Skip to comments.Sarah Palin Shows Her Feminist Stripes
Posted on 11/09/2010 3:15:17 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
In an ever-changing society, one of the things we humans can depend on is that children dont change. They come in to this world the same way they did one hundred years ago with the exact same set of needs. Having a parent, particularly a mommy, at home to care for them is one of them.
But dont tell Sarah Palin that. According to her, those who believe moms should stay home with their kids are Neanderthals who need to get with it and evolve.
Until now, Ive been largely silent about Sarah Palin.
I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt because conservatives are in desperate need of a spokesperson. Sure, Palins unpolished and not what I would call an intellect but neither was President Reagan. Indeed, there are other important qualities for public office besides intellect as Barack Obama is proving in spades.
But as the author of two books on the subject of feminism, I cannot remain silent in light of Palins foolish comment on Fox...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
The former governor of the largest state in the union somehow struck him or you or whomever as a stay at home mom??
Because they can’t do what she does while taking care of her family; they are saying - she’s not doing it. The article doesn’t mention the father but they did mention Levi. Not difficult to see where the author’s head is at.
Wonder how this woman feels about Maggie Thatcher.
And I am sure there are other women who served the world as well as their children.
Women have always worked, except for a brief period in the 1950s when women were supposed to be the lady of the manor if they were well off (playing golf and bridge all day), or, if they weren’t well off, mom-as-live-in-help who dreamed only of new floor-cleaning products.
The farmer’s wife worked, the merchant’s wife worked, and the wife of the banker usually ran households large enough to require bookkeepers. Many of them, like their husbands, worked in what was the equivalent of a home office, living over the store or doing their work on the kitchen table. They might have been more physically present - but then, their husbands were usually not flying off on road-trips or spending all day or week elsewhere, either, and also were more physically present.
Women have always had to work out the issue of childcare and work, just in a different form.
“Palins unpolished and not what I would call an intellect but neither was President Reagan.”
Stopped reading right there.
No bias. Right?
No, she was villified using all of the stereotypes she mentioned because she is a conservative woman of her own mind who also was free to express her responsibilities as a wife and mother while also being a political icon. Even more so to have a husband that recognizes her skills and talents who works as a team member for the family and the betterment of them all.
What scares the hell out of liberals, progressives and the rest of the socialist label scum, is that she is not tied up,nice and neat, in a box they can assail when it suits their needs to tell everyone else that she is an aboration. She is the personification of an individualist and she wears it proudly.
And President Reagan was not an “intellect”?
Yes, Sarah was attacked unmercifully because she is a Conservative, but they could not possibly have attacked her in the heinous ways they did if she was NOT a woman...and a mother...who probab;y spends MORE time with her children than most moms, stay at home or otherwise.
This crap gets on my last nerve. And whoever “wrote” this wouldn’t have written it either if Sarah was a good ole boy.
Susan should have stuck with “pretty much staying silent.” It would have been better to simply think those foolish thoughts than to put them down in print and prove it.
I forced myself to continue reading - then Levi was thrown it - yep, Suzy turns to the another expert like herself. Everyone wants to cash in on the Sarah name, write a blog or a book.
susan, what’s the dif? Yah!
I agree with Sarah Palin on this, and hers is pretty clear reasoning.
She basically said that “women don’t like to be told what to do, and they especially resent being told that they aren’t raising their children right; especially by men waxing philosophical.”
That’s spot on. The vast majority of women with children in the US have this or a similar attitude.
Seriously, imagine the response of a typical woman to one of these statements:
“You shouldn’t be working. You should be at home raising your kids.”
“You shouldn’t be ‘just’ a housewife. You should put your kids in day care and get a job.”
“You shouldn’t try to be a ‘supermom’, and both work and take care of your kids. You should do one or the other.”
Typically, I imagine most women would respond by telling you to take your opinion, sit on it and spin.
First lie: Palin’s book about feminism?
I don’t see Palin’s first book as “feminism” at all. I read it.
THE REST OF THE ARTICLE IS THEREFORE “DUMB”! SORRY!
I think any adult telling another adult ‘what they think’ they should do w/their life shows one certainly has control issues. Suzy making a judgement call on a wife, former governor, mom of 5, one in the military, best selling author, the list goes on is really over the top, IMO.
It’s her way of getting attention for her new book.
Suzy - see a shrink! Maybe Levi can help you.
Women do not stop engaging the world just because they are parenting.
Some do it to a greater extent than others, but all continue to live IN the world.
And this twit dares to call Reagan a non-intellect?
This is one of those instances where largely keeping ones mouth shut would be really good thing. The author of this piece should have heeded her own advice.
When a person who insults the intellect of Ronald Reagan while at the same time finds themself agreeing with Levi Johnston, the person has a intellect deficit.
This woman is jealous. Jealousy can make people do stupid things. She was offended when Palin defended herself from the attacks that she should stay home. So she is lashing out.
I don’t think Palin intended to offend stay at home Moms, but was defending those who can do both.
A word to the wise for Palin, stay away from this feminist stuff. Women don’t have to defend themselves anymore for having careers. Ignore those that try to pick at you and tell you to stay home. They are few. You don’t have to respond to every attack. Sometimes ignoring those people is the best response.
The term ‘intellect’ is thrown around by the ‘educated elite’. They cannot conceive that an individual, who has not studied and learned (by rote) approved materials in an ‘accredited’ setting (aka brain-washing) has merit.
This attitude, of course, shows a level of stupidity which can only be acquired in the institutes of higher learning.
Didn’t DAvid Horowitz write this?
I think any adult telling another adult what they think they should do w/their life shows one certainly has control issues.
You just described Minnesota! People who hardly know you will get in your face, and use the condescending “mommy tone” (it’s called “Minnesota Nice” - I’d rather go back to New Jersey!) to tell you how to run your life.
I do a lot of my work at home, using AutoCAD and PLC programming software. I just got a lecture that I got suckered into one of those “work at home” scams - stuffing envelopes, etc. Right. Today I am going to a chemical plant to go over where some new pumps and valves are to be installed so I can do the design and the PLC program. Nope, the nanny says that I’m in a “work at home” scam.
And that’s just one of the lecture topics I get from Minnestoopids. This is control fr
So dumb they need(ed) something like the Constitution in order to make decisions involving their actions. Obama, on the other hand, has gone way beyond the Constitution! He's such a genius! He's read Karl Marx...!
No, it was written by Suzanne Venker. It is her opinion and not David Horowitz’z opinion.
Good grief, such hyperbole.
Palin's complaint about a few is transformed into a blanket condemnation.
No, he didn’t. He probably wished he did. He was against Christine O’Donnell in the most childish way and he probably hates Palin too. I’m finished with him and his blog.
“except for a brief period in the 1950s when women were supposed to be the lady of the manor if they were well off (playing golf and bridge all day), or, if they werent well off, mom-as-live-in-help who dreamed only of new floor-cleaning products”
And don’t forget that some of the 50s moms were playing the role of Rosie the Riveter while their husbands/fathers/fiances fought WWII!
Many. Some have their mothers (figurately) ready to clobber them if they don't watch their mouths. Those will say, "Bless your heart, honey, you're so cute!"
But some women will go into a tizzy because someone is not Affirming Their Choices by agreeing that no other choices exist ... and then they'll end up like this writer: catty, judgmental, and envious.
LOL! Have a Guinness (for medicinal purposes, of course)!
David was aftrer O’Donnell in a childish way? He did work for her and she promised to pay him. She didn’t until she wanted to run again.
How is that childish? He could have done a Rovelike attack, but didn’t.
Seems to me that when you ask someone to do a job for you and make a payment agreement, you should pay them after they do the job.
How is that childish?
The author will tell everyone when "childrens'needs" are not being met and what moms priorities should be.
The arrogance of this author is beyond belief.
I have always thought that the 1950’s “ideal housewife” was basically a reaction to the 1940s, when a lot of women found themselves having to work in uncongenial environments and jobs, partly because of the war effort and partly because their husbands were away for a long time (and a GI’s pay wasn’t exactly generous!).
I remember the good old days when we could agree that children, especially young children were best served if at least one parent stayed home to care for and nurture them, and that in most cases the female of the species was best suited for that task.
I don’t think Palin was saying anything different, so I think the article is off-base. But it disturbs me a bit to see so many people assuming Palin WAS saying differently, and defending what I believe to be their misunderstanding of what she said.
The Palin family seems very in tune with parents raising their children rather than running off and leaving them to care-givers, at least until they are old enough to start caring for themselves (I suppose an argument could be made that Bristol wasn’t as ready to be left on her own as she might have been expected to be).
So rather than agree or disagree with the article, or suggest Palin herself thinks any differently, I’ll simply say that children need their biological parents. There is a special bond that isn’t fully understood but that is well-documented between genetic offspring and their parents, and it is in a loving environment with contact with biological parents that a child is most nurtured and strengthened to be a productive and positive member of society.
I understand that families are not always perfect, that sometimes women have no choice but to work even without a father available to take over the home duties; but a lot more women think they need to work for various reasons, and I think the next generation is suffering because of our focus on two-parent employment, not the least of which is the message kids get that money is more important than family.
Actually you could. You just don't want to.
It’s an Op Ed piece: All bias by definition.
Suzanne Venker, aka "No Bull Mom," is an author, blogger, and speaker. In addition to blogging for Right Pundits, Suzanne is a featured writer at David Horowitz's NewsReal.
Suzanne's writing tends toward the provocative -- as evidenced by her first book, 7 Myths of Working Mothers, which argues that young children and demanding careers are incompatible.
Women more often worked at home or around the farm.
Women and careers is a definite late 20th century idea...a half century I have lived btw and watched change with my own eyes
It’s an indulgence or maybe a freedom...nowadays it gives couples simply more money...a bigger home, better vacations and maybe private school
Prior to modern appliances and professional volunteer armies...women were busy cooking on less efficient stoves, washing by hand, canning and prepping food stores, sewing and all sorts of thing to keep a home running wihc required a lot of time each day.
For the record, I prefer a mom at home with kids when they are young...by middle school should she wish or if the family needs it then by all means work but this notion that being home is not good enough or antiquated is poppycock and if Sarah said that then she is wrong.
I support her and consider her an exceptional female in a precise use of that word but I do find things she utters I don’t like and this and girl power are part of that.
that crime of discrimination against minorities and women thing the left always harps on...so many drink the koolaid...everything up until the new reality that anyone under 40 here knows and believes in was wrong and ...mean..lol
Um, wives and mothers have been assisting with small business operations ever since restaurants and shoe manufacturing and dress Shops, and ... well, you get the picture. The war years amplified the reliance upon women power to operate businesses and manufacturing.
in an urban environment yes...my grandmother was a drapery seamstress at JC Penneys for years in the 50s and 60s and 70s .. after her children left home btw.. but there is no doubt that home appliance revolution freed women to work outside the home as much as anything
but this must have a career notion is relatively new...before feminism women had jobs occasionally..like men...not careers.
I am dealing with this as we speak...with my two daughters and sitters we have known for 5-8 years...
these young women get educated for 100,000s of dollars depending on school and expect to get married and have kids too and have it all and they get conflicted
you have to educate them or they get left behind socially..but it’s expensive
most I know aside from docs...and even some of them...are listening more to their bodies and hearts and not fembot culture and are looking to have babies before 30 and to stay home if they can..which begs why did I spend 250,000 dollars on that Masters?
almost without exception of folks I know...those women who can afford to stay home but don’t are liberals who have something to prove or feel that being a stay at home mom is beneath them
I support stay at home moms..unless folks are impoverished. I’m married to one who gave up a good paying job to be at home and mom to our brood and I love that...it’s better for the kids.
I saw that interview with Palin...it was not exactly like this writer portrays it but Sarah is a bit fembot...no question of that...but unlike most she likes men too.
It’s a part of her I try to ignore...no one is perfect..if she gets too dogmatic about it I will get less enthusiastic.
I find her exceptional...distinct from most women in her ability to lead or inspire...but I can do without Girl Power rah rah
btw...where I live outside Franklin...most moms are home or work out of the home...those we know in grade school anyhow...kept down by neanderthal husbands no doubt....
That view is not uncommon in the social conservative movement.
I will only go so far as to say that it is better for children to be raised by their parents, and that in most cases where I read about families who “have” to have the mothers working, it appears to be a choice, not a necessity.
Single mothers are often stuck with no other choice — which is why I don’t think single motherhood is a good choice for children (or single fatherhood for that matter).
In our family, I offered to quit my job if my wife wanted to work, but she did not, and has only gone back to work on a part-time basis now that the children are older. I have the advantage (by choice) of living close to home and having a job that allows me flexibility to take time when needed with the children.
We all make choices in our lives, and I think it’s good for people to be able to discuss their opinion of those choices.
My guess is that if this writer hadn’t invoked Sarah Palin, the conversation in this thread would have been much different.
If Sarah Palin came out tomorrow arguing for abortion, I have no doubt that a good number of freepers would be defending her position. Worse, if a left-wing rag SAID she had come out supporting abortion, a good number of freepers would believe it AND defend it, rather than rightly questioning whether the author really understood what Palin was saying.
I’ve always been a great admirer of Horowitz despite a dear friend warning me off him because he had once worked with Mr. Horowitz years ago.
DH did not have to go on tv and trash talk about the money that was owed him by Christine. It looked childish and silly and vindictive. He was obviously directed by Rove to do this smear. I wonder how many MEN owe DH money but he keeps his mouth shut and quietly draws a line through the debt.
I stick by what I said: he behaved in a childish and unprofessional way.
I didn’t see him on TV. It would be a lie to say the COD didn’t have some baggage out there. People she may have po’ed over money and stuff like that, I can understand why they may have a problem with her.
There is a lesson to be learned here. Many young people are going to be in trouble if they want to run for office in the future. What they post on the internet, who they have business dealings with, are going to be really hard to hide.
I heard Horowitz say he didn’t make a deal out of it because he would still prefer the way she would vote over Coons.
I don’t think that is childish.
He is on a local radio show here once a week. I haven’t heard him say anything bad about Palin.
I do know Jed Babbin thinks she is a goofball.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.