Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Sarah Palin's feminist folly - By Olivia St. John

Olivia laments on women trying to balance family life with a career.
More and more women who work outside the home say they are stressed and overworked. They regret ever having taken the mantle of both motherhood and working outside the home. They have discovered that under the weight of too much responsibility, something has to give – and any honest woman will tell you that it is the children who get the short shrift. After all, the pressure to make a project deadline in a salaried job is greater than the pressure to make time for one's own children.
I have some very big problems with what Olivia wrote! While I am all for having moms and dads more available for their children, in many cases, it will never be a reality. But the one thing is for sure, Olivia doesn't account for the family as a whole. Isn't it BOTH parent's responsibility to raise the kids? Was she just assuming that there is no such thing as a two-parent (a man and a woman) family any more? As a dad, I actually took a few years off from working away from home. I worked from home during the time my kids were growing up as much as I could. In other words, both the moms and dads need to be sharing the responibilities of raising the kids. And that is the major problem I have with Olivia St. John's column. First of all, did she ever once mention the fact that Todd Palin has joint responsibility for raising the children? No! Not even once! And when Sarah gets elected, I'm sure that they'll be making enough money that Todd can take some time off from his occupation to help out. Did she ever think of that? Did she ever mention that sometimes dads are caught up in their professions, and can't share in the responsibilities as they should be? Sure, some dads may be making plenty of money for the mom to stay home with the kids, and possibly homeschool their kids; but does it always allow for the dad to have time with the kids, especially if he has to work two jobs? I guess one other big problem I had with the story is that Olivia is assuming that Sarah Palin is a "feminist". Does she define "feminist" as any woman working outside of the home? I don't know, but moose and caribou hunting, which Sarah Palin does, doesn't sound like the traditional type label of "feminist" to me, but I'm just saying... Just because she has the great abilities to do with what God gave her, does NOT make Sarah Palin a "feminist". Okay, let me get back on track here. Not all parents have any choice but to work. Sometimes it really does take both parents working, sometimes more than one job. And I will agree, that sometimes, people with kids put their jobs/careers ahead of their kids. Or, perhaps they just want to earn a good income so they can send their kids to college? Again, I'll say that it all depends on the parents sharing the responsibilities of "home making", while earning what they can and have the gifts to do to make a living. It really all comes down to this: We all have the choice to balance our careers and our lives with raising a family. Many of us do a fine job, especially in a two-parent family. And some parents fail. And then sometimes families are broken up by divorce or even death. How about that, Ms. St. John? Then what do you say about a mom or dad having to work more and spend less time with the kids? Does that always lead to disfunctional kids? Absolutely not! It can be a challenge, but even single parents can still balance a career with raising kids. Otherwise, why don't we just give welfare to all single parents so that they can stay home and not work, so they can raise their kids, full-time? Olivia St. John needs a jolt - of reality. read more | digg story

2 comments:

  1. In all fairness, Sarah Palin did join an outfit calling itself "Feminists for Life." I gather that that's a flashback to Elizabeth Cady Stanton's original platform, which, by the way, was *against* abortion.

    I imagine that Olivia St. John's point is that a woman's place is in the home, and that only men ought ever occupy civil government office.

    My problem is that I have to balance that against the real possibility that the election of Barack Obama is likely to be the last election that I might as well vote in--because with Obama you will get a Fairness Doctrine on 'roids, and that means that this very blog will be shut down, and the Internet will be limited to Wikipedia and various MSM sites. Result: policy failures will get swept under the rug, and none but a Democrat will ever get elected again.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi John! Good comments! I think that the so called "FEMINIST" movement is mis-named... By definition, an "ism" promotes the root word... which in THIS case should be FEMININITY... or the docile gentle nature that God ordained to dominate in a woman.

    The CORRECT LABEL for these ANTI-femininity freaks should be FEMINOIDS! Because they are an alteration & perversion of all that Femininity should be!

    Olivia ignores these delicate, yet significant details, and would force the EXCEPTIONALLY TALENTED Sarah Palin into a "clone's mold" of a "typical" or Ordinary Woman. This is not fair.

    I is like taking a skilled bowling champ & forcing them to play in a tennis championship, instead. Olivia is speaking with a stunted concept.

    Governor Sarah Palin's gifted skills will not be "stolen" from her family, by serving the nation, any more than was "Joan of Ark," the prophetesses Deborah & Huldah, or in more recent time, Golda Meir!

    To whom much is given, MUCH is required... You Go, Sarah Palin!!!

    John, you have written accurately & well... thanks for "DIGGing" me on this.

    Cheers... and Semper Fi,
    Aerostar

    ReplyDelete