- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Yours is a point which cuts to the heart of the matter. If McCain, as he claims, knew unwed 17-year-old Bristol Palin was pregnant, what does this say about his "family values" or concern for the well-being of children? He, far more than Sarah Palin, had to know that the media would find out and it would put her in the spotlight, however regrettable that may be. How was that going to be good for that child? Now it's reported by the AP that Levi Johnston, 18, the supposed father, is flying to Minnesota -- even after the Palins asked for their family's privacy be protected. What possible purpose can his attendance there serve, other than to further feed the media frenzy?
The more I think about the Palin family situation, the more it troubles me -- and I see a pattern here. I've heard a report about the oldest son and why he joined the Army -- which, at this stage is a rumor which I will not disseminate -- that, if true, is disturbing. An unwed teenage daughter being pregnant. Sarah's 10-hour flight from Texas to Alaska after her water broke -- which in some jurisdictions could jeopardize custody of the infant since it is so risky because the baby is deprived of nourishment while in the womb during that time period. Does any of this speak well of Palin's judgment or priorities? Is this a sign of a mother who puts the needs and care of her children first? How do I square the idea of "family values," at least as I understand them, with either campaigning around America with a four-month old special needs child or separating that child from his mother for the next two months?
Yes, careers of any kind pose difficulties for parents, both men and women, and being a parent does not necessarily preclude a career for either. Yet, someone has to raise the children. I'm sure some conservative will claim that liberals are being hypocritical with raising these issues, but I don't agree. A woman should have a right to choose on reproduction, should receive equal pay and treatment in the workplace, should not have the proverbial "glass ceiling" barring her from attaining any position she desires. The law should be clear on all of these points to ensure full equality.
Yet, seeking a career and having children are choices, ones which millions of women make, but within those choices are explicit responsibilities. Children have no choice; they rely on their parents to ensure proper care and development. I think liberals and conservatives can agree on this point: the needs of the child come first. Now, certainly, there are differences in family dynamics; some men are just as capable of raising a child as women, some of whom -- even if they devote themselves to the task -- are not effective mothers. There is no universal truth here. However, unless psychological studies are inherently sexist, do they not generally suggest that -- especially for young children -- a mother's care is vital? Again, millions of women are able to juggle a career with motherhood, and the assistance of a sound family structure can help in that regard (Hillary's "Village" comes to mind), but is there not a point at which -- regardless of what rights a woman has -- there is a personal responsibility to ensure that the professional ambitions of the mother are secondary to the needs of her children? While many families make this work, many others don't -- which is why there are so many at-risk children.
Of course, there are exceptions: single working mothers often do not have choices (which is why the neglect of Headstart and day care is a national disgrace), absentee or neglectful fathers are an abomination. I certainly don't subscribe to the theory that the only effective way to raise a child is through the "traditional" male hunter-woman nester relationship. Yet, ultimately, the proof is in the pudding; whatever the family dynamic, if one's children are in trouble, then a re-evaluation of priorities and corrective action is necessary.
I can't answer the question of whether Sarah Palin is or is not a "good" mother by the above criteria, nor is it fitting that I do so. But I can't help but believe that some of the decisions she has made do not represent those of someone who puts her children first, at least from what is publicly visible. Maybe being a Governor or Vice Presidential candidate is too much of a stretch, whereas being a professional broadcaster or mayor of Wasilla, Alaska -- careers which may not demand the same commitments of time and energy -- are more workable.
Okay, so my age is showing. I'm old-fashioned maybe in my concern for the well-being of children. All I know is that if I had to make the choice between my career and raising a child, it would be no contest.
