Posted by
BrianW on Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:30:22 PM
With Hillary Clinton nearly winning the nomination for president of the United States, and so many progressive-thinkers insisting for so many years that a woman's place is not in the kitchen, is anyone else shocked by the fact that the strongest attacks against Gov. Sarah Palin are so tightly focused on the fact that she has children?
The first strong objection released in the press was that Gov. Palin has a young child, just four months old, who, with Downs Syndrome, has "special needs", and this makes her unqualified to fill the position. Six months ago if someone had told you that a woman was running for one of the top executive offices in the United States but was meeting strong opposition based on the fact that she is a mother of a special needs child, without knowing any other details would you assume that it was Democrats making such comments, or would you have assumed that the candidate was a democrat and, based on your own mindset's stereotypes, that the opposition was coming from the "religious right"? Even I may have said the latter, but, being among them, I have some insight that those of the left just can't understand.
The second (non)substantial objection came when the public was informed that Gov. Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. Her opponents in the media insist that this must disqualify Ms. Palin from filling office because a pregnant, teenage daughter must run completely against the values on which people like Ms. Palin stand. Of course, Barack Obama himself immediately renounced the attacks and insisted that a candidate's family should not be used in this way, but I don't see that he had any choice since it only opens the door to question his own family since he himself was conceived in the womb of a teenage girl. Still, the ridicule from that announcement is so entrenched that even today on C-Span it's still being discussed whether or not a woman with a pregnant teenage daughter is ready for the office of the vice president. This one truly confuses me, because the same media insisted so adamantly that the sex life of the then-current Democratic president was none of our business. His own adulterous affair was not a matter that should be dragged into the public forum because his personal character has no affect on how he manages his office as president. Yet, now, it IS fair game to drag the sex life of the DAUGHTER of a candidate into public ridicule. How is that in any way consistent? It's not acceptable to question the sexual misgivings of the president, but it is right to condemn the sex life of a candidate's daughter?
Media airwaves and pages have been filled with comments suggesting that this "woman" should be at home with her children. Even Sally Quinn posted the unbelievable words, "Her first priority has to be her children", along with a list of reasons Palin is not qualified including "She is the mother of five children", "a four-month-old with Down Syndrome", and "Not to mention the grandchild".
I have been shocked by the media and the hypocrisy of the left in this matter, but I can see the truth of the matter. It's not a matter of whether a woman has children and still wants a career, or whether her daughter is less than perfect to her own standards. No, it is, in fact, a matter of bigotry. Webster.com defines a bigot as ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". The reaction to Governor Palin's personal life by the left exposes an uncomfortable truth about their character; they aren't truly interested in empowering women, they aren't truly interested in equal rights for all, and they aren't in the least concerned with the well-being of the individual family. If they were, they would have not brought up any of these points about Palin and her family other than to praise her for her perseverance during such real life events, but the evidence in this matter shows that they are not driven by the values they purport at all. Instead, they seem to be driven primarily by their hatred for those whose values differ from their own, for those whose values they so obviously can't begin to understand.