Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Palin is a self-described feminist.  She can roar with the best of them.  Meaning To Hell with the Baby and the Other Kids.  Don't even start me up on how a supposedly educated and informed women went about conceiving a child at the age of 43 despite the known possibilities of that child being born with Downs Syndrome.  If this woman can't control her own body intelligently, how is she qualified to run the country should McCain not live out his term?  

by perspicacious on 08/30/2008 02:01:34 PM EST

I think they are relying heavily on people being too intimidated to ask questions like this. The reasoning goes:

• 1) if a man brings up this question, he will be immediately called a sexist pig and accused of trying to put women down;
  
• 2) feminists won't say anything because they have been fighting for equality and don't want to draw attention to the fact that women do face challenges and limitations that men do not;
  
• 3) women who do not self-identify as feminists won't say anything because, presumably, they admire her pro-life stance or don't want to appear prejudice.

The flaws in this reasoning are manifest. Feminism has never contended -- as its opponents try to paint it -- that there are no differences in men and women. Of course there are differences. Feminism holds that the differences do not preclude women from being able to do any job a man can do, that society should not impose restrictions that adversely impact a woman's ability to pursue career opportunities (eg., establish gender-based criteria for holding office), and that each woman should have the right to choose both what career to pursue and whether or not to have children.

But there is nothing in those beliefs that says women (or men) have to respect those choices or agree with them. There is nothing that says women (or men) cannot bring their own experience to bear when making those evaluations. To expect blind acceptance just because people are afraid of appearing sexist, or to use the sexism card to try to intimidate people into not asking pertinent questions when evaluating candidates si going to be a losing strategy.

Specifically in this instance, McSame/Palin are asking for us to trust their judgement and elect them to be in control of the levers of power in our country. It is very Republican to try to stifle the debate and I expect there is a certain element in that party who are actually quite gleeful, in that "getting revenge on feminists" kind of way.

What they have overlooked (or intentionally ignored) is that stifling debate is not the same thing as stopping people from thinking. ANY woman who has had a baby knows how hard it is to manage any job and nurture an infant, how critically important the early years are in child development, and how important it is for a mother to be there as much as possible. That is why there is maternity leave. That is why it is so terrible when financial considerations preclude a woman's ability to choose to stay home with her infant.

And ANY man who has fathered a child and stayed around to help raise it knows how hard work/family issues are for the entire family. Women who have not had children (and most men who have not raised children) still understand the challenges -- they see their friends and family members trying to cope with work and childrearing.

The great flaw in their reasoning is that, while they may supress the discussion they cannot supress personal knowledge. They have been amazingly adept at short-circuiting thought processes in some segments of the population, but I think this may backfire on them. Since they don't have good answers, they think it is best to suppress the questions. However, they cannot suppress the questions in peoples' minds and by cutting off debate, they are cutting off their ability to influence the opinions of a large group of voters.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Jefferson

by Carolita on 09/02/2008 09:52:30 AM EST