Sep
21st
2008
Hairy-Armpitted Feminists to Palin: Make Todd Dinner!
The feminist tirades against Sarah are mostly so tiresome, but one line of their complaints is really funny. After 40 years of telling wives and mothers to get out of the home (which Betty Friedan called “a comfortable concentration camp”), put their children in day care (tax-funded, of course) and join the workforce, these same feminists now tell Sarah to stay home with her children.
Read the whole thing: Phyllis Schlafly: Feminists Against Palin – Shame on You.
Thank you for posting this oh-so-true article. One of the few moderates (okay, conservatives by their standards) in academia, I know this all too well.
Yes the hypocrisy of the feminists is evident in this kind of statements.
But, I think it’s pretty convenient that we conservatives (and I recognize that I may be speaking only for myself–but I suspect not), who have long believed that a family is best off when a capable mother is raising the children, are suddenly ardent defendant’s of a woman’s equality in the workplace.
I think Palin will be brilliant in what she does, and realize that she has a right to dictate her personal future. But if she were my wife, I think I would prefer that she were not the vice president, but rather were teaching and guiding our children.
Obviously the femenists are simply adjusting their ideology to fit the current political convenience, but I think we are too. And I think I actually agree with their bottom line–Palin would best serve her family by actually raising it.
I just re-read my post. I need to me a more ardent ‘defendant’s’ of a grammar check.
Everyone has to make their own decisions. Palin was only a part time news correspondent so she could spend more time with her children. Yet people try to use the fact that she did not rack up more political experience against her.
What I think is interesting is that a females children are brought so much more into an election debate than a males children.
Lambert:
I agree that the females’ families are more in the spotlight. For me it’s somewhat of a religious (read reactionary?) view that a woman best serves her family in the home and a man best serves his family by bringing home the bacon (obviously there are exeptions). And I think that has been the traditional mainstream American view. So I guess that is why people scrutinize working women more than working men–becasue traditionally, a man is “supposed” to be working. Fair or not, i think that’s what’s happening.
However, while I think a candidate should be able to weather criticisms about their choices concerning their family, I agree that I don’t think it’s fair to delve into the choice of, say, a 17 year old who is not running for office.
i couldn’t care less about that, actually.
she would still do this, only as vice president, it would be from an undisclosed location.
they don’t think any woman best serves her family by raising it, with the exception of palin. that’s why it’s dumb to agree with them, because they don’t make sense.
i agree that her family would be better off in the short term with her undivided attention. mine would be better off with me around, too, but they can’t have me since i have to be gone 10-12 hours a day earning my meager salary. i’m sure that after four or eight years, the palin family will be just fine, retired to some permafrost ranch in wasilla with a lifetime VP emeritus stipend and full-time secret service protection.
but the whole country (her family included) will be better off after her service, because there will finally have been someone other than an old white man in that position, and maybe some good changes will come of that.