River wrote:
My reasons for not being impressed with Palin were many, but I never held her children against her, nor did I pay much heed to those who did. I assumed that she had the resources to keep her family taken care of. But, since I myself was childless at the time, I wasn't paying much attention to just how complicated American society's view of mothers with careers is. Of course, when you're a woman, there is literally not a single choice you can make that someone won't criticize or throw into you face, but the whole working while you have children, especially small children, is its own special category. "Are you going back to work?" "Are you still working?" "Are you working full time?" Say "No" and you're a drop-out. Say "Yes" and you can almost hear the unspoken, "What about the baby?" Especially if you could, theoretically, not work. I throw in an apologetic "It's the only way to we can get affordable health insurance," because it's true and makes the judgment go away. But what is also true is that I'm not cut out to be a housewife. I'm not sure why I should feel apologetic about that. Equally galling is the fact that the women who are housewives are just as apologetic about their choices. And I don't know what's to be done.
I don't know, either.
Look, I know there were many people who just plain didn't like Palin, and I can respect why they felt that way. Based on her politics, and her persona, and a bunch of stuff like that. There were going to be people who just didn't like her because she was a Republican, just as there are people who will never like anyone who is a Democrat. I can deal with that (she wasn't my favorite, either).
But I was SHOCKED by the people who attacked her for her choices pertaining to her career/motherhood. People who I really thought were all for women's rights were opening chastising her for not staying at home with a nursing bra and apron on, where she should be, darn it. If she HAD to work, if it was not work or not eat, or in your case, not have insurance, then she would get a bye. But she chose to not be at home 24/7 because she had a chance to run for high government office? No way. She was a Bad Mom, no matter how well that child was cared for.
I remember my mother-in-law chastising me for working when my kids were babies, too. I thought that was grossly unfair, since we really had to have the income (sparse though it was) to make it at all. The mortgage itself was all but $200 per month of my husband's pay. Everything else, food, insurance, car expenses, childcare costs (because we paid my mom-in-law to babysit), clothes, power, water, everything else had to be paid out of that $200, plus whatever I could make. Working evening shift did pay a differential, thank God.
I was telling her one time about something I found at work I thought was interesting, and she pursed her lips and was silent for a long few beats. She then very primly stated "I see. You are working, choosing to leave these children rather than be there yourself, because you LIKE your job. I understand, now. I thought so."
So making enough money to pay for the stove to work would only be acceptable if I
hated my job, somehow. Liking what I did made it sinful, I guess, that I was away from my children.
And then I started to feel guilty, because I DO like my job. <help>
Was I working rather than being with them? Was that a choice? COULD I somehow have stayed home all the time, could we have done it
somehow, was I a... Bad Mom?
Lord_Morningstar wrote:I think that this whole trying to read into motivations thing never works, regardless of who is doing it (eg. they don't care about gay marriage, they just want to destroy marriage). Many people oppose abortion because they view a fetus as a person with the rights of a person. End of discussion.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King