Several people drew my attention this week to a rather bizarre opinion-slash-feature piece in the New York Times in which writer Liesl Schillinger attempts to shoehorn a painfully forced parallel among Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi based solely on the fact that all three of them happen to be mothers to five children….just like me (!!!).
Schilling writes:
…the three belong to what may be the smallest, most exclusive clique in American politics. The admission requirements are beyond most women, and all men: members must be prominent players in the United States political arena and must have given birth to not one, not two, not three, not even four — but five children, something that presumably gives them more in common than they might like to admit.
What does it say about this country at this moment that, of the small handful of women who have achieved highly visible political roles, three are matriarchs of such very large families? Could it be that the skills of managing sprawling households translate well into holding office? Or that such a remarkable glut of mom cred makes a woman’s bid for external power more palatable to voters? Or are they just related to more voters, which translates into a mysterious edge at the polls?
Whatever forces may be at play, taking a look at present dynamics, any American woman with long-range political ambitions might do well to also look to her nursery.
This analysis is flawed on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, most powerful American women in politics – including those operating at the same level (or above) as Palin, Bachmann and Pelosi – do NOT have five children..or even three children. This includes Hillary Clinton (1), Condoleezza Rice (0), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (2), Sonya Sotomayor (0), Olympia Snowe (0), Kirsten Gillibrand (2), Michelle Obama (2), Kay Bailey Hutchison (2), Kathleen Sebelius (2) .
So, does the fact that so many women in politics have SMALL families indicate some kind of trend? Does it give these women “more in common than they might like to admit?” Actually, very, very few women operating at the highest levels of American government or business are the mothers of four or more children, meaning that if Ms. Schillinger is attempting to do some trend-spotting with this Bachmann/Palin/Pelosi observation, she has stumbled upon a minor statistical fluke, not a real trend of any note.
In fact, if there’s a trend to be spotted, it heads in the other direction; I would submit that the REASON so few women in this country with more than one or two children are able to make it to the very top of the career ladder is because our nation has such woefully inadequate supports for working parents, thus forcing talented, capable, highly productive women who happen to have children to make career-hampering choices every day. It’s hard enough to hold down a job of any kind with one child, or two. God forbid you try to do it with three, four or more of the little anklebiters in your household.
And that leads me to my own observation – a mini-trend, if you will. Why is it that two of the three very powerful women with large families cited by Ms. Schillinger – Palin and Bachmann – have seemingly made it their life’s work to simultaneously promote policies that make it harder for women to control their own fertility while at the same time fighting against reasonable accomodations for working mothers that could lead to healthier families? Hmmm….. do political women with larger families necessarily have worse records on family issues? Nah, probably not. But as long as we’re drawing tenuous connections between unrelated factoids, I figured I’d throw that in there.
And for the record, was Ms. Schillinger aware that Mitt Romney has a passel of kids (5)? So do John McCain (5), David Vitter (4), Joe Biden (4), Bob Bennett (7), Orrin Hatch (6) and Jimmy Carter (4). I think I see a common thread here….. (NOT).
FOLLOW KATIE’S BLOGGING ON TWITTER OR FACEBOOK
READ MORE OF KATIE’S BABBLE BLOGGING
VISIT KATIE’S PERSONAL BLOG
Ummmm…Schillinger’s conclusion (look to your nursery?!?) seems like a complete fallacy. I can’t understand how the coincidence (and I think that’s all it is) is worth writing about beyond a simple, “Gee, know what I realized the other day?”
Hey Katie,
I’m getting a ton of misc. code in your posts:
%3B%0A%20%20%20%7D%0A%20%20%20catch%28e%29%0A%20%20%20%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20_leoHighlightsReportExeception%28%22leoHl_ToggleSize%28%29%22%2Ce%29%3B%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%7D%0A%7D%0A%0A”);
Like 10 screens worth.
It shows up in the main blog view at the top, usually after the first few words of text. In the individual post, it shows up at the end, before the comments.
I’m using the latest Firefox for the Mac, but it’s been happening on some post for months.
Ok. I agree the analysis is dumb. It is, however, an interesting observation that three successful female politicians have large families. What does it say about the country? That larger families are on the rise and that this generation of women, in contrast to previous generations with large families, is managing to have several children and (political) careers.
Incidentally I’m having the same problem as Jen, just after “VISIT KATIE’S PERSONAL BLOG”. I’m on a Mac with Safari.
Hey y’all – I am so sorry about the aonky code that is showing up in my Babble posts. The tech gurus at Babble are trying to figure out what the problem is. Thanks for your patience
-Katie
If it helps the tech gurus at all Katie, I am on a PC with IE version 7. Its kinda matrix-like in a way
.
I think her conclusion proves that some don’t get the difference between correlation/causation/flat out coincedence.
.
For the record babble techs, I too see code and use an old version of Windows IE.
“The REASON so few women in this country with more than one or two children are able to make it to the very top of the career ladder is because our nation has such woefully inadequate supports for working parents, thus forcing talented, capable, highly productive women who happen to have children to make career-hampering choices every day. It’s hard enough to hold down a job of any kind with one child, or two. God forbid you try to do it with three, four or more of the little anklebiters in your household.”
uhm…life is about choices…I think it’s foolhardy to think you can be an effective mother of more than maybe ONE kid if you are going to have a high-powered job like the ones mentioned…I respect more the women who make CHOICES and live with them instead of trying to “have it all” while shortchanging their kids and expecting the whole world to help them…how narcissistic to think you’re that important!
please fix the code problem!
What supports do you propose for working parents that we are lacking? There is of course the maternity leave situation. And pumping stations in workplaces (mine has them, and did you know that it’s included in the new healthcare plan?). What else?
I think the toughest factor to working with many children is affordability of childcare. So does that need to be subsidized by the gov’t?
OK, Nancy Pelosi is powerful, but Palin and Bachmann? One doesn’t even hold elected office and the other is a total whackjob who says insane things to attract media attention, and it works, but neither has much actual legislative power. So it might be more accurate to say that some women with 5 kids are able to do things to get on TV (but hey, so does Octomom).