Palin: The Bad Mother
July 12, 2009
by Monica Jean Alaniz
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessarily The New Agenda.
Many of us are still unclear as to why Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska. I know that I am. One thing that seems apparent to me is that Gov. Palin has not actively sought the spotlight since her resignation; if anything the media has sought her out, wanting answers to questions that many of us have.
Whether Gov. Palin resigned for personal family reasons, a desire to make sure her state had the best representative in office, or financial reasons, we should respect her decision. Leave her alone already. If she wants to fish with her family, let her fish with her family.
Yes, there is disappointment that one of the most recognizable female figures has decided to step down from office (even if I don’t hold the same political views that she does). What I can’t understand is the backlash that she is receiving from other women, particularly Washington Post reporter Sally Quinn.
In her article entitled Palin’s Peculiar Family Values, Quinn, once a strong Palin supporter, attacks Palin about her commitment and dedication as a mother. The blurb used by The Washington Post for this article goes so far as to state, “Sarah Palin should have resigned as Alaska governor for one reason only: To care for her special needs son.”
The article goes on to badger Gov. Palin for the way she handled her family and political career. It accuses her of using her family, putting her political career before her family, exploiting her children to advance her political career, and even of exploiting the fact that her son has Down Syndrome.
I find this article disturbing, sad, and it angers me on several levels.
As pointed out previously on blogs written for The New Agenda (Our Children are Off Limits!!! and Dear Neal Conan and NPR, Is This Really Normal? ) the attack on Palin’s son Trig have been more than a bit insulting. To my knowledge Gov. Palin does not go around mentioning her special needs child as a center point of her speeches or interviews. If anything, she treats him the same as her other children. He’s part of the group.
Quinn points out how Trig was on the stage with Gov. Palin and her family during the Republican National Convention and how this made Gov. Palin a bad mother due to the fact that a baby shouldn’t be up at that time. What should Palin have done? Hide her child away? What kind of message would that have sent? I would hope we no longer live in a time where we hide away relatives with disabilities.
Palin is being attacked for her parenting skills, not her policies or role as a politician. We have never questioned male candidates like this. It’s all right for male candidates to be absent from their children lives, or vice versa, tag their children along when they happen to be there on the campaign trail or photo-ops. In fact, many times they are praised for including their children and point out what good fathers they are. But, in the case of a woman candidate, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If you take the kids along, you’re a bad mother for exploiting them; if you leave your kids at home, you’re a bad mother for neglecting them.
Why does the media continue to do this? Why can’t they focus on the real issues such as candidates’ stances on political issues that are important to the public?
Keep the little women in their place, by golly by gosh!
In total agreement that Palin is generally being unfairly attacked, especially when it comes to her family.
However, there are many – so many – women in politics at the local, state and federal level and within the Obama administration, don’t these women deserved some focus too? The ratio of articles on HRC and Palin seem overwhelming – and I am a big HRC fan – that I believe we single these two women out for media coverage – good and bad – while women working on health care (Kathleen Sebelius), equal opportunity in employment (Hilda Solis), advancement in business (Ilene H. Lang), etc. get very little coverage and support. Don’t we have their backs too?
Sara Palin is a bootstrap woman. I know many such women. They start one or more business, mostly financed by ambition and personal drive combined with a lack of monetary capital. They make their own decisions and tend to be very independent and outspoken. They scare the hell out of traditional people, in particular liberals, who have built and cling to their own tradition of what a “liberated woman” is, or is allowed to be.
I have very different political views than Sara Palin does. I respect the person that she is and wish her well.
ps – I just read that 71% of Republicans approve of her decision to resign from the Governorship.
LVL,
The answer to your question is YES – all women.
If you are new, check the recent archives. We recently issued action alerts to have the back of Nancy Pelosi and Sonya Sotomayor. If you look around you will see that we have spoken out for many women.
If you see examples of gender bias against Sebeluis or Solis (who we spoke out for extensively months ago) or Lang please comment or send us an email.
We will be watching Soyomayor’s back starting tomorrow!
Thanks John.
The New Agenda is about speaking out against sexist treatment of Palin and by virtue her family.
Some have been asked so to be clear, we are not endorsing her policies. We have the back of all women and Palin has been a target again and again.
“However, there are many – so many – women in politics at the local, state and federal level and within the Obama administration, don’t these women deserved some focus too?”
Palin and Clinton are currently the two most charismatic and significant women in modern politics, so it makes sense they would receive the most attention. I love Palin and I have enjoyed reading the articles about her. However, I do agree with you that there are many more women in politics that deserve attention. This is why I’ve started writing articles about the women running for election such as Lynne Williams (G), which was posted yesterday.
TNA has given other women in the political sphere attention such as Gillbrand and Maloney.
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....us-senate/
And Jenny Sanford:
http://thenewagenda.net/2009/0.....-scandals/
“we are not endorsing her policies…”
I get that, but I should just point out that in the mediated reality we live in, very few people have any idea what her actual policies are. It’s almost become a knee jerk reaction to say, “I don’t agree with her politically.”
Ironically she’s actually delivered more “progressive” and “feminist” policies than most politicians I know. Last week she signed domestic violence legislation. Before that she taxed the gas companies and gave the rebate to the people. She created a partnership between the private sector and government to get relief supplies delivered to rural Alaskans. She increased funding for children’s health care and education. She believes in contraception and sex ed in school.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. I don’t expect the New Agenda itself to endorse any candidate’s policies, but I call on individual people to think for themselves and to question the automatic response, “I don’t agree with her politically.” People who take the time to research her will probably discover they approve of her work far more then they expect.
I believe that Sally Quinn has never been a Palin supporter. In fact, when I to google “Sally Quinn” and “Sarah Palin” , the closest thing I can find to any statement from Sally Quinn taht is in the least bit favorable to Palin is a pretend mea culpa on the O’Reily FNC show.
That article is so vicious and ignorant that it makes my teeth hurt.
It seems to me that everyone in the MSM has taken up Letterman’s “defense” that his joke was about her 18-year-old daughter with absolutely no proof, and is now using it against Palin.
What exactly are women politicians supposed to do with their children?
Of course, this woman does not believe a word of what she just wrote and proves herself a liar with her third-to-last paragraph.
“She could have said that from now on she would use her immense celebrity, her power, her charisma, her popularity among a huge base of Christian conservatives to educate people and advocate for children with special needs.”
How exactly would that involve less traveling with or without her children?
And I don’t find her reasons for resigning a bit mystifying.
She’s had nothing but spurious ethic violation complaints since the election. She has been vindicated 15 times, none of them have merit, but it’s costing the state millions of dollars to defend her, and it’s costing her personally as well. And she can’t do her job when she’s spending all of her time defending herself, and she’s showing true public “servant” attitude by stepping down so that her state can be run smoothly.
http://gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php
http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....ing-to-me/
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/855907.html
Amy,
Thank you. I am new so I will have to review the web site a little better.
Palin is a sore spot for me because I feel the organization is coming to the aid of a women that really doesn’t have a history of being a women’s rights advocate and was pretty critical of HRC when she complained of media bias and sexism.
Where I am in disagreement with most of the posters is that I see in Palin a women who uses women’s rights and feminism as a cover for her own personal agenda. Where I am in agreement with nearly all of the posters is that the media covers Palin in a sexist and condescending manner and does not seriously explore the concerns of the constitutency she represents, people who believe because they are not a minority (I don’t see too many minority Palin supporters), corporate fat-cats or immigrants, they are being disenfranchised within the country. I believe her constitutency should be openly and fairly listened to and not ridiculed. They have legitimate concerns.
I hope she is an authentic representation of her brand.
Just to put my two cents into the conversations that are going on:
I think that The New Agenda has covered a variety of women in the polticial sphere (look at the pieces on Lynn Williams, Kirsten Gillibrand and Carolyn Maloney, and Sonia Sotomayor). I do think that the pieces on Palin and Clinton get more responses though. It’s important to remember that many (though not all) of the pieces written for The New Agenda are in response to the way media treats specific politicians. Because of the interest that surrounds Plain and Clinton it’s logical that many of the blogs written are in response to their coverage of these women.
As for Palin and her politics, I do know enough about her politics to say that I do not agree with her view on certain issues. I am not saying this simply because she is a Republican.
Honestly, I hesitated before writing a piece about Palin. If you read my past blogs I have written about Sotomayor (I’m hoping to write about her a lot more during the confirmation heartings), Neda Agha-Soltan, and other feminist issues. My hesitation stemmed from the fact that if Palin were running for president, I’m not sure that I could support her. Her political views do not match mine, but, despite this, I don’t believe that she deserves to be treated the way that she has been by the media.
Hi LVL,
When you say of Palin that she was “pretty critical of HRC when she complained of media bias and sexism. “, what are you referring to?
She talked about it once, and actually was very careful in how she said it…she referred to women politicians needing to be careful about perceived whining because it doesn’t help these women politicians.
She did use the word “whine” but it’s not like she said, I wish Hillary would stop all her damned whining, she has nor right or merit.
Hello Anne-Marie,
Two things:
1. I have never viewed Palin as a long-term women’s rights advocate. I will continued to research this matter.
2. A comparison of Palin’s original statement and current statement regarding HRC and whinning:
Before:
“Fair or unfair, I think she does herself a disservice to even mention it. You gotta to plow through that. You have to know what you’re getting into — which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton, and to her experience and to her passion for changing the status quo also — but when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, ‘man that doesn’t do us any good’ — women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country, I don’t think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or unfair, it is there, I think that’s reality, and I think it’s a given. I think people can just accept that she is going to be under the sharper microscope. So be it. I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate, and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point. So it bothers me a little bit hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level.”
Now:
“What I said was, it doesn’t do her or anybody else any good to whine about the criticism. And that’s why I’m trying to make it clear that the criticism, I invite that. But freedom of speech and that invitation to constructively criticize a public servant is a lot different than the allowance to lie, to continually falsely accuse a public servant when they have proven over and over again that they have not done what the accuser is saying they did. It doesn’t cost them a dime to continue to accuse. That’s a whole different situation. But that’s why when I talk about the political potshots that I take or my family takes, we can handle that. I can handle that. I expect it. But there has to be opportunity provided for truth to get out there, and truth isn’t getting out there when the political game that’s being played right now is going to continue, and it is.”
So. my interpretation is that in Palin’s eyes, the criticism against her is somehow false and frivilous but it against HRC. Unlike what some posters – and I believe – it doesn’t sound like Palin is complaining about the potshots taken against her family (as HRC received as well) but the continous false accusation (as HRC received as well).
Essentially, what she is saying is that things are worse for me and I am not whinning like HRC because I am Sarah Palin and the potshots are more frivilous and false. When I do not believe HRC was whinning and the potshots against her were as cruel and insensitive.
Many of us are still unclear as to why Sarah Palin resigned as governor of Alaska. I know that I am.
I think Palin’s resignation speech provided clear reasons for resigning (unfortunately some outlets posted only excerpts). Here’s a summary for you from John Ziegler, one of the few media personalities who is truly fair to Sarah:
The Truth About Sarah Palin’s Resignation
and a less thorough video (but still good) with Ziegler & ego-maniac Bill O(-no) Reilly:
John Ziegler On Sarah Palin Resigning
Palin was very clear about her reasons for resigning, if you saw her entire speech and not excerpts. John Ziegler wrote an excellent article about it tho and defends Palin verbally very well:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....gning.html
http://bighollywood.breitbart......signation/
LVL,
Thanks for putting up those two statements.
I still think your original impression as you stated it, that Palin was “pretty critical of HRC when she complained of media bias and sexism.” is in my eyes not justified. She talked about it once, and I agree she was being unsympathetic to Hillary, and I feel her message to Hillary and other female politicians was that ideally you gotta be tough and don’t respond and don’t let it get to you.
In her latter statement, as I understand it, she was trying to distinguish between political potshots that are part of the game, and using these potshots as a campaign to destroy her ability to do her job.
There truly is a difference in scale and length of attacks and depth and indecency of attacks on her and on Hillary. I don’t think there has been any modern political figure, even George Bush that has had her appearance, intelligence, family, beliefs and everything eles about her as intensely maligned as much as Sarah Palin has. We cannot ignore that. And just like Hillary did, she is also complaining about it. It’s only human, don’t you think?! I mean if you believed she was being too critical of Hillary, then I hope you won’t be too critical of her.
And the ethics complaints have been used to inhibit her from carrying out her responsibilities as Governor.
I view her as a long-term women’s rights advocate not as someone who talks about rights but someone who models what it means to have rights as a woman, and to use those rights to pursue whatever life goals she sets for herself and do it her way.
Anne-Marie,
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t dislike Palin, I simply do not trust her yet. In a lot of ways, any women who manages four jobs (professional, mother, spouse and home manager) is a role model for women’s rights. A women’s rights advocate is someone, particularly if they hold a public office, that has spoken forcefully on the issue and has an established record of supporting policies, programs and legislation that advances women in all walks of life. This advocacy describes HRC, not Palin.
Also, while it is distant in our memory, HRC has been ridiculed for nearly two decades, ever since Bill broke his wedding vows and she attempted to implement health care reform. Palin has suffered the heat for 8 to 10 months – and it has been intense – but I still believe it pales in consideration to the sexist treatment HRC has suffered for such a long time.
I respect your opinion and hope the best for Palin.
Thanks LVL. For her sake and the sake of advancing the case for women in politics, I hope she persists until something more than a cartoonish understanding of her emerges. After all, she is a multi-faceted individual with gifts and drawbacks. Her future political power will come from the people, if they want to give it to her once they get to know her better.
My opinion is that she’s not a saint, she’s not the devil, and there’s way too much fear out there about her.
A truely interesting discussion.
First, regarding the whining and how to react. I think Sarah Palin had a big learning curve between the earlier and later statement. the first statement was not malignant but rather cocky in the similar way as Hillary Clinton has suggested “I can take the heat”.
Second, I find Sarah Palin genuine and find it easy to trust her in contrast to many other politicians. Compared to the ever changing Obama positions I found Hillary Clinton’s as well as Sarah Palin’s statements very consistent. i agree with a lot of her statements, but am still watching on some where I have not seen any in depth interviews.
nevertheless there are too many reasons to vote for her, if she were running. like those: if we want female representation we need to vote for females even we do not agree with all positions. or if we want to destroy too much power of the government we have to not vote for the incumbent, or she represents many of my values, is very capable and does not hide her agenda. I love the small government, fiscal responsibility, anti corruption platform. I like to get Alaskan gas instead of new powerplants until fully renewable resources are available. to me Obama is in bed with the nuclear power industry just as most republicans are.
I may not agree with her position on abortion, although I do not know enough details at this time. I agree with her that we have too many abortions. I am completely against judicial ways to stop abortions or taking birth control like the pill after away (and i don’t know her exact position here). but i think we need to ask why so many young women get pregnant against their intentions. why is birth control not working well? it is simply not true that abortions are the result of abstinence only politics. to include abstinence in education together with birth control is what Sarah Palin advocated and I am fine with her on that. But I think we need to counteract the constant push that everybody has to be sexy all the times. even 1. and 2nd graders in public school have learned that one should be sexy or you are out. I am so glad I grew up in a boarding school with nuns and saw firsthand that there is more to life than sex and guys. I like to see that our young people get the space to experience the many resources for fun there are and are not locked into this early focus on sex as the top ranking source of fun. there is a group “commercial free childhood”, really worth looking up.
I agree with those who said Palin gave perfectly good reasons for her resignation. Of course, having given several good reasons, she thereby supplied ammunition for those determined to read them as negatively as possible, which they proceded to do. Unfortunately that is how politics works in our so-called “democracies”, where winning arguments, or appearing to, counts for more than honesty, reason and integrity. As for this odd fixation on her Downs Syndrome child, I think that reveals the physically and meantally healthy person’s uneasiness when faced with disability far more than anything else. Quinn, like so many other glossy middle class professionals, would really like little Trig locked away out of sight so she needn’t avert her eyes from him. And as his mother (and so suspect anyway), Palin would be required to be equally invisible and absent. You don’t have to be a national figure to be aware of the invisiblity demand where disability is concerned: lots of ordinary parents feel it too.
She is such a threat!! These attacks are ever so slowly working to her advantage but I fail to understand why various disability groups have not come forth in outrage when such national, negative attacks persist.
[...] Originally published at The New Agenda. [...]
Sorry to interrupt the Palin love fest here but a little deconstruction is in order.
The Governor has only herself to blame for the mess she finds herself in. She stepped onto the national stage hopeless unprepared for the role she campaigned for. In a very real way she volunteered for this abuse. As Harry Truman pointed out “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
No one made Palin flub her national debut, the infamous “in what respect Charlie” interview. No one forced her to be hopelessly unprepared for Katy Curic’s softball question of reading choices. No one forced her inarticulate response of “Putin rearing his head” in Alaska. No one made her unethically harass a state trooper and fire the troopers boss. No one authorized her $150,000 shopping spree with RNC money.
More to the point no one forced her to recite the numerous distortions, spins and outright lies she has uttered to both the Alaska and National public. It started with her fib about the bridge to nowhere and never really stopped. The woman can’t even keep the story of whether she is a feminist or not straight.
You don’t have join Andrew Sullivan’s Sara Palin bashing club to be concerned about her behavior and her history with Trig. She was needlessly reckless with both her and Trig’s health during the delivery of her youngest son. Having a downs child on an Alaska Air flight at 20,000 feet is not the best of options for a delivery.
It is that episode that best illuminates the true issue with Palin, that of temperament. It is a thread that runs through her life; her lack of discipline. She seems to have a very hard time of keeping her colors within the lines. She seems to have a very hard time of separating the personal from the political. These attributes should be a non-starter for anyone in politics male or female.
Palin’s latest action only reinforces the contention that she is undisciplined. In short she bailed on the people of Alaska for purely personal reasons. Yes there were distractions brought about by the media but they were of her own creation. The post resignation fish boat interviews were willingly entered into by Ms Palin. All she had to do stop the foolishness was say “get out of here, shoo, you’re scaring away the fish.”
Sara Palin had a choice post McCain. She could have mended fences with Alaska politicians and done the hard grunt work of running the state. She chose to shirk her executive responsibility. She angered her fellow Alaska Republicans by leaving the state and chasing national Republican opportunities.
It matters not a whit if Sara is a good or bad mother. If she really is that hideous Alaska Child Protective Services will handle the issue. What is important is Palin’s incredibly thin skin about her family. She made the decision to drag them out in the lime light, to make them poster material for the National Republican Party. If she really wanted to protect them she should have have left the entire lot back in Wasilla. Some one in the family or multiple family members could have taken care of the children. As a matter of fact it would have been best for Sara to let her oddball secessionist hubby stay back on the frozen tundra with the children. Instead she brought the whole lot to the convention, even the idiot teen dad that impregnated Bristol. She forced that yahoo to make nice for the cameras and then she complains when the whole farce blew up in her face. It is a microcosmic slice of how she operates; with no consideration of the long term consequences, totally undisciplined. That is why she failed, not because the mean men of the media did her in.
James the purpose of a non-partisan organization for Women’s Rights is to take our political bias out of the equation and stand against obvious attacks of sexism and misogyny on women of any kind.
There is absolutely NO reason for the attacks on her to the degree that she has had to endure in just the last 8-10 months.Period!
Much like that of Hillary it is an obvious political move to suppress women to the role of being less then any man.
No matter your personal opinion on her politics or that of any female politician she in no way deserves what she has gotten.
She could have very easily go back to Alaska and we would never have heard a peep from her again.But the Left (sorry for those on the Left,no disrespect just truth here) but the left decided to continue their barrage of sexist and disgusting attacks against her and her children.Now the Right is getting in on the fun as well.
As a woman who has had to deal with sexism I say this has to stop somewhere.Or we will be but shells of what we dreamed we could be.
By the way you have no right, NO right to state that she has been reckless with er children,especially that of Trig.
You do not live in house,you do not know her health or her son’s health.To state something like that only condemns every woman who has made the decision to birth a special needs child, or any child for that matter, and has had to continue working in order to provide for her family.
Only a woman can make that kind of decision.I don’t care what pundit crap media whatever said about it.It is not our right to judge her on that.And it is dangerous to ALL women’s rights to continue suggesting such things.
Sorry….that upset me.
Have a good one.
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...