he’s truly the best candidate, isn’t there a better way to show support for him and get him elected? Can’t we all just handle ourselves with a bit more decorum, please?
I don’t give a crap who you’re voting for this election – so long as you vote for the candidate with whom you most closely agree on the issues, more power to you. That’s all I hope for in an election, that everyone makes an educated vote with the most honest of intentions. If you really agree with Obama on all the issues, then I applaud you for voting and for sticking with your ideals, morals, and political opinions. Personally, I still don’t know who I’m voting for, but I can say that this behavior sickens me. Perhaps the worst part is that Obama himself has decried these sorts of attacks, and yet they haven’t stopped.
This isn’t about whether or not you agree with the choices Governor Palin has made with regard to her own family. This is about the right to choose; the right of any woman in this country to make her own decisions about her life, her family, and her career. This is about men and women being held to the same standard. This is about tolerance and equality at their most basic level. Please, ask yourself, is this really how we want to elect anyone? If Mr. Palin were the politician, would we be asking the same questions & making the same outlandish accusations? Is this what our democratic process has sunk to? Are we, as a nation, really this petty, insincere, and childish? I sure hope not, because this isn’t the America I love, and I, for one, am extremely disappointed. Please, vote for whomever you wish, but surely we can still be civil, fair, and not betray our own integrity at same time. Or is that too much like asking someone to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Update – 09/08/08: Wow. Just. Wow. So a friend just told me something in response to this blog entry and I just had to post it. Did you know that a week before the Democratic National Convention, a lawsuit was filed against Barack Obama, and that the suit also names the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission? The lawsuit claims that Barack Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and that he maintained Indonesian citizenship well into adulthood. This little tidbit was all but ignored by the media.
Even if these claims are absolute crap – sort of like some of the other claims we’ve heard recently – isn’t this something that the news should be covering, whilst also mentioning all the other things they’ve brought up about Sarah Palin and the baby that supposedly isn’t hers? I certainly would have liked to hear about this…
Flame me if you want for questioning why this story wasn’t covered by the news, but just know that I’m not posting this in an attempt to vilify Barack Obama. Like I’ve said a million times before, I am going to be basing my vote on where the candidates stand on certain issues and how that compares to my own personal opinions about what I think would be best for me, my family, and this country. I’m doing my best to look past the hype, the personality, and what the media tells me I should do. My only hope is that you do the same with your vote, even if that means disagreeing with me. I’m posting this little tidbit as further evidence that there is something rotten in the state of journalism today. Vital information – from both sides – is getting left out and we’re the ones getting hurt. Important social ideals are being tossed aside, tolerance is getting ripped apart, civility is all but forgotten, and every bit of journalism has been transformed into an op-ed piece. Isn’t it about damn time we stood up and said we’ve had enough?
You said it, “her right to choose”. Governor Palin is for that right when it applies to her family, but not when it applies to anyone else’s, and that’s the problem. Her life is a direct contradiction to her positions. She’s for abstinence-ONLY education and has a pregnant teenage daughter. She’s against abortion is ALL cases, even rape and incest.
I don’t care about how messed up her own family is, the enormous debt she compiled while mayor or anything else about her, even her gender. She’s wrong about everything that matters. She’s regressive in every way, and I wish people would focus on that instead of gossip. She’s unfit for any office (one of her first acts as mayor was to try to ban books at the local library for crying out loud), and I’m happy that I have another option this November.
I agree, we should be focusing on other issues – her positions on important policies. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
And no, I was not talking about abortion when I was talking about her choice. Abortion is a political issue in this election, I would understand if that’s what the pundits and the media were talking about. Instead, they’re talking about Sarah Palin being a “bad mother” for daring to work while having children. They’re insulting her out the wazoo, calling her a bad, neglectful parent, for doing nothing different than Nancy Pelosi has done. These are attacks outside the realm of political opinions and platforms, and that’s what I’m talking about in my entry. Not abortion, not other issues. If people were talking about that, I’d be happy. But they’re not. And that’s what bothers me.
But it also bothers me that people are fine with their ideals – in this case, feminism – until it’s inconvenient to hold onto them. That really bothers me.
I’m not saying that I’m pro-Sarah Palin. I disagree with her a lot too, *especially* about abortion. But disagreeing is no excuse to be personally vindictive and venomous by calling her – or anyone else for that matter – a neglectful mother, as so many pundits have. That’s what I have a problem with. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with someone’s political persuasions, this is about treating others with the respect and dignity that they deserve as human beings. Isn’t that what tolerance is about – acknowledging that others have the right to their opinions too? Just because I disagree with her about abortion doesn’t mean I have the right to start insulting her as a person for the personal choices she has made about her life and her family.
I also just want to add, just to be painfully clear, none of this is in any way an endorsement of Sarah Palin or the McCain campaign. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing or recommending their campaign, I’m not encouraging anyone to vote for them. The only thing I’m trying to encourage is a little more basic common decency and civility. In my mind, that’s always been and always will be a bipartisan issue, one that hopefully everyone can agree on, that we could all always be a little more civil and pleasant with each other.
And that’s all I was trying to say.
I’ll agree with your point that no one should be ridiculing her for pursuing a career (even a political one) while having young children at home. It’s her right to have a career and to pursue it to its fullest extent.
However, I do feel it necessary to say that when one of the main contenders in the Democratic primaries was a woman, the GOP pulled the exact same crap. Now, they’re crying “sexism” and “her family is her business” in defense of Palin after bashing Hillary for being “too whiny” and “too soft” in regards to her home life with Bill.
I don’t care what a candidate has in his/her pants. Unless I’m screwing them (and I’m not, unless you count John Edwards), all politicians are sexless to me. What they stand for and what they do in office: that’s all that matters.
On that note, as far as I’m concerned, not a one of the four candidates – for Pres. or VP – is good enough to be town dog catcher, let alone hold executive office. Period.
Jordan – I agree, I think the Republican response to some of the questions Clinton was asked was a bit stupid and over-the-top. (But then again, I do think Clinton got totally steam-rolled – but that’s an entirely different discussion related to sexism, the media, and so on.)
Although honestly, when it comes right down to it, I’m not as familiar with all the different questions Clinton was asked, because I was trying desperately to ignore politics during the primaries. It all got so nasty so fast that I just didn’t want to get stressed out about it, especially considering the rather serious health crap I was wrapped up in at the time. So I can’t say I’m as familiar with that as I should be. I only decided to start looking into politics again during the conventions, cause I figured once all the candidates were actually named there would be some actual policies I could look at beyond just rhetoric and nastiness. Then ta-da, just when I decide to look at it, all this crap blows up.
And then it reminds me why I ignored politics in the first place… 🙂 But so help me, I still want to try to make an educated vote, even if – yet again – we don’t have even close to the best options presented to us.
VERY well put! I only wish I could write HALF as well!
VERY well put! I only wish I could write HALF as well!
Hey Meggers,
I thought you and Kevin would like to know that the book-banning tale is baseless.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/
Wow! Thanks, Sabbrielle! That’s not the first thing I’ve heard about a supposed claim about Sarah Palin turning out to be untrue. The other one I heard was about her supposedly being “abstinence-only” with regard to sex education in public schools. That claim stemmed from an interview where she was asked, “If you had to choose between explicit sex education in schools versus abstinence only, which would you choose?” All she said was, “I’m not for ‘explicit’ anything.” And from that they’re saying she’s “abstinence-only”!
I’m all for discussing issues, but I prefer to get a candidate’s stance on the issues directly from them, and not from random rumors on the Internet. But even if I disagree with a candidate’s opinions, that doesn’t mean I have the right to twist what the candidate said, or worse, just flat-out make crap up.
Well, there’s yet another supposed stance we can chalk up to an over-zealous Internet rumor. Thanks for letting us know!
I would like to refute the claim that the “book-banning tale is baseless.” When Sarah Palin was Mayor of Wasilla she DID indeed try to enact banning and censorship at the public library. She never named any specific books nor was she successful, but she did threaten the chief librarian to resign if she didn’t follow through with Palin’s demands.
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=2008campaign&position=6
(I would also like to point out that you might just want to check the so-called “credentials” of that Michelle Malkin website. She’s clearly a very biased conservative and her snide, derisive comments are in no way representative of true journalism.)
As for Palin’s “abstinence-only” stance on sex education:
“By the way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question:
Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx
Thus, she said “yes” to abstinence-only sex education, not just the fact that she doesn’t support explicit sex-ed.
Michelle – The quotes you just posted are exactly the ones I was paraphrasing above. She did *not* say she was abstinence only when it comes to sex education in public schools, she simply said she wasn’t for “explicit” anything. She’s commented extensively on the questionnaire that started that statement in the first place and has clarified her position repeatedly. In fact, if you listen to her directly, she’s all for abstinence-*based* sex education, but she isn’t saying it should be *only* abstinence. In that specific instance, she was asked to choose between two extremes. But in real life outside of strangely imposed extremes, she’s for a program based in moderation between the extreme right of abstinence-only and the extreme left of handing out condoms like candy. In fact, to further support this, I’d venture to mention that she’s been a long-time member of ‘Feminists for Life’, which is an anti-abortion/pro-contraception organization.
Now, I don’t agree with all her views on abortion, I only bring up her Feminists for Life allegiances to further prove that she has nothing against contraception. Even if you don’t agree with her – as I don’t agree with her – that’s no reason to let others twist her words and proclaim she’s for something when she’s not. I prefer to let the candidates themselves tell me what their stances are on issues, and not let the talking heads speak for them.
That said, this whole thing is so incredibly confusing and I’m so tired of it.
But more than anything else, I’m also tired of people being entirely discounted simply for leaning one way or another. Be it left or right, I’m tired of people saying, “Oh don’t trust them, they’re a republican!” and “Oh don’t trust them, they’re a democrat!” Sigh, even the National Enquirer gets it right sometimes, as we’ve since seen!
I hate politics… no matter what, I don’t think any of my foot stamping will ever get across the point that civility should always be a bipartisan issue, that fairness should be vitally important to all, and that true tolerance should extend to everyone – even those who have the unbelievable nerve as to have differing opinions.
Michelle – So all night I’ve been trying to dig into this book-banning issue to find the truth from a source that has no political leanings. That’s really, really, really tough these days. I honestly just want to know what the truth is, because I’ve heard so many freaking rumors about every candidate that I’m starting to take everything with a grain of salt. And since the media won’t be objective for us, we have to be objective for ourselves, right?
So far the only non-politically-aligned (as far as I know) source that I’ve been able to find is Snopes. And believe me, that thought is incredibly depressing.
According to Snopes, apparently this whole banned books debacle had to do with a policy discussion between Palin and the head librarian. Palin apparently asked a hypothetical question of the librarian, asking what her policy was with regard to requests to ban books. According to people who were there during the second time such a policy question was asked, no books were named, and nothing was said to suggest that any books were considering being banned. That’s it, at least as far as Snopes can tell.
If you want to read it for yourself, check it out here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp
I’m not saying this is for sure the truth, but it’s another source to look at to try and get to the bottom of what’s really going on. I just thought I’d share. Personally, I’m really wary of any rhetoric and sound-bytes coming from either side. Whenever one comes up that happens to be about an issue I care about, I like to dig into it to see what’s really going on. More often than not, a sound-byte is at best an over-simplification, and at worst an outright manipulation of the truth. In this case, based on what little evidence I’ve actually been able to dig up, I’m inclined to believe it might be a little bit of both – perhaps a policy question that’s been taken out of context and misinterpreted? Who knows, but it pays to look at every side and go into this without any preconceived notions of guilt, malicious intent, or villainy.
I don’t know, but based on what real evidence I’ve seen so far that I’ve been able to collect from untainted sources, I don’t see anything malicious and I don’t see anything concrete enough to accuse the woman of banning books. That’d be like accusing the fire department of arson simply because they asked what the proper procedure was for putting out a fire.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
Uh, Heather, that whole citizenship issue is, well, a non-issue. Obama was born in Hawaii after it was admitted as a state. It doesn’t matter where his parents were from, where else he holds citizenship, nada. He was born within U.S. territory as a U.S. citizen, and ergo is eligible to be President.
I figured it was probably rubbish – as I mentioned in my post, it’s probably crap, but still, it seems like something that should have been mentioned in the media. At least, I would think so. But beyond just the Hawaii birth, there’s also a question about him holding onto Indonesian citizenship well into his 20’s, and according to Indonesian law at the time, they didn’t allow dual citizenship. So according to the court papers, it isn’t just about the birth, it’s about tracking down what happened with his citizenship after he was adopted as a minor.
But yeah, it’s probably silly, but these seem like the sort of questions that should be looked into, right? That’s all I was trying to say, not that I believed in it, thought it was true, or any of it. Just that it’s the sort of question that deserves an answer.
Kudos on your strong principles. There definitely is a double-standard among so-called feminists when a Republican or conservative is the topic of discussion. My shout out to Geraldine Ferraro for having some class to speak out about this too.
The talk about Obama’s birthplace is probably rubbish, but it deserves investigation. Ironically, John McCain wasn’t born in the US; he was born overseas on a military base. Congress apparently “fixed” that problem with a resolution, but clearly we should address that little problem in the Constitution.
I don’t stay up at night worrying about where Obama was born, but something more disturbing caught my attention: his campaign has been buying Google search terms associated with this issue. If you Google “Obama birth certificate”, the sponsored link will direct you to the Obama website.
The economist in me says, “So what?” He’s just expressing opinions with his dollars. He’s not merely countering malicious rumors. What troubles me is that he is suppressing them!
I think I’m smart enough to know BS when I see it. Many people aren’t. There are enough liberal lies floating around which some people will swallow hook, line and sinker.
McCain’s campaign has bought keywords too.
What does this say about freedom of speech on the internet?
I’ll grant him the rights to his name, but when the keywords include “muslim”, “birth certificate”, “rezko”, etc., it gets creepy.
Good work on the Chinese gymnast scandal. I too could not find the IOC email address but I did e-mail FIG.
Best regards.