At the risk of sounding sexist… (UPDATED)
At what point do Catholics who embrace the distinctive dignity and duty of motherhood recognize that a particular mother is desperately needed at home? I say this in all seriousness without a dash of politics. Gov. Sarah Palin’s four-month-old son, Trig, has Down Syndrome. Now, her seventeen year old daughter, Bristol, is unwed and pregnant. Should Gov. Palin be out campaigning? Should she be at home where there are some difficult circumstances facing her family? If, as Catholics, we take family to be foundational to social and political life, and we take motherhood to express just what Pope John Paul II claims it does, then can we really support whole-heartedly Gov. Palin’s V.P. bid knowing that she cannot be fully available to her family when that family seems to need its mother the most? What would you do? Whatever may be your reply, the current situation certainly frames the question of the importance of family in both universal and particular terms.
N.B.: I intend this post to focus on the question of family obligations and the meaning of motherhood. I do not want partisan mudslinging in the comments.
UPDATE: Gov. Palin’s husband, Todd, was arrested in 1984 for a DWI. This, to me, is not a big deal, so I ask that we keep it off the blog from this point on.
UPDATE 2: Several comments attempted to push this discussion into partisanship, something I specifically requested not to occur. Those comments have been deleted. I once more ask that comments address the specific question. “Yes,” “no,” and “none of your business” along with why are appropriate.
UPDATE 3: Comments are closed. Too many comments were partisan and ad hominum circumstantial. I want to clean things up a bit at Vox Nova. Call it censorship, call it what you like. My thanks to those who actually addressed the questions I asked. There is quite a bit of disagreement, as the comment thread shows.
Comments are closed.
A down’s syndrome child has nothing to do with it.
She should not be working. A woman’s duty is to her family.
Isn’t her husband staying at home? If not, then someone needs to. If so, then I think we have to wonder why this question ONLY arises when it is a female and not a male. Even Feministing (who HATES Palin) thinks this is sexist.
It’s a hard call. I work and my wife has been a stay-at-home mom for almost the entirety of my children’s lives. I don’t think, however, that the Catholic position is that a woman shouldn’t work.
Although sympathetic to the idea that a woman of young children should be at home (I think the Orthodox really have this right, and they say it explicity from what I’ve seen: a woman’s hightest calling is to motherhood, a man’s to the priesthood), it does not follow that in all cases an intact family should be structured with the woman always in the home. For several years I was raised by a single mom, and by far the most important thing is two parents in a committed marriage relationship.
Maybe the question should be: is there any evidence or legitimate speculation that her children will suffer from the campaign? And why would we also not speculate about Obama’s two young children? I imagine that the campaign will affect both families in a similiar fashion.
No need to be sexist, this is a good question-a question Jeb Bush should have considered with his daughter’s difficulties. Men have the same question all the time.
Don’t know.
Is she “called” to campaign, does one consider this as a possibility? While I don’t think so, this is something people of good faith could argue and determine differently. Example of service to family vs. remaining to serve family. This goes for men as well as women. What about Mr. Palin? He could be present to serve the family.
Good question.
Makes this choice so fascinating for McCain. This will be a wild campaign. Love it- (not in the passion of Dobson’s love for the Palin choice, but more like an 8th grade boy looking at some really cool snake or something).
Just a question: has Michelle Obama said outright that she will not be working her regular job while Mr. Obama is in the White House? From what I understand her position still exists and is waiting on her.
Policraticus, I am working on a post right now about the reaction my immigrant friends have when they learn I am a stay at home mom. I am beginning to think that this whole “stay at home for women only” business is American. My African friends cannot believe that I “don’t work.” And my many Hispanic friends constantly ask me “now, what do you do again?” And “why aren’t you working?” Interesting. I wonder if it has more to do with class and not country, because my wealthy friends from other countries had moms at home.
To elucidate: example of service-like an underpaid, over-worked servant of the poor, and (as an example conservatives could understand) a military man on duty overseas.
Random thought moment:
And why is a military servant’s sacrifice unquestioned while this sacrifice is not? Many a serviceman has worse in their family than this. And with a huge risk of divorce. More than the routine population. This remains an unquestioned act of service.
Bristol may need help, but the fact is, she’s 17. She’s a bit independent now. No need for her mother to be there all the time.
I also think we can assume that her new born baby is being taken care of by somebody.
The women’s lib sword swings both ways, doesn’t it? We risk sounding sexist if we suggest the woman should be at home, but we risk neglecting familial responsibilities if we don’t say anything about it. I shall venture an opinion about feminism at the risk of flame throwers from both sides.
Feminism is about respect and respecting a woman’s ability to decide her own fate and what the needs of her life are at any particular moment in that life. Respect that she already knows what her duties are and is taking appropriate actions to fulfill them. So, like the Church’s admonition to parents to practice responsible parenthood and those decisions regarding having more children, no one on the outside really has the right, nor all the information, to respectfully pass judgment on Sarah Palin’s place and family economy unless they have intimate contact with the family (like a spiritual confessor). Respect for her (and the charitable interpretation of the situation) suggests to me that we not pass judgment on her place in the world.
Another aspect of the equation is realizing that there are two parents involved. I haven’t the faintest idea what Mr. Palin does or the relationships involved, but there are more people who can provide financially, spiritually, emotionally to the family than just the one in the spot-light right now. Indeed, it might be indicative of the importance placed on fatherhood that I haven’t seen a word about the guy. Any information on him?
In any event, I personally prefer my wife at home and she feels likewise. She’d love to be barefoot and pregnant (prayers for us, please!) but this is our particular family and how it functions. I don’t presume to tell other couples that they should or shouldn’t have more kids because I don’t know the particular considerations they may be making. On similar grounds, I would hesitate to tell Sarah Palin her responsibilities and impose our particular family model onto hers.
Regards,
Mike J.
How does this differ than Jamie Lynn’s Spears pregnancy and the questions that swirled with this announcement?
Ms. Spears is (obviously) a more capable woman being intelligent enough to stay out of politics.
Uhm. Ms. Palin is not in politicis, idiot. Her mother is.
Tizzidale: thank you for the reminder of why humor is so hard to achieve online.
And I was referring to Jamie Lynn Spears, who is unwed as far as I know, though I admit to not keeping up with celebrity gossip, i.e. “Ms. SPEARS”.
That was an attempt at humor? Huh. Could have fooled me. It sounded like you were saying Sarah Palin was not intelligent enough to stay out of politics.
It appears some are getting a bit confused here. The question is not only about the nature of motherhood and the structures of the family (universal concerns), but also about the particulars of the Palin family. Hence, I mentioned Palin’s specific dilemmas, and unless we think that a father alone is enough to care for a four month old child with Down Syndrome and provide the needed stability for a soon-to-be teenage mother, then we need to consider whether or not Sarah Palin needs to be with her family right now.
Also, the question of whether or not women should work is not what I am asking here. Let’s not get sidetracked.
Well, do you think a mother alone is adequate enough? I presume one of them has to work in order to pay the bills. If the teenage mother is getting married, I fail to see how this is Palin’s responsibility at this point.
Poli: I think you are trying to narrow this whole thing down to female only, but there are two parents. Must BOTH parents quit their jobs when family emergencies occur?
I presume one of them has to work in order to pay the bills. If the teenage mother is getting married, I fail to see how this is Palin’s responsibility at this point.
Again, I am not asking whether or not a mother should work. The nature of campaigning is not a 9-5 job. Let’s focus not only the universal, but also on the particular. Palin is not working a typical job here.
Why would this question not arise in the case of an American soldier?
Why are you focused on Mrs. Palin alone? Is the husband not in the picture? Can he not adequately take care of the the home when she’s campaigning? Does her family not accompany her on most of the trips (they will be, btw)? At the risk of sounding sexist, you did.
It seems to me that this thread is essentially about judging another person’s family circumstances. If we are to ‘focus on the particular’, then we are basically judging her. None of us is really qualified for that.
Families are complex; who knows how the parental responsibilities and parent-child relationships function in the Palin household? Not me. And it doesn’t help matters, that you – an anti-McCain blogger – raise the issue with questions such as “can we really support”…when you certainly are not part of the we. It seems like a transparent attempt to criticize politicians you do not like, rather than an effort to explore the complex terrain of motherhood and vocation.
Radicalcatholicmom writes : “I think we have to wonder why this question ONLY arises when it is a female and not a male.”
Because as Mans place is providing for the family outside the home. Which is also why a living wage assumes only one person, the man providing that living wage.
Women are biologically, including psychologically man by God, to nurture babies and children. Men are not so made. As they say in LaLeche breast feeding is more than a meal. And that more cannot be provided by a man.
Campaigning is hard, brutal work. BUT note that the kids are with them. On the bus, in the hotels. The kids are not back in Alaska. They are with mom and dad, perhaps spending more time with them than the kids of “stay at home” moms who start the morning parking the kids at mom’s day out at the church, then the afternoon in the nursery at the gym while they work out and then with a sitter in the evening while they go to a PTA or church meeting.
And while they’re “home” they’re on the internet mommy blogging or absorbed in internet discussion boards about Bristol Palin.
I’m trusting these folks.
Must BOTH parents quit their jobs when family emergencies occur?
Given that parents do not play the same role as one another in raising a family, yes I am focusing on women. However, nowhere did I say anything about stay-at-home mothers or about “quitting” jobs. Rather, I moved from 1. acknowledging that one parent is not the best family reality; 2. that motherhood is fundamentally different than fatherhood, to the specific situation in the Palin family. A campaign is not a normal career, so this isn’t a generic consideration over whether or not a mother should work. The particular case of the Palin family is unique, and so I am considering it uniquely.
My own view: Palin should either discontinue campaigning or drop out of the race altogether so that she can care for her infant (who happens to be mentally handicapped) and her teenage daughter who is to be a mother with a high school boy as a father. Mr. Palin will likewise need to be more present to the family, yet he is not campaigning daily across the U.S. But in the case of an infant and a teenage mother, the mother is going to be needed far more than the father.
‘Loves the girls’: you’re even more mysogynistic (impossible I thought!) than I. Quite an accomplishment!
My wife had the babies with her when she was plowing behind the yoked oxen . . . Ah, those were the good old days.
Campaigning is hard, brutal work. BUT note that the kids are with them. On the bus, in the hotels. The kids are not back in Alaska.
Yes, they are right now. This will not be the case after the GOP convention, you’ll see.
I wonder what the traditional role for a mother is? Based on my own ethnic background and the various immigrants that I work with, I think that it is not infrequent that women traditionally do more that cook and clean and stay home.
My grandparents were farmers and on farms everyone pitches it–milking the cows, working the fields etc + women do the work inside the home. In my work, I see women working in the family business in some capacity and raising the children. When I was an undergrad, I worked in a Chinese restaurant and the entire family worked there. The children spent lots of time in the restaurant. They were well adjusted, well behaved and did well in school…
Just a note on children with Downs. Although there is a higher incidence of heart problems, this does not mean that Gov. Palin’s son has such a problem. He may or may not have orthpaedic, suck/swallow, vision or hearing issues or he may not. His primary need may be just as other babies–to be fed, changed, hugged and allowed to sleep…It is also very helpful for parents to have a balanced perspective on their special needs child and to live normally.
I have no problem with a thread about responsible motherhood with respect to a political career, but I agree with Winston that ‘focusing on the particular’ is inviting trouble, especially since we do not know all the specifics of Mrs. Palin’s family life (nor should we) which would be needed to make a qualified judgement. Given the vile which has been poured out on the internet in the last 24 hours, perhaps we should lay off Mrs. Palin’s family life? If someone really cares about the dignity of family, why not respect a families privacy rather than subjecting it to the withering glare of a voyeuristic media… and yes that applies to John Edwards as well.
Also an interesting point: If Palin continues to campaign, her daughter will remain in the spotlight. Should Palin stop campaigning or drop-out in order to protect her daughter?
LOL. A no-bump convention brings out the worst in people. Even those who supposedly aren’t taking sides.
Policratus,
I totally agree. At first glance, I was going to cast my vote for McCain after selected Palin. Upon further consideration, and as I learned more about Palin, I will withdraw my vote. I cannot in good conscience vote a woman into office who does not belong there. For all her good qualities, she desperately needs to be at home. Having a 1.5 yr old son, I know how much attention a child needs from his mother (especially a downs-syndrome child). This is no less true of a 17 yr old. The mother belongs at home not on the campaign trail. It is not enough for the father to be at home. The mother is the bedrock of the home. Govenor Palin should withdraw herself from VP consideration and seriously consider whether her time as governor has taken away too much from her family.
LOL. A no-bump convention brings out the worst in people. Even those who supposedly aren’t taking sides.
Actually, they’re saying that both got a small pump, one for his convention, the other for his V.P. pick (presuming bumps happened). What’s interesting is that each candidate’s support has gone up, with Obama two points from cresting the majority (McCain’s right there, too).
Okay, I’m done violating my own policy for this post.
“In this perspective, one understands the irreplaceable role of women in all aspects of family and social life involving human relationships and caring for others. Here what John Paul II has termed the genius of women becomes very clear.19 It implies first of all that women be significantly and actively present in the family, “the primordial and, in a certain sense sovereign society”,20 since it is here above all that the features of a people take shape; it is here that its members acquire basic teachings. They learn to love inasmuch as they are unconditionally loved, they learn respect for others inasmuch as they are respected, they learn to know the face of God inasmuch as they receive a first revelation of it from a father and a mother full of attention in their regard. Whenever these fundamental experiences are lacking, society as a whole suffers violence and becomes in turn the progenitor of more violence. It means also that women should be present in the world of work and in the organization of society, and that women should have access to positions of responsibility which allow them to inspire the policies of nations and to promote innovative solutions to economic and social problems.”
-paragraph 13
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
Sarah Palin must balance her own family and the need for women in society. I don’t know that any of us have the information to make that decision for her.
Regards,
Mike J.
Only Poli can do that for her.
Apolonio,
You have no clue what you are talking about. Have you ever been around a pregnant woman? Have you ever had to support a pregnant woman? A first-time pregnant woman needs A LOT of emotional support — something a 17 year old boy cannot give.
How family considerations affect a candidate’s decision to run for public office or not is a decision that is, I think, best left to the candidate and the candidate’s family.
This
N.B.: I intend this post to focus on the question of family obligations and the meaning of motherhood. I do not want partisan mudslinging in the comments.
is about as disingenuous as it gets.
Funny how the Left digs up archaic notions of family when it comes in handy.
Policraticus,
Under the rule of subsidiarity, Governor Palin and her husband are responsible for the upbringing of their children. In the case of an anonymous blogger on the internet it’s basically none of your business.
I think the title of this post should have been…”At the risk of sounding partisan and judgmental….” Usually when someone uses the ‘at the risk of…” language, they proceed to justify the charge, and this post would be no exception.
Poli (shockingly) thinks that the Republican VP candidate should withdraw from the race. He is overcome with concern about her family circumstances…or…uh….maybe it is because he is staunchly anti-McCain. I guess it is up to the reader to decide. But, either way, I am not sure why he feels qualified to comment on how the Palin family should manage their affairs.
Tony
If the politician makes their family and ability to raise a family and be a politician a part of their image, then whether or not it is true is an important question to raise, and an examination of the facts is vital.
It seems to me some people think it is ok for a politician to use their family, their children, for political gain, but get upset when people question the ethical value of such an action.
“Okay, I’m done violating my own policy for this post.”
As Gerald notes, the post itself was a violation…”as Catholics…can we really support wholeheartedly”. Come on, Poli, laying it on a little thick aren’t we?
UPDATE: Gov. Palin’s husband, Todd, was arrested in 1984 for a DWI. This, to me, is not a big deal, so I ask that we keep it off the blog from this point on.
This is really fishy and underhanded. No one had mentioned that story . . . except that now you have mentioned it, in an update on the post itself, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with your post. Why bring up something out of the blue just to say that you don’t want to mention it?
“Fish and underhanded” should be the subtitle of this Blog.
Should read “fishy” of course.
Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery”, to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity. Pope John Paul II
I agree with Br. Matthew, that the specifics of the situation are not known enough to warrant a judgement.
UPDATE: Gov. Palin’s husband, Todd, was arrested in 1984 for a DWI. This, to me, is not a big deal, so I ask that we keep it off the blog from this point on.
BTW –is this a case of “do as I say, not as I do?” — Why may I ask you even mention a 24 year old incident in the first place on a blog, except to invite further discussion?
Under the rule of subsidiarity, Governor Palin and her husband are responsible for the upbringing of their children. In the case of an anonymous blogger on the internet it’s basically none of your business.
I doubt you would universalize this claim. For instance, would it not be the public’s concern if children are malnourished under the care of their parents? Abused? Uneducated? Of course. These examples show that your claim cannot be universalized under the principle of subsidiarity. Rather, you must qualify that principle, like the Church does.
But, you might object, while those examples clearly show that we cannot unqualifiedly apply the principle of subsidiarity, they are examples of abuse and are exceptions. How true! Note, though, that we may still form judgments on what is good or not good, relative to the situation, for a child’s upbringing. If you think that a four month old with Down Syndrome and a unwed pregnant teenager do not need their mother for substantive periods of time, then say so. It’s okay, really. You’re not violating the principle of subsidiarity. But neither am I when I say that I believe those two children desperately need their mother.
How family considerations affect a candidate’s decision to run for public office or not is a decision that is, I think, best left to the candidate and the candidate’s family.
Right. But remember that I’m not making the decision. Rather, I am expressing my opinion based upon what I understand of motherhood, childhood, politics, and Catholic family values.
This thread is hilarious..
Either way it seems that , with all that has came out in only the past 2 days,the pundits were correct who insinuated that Palin could not have gone through the traditional vetting process completely.
McCain wanted Lieberman. There was a threat of revolt on the convention floor. And Rove wanted Romney. Stubborn gone responded erratically, shoving Palin on the national stage. What a mess for the GOP.
Why may I ask you even mention a 24 year old incident in the first place on a blog, except to invite further discussion?
Because I anticipate that it will be raised by someone else, perhaps in a manner that uses it against the character of Todd Palin. Sort of a preemptive strike, which I am sure you know plenty about.
Cocaine use and addiction, alcoholism, fatalities in DUI incidents, etc are not big deals for conservatives, or even the American electorate. Bush was elected twice with open knowledge that these events occurred by him or his family. Obviously not an exclusion from office.
Policratus, will you go on record saying that Mrs. Obama should stay home with the kids while Daddy campaigns? Or if he wins? I mean, you can’t have such young children neglected in any way.
It really is disappointing that people are politicizing this post. Poli is legitimately concerned. He thinks Palin needs to drop out. If there were a sitcom with the Palin family, it would be entitled ‘Policraticus knows best’. Poli knows that the issue of women’s professional and familal responsibilities is a critical issue in our society, and that the best way to discuss this issue is in blog posts during an election year when the topic is a candidate he opposes.
Some may stoop to partisanship in their posts. Some may make accusations that Poli is just taking a cheap shot at politicians he opposes (wait, that was me). It just shows that they are not as open as Poli is to a productive discussion about how the Palin’s should handle their family responsibilities. We need to decide in this individual case and in a non-partisan matter, as Poli has, how the Palin family should proceed. That is not being judgmental or partisan. It is simply part of our responsibility as Catholics on the internet.
‘Stubborn gone’ was just a typo on my part, and not an intended nickname for the stubborn John McCain.
Michelle Obama is not running for office
“Michelle Obama is not running for office” and??? I thought the point of the thread was that those kids need someone home with them! Daddy isn’t enough. Only mama will do. So, I’m asking again – should Michelle Obama promise that she’ll stay at home with the little ones?
Oh, I get it! Michelle Obama isn’t running on the Republican ticket!! It’s becoming clearer now.
Henry K and Policraticus share their duties like a good couple – the former attacks Palin for things she did before giving birth, the latter for things done after birth.
This is truly a tragedy. This poor girl is now going to be on national spotlight. It’s already hard to be a teenager and become pregnant. On top of that for your entire life to be judged by pundits who think they know better about your life and your family than yourself. What blows my mind is that Palin knowing that her daughter was pregnant accepted the VP nomination rather than choosing to remain somewhat in seclusion as governor of Alaska for the sake of protecting her daughter. I’m guessing Palin knew given the fact that the girl was wearing an engagement ring.
I doubt you would universalize this claim. For instance, would it not be the public’s concern if children are malnourished under the care of their parents? Abused? Uneducated? Of course. These examples show that your claim cannot be universalized under the principle of subsidiarity. Rather, you must qualify that principle, like the Church does.
Yes, such things would be the public’s concern, which is why we have a public agency like CPS to step in and take care of the situation. However, saying that it is the ‘public’s concern’ would not warrant, for instance, having the media hounding or following the malnourished children, or bloggers speculating on aspects of the case about which they have insufficient knowledge and no rightful jurisdiction.
Right. But remember that I’m not making the decision. Rather, I am expressing my opinion based upon what I understand of motherhood, childhood, politics, and Catholic family values.
Right, you are not making the decision, you are simply parsing and judging somebody else’s decision, a decision which you have neither the knowledge, competence, nor right to judge.
Policratus, will you go on record saying that Mrs. Obama should stay home with the kids while Daddy campaigns? Or if he wins? I mean, you can’t have such young children neglected in any way.
Given that she is not running for vice president, I don’t think Michelle Obama fits the post. But to indulge you, I’ll point out that she travels to political events only two or three times a week, mostly bringing along her daughters. The (non-partisan) contrast is that Palin, who is running for vice president, is now a full-time campaigner.
I’ll put out the serious proposition.
First, public service such as the Vice-Presidency is no less noble than American soldiering. And Ms. Palin thinks she should go for it. We allow for enormous likelihoods of severe incapacitating mental health problems, divorces, spousal abuse, addiction as the reasonable consequences of American soldiering. (Some sort of “collateral damage” or whatnot.)
Ms. Palin gets to pursue this form of service.
Reality check-Michelle Obama does work full time…earning an annual salary of nearly$300K from the University of Chicago Hospitals.
However, saying that it is the ‘public’s concern’ would not warrant, for instance, having the media hounding or following the malnourished children, or bloggers speculating on aspects of the case about which they have insufficient knowledge and no rightful jurisdiction.
Politics, politics, politics…that’s how it all works. How a candidate manages his/her family, I think, is quite important to estimating how suitable their character is for governing.
Ms. Palin gets to pursue this form of service if she wants to, if the consequences of American soldiering is considered acceptable normative consequences.
Reality check-Michelle Obama does work full time…earning an annual salary of nearly$300K from the University of Chicago Hospitals.
Reality check–I’ve stated many times that the question is not about whether or not women/mothers should work. I am asking about full-time, transnational campaigning.
By the way, Michelle Obama reduced her work schedule by 80% since 2007.