If nothing else- this nomination is giving women on the right and left some ideas to think about.
Generally we hear conservative women fighting for respect when they choose to be “stay at home moms”, while liberals maintain women can and should do it all.
Watching these arguments getting mixed up and turned around in the blender of differing views is worth watching .
Are conservative women in general more open to choosing different ways of mothering, working and community life than liberal women?
Aren’t liberal women suddenly saying a mother’s place is in the home raising her children? After decades of fighting for equality in the workplace are they saying -well except when the woman in question disagrees with our political beliefs? A strong and accomplished woman with views decidedly conservative (with a splash of libertarian) - NOT worthy of consideration?
Or is it just THIS mother? What about the time and effort required for her to be the governor of Alaska? It’s ok for her to do that (a full time job in itself) and yet NOT be able to be VP? What if this woman were a Democrat and not a Republican? Would these same arguments against her hold? Would they even be made?
I think there’s something else going on; the women’s movement is generally happy when MEN are the enemy. When women decide to work in partnership WITH men, they are seen to flounder, and suddenly find themselves in the odd position of arguing THIS mother should stay at home and raise her family.
What are we to learn from this?