Sherry Davey
You know, the whole Sarah Palin nomination for GOP VP has really got me thinking. Every time I see her, she's posing with her husband and her five children...she's pro-life if you haven't heard already. Well, she must be pro-babysitter and pro-daycare too because who is raising her children while she's busy being Governor of Alaska and now VP hopeful - campaigning all over the place? Why have a big family if you're not intending to raise them? Are all these pictures just more lies being propagated by our society that we can have it all? That we can have whatever we want: tons of children, a happy family and a fabulous career? Is that even possible?
It's not like Sarah is a struggling single mom just trying to put food on the table. We all know many women, divorced and married, with large families (and small ones too) who've had to go back to work (or could never afford to leave to begin with) at some point to support them. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the average family with two children either. This woman has a major political career going. We're not looking at a traditional forty hour work week. I can tell you from my own professional experience being in the public eye (on a much smaller scale of course), her position is a very demanding one. I'm sure, despite what she may say, she works incredible hours and is rarely home. Who really suffers then?
Is her husband a stay-at-home-dad a SAHD? (The H is appropriately silent in this case.) I can't tell from all the information out there whether he is or not. I hope he is, she could surely use the help. In my home, and in the homes of so many of my fellow working mom friends, women are still the primary care givers despite working the same hours as their husbands. I still find my husband on occasion describing his time with Lily while I'm away working as 'babysitting'. I have to remind him that it's not babysitting it's called 'raising' your child. Women are still largely responsible for providing and or coordinating child care. ''We're living in the middle of a stalled revolution,'' said Arlie Hochschild, a sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley. In her recent book ''The Second Shift,'' published by Viking Penguin Inc., she argues that a majority of women shoulder the two burdens of work at home and a paid job outside, a situation that can undermine their and their loved ones' family life, jobs and well-being.
Now some of you are going so say, Sherry Davey who knew you were such a sexist with your double standards?! You dream stealer you. Bear with me here, I'm not trying to be sexist just provocative or maybe just realistic. For centuries, men have had large families with even larger careers. Yes they have you are right. But they weren't also responsible for childcare. Let's face facts, being primary caregivers is the one thing that's held women back since time immemorial or believe me we'd be ruling the world (not just Alaska). Here's the rub, we don't see it as being 'held back' perhaps it's the maternal instinct. Is it? Is that sexist too? I actually think the women's movement was started by a bunch of men who said, "We've got them raising the kids, taking care of our homes and us now let's put them to work as well and we'll call it equality." Thanks. Too bad I'm too tired from all this equality to really appreciate it.
High gas prices aren't the only factor prompting smart, educated women to leave the workforce to raise their children. Polls say, that when it's financially possible, some women are 'opting out' of the workforce to be stay at home moms. Are the daughters of feminism and glass ceiling smashers really choosing domesticity over career? I'm not saying it's right for everyone, I'm not preaching either, maybe these women have just given up on that elusive goal of trying to balance work and home (or their husbands are just really lazy, non-team players). Balancing work and home? What a crock. What balance? The word balance has become like that other dreaded c-word, closure - a platitude, an idea that's more theory than reality, more pressure and guilt for women to heap on themselves. Like sex, we're lucky if we get balance once a week.
In a very roundabout, confused way, what I'm really getting at is this: if one has gone through the trouble of having so many children than shouldn't one raise them? If one is pro-life then shouldn't it follow that one is pro-family and is there for their family? I'm going to be honest with you: I'm a dyed in the wool, liberal Democrat. So I have so many issues with the GOP Veep that I don't even know really where to begin and I don't really want to 'go there' in this blog. I try to stay away from politics....as much as I can. Sometimes it does come up but largely, I just try to be funny. However, I don't like politicians who legislate family policies not raising their families. I think it's the height of hypocrisy. I guess maybe that's why I'm so perturbed by the fact that she went back to work three days after giving birth to a mentally challenged child. I read that on line so it must be true.
However, the issue remains: should women have big families and even bigger careers? Career over domesticity? What do you think? I'd really like to know.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
So if you have a "small" family it is ok to leave them with the sitter? Not "raise" them? Is that really what you are saying, I can hardly believe it. I thought the whole point of "feminism" is so women can choose what they want and not be told. Staying at home is a choice. Working is a choice. Both deserve respect.
BTW I am a single mom with 5 kids!
I appreciate what you've said. It takes guts to stand up and tell the truth - to name things as they really are.
I'm all for having a woman president... honestly, I am. But it is WHICH woman that counts to me and this isn't the one. I find it completely objectionable that this woman would drag her family into the public eye at a time when it is so obviously in need of privacy and her attention.
When Jamie Spears announced her pregnancy, the entire world railed on her AND her mother... yet, according to John McCain, to do the same to Palin and her daughter amounts to sexism and unfair media attack. That's a double standard.
Remember, this is also a woman who, after her water broke, gave a speech, then got on a plane and flew from Texas to Alaska (with a layover in Seattle) -- at 8 months pregnant KNOWING she was going to give birth to a special needs child. First off, you DON'T do such risky things after your water breaks. You DON'T fly after 7 months. You DON'T add risk up like so much extra baggage on what will be a risky birth anyway.
That says something and any mother of more than just a couple of children will tell you that. Later births go much faster than first or second births - what WAS she thinking?
She says she REALLY wanted the child to be born in Alaska. Is this a factor of her interest and participation in the Alaskan Independence Party? A party to endorses Alaska leaving the United States union? Until the McCain party got their site changed, the AIP's website said: "‘I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." [http://newsone.com/elections/article/mccain-camp-changes-akip-website-to-cover-up-for-palin]
Alaska BEFORE the baby? What mother makes those decisions?
And what mother parades her unmarried, pregnant daughter around before millions, even bringing the reluctant dad along? That's just.... wrong, in SO many ways. I'm enlightened. I don't put the teenager down for her situation, whether she marries or not. But good lord... does she NEED such scrutiny? Is she just a political ploy? And while Palin is using her daughter to prove Palin's committment to pro-life stances... what is she showing the world about the idea of "abstinence" as a valid means of birth control?
And what does it say of a man like John McCain -- who has consistently voted against equal pay for women and women's rights -- that he would use this woman to coerce the female vote? I won't judge whether women are or aren't stupid or gullible if they choose to believe the myth of Sarah Palin -- I see the seduction of that message. But are women who choose to elect McCain to get a woman (any woman?) in the White House settling?
And what message exactly is THAT sending to future generations of women?
Getting back to whether someone with so many children can effectively parent AND have such a major career... I guess they can. The real question is whether she can do a decent job of both... or either.
Thanks for posing this question. It's one worth exploring!
it seems hard enough to raise 5 kids, let alone with a job like that. everyone needs help though.
I think you have to understand the entire situation first- and each person's is very different! You can't do both without help and so you really need to evaluate the help you will receive. Will it be enough to raise your family and keep you sane so that you can explore a career? We also need to give more men the benefit of the doubt, they do things differently, but could they be good at this stuff too? My husband is openly not-so-good at being at home with the kids- as are most of my friend's husbands; however, I'm sure there are plenty of husbands who do it with ease. I think we are in a "stalled revolution" for sure- there doesn't seem to be a great answer for these issues. Maybe all of this debate will clear things up for our daughter's generation.