This bitch has been pondering the themes represented in the comment made by Ed Rendell about Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano's nomination as Homeland Security chief. Rendell said Napolitano was a perfect pick because she doesn't have a family and can dedicate herself totally to the job.
Blink.
There's a lot to be bothered by in that but I must confess that what bothers me most is the idea that working in politics requires a lack of a life...and the unspoken belief that women with demanding lives can't work in politics.
Despite the excitement generated by Senator Clinton's presidential run, little attention is paid to the need for women to run for political office in all areas of government. I've spoken to a lot of women who have considered running for local or state office and almost all of them point to the daunting time commitments and their concerns over being able to balance that shit with the demands of their personal lives.
And many of them are single (gasp!) and have family demands that may or may not contain children (gasp again!!).
Even as I encourage them to explore the possibilities I have to acknowledge the fact that life in politics is often a major time commitment that puts serious strain on a person's work/life balance.
But we can't get stuck there.
We just can't.
We need more women in public office and that means we need to explore the challenges and work those problems out to come up with solutions that support working women everywhere rather than exclude us from representing our communities just when we need it most.
We've got lives and they desperately need to be represented in government.
So let's put our thinking caps on and get about the bitness of making that possible!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Notes from a bitch....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10813
That's pretty much the only positive thing about Sarah Palin--she maybe crazy, but she does have a family and a husband, and she still tried to run.
I don't see the problem. If you can't or won't dedicate yourself completely to a single goal, you shouldn't expect to come out ahead of those who do. Nobody is entitled to hold public office, or indeed to succeed at anything. To the contrary, I'd say that if the people who dedicate themselves exclusively to a particular task don't come out ahead more often than average, that would be a sign that something is terribly wrong.
So I'm ok with politics requiring people to have a minimal life outside of it. I mean, hey, if you're going to tell me what I can and can't do with the power of the state, I think it's reasonable to expect at least as much effort on your part as a full-time job.
The only situation I can see that would disproportionately affect women's abilities to make sacrifices for the sake of politics is motherhood. Other family obligations will presumably fall as often on men as women, but there is still the expectation that mothers will dedicate more to their children than fathers. However, women and mothers are not the same thing, and nobody is obligated to go from on to the other. So, if you don't want your political career to be hurt by motherhood, don't become a mother. It's your choice, and I see no reason that this personal diversion should be favored above all others for insulation against consequences.
The point is, men who are in politics don't commit themselves to a single goal. They have wives and children - they're just not expected to singlehandedly raise the children and hold down a full-time job. Because heterosexual men in our culture are still "entitled to" the full-time maid/nanny/chef services of a woman, even as she works outside the home. That's the difference.
Agreed. Once I get done writing this dissertation and get the li'lest one off to kindergarten it's straight to city council for me. The problem is, it probably means I'll have to marry my partner (we're happy cohabitating, thank you) and give up certain recreational "activities" that we may or may not engage in occasionally. The problem with going into politics is that you have to create a facade of respectability. Bleh.
I'm totally with you Rachel -- it's like I wrote that comment myself :)
while i see the point being made, politics is nowhere near the only field that this happens in.
what about women in science? i'm a grad student in molecular biology, and let me tell you - if i want a career, i had better dump the majority of outside activities.
i am fortunate - i have a partner who is completely supportive of me spending 20+ hours a day at work, and is happy with what time we are able to spend together. i see many women leave their careers in science because they're forced to choose - not necessarily because they WANT to choose, but they have a partner who refuses to support them.
i would argue that there's a relationship between how high up the ladder you climb and how much you're willing to "give up" (i don't see it as much of a sacrifice - i LOVE what i do, and couldn't be happier).
Well, duh. If you have a demanding career, and you want to both have a family and keep performing at a high level, then your partner is going to have to make the sacrifice because you don't want to. Your partner will have to do the hard, unglamorous, and non-intellectually-stimulating combo of childcare and housework, while you go off and spend 16+ hours a day at work or in the lab.
If you are female, then in the context of politically-acceptable heteronormative relationships, that means having a house-husband. Yes, they are hard to come by. But except for special circumstances there's no magic that permits both partners to perform at an elite level at work and participate in domestic work at the same time, because there are only so many hours in the day. Such is the price of economic competitiveness. Don't like it? Move to Europe, and have the nanny-state help you out.
Alice...
My goodness. Did I say anything about women being entitled or politics being a part-time job? If so, my bad 'cause the women I know in politics earned the hell out of getting there and government is better for it.
Lawd, have mercy.
I'm not talking about a lack of dedication - I'm talking about work/life balance.
As for motherhood being the only area where women may find a challenge I have to strongly disagree. I work (full time, as a matter of fact!!), I'm a co-guardian to an adult sibling with autism and I am an active volunteer in my community - all are things that enhance rather than detract from my qualifications as a potential public office holder and each requires a lot of work/life balance.
The thing is that government is weakened when those involved in it are not connected to the communities they serve. That connection is what requires work/life balance.
I'd like to think we'd explore options to empower people and support all women, including but not limited to those with children, who'd like to serve in office before we toss up our hands and embrace the idea that it can't be done.
But then again, I'm the kind of person who asks why not...color me audacious (wink)!
I didn't say it was the only place they'd find a challenge. I said it was the only area that'd be disproportionately challenged compared with men, who just as often have parents or siblings to take care of.
So why is it that nobody claims that men should have to choose between their careers and fatherhood? I've never heard anyone say "if you don't want your political career to be hurt by fatherhood, don't become a father." How is that fair?
this guy didn't say anything about her having to give up motherhood in order to have a career in politics though. He just said she doesn't have a family so she can dedicate a full 20 hours to the job every day.
Right, but my comment was in part a response to Alice's earlier comment in which s/he said "So, if you don't want your political career to be hurt by motherhood, don't become a mother."
And I agree that Rendell didn't say she had to give up motherhood to be in her position, but I seriously doubt that he would have commented on her family life (or lack thereof) at all if she had been a man. That's why it's so unfair - everyone assumes that a man's family life has nothing to do with his job, but a woman's ability to perform at work has everything to do with her family life. I call bullshit.
So why is it that nobody claims that men should have to choose between their careers and fatherhood? I've never heard anyone say "if you don't want your political career to be hurt by fatherhood, don't become a father."
I agree that this is an important question, Rachel, and it has many facets.
First (and perhaps least meaningfully), the fact of the matter is that men *do* choose between work and family -- if the average American male works 50+ hours a week, they may not be spending as much time with these children they're apparently fathering as they would like.
However, we don't say "If you don't want your political career to be hurt by fatherhood, don't become a father," but rather "if you don't want your fatherhood to be hurt by politics, don't become a politician." The time conflict is the same; the assumed solution is different.
So the real question is "why are men allowed to be great politicians/doctors/research scientists and consequently less-effective parents? why can't women make the same choice?" While the tradeoff between work and family may be inevitable, the expectation that motherhood is somehow inviolate and inviolable is not. This needs to change. Part of the problem is (actually) that motherhood is valued more than fatherhood; it shouldn't be.
At the risk of sounding callous, the world would be a better place if there were better people running it, even if we had to sacrifice a few "angel in the house" types to fill those seats.
Right, I agree with most of what you're saying. My point is that this is an indication of a ridiculous double standard. And Alice's claim that women with political aspirations shouldn't become mothers is a ridiculous extension of this. Men do not have to give up parenthood to have a political career, so neither should women. And the questions we ask about a woman's ability to do any job is reflective of deep inequities. It's not just in politics that marital/parental status is factored into hiring and tenure decisions, believe me.
I think there are two issues preventing the "average" woman from considering involvement in politics. There is the work-life balance you have pointed out and there is the vetting that others have alluded to. Despite an interest in politics that only came about after 40, the skeletons rattling around in my closet will surely prevent me from any serious political office.
And this is what's wrong with America. Motivated individuals with tons of relevant experience are prevented from public service by indiscretions in their past. Did you guys SEE the questionnaire the Obama campaign was using? And there is NOTHING to be done about it. Even owning up to it is merely enough to get you ushered from the campaign trail with a little bit of your dignity left. Unless, of course, you are Arnold.
I have one question to start off, why is the tag on this women of color?
And I think this is more to say about the state of politics than the idea that a woman is running for office. I do think that that would have been said about a man. Yes there is more of an emphasis on women having to raise kids and such, but this is national politics. Anyone who's ever read articles about the demanding life or even seen an episode of the West Wing knows how much you give of yourself during your time at the White House. I myself was wondering how much time Obama will get to spend with his kids when he gets sworn in as President because the job is so demanding. It goes for anyone especially someone who works in homeland security considering we're in how many wars? Do I think he should have said it? No, but I don't think that it was an overtly sexist statement.
Has anybody ever questioned a male politician's ability to do a job because of his wife and kids? I honestly can't remember a single instance of this, and I follow politics pretty religiously. If this has ever happened, please link to it.
When did we decide it was desirable for people to have a single-minded dedication to work at the expense of family, community engagement, personal development, recreation, and often health? When did it become a good thing to have no life? Who is upholding this value, and whose best interests do they have in mind?
I *especially* think that it's a mistake to have people in positions of power who never poke their heads up long enough to get some perspective.
Completely off-topic, but is there a way to subscribe to the RSS feed without getting this particular column? It has gotten irritating to the point that I would almost rather drop the rss feed entirely than continue to get this stuff.
jer - wtf?
Don't you love commenters who can't just go read some other blog or post a comment that articulates why the OP is wrong, and instead resorts to huffy passive-aggressive retorts? It so makes me miss 7th grade...
Yeah, WTF is with all the hostile commenters today? Maybe some college students decided to relieve their exam-related anxiety by harassing those interested in race & gender issues (the thread on today's Nikon ad post is a freaking troll fest).
I apologize on behalf of the hostile commenters, sharkfu!
No need to apologize but thank you...if I had a dollar for every time a commentor has tried to piss in my Corn Flakes a bitch would be rich (wink).
Regarding the WoC tag question - 'tis a habit since I am one and often write about that...no message/diss intended (mercy).
Anyhoo, I'm thinking this topic demands a lot of discussion/debate even though it tends to invite comment drama...mayhap that's why it invites comment-based drama.
Thanks to those who took a stab at it!
Ha! When she was running for governor here in AZ, the Bible-thumpers spent all their time insinuating that her extremely religious opponent was more fit because he was a parent and thus could Connect with the People.
Fortunately, the voters here are starting to vote with their heads, Prop. 102 nonwithstanding...
If you are female, then in the context of politically-acceptable heteronormative relationships, that means having a house-husband.games