Given the history of men in politics, it makes sense for people to initially be against the idea. Men don't usually struggle with trying to find babysitters, let alone worry about being able to afford one. Because politics have long been dominated by men, the public has not had enough time to witness the cost associated with being a mother in federal affairs. As stated in the article, mothers are chased away from the political sphere due to the strenuous work hours, countless traveling, and inability to live a life outside the public eye. The fact that both men and women have to face these harsh realities of politics, yet women have to encounter them in addition to worrying about running a household, shows that the playing field isn't equal to all contenders of the political world. Feel free to add your reaction or take a side on the issue at hand.
Article Link
Reading this article, I find myself persuaded by the author to believe that if childcare is a legitimate cost and obstacle to running a political campaign, it should be allowed for ANY candidate, male or female, to use campaign funding. I also think this raises the larger issue of socioeconomic status in barriers to entry for political candidates: I can't help but consider that men in lower income-brackets who rely on their partners for dual-income must also be facing these same challenges when it comes to considering political office.
ReplyDeleteI think, for me, this line "If we want a government reflective of our society, we need to break down barriers for women, for mothers, for people of color seeking elected office," exemplifies perfectly the idea that we need to help break down barriers that restrict apt candidates if we don't want to miss out on those who reflect our aspirations for the society we want to live in. I understand the wariness some voters have; how will a candidate manage office and childcare if he or she needs help balancing both now? This then causes a need for justification on the candidate's behalf, forcing voters into his or her private life. In this regard, is a holistic understanding of a candidate and their personal life necessary to understand the human behind a set of beliefs and policies? Or does entry into this realm simply cause more harm for the candidate, as it provides more substance for exploitation? How "personal" should politics get?
ReplyDelete