I'm going to need one of these in a minute.
First there's this:
Comments about how Sarah Palin ought not to run for VP because she should be taking care of her family -- are you kidding me? When does anyone tell a man he shouldn't strive for -- well, for anything, because there's a baby in the family? (So he's a "special needs" baby. Does this mean his mother is not entitled to pursue a powerful political career?) What nonsense. Of course it's not hard to believe people are saying Sarah Palin should get herself back in the kitchen -- it's so predictable it's utterly dull. But to hear it from people whose opinions I otherwise respect? from self-described feminists? burns my grits. Come ON. This is precisely why we ARE feminists, no?
Gov. Palin states how proud their family is of "Bristol's decision to have her baby." Good for them! Truly! I'd be delighted to leave Bristol out of the political conversation altogether. She's young, and she didn't ask for her life to play out on a national stage, and she deserves her privacy. I would like to follow Barack Obama's example and take the high road, as he so often does.
However: this is a "decision" process that our anti-choice, would-be Vice President fully intends to deny anyone else, yes?
So wait just a damn minute. I think it's fair game to discuss whether or not Gov. Palin sticks to her beliefs when the issue is under her own roof.
Why is Bristol Palin on some sort of pedestal, while teenage mothers in, say, Gloucester Massachusetts are the bane of their community and have been basically derided as self-indulgent sluts?
So, Gramma Palin, how's that abstinence-only sex education thing working out for your family? Could we maybe give reality-based, age-appropriate information a try for our own kids? Cause it looks like that might have better results. Just saying...