Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ announcement that he would not be seeking the GOP nomination for the 2012 presidential race because his family had exercised their veto power has gained a lot of traction in the news. This discussion also raises a lot of questions about parenting and spousal roles and responsibility. Both Mitch and his wife Cheri Daniels are being scrutinized in light of this decision. While Mitch is on the receiving end of criticism about his priorities, Cheri has been accused of abandoning her family (and especially her four daughters) to run away with another man over a decade ago before eventually coming back into the fold and remarrying Mitch.

While we can’t know exactly what happened during the mid-90s with the Daniels family, I think it’s important to ask a few questions about the coverage this story is receiving. The first is why we’re immediately assuming Cheri abandoned her kids in light of a lot of evidence which suggested a much more complicated situation was at play. In fact, Mitch Daniels even felt the need to release a statement defending her against these accusations. It’s public knowledge that Cheri was in California for some time and then returned to Indiana, buying a house near Mitch before the two reconciled, but what I find troubling about the coverage of this story is the idea of immediately condemning a wife for making a change in her personal life. Cheri Daniels isn’t the first person to want to exit a marriage, but because she’s a woman (and more specifically, a mother) we immediately question her motives. As a woman we expect Cheri to cherish her most important role: mother to her children. We also assume she needs to stay where her children are located. The idea that she might want to move to a different state (and it might just be me, but the idea of moving from Indiana to California sounds mighty appealing, even if you base that choice on scenery alone. Unless I can hang out with Amy Poehler in Pawnee I’m pretty sure I won’t be moving to Indiana anytime soon) where her children weren’t already marked her as selfish and abdicating responsibility. Cheri is obviously aware of the kind of scrutiny she might face as the wife of a presidential candidate, and by all accounts it sounds like this was part of the reason she wasn’t supportive of her husband’s ambitions. I can’t think of many women who would want to listen to a bunch of talking heads (most of whom are male) condemning their choices in a public forum.

A little part of me also wants to question the way Mitch Daniels is applauded for taking care of his children during the time he and his wife were divorced. Mitch is portrayed as a father who had to raise his four daughters as a single parent for some time (and since Mitch and Cheri had joint custody during most of their divorce it was a very short time). The overall tone used to discuss this is one of: “Congratulations! Someone buy that man a cookie! He really deserves our praise and admiration for taking on such a formidable task!” This type of attitude both ignores the work done daily by single mothers all over the country who rarely receive accolades for doing the type of work that is just expected of them, and also degrades men by assuming that fathers are usually unfit to raise children alone (especially girls! My goodness! What about boyfriends? And all the inevitable female crying? And who will do their hair?).

I also don’t want to ignore the issue pointed out by Amanda Marcotte of Slate: it is hypocritical of the GOP base to talk about Mitch Daniels being emasculated by his wife. The GOP has no place thinking less of a husband for choosing to honor conservative social values by considering his family’s wishes ahead of his own political ambitions. 

I find myself with admiration for someone who, when faced with a choice between going after something that was obviously a personal goal and respecting the desires of the family, chose to elevate the concerns of family members above personal considerations. Yet, even as I write this, I think that this is something that many women do regularly. Women are often faced with choices in which they are expected to put their family’s needs above their own desires, and if they don’t choose their family, they’re roundly condemned. The focus on Mitch Daniel’s reasoning for making a choice not to run really highlights the different roles we expect men and women to fulfill.

The idea that Mitch Daniels is somehow less of a man for allowing his family to say no to his run is obviously one that is degrading to both men and women. Conservatives who eschew Mitch Daniels for his choice should probably take a serious look at what they mean when they preach traditional family values. Isn’t Mitch following these values with this choice? And to condemn any man for this choice makes it more difficult for fathers and husbands to feel the freedom to take their families into consideration. Men should not have to face scrutiny for prioritizing their families.

What I’m really calling for in this situation is respect for a man who is prioritizing his wife, and additional respect for the millions of women who prioritize their families every day. I’m also asking for credit for all people who make hard choices like this whether they’re men or women. It should not be taken for granted that the role of the father and husband is to set career goals and follow personal desires, while the role of the mother and wife is to sacrifice her own life for that of her family without complaint. Yet, even in 2011, it still often is. Credit should be given where credit is due. People making choices in the best interest of their families should be respected for doing so. What this means to us today is a question of our expectations about gender roles.