The Bristol and Sarah Palin Story: Can We Talk?

The Republican Party's nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, is a woman with five children, whose unmarried 17-year old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. If this isn't an opportunity to have a real conversation about so-called "women's issues," I don't know what is. So, can we talk?

Although many refer to the U.S. as the world's greatest democracy, it remains a political system in which women are not really free. Without control over when (and if) a woman chooses to have children, she does not have control over her life. Reproductive choice is inextricably linked with women's freedom--personally, socially, economically, and politically.

Unfortunately, as evidenced during the past few days, we don't seem to know how to have a real conversation about reproductive freedom. The Bristol and Sarah Palin story has offered us the opportunity for a complex conversation about all of the components of reproductive choice--one that gets beyond simplistic, either/or arguments and moves towards complex, both/and solutions.

A real conversation about reproductive choice would include honest information about human sexuality for girls and boys, for men and women, and would ask why boys/men aren't taught to be just as responsible for birth control as girls/women are. While the Republican Party has pushed for abstinence only education, teen pregnancy rates have grown in the U.S. Further, many adult men still don't consider it their responsibility to be concerned with birth control--that's a woman's job.

A real conversation about reproductive choice would explore why the U.S. has the highest teenage pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation. While the Republican Party has pushed for legislation that seriously limits access to affordable birth control, many young girls lives are increasingly defined by, and confined by, becoming mothers.

A real conversation about reproductive choice would ask us to consider what happens to the life path of a teenage mother who has no option other than to give birth to a child. How does she get the education that will move her beyond hourly wage work? The Republican Party does not want to allow girls/women unlimited choice about when (and if) they have children, but also doesn't want to use government resources to support them if they do. What's wrong with this picture?

A real conversation would ask us to struggle with the "other" side of adoption. Abortion critics never want to discuss the emotional and physical drawbacks of some adoptees experiences--a lifetime spent wondering why you were "given away," or struggling to define a sense of identity, or seeking largely unanswerable questions about your medical history. Certainly, many adoptees are happy with their adoptive families, but there are just as many who are not. It's not an either/or issue, which is why it should be every woman's choice.

The political problem is this. All teenage mothers aren't as lucky as Bristol Palin. All teenage mothers don't have the supportive family that Bristol Palin apparently does. All teenage mothers don't have schools and churches that won't shame them for attending even when they're pregnant. All teenage mothers don't have well-educated families who will ensure that they get the education to develop professionally and economically. All teenage mothers don't have the familial and financial support to help them parent their children when they are still growing themselves. The result of policies supported by the Republican Party that define "family values" solely in terms of a traditional nuclear family is that we continue to make individual women responsible for childcare with little to no network of support.

What about Sarah Palin's story? Is Todd Palin a stay-at-home dad? If he's not, then the "family values" folks have some explaining to do. It's not easy for children to grow up under the public eye and even harder if there isn't a parent available on a consistent basis to help them navigate this minefield. It certainly doesn't have to be a woman, but it has to be someone in the family since the Republican Party doesn't support government-funded childcare.

A real conversation would include uncovering our hidden assumptions about who should be responsible for childcare. It would force us to struggle with the difficult questions about how children are cared for when both parents work outside the home, because the truth is that most Americans don't have a choice. In most American families, both parents must work outside the home.

A real conversation would include an examination of the lives that are decimated by lack of care. We lose so many Americans, so early in their lives, to the hopelessness that leads them to drugs, alcohol, crime, and too often to the prison system. Counted among the losses are the $billions spent in the prison system, but far more important is the loss of human potential. If every American child had reliable emotional and financial support and an equal education, what might our nation look like today?

We won't ever have the answer to that question as long as our policies reflect the assumption of a traditional nuclear family. Further, the model of a stay-at-home mom and a work-outside-the-home-60-hours-per-week-and-rarely-be-available dad is not a guaranteed prescription for a happy family. Unfortunately, that's the model of the "family values" folks, though notably not the model of the Palin family.

In the end, a real conversation about so-called women's issues would help us see why these issues matter to us all--not just to women. Do we want a society, laws, and systems of government, in which only the fortunate few can thrive? Or, do we want a society where it is not only possible, but likely, that we all thrive? If our political leaders had the courage to lead a real conversation, we might actually build a true democracy. So far, we've missed the opportunity for this real conversation. And without it, we may never manifest the democracy that we so often claim we already are--with liberty and justice for all.

Coffee and Revelation: Thanks to C-SPAN and Madeleine Albright

As a teacher, I am sometimes surprised at what students say they actually learn from me—some of the most significant things have to do with me just being me. So, it was with Madeleine Albright and I. One morning while she was just being herself, she taught me some very important lessons about women and leadership.

It began one day when I was watching C-SPAN over my morning coffee. Madeleine Albright on was testifying before a Congressional committee on how we should proceed regarding the U.S. involvement Iraq war. After her testimony, she answered questions from many Congresspeople who almost unanimously opened their questioning with comments of great praise and respect for Albright.

I thought about how I’ve allowed myself to believe that being an intelligent, strong-willed, determined woman will often mean that I am not heard and not respected. And, yes, gender sometimes plays some part in that. But, it’s also true that if you work hard enough and long enough at something, eventually some people will understand your mission and purpose. And, even those that don’t agree with your ideas, may at least respect your commitment to them. I saw that in the respect Albright had earned from her colleagues.However, my real awakening was yet to come.

A Republican Congressman (whose name I’ve conveniently blotted out of my memory) opened his remarks with a scathing set of accusations implying that it was Albright’s fault that we were facing the situation in Iraq. I watched with amazement as she listened to his tirade without becoming visibly upset. His remarks made it apparent that he had been in office long enough to have dealt with her while she was Secretary of State, and that there was “no love lost” between them.

I was stunned to hear someone speak to a professional colleague in such a childish tone, especially in a public forum, and my anticipation of her response became even more heightened the longer he talked. Since I have been in these types of situations many times, I wanted to see how Albright would handle this one. And, she showed me something that I hadn’t seen before. Honesty.

Albright opened her response to his “questions” with an obviously sarcastic comment about “what a pleasure it was for her to continue their always ‘collegial’ relationship” or some such thing—basically, she said “I know you’ve never liked me and I’ve never liked you either.” But, it was how she continued that impressed me even more. She basically said, “But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t solve problems together” and then went on to explain her response to his questions in the most honest, non-political language that I’d heard in a long time.

There was one more very significant moment in her testimony for me. She was trying to make the point that we must use diplomacy, not just military might, to resolve the issues in Iraq (and Iran)—that they will not be resolved with military force alone. She had already made it clear that in her view, the greatest mistake the Bush Administration made was to end bi-lateral talks with Iraq and Iran. Bush has been determined to lump countries together into multi-lateral talks with the U.S. instead of honoring their individual sovereignty and unique national concerns.
Albright described other international negotiations that she’d engaged in and made this point: you don’t have to like someone to sit down at the table with them. She also explained that nothing gets resolved if you don’t stay at the table and work through your differences. She added that even when you see no common ground, and you despise everything the other group stands for, you have to continue to talk.

Lastly, she made it clear that she did not feel it was necessary to “pretend” to like policies with which you do not agree or people whose behavior you don’t like—making it clear that one could be honest and still get things done. I made the connection between that idea and the angry Congressman who had questioned her earlier. I saw that there was no “love lost” between them, but I also saw that they were both still at the table trying to work on the issues in spite of it.

One of the lessons for me was this. I’ve thought that one of the reasons that my visions for how to solve problems are not heard is because of my “style” of delivery—that is, because people perceive me as too strong and determined and this is inappropriate gender behavior. In other words, I’ve believed that the primary reason that I wasn’t heard in so many professional situations was that in a patriarchal society no one can hear a strong, intelligent, determined woman. She’ll always be ignored and discounted as an “angry bitch” with “the tone” (an accusation that was frequently lodged at me, especially early in my professional life). This false belief had caused me to keep a low-profile, and continue to be a worker bee in the trenches instead of moving into larger leadership roles.

What Albright showed me was that some people will always view me negatively, but that even though sexism does exist it does not need to stop me. There will also be more wise individuals who can learn to respect my honesty, my strength, my courage, my determination, and my commitment to the things that I hold dear.

Another lesson that Albright taught me is that unlike Blanche DuBois, I do not need to be dependent on the “kindness of strangers.” She reminded me of the lesson that I am still learning—my sense of identity must come from within, must be guided by my own vision of who I am, of what my strengths are, of what I have to offer in this life, not by the good (or bad) opinion of others. I must continue to engage in the lifelong struggle to undo an internalized negative self image.

Albright also reminded me that I must never waver in my determination to seek role models and mentors who are women. I don’t mean to say that men have nothing to show me about leadership. But, listening to Albright that day reminded me about the ways in which my experiences as a woman in a patriarchy have a profound influence on how I perceive my life and how others perceive me. Given the facts of our gendered society, if I seek to create a model for what my own vision of leadership, I’m more likely to have profound insights about how that might work by understanding how other women leaders have been successful.

So, thank you to C-SPAN and to Madeleine Albright, who while just being herself one day mentored an unknown woman thousands of miles away. I hope that readers of this “thank you note” are also reminded of the biggest lesson of them all—how important it is for each of us to simply be ourselves. Do not follow someone else’s script for your life. Write your own!