Working Moms on Palin?

[Anonymous]

The media is making much ado over Palin being a working mom and whether this will hinder her abilities as a VP (and I looked at the forum to see if anyone asked this and if it came up in later threads then I apologize). I personally am a working mom with two young children and find it hard to balance with an 8-5 job. I always admire women who can do more. My question I guess is what other moms out there think? Personally, I am a Democrat and am not voting for McCain for reasons that have nothing to do with him choosing Palin. I just don't like McCain. However, as a mom, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of talk that we'd vote for her because we relate. I just don't get it. To me that makes us seem shallow and unable to look at someone for any other reason than their status as a parent in my opinion. Am I the only one getting that feeling out there? I want to hear her talk about substance: affordable daycare, longer FMLA for both parents (and possibly mandating that some of it be paid leave), health care coverage for a family that includes dental and eye and is still affordable, capping or at least curtailing the increase in higher education because I won't be able to send my kids to college at the rate things are going, putting child predators away and throwing away their keys, keeping my kids out of a war in a foreign country, being able to afford a house... THAT is what matters.

[Anonymous]

Opinions of her as a working mom and whether someone with five kids should accept a job like VP have varied greatly, strongly correlated to political outlook of the poster. But as to Palin's stand on issues of special interest to mothers, I think the only one is that if you or your teenage daughter get pregnant, you are supposed to have the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to hear her talk about substance: affordable daycare, longer FMLA for both parents (and possibly mandating that some of it be paid leave), health care coverage for a family that includes dental and eye and is still affordable, capping or at least curtailing the increase in higher education because I won't be able to send my kids to college at the rate things are going, putting child predators away and throwing away their keys, keeping my kids out of a war in a foreign country, being able to afford a house... THAT is what matters.

Palin would argue that a economy strong, with reliable supplies of energy, and a strong military to keep us safe are the best ways for you to

1. afford daycare (strong employment)
2. afford health care
3. afford higher education
4. afford the house

Further, she would argue that making business foot the bill for paid FMLA is a hidden tax increase, and while all would suffer, small businesses would be hurt the most because they have to hire to replace staff on FMLA, and they end up with double payroll expenses.

Strong, no excuses law enforcement is a Republican strength, and your kids don't have to go to a foreign war - we have an all volunteer military.

Now, if what you want to hear is the govt. will subsidize daycare, mandate universal health care to be paid for out of our taxes (which would have to go up), subsidize higher education not just for the poor but the middle class too (more taxes), and provide tax breaks, incentives (others pay more taxes to make up for your breaks) then Obama is your man.

To me in a nut shell - do we want the govt to do for us or do we want to do for ourselves? The real world is somewhere in the middle, but when govt programs and legislation that provides for no income taxation apply to one third of the population already (the other 2/3s carrys them) I thing the pendulum may have swung too far. Just my opinion, we have elections to see which opinions are held by the majority and the minority goes along for the ride until the next time...

[Anonymous]

Have you not been reading the jillions of threads here on this very topic?

[Anonymous]

To the last poster, PP here and I did start my thread with this statement: "The media is making much ado over Palin being a working mom and whether this will hinder her abilities as a VP (and I looked at the forum to see if anyone asked this and if it came up in later threads then I apologize)"

Obviously with so few replies, I didn't read far enough into the threads but I didn't feel like reading 2-3 pages into most of them and thought this forum was to put things out there for discussion, repetitive or not. This is why I like the listserv so much better than the anonymous forum and doubt I come back here again anytime soon. Thanks for reinforcing that.

To the person who answered so many of my points, thank you. I may disagree on most (I don't think that the government is responsible for taking care of all of those). However, so many things are becoming out of reach for most Americans on a budget that I just wonder what can be done to help level it all out. College tuition has gone up 40% in the last 10 years alone for a 4 year college. That is causing more and more people to take out loans to pay for college and thus we are saddling ourselves with more and more debt to afford a basic education. I don't have any answers nor do I think any one party or candidate has all of the answers. People in general can't afford these days what our parents considered the basic American Dream: a home, a good education to get ahead and to provide for your children. How the government helps address these is irrelevant to me. Be it a strong economy which we don't have now, a safe country which I would argue we don't have now, or a strong education system which I would say is only strong for those who can afford it. I wish we could have these discussions without a political angle on them. I've picked my party affiliation based on the lesser of two evils which is just sad.

[Anonymous]

so who did you pick?

[Anonymous]

College tuition has gone up 40% in the last 10 years alone for a 4 year college. That is causing more and more people to take out loans to pay for college and thus we are saddling ourselves with more and more debt to afford a basic education.

I went to college 25 years ago and I took out loans, both govt. backed and private, to pay the bills, plus worked either part time (1st 3 years) or full time (only way to finish up) at the same time. This is NOT a new challege IMO. I was 34 years old when I finally stopped paying for college - but the college experience has definitely been a positive in my career earnings so I consider it a worthwhile investment.

Anonymous wrote: Be it a strong economy which we don't have now, a safe country which I would argue we don't have now, or a strong education system which I would say is only strong for those who can afford it.

My 3 children have been well served by good public schools, but we moved to get to them. We cannot walk out our door to metro, shopping, etc. Was the trade off of urban living worthwhile - yes.

Anonymous wrote: I wish we could have these discussions without a political angle on them. I've picked my party affiliation based on the lesser of two evils which is just sad.

No disagreement there! I cannot figure out why it is so hard to meet in the middle and work out acceptable compromises.

[jsteele]

To OP (who is also PP if nobody posts before I finish this), you are correct that repetitive threads are allowed and I encourage you to stick with this forum and discussion. I'm sorry that we have a few individuals like the one who asked if you've seen other threads to make things unpleasant.

I am confused by your statement saying "How the government helps address these is irrelevant to me". Obviously government policies will affect all the issues you listed. For instance, Obama does have a specific plan for addressing college and university costs.

[Anonymous]

kakki wrote:

I disagree with Sarah Palin on many issues but I admit I got a bit misty-eyed seeing her cradle her baby on the stage of a national convention where she was accepting the vp nomination. How can they justify keeping working moms out of CEO spots after that??

On the misty-eyed remark, I didn't appreciate the desperation of the RNC to play on my emotions. Maybe their base is that stupid, but I am not. I don't want people in office based on my emotional needs and exploiting them. I want people in office because they have the faculties, experience, ability to get people behind an idea, etc.

On the CEO remark, as with many job opps one finds and obtains, currently, it's called the Old Boy Network. I believe women are very capable of doing what men do, if not better, but even today, there are clubs that prohibit membership to people of certain genders and ethnicities. I'd say many of the professional opportunities & business deals are discussed within the walls of these clubs, whether you're teeing off or shootin' the shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the last poster, PP here and I did start my thread with this statement: "The media is making much ado over Palin being a working mom and whether this will hinder her abilities as a VP (and I looked at the forum to see if anyone asked this and if it came up in later threads then I apologize)"

Obviously with so few replies, I didn't read far enough into the threads but I didn't feel like reading 2-3 pages into most of them and thought this forum was to put things out there for discussion, repetitive or not. This is why I like the listserv so much better than the anonymous forum and doubt I come back here again anytime soon. Thanks for reinforcing that.

I'm the PP who asked about the jillion threads. I understand the wish to not read through those very long threads; at the same time, opening new threads to discuss a question that has been dissected a thousand different ways frustrates me at times because it pushes those ongoing and often lively discussions down in the queue. It also seems that many threads related to Palin are introduced either as satire or sarcasm, or perhaps to just be combative, and it's often difficult to understand which threads meet that description and which are sincere questions or discussion topics. I truly didn't intend to be dismissive but I see that I was and I apologize for my rudeness. Too little sleep and too much caffeine, but those aren't excuses for rudeness.

One thing that strikes me very strongly about the support some of my independent and moderate women friends are expressing for Palin is their sense that she's doing what they've been doing all along without making a big deal out of it. They certainly see her as a strong role model for women. They don't view themselves or her as feminists necessarily because they view that word as belonging to the world of women's studies departments and pro-choice marches (and as a psychologist and academic I definitely have a foot in that world). But they have always cycled into and out of the work force, they have joined the PTA to try to affect the quality of education their children receive in the public schools, and they relate to Palin in that sense. As far as the candidates' views on women's issues or family issues driving the election, they never do. Ever. This has long been a source of frustration to me, but it's a reality. Obama has spoken far less about family issues, women's issues, and environmental issues than I would have liked. Hillary Clinton didn't raise most of the issues that I see as basic to feminism until her withdrawal speech. I really regretted that. This speaks to a core problem I have with feminism, which is that we allowed ourselves to adopt a male-based model of "success" and "equality" that didn't really go to the concerns most women have in their hearts, about family and work-family balance and the value of raising children in American society.

Stepping off my soapbox now. Again, apologies for being dismissive of the OP.

[Anonymous]

I was happy to see the OP post this since the other threads on Palin are sooooo long. I don't have time to wade through a thread that's 100 entries long to see if it's touching on an aspect of the general Palin topic that I find interesting (like OP's subject).

I also have to say it disturbs me that she is so determined to do it all without help. If she can govern a state, cook her family's meals, maintain her own house, and raise 5 kids, the implication is that anyone else should be able to do the same. That sets an impossible standard, especially for working moms not lucky enough to have family nearby to help or flexibility, for instance, to nurse a baby during meetings or keep his crib in their office.

I totally agree with this. I did not find it encouraging that she was back at work so soon after having her last 2 kids - I don't want to be expected to show up at the office within a week after having children. This is not a helpful reference point to have held up.

[Anonymous]

kakki wrote:I also have to say it disturbs me that she is so determined to do it all without help. If she can govern a state, cook her family's meals, maintain her own house, and raise 5 kids, the implication is that anyone else should be able to do the same. That sets an impossible standard, especially for working moms not lucky enough to have family nearby to help or flexibility, for instance, to nurse a baby during meetings or keep his crib in their office.

I agree with this 100%. It reminds me of the partner at my old law firm who went out of his way to tell pregnant associates that his wife was back to work a week after having their son. My concern is that Palin's choices will be used as a weapon against other working women.

On a related note, I've learned from this board that if a fellow mom's life looks too perfect, there's often something lurking beneath the surface she's not sharing. I say this not as a "mean girl" or cynic, but as someone who's read a bunch of anonymous posts from other DCUMs saying exactly that. While Palin presents herself as someone who "has it all" (and at the same time, no less), my gut tells me there are multiple cracks in that facade. Starting with her pregnant 17 year old daughter, of course . . . .

[Anonymous]

as a working mom with 2 children, one of which has special needs, I would not vote for Palin, BECAUSE she presents herself as the "has it all" woman. Let her run again when her special needs kid is older and then she, who cut funding for exactly these kids, can tell if she has it all and can keep it together ON HER OWN.

I agree 100% with the previous PPs.

btw, in a way she is kinda haunted.... just as she reduces funding for special needs kids and teenage moms, experiences both, probably thinking this could never happen to her. God works in strange ways, doesn't he?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:btw, in a way she is kinda haunted.... just as she reduces funding for special needs kids and teenage moms, experiences both, probably thinking this could never happen to her. God works in strange ways, doesn't he?

The comments about Palin suggest you are a liberal. The fact that you call God "he" suggests you're not a feminist. But the fact that you did not capitalize suggests an agnostic.

That was just an attempt to be helpful to anyone who might want to attack, so she'd know what epithets to use.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for preparing me for facing my attackers