It sure is interesting how quickly people reach for the sword of martyrdom when the person expected to fall on it is a woman. And an Alaska Native woman, at that.
Matt Schultz’s commentary argues that Mary Peltola must apologize for using slurs before Democrats can claim they deserve to win.
I understand asking someone to take responsibility for hurtful words. What I question is turning one woman’s apology into a test of an entire party’s moral worth. That’s a hell of a burden to place on her.
Yes, words matter. LGBTQ people and people with disabilities have every reason to object to words used to demean them. They also get to decide whether an apology means anything to them. A pastor, a party, or a newspaper cannot make that decision on their behalf.
But accountability requires context.
Some of the issues Peltola is facing concern private messages. Other allegations concern her treatment of staff, which deserves scrutiny on its own terms.
Those are different issues.
A conversation someone believes is confidential is also different from a speech deliberately delivered to thousands of people.
Privacy does not erase harm, but audience, intent, and power matter when we judge it.
Let’s consider the man Americans returned to the White House.
Donald Trump publicly described political opponents as “vermin” and said immigrants entering the country illegally were “poisoning the blood of our country.”
Those words were delivered to audiences, amplified, and used to build political support. To me, that is far more dangerous than offensive language in a private exchange. It invites people to see entire groups as threats to be removed.
Let’s not forget that Trump has also made some very demeaning statements about women.
Trump has been criticized extensively. He has also been rewarded with the presidency, including by Alaska voters who have repeatedly backed him.
So I am questioning a political culture that accommodates a powerful man’s repeated public cruelty while asking an Alaska Native woman to demonstrate that she deserves a place in it.
Women know this arrangement.
We are expected to be beyond competent, sincerely compassionate, ever-so-patient and pleasant -sounding (and -looking).
We can lead — as long as we don’t become too angry, too blunt or too difficult to deal with. When we fail, the conversation quickly moves from what we did to what kind of woman we are.
That’s the problem with this moralizing stance: Peltola’s voice counts less than Matt Schultz’s authority to judge her. As a woman, especially an Alaska Native woman, she’s expected to repent before she deserves to lead, while powerful men keep leading through far worse behavior. Apparently, the moral bar gets raised because of who she is.
Yes, I understand Matt has chanted alongside many of us at the No Kings rallies and has been outspoken in his criticism of ICE and the MAGA movement — yet this op-ed felt personal and pointed, making Peltola’s apology a test of whether Democrats deserve to win. I haven’t read or heard him demand that Dan Sullivan or Trump need to apologize as a condition of their fitness to lead a political party.
Often, religious moral judgments leave women two places to stand: we are the innocent victim worthy of protection or the sinful woman required to repent. There is little room for a complicated person who has caused harm, experienced harm, and still deserves to be judged fairly.
As a sex worker, I know how narrow those categories can be. People are comfortable with us when we need rescuing. They become considerably less comfortable when we speak for ourselves, challenge their assumptions or refuse the role they assigned us.
I hear that same demand for an acceptable woman underneath this call for public repentance.
I am disappointed that the Anchorage Press published this argument without at least inviting other viewpoints. What has happened has not resulted in a fair exchange but a near-witch hunt for accountability.
Why should one woman’s apology determine whether an entire party deserves to win?
And why does the burden of demonstrating compassion so often land on women?
If this is a teachable moment, let’s examine who gets grace, who gets power, and who gets handed the sword to fall upon.