The Business Coach

I've yet to see anyone make the claim you are attacking here: that she is more "vulnerable to suffering psychological distress or burnout than stay-at-home moms."

This is an utterly false argument.

The principle criticisms of her (in terms of being a mother and high-level politician), as I understand them, do not concern the effects on her, but on her children. I find it strangely amusing that you, an expert on narcissism, miss this rather obvious point. Nobody's worried about poor Sarah Palin suffering from all the stress of being an utterly unqualified Vice-President. She obviously strives on stress. As I understand it, people are concerned for her children (and there are signs of suffering there, no?), and for the country.

Your blood boils in vain.

So the above comment is suggesting that women who are in high-powered jobs are narrcicistic bad mothers? What kind of sweeping statement is that? Was Hillary a bad mom? Chelsea seems to have turned out okay and really how much responsibility can you put on a mother to control every outcome of her children's lives? In my opinion, it would be far worse for Ms. Palin to put her political career on hold in the wake of her daughter's pregancy. As hard as it must be for her daughter to endure such public scrutiniy, it would be more devastating for Palin's daughter to watch her own mother hide away in shame, ceasing to achieve her goals because of her daughter's mistake. Stuff happens and people thrive anyway. To link your dislike of Palin as a political candidate to questions of her commitment to her children, is disgusting and shows a total lack of human compassion.

Dear Earl:

It is clear that we're reading from different pages of the hymnal, but since I do appreciate reader input (it makes me think and is often instructive), I ask you to consider if you didn't miss the argument I was attempting (not too effectively in your case) to make.

As someone with over 30 year of clinical experience, I read into your letter a prejudice against EITHER Republicans or Ms. Palin in particular that, I believe, preempted your capacity to "hear" what I was expressing. To wit:

!. You state, "Nobody's worried about poor Sarah Palin suffering from all the stress of being an utterly unqualified Vice-President." Now forgive me, but the use of "poor" and "utterly unqualified" lead me to...how to say this?... know in my soul that you favor Barack Obama's ticket. This bias would, if, in your mind, I'm serving as an apologist for Sarah Palin, be off-putting.

The truth of the matter --IF YOU READ THE ENTIRE POST-- is that I thought she was a bad choice by McCain. Further, my criticism was of a cultural phenomenon (dissing women who have careers), not a defense of a gun-toting Hockey Mom. That aside, your anger toward Conservatives is leaking-out badly. Please consider that taking it out on me does no good.

2. You also stated, "As I understand it, people are concerned for her children (and there are signs of suffering there, no?), and for the country." If you are referring to the fact that Ms. Palin's daughter is pregnant, how does that mean KRISTOL, the mom-to-be, is suffering? She may have feared a life raising a child alone and is now elated to be getting married. You see, THE FOURTH ESTATE PROJECTED "PAIN" ONTO THE PALIN FAMILY. They are at this moment, one-and-all, elated to have a Mother who, according to everything I read this morning (before I read your post) a bona fide STAR. If you want to understand familial problems, look at the man you are supporting for president, ABANDONED BY A FATHER, spending a lifetime seeking one, and the one he found --Reverend Wright-- nearly derailed his political ambitions. That, Earl, is pain.

And finally, your claim that pundits who are trashing Palin are worried about the country is utter Horse Poop. The same people who are allegedly worried about the country were supporters of a President who exploited a girl his daughter's age solely for his narcissistic gratification, and called a speech by a Senator from Massachusetts who, you may recall, killed a young woman he was trysting with, "inspiring."

I believe strongly --PASSIONATELY-- that, as Freud noted, "Character is fate." Sadly, I would take a woman with only a PTA chairpersonship on her CV for vice president, over a misogynist, murder, or pathological liar.

Finally, Earl, when YOUR blood boils reading this response pointing to your excessive bile, you may reply as you wish, but I'm done.

As I said, I do appreciate comments, but yours involved venting at me for ills you blame on others, and I hate starting my morning as a scape goat.

Thanks for seeing the true agenda underlying "The Earl's" remarks.

See what I felt when I read it, above.

Best,

SB

Dear Dr, Berglass,

I take exception about the premise of your article purportedly setting the record straight about Sarah Palin’s capacity to regulate her self esteem in the midst of balancing multiple stressful roles.

Your premise - that Sarah Palin - is the undeserved target of "pro Democratic media outlets" - namely the New York Times and NBC - heaping "half truths and lies" is itself a sweeping generalize accusation.

For example – the following article: A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers” objectively explores this issue. While not discussing the psychology of mothers per se, it is a balanced and fair account in identifying the core issues associated with this complicated concern.

For me the issue is not whether Palin and other women can maintain a balanced sense of self in the midst of great pressure rather it is their character that should be of most concern to the electorate.

I agree with the responder ahead of me that Sarah Palin thrives on stress. Indeed she may compulsively induce it. In speaking about her essence she says: “The difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick.”

If you wish to be specific about your accusations I will be happy to read them.

I don't agree with Earl, except that I haven't seen anyone questioning Mrs. Palin on the grounds you're citing. I've heard a lot of people questioning McCain's decision-making process (like the front page of the NY Times). I've heard people question whether they've told the truth about how the whole process happened. I've heard people debating why he chose Palin. I've heard the argument that how a politician runs his/her campaign is a strong indicator of how he will run the office once he's in it.
To be honest, I dislike Palin on ideological grounds. Your analysis bears no resemblance to my reasoning. I think you've made a good case; I just think you're shouting it at windmills.

A few points:

-- First off, my blood rarely gets beyond a low simmer, as I don't thrive on stress (or eustres, for that matter).

-- I think it's a safe bet that Palin's daughter, Bristol (not Kristol), is not thrilled to be dropping out of high school (or interrupting it, at least) to have a baby with her self-proclaimed "redneck" boyfriend at 17 and, due to all the attention she never asked for, to be forced into a marriage with another child -- one who, until recently, was adamantly opposed to having kids (according to his MySpace page). Of course, I could be wrong about that, but the odds definitely favor this conclusion.

-- Speaking of odds, they are very, very long, that Bristol's marriage will be anything but a stress-filled disaster. Few, very few, people have the emotional maturity at 17 years of age to build the foundation of a healthy, stable marriage. To try to paint over that reality with fantasies about how elated this child is to be getting married betrays a bit of your agenda, no?

-- Of course Obama suffered (and suffers) the pain of having been raised without a father. Did I imply he doesn't? Are we comparing the scars of politicians? I don't see your point there.

-- Where you see a "superbly balanced woman," I see a someone who wants to ban books from the public library, wants to make abortion illegal for my daughters even in cases of rape, appears to have abused her political power to settle family disputes, and has no qualms whatsoever about stating direct lies on national television (she didn't oppose the bridge to nowhere, she kept the hundreds of millions of federal dollars she claims she refused, she only "took on big oil" in the sense of demanding more money from them -- demanding kickbacks from the mob is hardly taking on corruption). No point in going on, as your agenda is as obvious as mine, I'm sure.

-- Becky, Hillary Clinton was not vice president. She had one child at the time her husband was elected. No babies. No toddlers. No special needs kids. No pregnant teen daughters. Even so, I didn't say that "women who are in high-powered jobs are narrcicistic (sic) bad mothers." Not sure where you read that, but it wasn't in my brief message, which simply questioned the premise of the post, which I quoted to avoid confusion.

-- Finally, Dr. Berglas, relax, be happy you have people reading and commenting on your blog. Stimulating discussion is a sign of reader interest, nothing to be upset about.

Dr.,

You tried to keep objectivity out of the discussion. The news organizations you named are doing what the McCain campaign did not and that is vet this woman.
The facts are that numerous things she has said are half truths and others a just plain lies. She did not sell the plane on E-Bay. She lied about the about the bridge to no where and in fact took the money. The pipeline is not being built and may not be built. As mayor she left her hometown more than $20milion dollars in debt. The head of a cessionist group said she was once a member and we know her husband was for many years. While she may be a raising star for republicans she infact is a right wing nut case and we should be desperately afraid if McCain becomes president. His judgement is severely lacking as his road to problem solving is war.

as a woman and a mother of 5 to 6 children like sara palin has a hard situation to handle the two family and career. it is like she ignored her responsiblities to her children and run for vice president.. she is not a normal mother..
she is abnormal and not thingking good.
not only that i can see to her moves she aims high..
in my opinion the strength of a woman to run a VP of United State is different than a man. sara palin is good only in a small area or small country to lead but not the whole world..

..that the page in Psychology Today that is dedicated to gender is full of references to Palin. How come, not Obama, McCain, Bush, Byden, or Hillary Clinton?

I believe that most democrats that criticize her have a very valid point: they are not worried about her stress or her ability to straighten out her kids. They are worried about her track record. Alaska is a large state with tiny population. She has not been active in Senate. Her experience is incomparable with Obama and Byden. Nevertheless, the whole country admires her. I have to acknowledge that it is easier to be a woman in this country. You don't need to be experienced, knowledgeable, or detail-oriented. You need to look pretty and talk about generally admired values.

So sad!

I'm no psychologist, but when I look at Sarah Palin's family I see some troubling dynamics:

1) We have a family with a combined income of probably around $200,000, one of whom is the governor of the state, all of which we would tend to consider 'high status'. Not to make any moral judgments for or against status. It's there, and it usually involves certain expectations.
2) Top 2 children of this 'high status' family have no (apparent) plans for college, despite abundant resources; 1 child is pregnant, headed for (possibly) forced marriage, despite no barriers to adequate information on subject.

To me 1) and 2) don't add up. I'm not to judge anyone's lifestyle, if someone wants to give up college to be a woodchipper that's fine. But when I speculate on what sort of guidance these children are getting, my best guess is "inadequate". In my humble, nonprofessional view something is not quite right in Denmark.

My best guess, based on the parents of kids I grew up and the parents of kids I see today, is that the parents are disengaged for some reason from their own children, the children are "acting out" from desperation at lack of attention/affection, the mother is a narcissist without a soul whose ENTIRE FREAKING LIFE is a beauty pageant ("they're still looking at me!"), and generally a trainwreck in progress.

Buy hey - you don't know me. I might be stupid!!!

It absolutely is important to judge each candidate by their merits and not give in to knee-jerk reactionary gender prejudice.

I do find it distasteful on the extremely rare occasion I see Palin judged for being a mother who is vulnerable to burnout, though that is certainly not as prevalent as denigrating her for her looks, fashion sense, or being a "hockey mom".

My experience of coverage on both sides of the Atlantic is that anti-Palin arguments tend towards these issues:

* That she positions herself as an "ordinary" American and "ordinary" mother when in fact she is unusually rich and can do what she does only because she can afford to pay people to help with household chores and childcare. If she stood up and said that this was the case and fought for a family-friendly culture in which mothers were not expected to work outside the home AND be the primary child care provider AND the maid, and in which the population's educational, health, emotional and financial welfare was seriously supported (which would mean closing the gap between rich and poor for starters), that would be great

* That she talks about the importance of her daughter's CHOICE to continue her pregnancy while wishing to deny that choice to others

* That she aligns herself with a right-wing religious base that allows her special dispensation to work outside the home while preaching that women should stay at home and submit to their men

And many, many more issues.

Certainly, gender issues are being given a huge workout this year, and people all over the spectrum are accessing a cultural tendency to dismiss women as serious political contenders and to use gender as a stick to beat them with. I don't, though, see the specific areas that you have brought up in this article as anything near the general thrust of liberal argument. I'd be interested in more consideration of gender issues impacting the election campaigning and coverage, though.

Dear Kay:

You raise a number of interesting points about Sarah Palin, THE PERSON, yet I see some very important meta-analytic-points in your commment. The problem for me is, they are too intertwined to isolate and address.

You also say you don't see the crtiques of Ms. Palin in the Liberal attack literature. Maybe that's because the unassailable strength of women under duress cannot be "spun" (my point entirely).

All this aside, I thank you for your comments.

SB

Sarah Palin is a successfully abitious women. So ambitious that she saw it fit to associate herself with a group that advocates anti-American action. And that denounces the United States of America.

If you read this in disblief, check it out on the web. Sarah Palin as recently as 2008 was invloved with them.

You would not vote someone into office that endoses these actions would you?

Bright Moments to other pariots,

Karin