Small Town Mayor

I've seen some snarky comments being made about Sarah Palin being mayor of a small town, and governor of a state with a small population. These folks that are poo-pooing her mayoral experience must not have any experience with small town politics. They have big challenges and small budgets, and more 'interference' from their citizens. And not a lot of opportunity for high level corruption that borders on organized crime that we see with some large city mayors. If we want a Washington outsider, someone who isn't corrupted by money and power, then we have to look outside of Washington. Otherwise, it's just politics as usual.

Moving Target

Is there a list from the liberal feminists on what constitutes 'sexism', and what benchmarks constitute 'advances for women'? Because lately it seems to be a moving target.

I used to think I understood the feminists' point of view. Women and men were to be treated equally in all circumstances. If you ask a question of a woman, it should also be asked of a man. It shouldn't automatically be assumed that women are the primary caretaker of the children, and even making that assumption could garner you an angry and hostile response. These were the rules.

But now that Sarah Palin is making her mark in the political realm, a double standard has emerged, or shall we call it a "tightening of the definition of sexism". Suddenly liberal career women are asking about Palin's decision to be on McCain's ticket, and is she too ambitious at the expense of her children. What? Are there any other ladies out there that are as confused about this as I am? I haven't heard anyone ask about Barack Obama's ambition at the expense of his two little girls. And as much as the media likes to harp on Palin's FIVE children, the fact is that two of them are grown, meaning she only has one more child at home than Barack. Yet Barack hasn't been subjected to the same scrutiny as Palin. And now all of a sudden this makes sense to so-called feminists.

So what are the rules? Because clearly they change from situation to situation. Traditional women have been out there for a long time saying that despite our dreams of men and women being completely "equal"/"the same", we are not; we are made differently and built differently. In God's design this makes sense. Men have no problem with discipline and do not harbor feelings of insecurity and guilt. Women balance this out by their natural sense to nurture and love and avoid 'hard core' discipline. The two characteristics of God's design make for a nice balance for a family. Traditional women understand this, and ask for equality based on the differences in our make up. 'Value me as a woman for the traits that I bring to the table; don't belittle me and my traits and my role; and give me the opportunity to do exactly what I want to do, even though I'll do it as a woman instead of trying to do it like a man'. For me, what feminism has done is make it to where I can do anything I want to do, anything. If that means staying at home because it helps my husband and I achieve our goals and the kind of life we want to lead, then I can do it. If it means my friends stay home with their kids, they can do it. It's their choice and not one that is imposed on them. If I or my friends want to work and divide the home responsibilities, we can do it without any guilt. At least, that's what the feminists always told us.

But now, it's those same liberal feminists who are judging Palin harshly. This puts them in a predicament, because now they really need to define exactly what feminism is and what sexism is. Are they ready to admit that all choices come with a sacrifice, and it's a myth to think you can have it all? Staying at home sacrifices career. Having a career sacrifices time with children. Are they ready to admit that? Are they ready to admit that men and women are built differently and that women more naturally take on the role of caretaker? I don't see them being able to admit this, but in their questioning of Sarah Palin, that is what they are implying.

In the end, I think their treatment of Palin has hurt the feminist cause. By having this slippery slope, moving target of feminism and sexism, they're reinforcing the 'sexist' notion that women can be quite irrational and unhappy no matter what; that women always find something to bitch about. After all, my dream as a woman is that all women would have the same opportunities available to them that men do, should we decide to pursue those. That we have the freedom to live whatever kind of life we want to live, without any gender barriers. And Palin is achieving that. Count this true feminist happy.

It's Just Too Much

I can't take it any more. The media is completely out of control. Many in the media are using Bristol Palin as evidence that abstinence education doesn't work. Does this mean that kids who receive education on birth control never get pregnant? If a teenager who has received education on birth control becomes pregnant, does the MSM then say that it's proof that birth control education doesn't work? Of course not! And yet the MSM doesn't see their bias!

And I've wondered where all the feminists are with station after station having a dialogue about Palin's 5 children and her fitness to be a mother and a VP. Did we ask Barack how he can be a father and president? Not that I ever heard. And yet it's the 'progressives' who suddenly are turning 'traditional' and thinking that it's a woman's job to stay home with the children. The media has enjoyed talking about the enormity of FIVE children. Nobody is countering that. One "child" is about to head off to Iraq. Another "child" is about to be married and start a life of her own. So WHEN Palin becomes VP, she'll have 3 children at home, not the 5 that the MSM likes to pontificate about because it sounds so much more overwhelming than 3. But despite the fact that she'll only have 3 children at home and not 5 still doesn't excuse the sexism of the media, and the attacks that she has endured.

Many in the media today are scoffing at Republicans complaining about the media's treatment of Palin, defending themselves saying that her experience and votes and quotes are all relevant. Republicans don't disagree. Look at her record, look at her experience, look at what she's said, that's fair game. But be sure to also scrutinize Obama and Biden with the same enthusiasm that they scrutinize Palin. So far this has not been done. (How many times have we heard about McCain's age and 4 bouts with skin cancer, yet how much have you heard about Biden's 2 aneurisms?) But Palin's kids should be off limits. Barack was not asked about how he could balance being a dad of 2 small children and also be president, so Palin should not be asked about her ability to balance it all. Other politician's teenage daughters could have gotten pregnant and just quietly had an abortion, and we're none the wiser. Because Palin's daughter chose to keep her child should not make her fair game for the media (see paragraph 1), but that hasn't stopped them. It's classless and smacks of tabloid journalism. THIS is why Republicans are so steamed.

And as a side note, where is all of the talk about history being made one way or the other this November? When it was down to Hillary and Barack, I couldn't turn on any news without hearing about how history will be made one way or the other, but it's lacking in the dialogue that has been occurring since Palin debuted last Friday. And what will the MSM do about their quandary? They want to continue to talk about Barack making history, but now they will have to also talk about Palin and they don't want to do that. What will they do?

But, perhaps I should urge the immature MSM to continue down their biased, immature, tasteless path of reporting, because it has done nothing but energize conservative voters and strengthen their commitment to make Palin the first woman VP in the United States.