Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-South Dakota) are part of a "new dynamic for women in politics" - both have given birth while serving in Congress.
Herseth Sandlin is only the seventh lawmaker in U.S. history to give birth while serving in Congress. Gillibrand was the sixth.Later this month, Linda Sanchez (D-California) is due to give birth, which will make her the eighth woman to do so while serving.
It's a relatively new dynamic for women in politics, because most used to take the path followed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California -- have children first, then run for office.
But during the past several years, there has been a concerted effort in both parties to recruit younger women.
What do you think?"To have new moms in the House is really a dream come true," said Pelosi during a recent news conference.
"It's a real message to working moms and young moms across America that someone who shares their experience and their aspirations for their children is a voice for them in the Congress."
Posts
9 comments:
Divided attentions are divided.
New mothers will require at least 6-8 weeks or more tending to their child. That's 6-8 weeks that my taxes are paying for them to NOT do their job.
Not cool. Private sector jobs, this sort of thing is fine. When you're a publicly funded entity, in the employ of the government, your job, sorry to say, should come before your biological clock.
If you read the article, in no way does it seem that these women are somehow slacking at their job in Congress just because they have (very young) babies. They make other arrangements, much like many working women with children are made to do.
Also, I think it's horrible to suggest that if a woman works for the government, her job should come before her "biological clock." Think of all the women that would not be able to work in the government if this were true. Many smart, driven, and very capable women would be denied the chance (and possibly for a very long time, since children are legally the responsibility of their parents/caretakers until age 18).
And it's interesting that you mention nothing about the men in Congress who have children. You seem to buy into and completely accept the idea that women are the sole caregivers to their children, that (presumably) have known fathers who should be helping with childcare. So if a man in Congress has a child at home, it's no big deal, right? Because that's the job of the woman. Stay outta Congress and take care of the babies.
women are universally more likely to care for their babies more than men does. we can argue whether it is patriarchy's fault or whether it is the fact that a baby is more likely to have physical attachment to the mother than to the father. it is due to the reasons that after birth, the first person to hold a baby is the mother, and the baby is breastfed by the mother, assuming the mother breastfeed. in a two parent family, women are obviously not the sole caregivers; men also contribute to caring for the baby. but the baby is more likely to "want" the mother than the father. i wish i could give you citations, but i learned this way back in human anatomy class. i am not saying that because of this, women should stay home and men do the work - but rather that there are reasons why baby would want the mother more than the father. i personally believe that america should follow french or german maternity leave laws (some of the best in the world), but of course, there will be many who will scream "socialist" or even more ridiculously "communist" before anything like that ever happens. not hard to believe as obama was branded a "socialist" by ridiculous conservatives.
There may very well be real reasons for babies "wanting" their mother over their father. I don't know, so I can't argue against that. But it's important to note that this women aren't taking that to mean that they can't do their job. They are making arrangement in order to be able to dedicate themselves to their work and their families.
My point is, at first, she's going to require 6-8 weeks off work to deal with it.
If she immediately dumps it off on someone else, perhaps she needs to re-evaluate why she wanted one in the first place. If you want a kid, but want someone else to take care of it, why are you having one?
For your second, it's not horrible at all. Everyone in life makes choices. A woman's biological clock really isn't my concern.
If you're smart, drive, and want to succeed, well, perhaps set aside the desire to breed. In the private sector, I said it's fine. When my taxes pay for you to hold your position, certain things from your performance are expected. Maternity leave is not one of them.
Men in congress who have children are irrelevant. Men don't require hospitalization when their wife has a child, nor do they require or act entitled to 6-8 weeks (or more) time off after their wife has said child. That being the difference.
If a man's wife has a kid, no toll is taken on his health, he doesn't even need to set foot outside of work for this to occur. His performance is unchanged by the event.
Hers, however, is not. Dislike it all you want, but that's the nature of the beast.
So if a man in Congress has a child at home, it's no big deal, right? Because that's the job of the woman. Stay outta Congress and take care of the babies.Your men, they are made of straw. Refrain from this.
You seem to miss the fact that women require all sorts of special privileges when they decide to breed. Men don't.
Besides, what's so awful about women taking care of their offspring? Animals do it, and (amazingly, feminists seem to not "get" this) we're still animals. Just smarter and with cars and guns.
When you're a publicly funded entity, in the employ of the government, your job, sorry to say, should come before your biological clock.And yet when women do this, they're criticized for not having children or called lesbians. I think some of the online discussions around potential Supreme Court Justices circles exactly around this point as well.
Either way, it seems women can't win.
And yet when women do this, they're criticized for not having children or called lesbians. I think some of the online discussions around potential Supreme Court Justices circles exactly around this point as well.
Either way, it seems women can't win.No, I strongly believe you should stop having them. One gets tired of women who are constantly obsessed with reproduction.
Imagine it from a male perspective. It's impossible to have a romantic relationship past the age of 21, because the more you get past it, the more women already have kids, or are gradually becoming more and more obsessed with it. It's vile.
If you want a serious career in politics, drop the kid obsession, or step down once you give birth. I don't pay tax dollars to fund maternity leave of someone not doing their job to serve the public.
Imagine it from a male perspective. It's impossible to have a romantic relationship past the age of 21, because the more you get past it, the more women already have kids, or are gradually becoming more and more obsessed with it. It's vile.Oh wow, that must be HORRIBLE. I feel so bad for men everywhere who must deal with baby-crazy women. I'm sorry, but I never thought about what a rough time men have dating women.
Here's a deal: I'll think about all the pain all men everywhere have to deal with in 21+ baby-obsessed women and you think about how women, regardless of age, are mocked, punished and disregarded for the status of their wombs, regardless of activity.
Can anyone say "male privilege?"
Anonymous expresses well the resentment of losers toward mothers. Happy mother's day!
Post a Comment