Time to Put the Children First… Another Day in Politics
24 09 2008In London this week catching up with R&R. I could get used to this :).
The political news of the past few days has been children and children and more children. Or maybe they’re just the subtext. First unpopular GB says that his children aren’t props, they’re people. Well, ok, but I don’t really care. You’re a politician. And that was a jab at the opposition. You’ll say anything. Move along.
Then, when everyone was fawning over unpopular GB’s speech the other day, came more children related stuff, in the form of Ruth Kelly quitting the cabinet to “spend more time with her family”.
Much was made of her decision to “put her children first” (She has four under 11) even while others were assigning “other reasons” for her reisgnation.
Being childfree I was wondering what some might be thinking of what Ruth Kelly says here though…
“… I now owe it to my children and family to take a step back and start putting them first.
“If I do not, then I know that this is something I will come to regret deeply.”
An unintended message for other women? Probably not. But, as yet another high profile woman with children resigns from a promising career (as far as we know anyway) what say those that say women can have it all? I wonder if Sarah Palin will have any such qualms. Probably not.
Technorati Tags: childfree
First off, I can’t stand Palin. She wants to reverse women’s rights so far back into history that it’s a wonder she even feels like she should be working instead of barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. I have many many more opinions of her but I’ll leave that for another time.
Secondly, I’m for Obama. He is a strong, intelligent, and an experienced person who has a calm level headed and, imo, has the ability to solve problems and of our two candidates is the one who is ready, prepared, and qualified to lead our country.
Thirdly, I’m all for equality. Not just between the sexes, but every other aspect as well: religion, sexual preference, etc. etc.
Fourth, I’m in the United States so I’m speaking from that POV.
All of that being said, this quote from the article:
This annoys me. I’ve heard several times that Palin is a “working mother.”
So what? Why isn’t Obama being called a “working father?” Why is there so much big to do that Mr. Palin will be “home with the kids?” This isn’t news. This isn’t a big deal. Fathers have been working “outside the home” for centuries while mothers have stayed home to take care of the kids.
It is ONLY news and a big deal if you take it from the POV that this is still “unconventional.” I suppose it is, but if people would just have a matter of fact attitude about how Palin, Ruth Kelly, et al are simply working women then maybe we might start see some equality.
IMO, women CAN have it all. But they can “have it all” like men have “had it all” for centuries. And this begins by stopping this nonsense of calling women “working mothers” And putting them on such high pedastals as they seem to be doing with Kelly by saying she wants to “put family first” by staying home to take care of the kids.
IMO, this is just another way of saying, “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.”
Another thing and this just occurred to me. This is a HUGE insult to men. As if they aren’t capable of staying home to take care of their own children. Sure they are. They’re (supposed) adults, aren’t they?
Obviously there is more to this article. But I tend to look at language and how we say things because it is very important. Language is very important in how we describe our world. And language is also very much manipulated to get communicate not just our thoughts, but our opinions and views on various subject matters. Words we choose, how they are arrange, and the context under which they are said is so extremely important.
Obama is a “working father.” McCain is a “working father.” Palin is a working woman with a stay at home father for a husband.
PS: I don’t really remember right now if Mr. Palin does work outside the home. He may and I don’t feel like looking it up right now. I’ve assumed he’s a stay at home dad for purposes of my example.
Mr. Palin works for an oil company, I think it’s BP. I’d say he’ll have to resign to avoid a conflict of interest scandal, if his wife wins. But he was a SAHD at one point.
Four kids under 11 years of age? Blah. Makes me ill.
Nobody has any business having that many children in the developed world any more.
Much less ‘putting them first,’ which sounds like an excuse for ‘putting everyone else last.’
Irishgirl, thanks for clearing that up.