I've been receiving emails and comments about Sarah Palin lately, and some are questioning my commitment toward advancing women in politics and elsewhere--a subject I regularly write about:
In spite of the go-women perspective at this site, I suspect it may not include "conservative" women or women with opposing viewpoints.
Look folks, it's true that Mrs. Palin and I have lady parts. We've both lived in the northern United States, and we each recently welcomed new additions to our families. Similarity ends there. Sarah Palin's politics are not 'pro-woman' simply because she is female. She does not support sex education, abortion rights, environmental protection, alternative energy development, and seems to maintain a blurred vision of the separation of church and state. Her nomination was a strategic and dangerous decision, surpassing partisanship. The choice was brash and it increasingly appears she was not vetted. So to answer readers, a candidate's gender should bear no role in his or her ability to take on the responsibilities of president. But our VP-in-waiting must be preparedon day one. In global decision-making, we don't get a do-over. Sarah Palin's positions on critical policies seem based on values that many throughout this diverse country do not share and she lacks the experience--especially in foreign relations--to lead. The message I advocate at The Intersection and elsewhere is that men and women should be considered equally for many roles, never that anyone should be afforded preference based on number of X chromosomes. Let our leaders be chosen, not by the composite of their gender, but by their readiness to preside over our great nation.
