Sunday, October 12, 2008

The Question of First Spouses

In the midst of the headlines attached to articles about the findings against S. Palin in "trooper-gate" are increasing revelations about the role of Palin's husband in his wife's governorship of Alaska. Every article I have read presents him as perhaps more than a "just being supportive" spouse. There are allegations of his being present at closed-cabinet meetings, copied on official state e-mails, meeting separately with state official on his wife's behalf, etc.

All of this explores the question of spousehood. What are the boundaries of influence when it comes to spouses and our professional work? If we accept as a given that all spouses naturally talk to each other then it is only natural that spouses are going to occasionally opine about each others' work issues. For the most part - we are ok with this? Yes?

Or no? The questions swirling & twirling around Scott Palin raise 2 questions - does it make a difference when the one spouse is an elected official? And - does it make a difference whether the other spouse is a wife or a husband?

Remember Nancy Reagan? And the snide remarks about her propping up of her husband in his final term? Remember Hilary Clinton as Fiirst Lady? And the snide remarks about her involvement in her husband's administration? HC upped the stakes by not just trying to be a supportive spouse but by actually trying to be a useful First Lady who does more than play hostess to the world. She dared to try to change her job description. And oh how the country breathed a sigh of relief when Laura was elected, but I digress.....

And then there was that woman who challenged Obama for the nomination. We were faced with the prospect of out first FIRST Gentleman. What would he do? Play host to the world? HE was a particular problem because he had actually once had a career of his own & might not want to quietly sit back & play host. Mmmm kinda like Hilary Clinton the lawyer when she was First Lady being asked to play hostess.

Life was a lot easier when FIRST spouses (wives) had no careers of their own.

And now we have Scott Palin participating in his wife's governorship. Appropriate? Is he just trying, like Hilary Clinton in Washington, to redefine his FIRST spousal role? Or is he really just being, well, inappropriate?

I raise these questions because of my own arguably sexist & politically biased reaction to the stories I read today. I can't stand Sarah so I found myself disinclined to like Scott or to be the least bit sympathetic towards him. Then I thought - wait a minute, Squid - don't be unfair. Don't be sexist. Don't apply a different standard to him than you applied when you were sympathetic to Hilary as First Lady. Or the standard you apply when you feel sympathetic about the struggles ahead for Michelle O.

I do actually think, based on the evidence, that Scott P. over-stepped certain boundaries - though given the arrogance of his wife it could be that they just didn't handle the situation as well as they could have if they had been more up-front about the situation. However - I will be interested to see how this continues to be discussed in the media - whether Scott will be discussed in a sexist fashion as were Nancy & Hilary or whether he will be treated more "fairly" as a "just trying to be supportive" spouse.

4 comments:

  1. There is a lot more to be concerned about regarding Scott Palin’s role as first spouse in SP’s governorship. It is not just his meddling in affairs of state that should worry us. This article in Salon uncovers unsavory aspects of Scott Palin’s associations that would sink any Democratic candidate, highlights:

    “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.” This was former revolutionary terrorist Bill Ayers back in his old Weather Underground days, right? Imagine what Sarah Palin is going to do with this incendiary quote as she tears into Barack Obama this week.

    Only one problem. The quote is from Joe Vogler, the raging anti-American who founded the Alaska Independence Party. Inconveniently for Palin, that’s the very same secessionist party that her husband, Todd, belonged to for seven years [my bold] …

    Vogler’s greatest moment of glory was to be his 1993 appearance before the United Nations to denounce United States “tyranny” before the entire world and to demand Alaska’s freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue ...

    That’s right … Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran ...

    Imagine the uproar if Michelle Obama was revealed to have joined a black nationalist party whose founder preached armed secession from the United States and who enlisted the government of Iran in his cause? The Obama campaign would probably not have survived such an explosive revelation …

    Where’s the outrage, Sarah Palin has been asking this week, in her attacks on Obama’s fuzzy ties to Ayers? The question is more appropriate when applied to her own disturbing associations.


    First spouse indeed. There is no issue of sexism or political bias here. Whereas the McCain/Palin campaign maligns Obama and questions his patriotism, this dirty secret of the Palin clan sneaks under the radar screen unnoticed. A mighty hypocrisy!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is a mighty hypocrisy, Octopus, and how curious that this was NOT mentioned in some of the main stream press I read today. Very curious. Though, admittedly, they were concentrating on the abuse of spousal privilege in and of itself - issues aside. That was what I was responding to.

    Now as for this not being more widely focused upon & sneaking under the wire - I can not help but wonder if there is a connection - if this is in part because of some form of latent gendered double standard. Even if in small part. In other words, is a husband inadvertently being granted more leeway than a wife would. I'm not trying to read sexism into everything - really, I'm not. But when I was writing my post this morning I kept remembering back to how first ladies have been treated in the press & I just had this nagging feeling that Mr. Palin was not being equally scrutinized. As if the press didn't know how to ask the same questions. I've actually felt this for awhile.

    In other words - when a first lady's actions are questioned it is with the tone of - how dare she presume to reach higher. Whereas with Mr. Palin that particular tone is not there - is it because men are assumed to already be higher, or at least "high"? The press was critical of him as a spouse but not with the same "tone of voice." Remember - from the beginning he has been held up as a model male - the supportive male spouse - oh how unusual - where as wives are expected to be that way so why make mention of it? Does that make sense?

    Sexism aside - I do think political bias is at play perhaps. Has the press become so used to Republicans screaming foul &, thereby, pointing out to them where the hot stories are that the press is slow to pick up on this story because the Democratic party is not screaming as loudly as the Republicans are want to (which they never do)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this explained by a gendered double standard or a political bias? Maybe this cliché contains both possibilities: “The Dems are the “mommy” party while the Repubs are the “daddy” party.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. First spouse? In Alaskan, isn't that first Spoose?

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil discourse from all people but express no obligation to allow contributors and readers to be trolled. Any comment that sinks to the level of bigotry, defamation, personal insults, off-topic rants, and profanity will be deleted without notice.