Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, New York Times

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, of Minnesota, was the subject of a profile yesterday in the New York Times. She is an up-and-coming Republican star.  In her recent statements on health care reform, she has questioned the Constitutional authority for a federal mandate on health insurance. Bachmann, who is pretty and a frequent guest on cable news shows, has been accused of spreading “reckless lies” by Democrats. This speaks well to her honesty and principles. 

I like many of the public statements Bachmann has made, except for this:

 “Sarah Palin is a dedicated mother, committed public servant and strong political figure who has fought hard to protect life, the family budget, and freedom.”

Palin is not a dedicated mother and has done nothing to support the family budget, which has been decimated by the sort of feminism Palin exemplifies. Bachmann, by the way, has five children. Her husband, in a nice reversal of roles, is a clinical therapist, and they have reportedly taken in some 23 foster children. This is the conservative feminist ideal:  hyper-domesticity and hyper-careerism at the same time. Plus a man who holds the purse.

Read More »

The ideal voter or political representative in any high-functioning democracy is the father. He is more important politically than the mother;  more important than the young man without children or the single woman; more important as a type than even the property owner. Wise democracy would limit the franchise to fathers.

There may be great statesmen or thinkers who have no children, men such as Alexis de Tocqueville who possess vision and insight. But, the ordinary father is more crucial to civilization; without him, it cannot prosper over the long term.

In the father, the impersonal and personal, the abstract and concrete, the public and private are more likely to exist in the sort of harmony that makes for good political judgment. By father, I don’t mean any man who has biologically reproduced, but the man who is married and takes part in rearing his children and has an active bond with them, whether they are young or adults.

For a woman, the world is personal and her influence is pervasive whether she has the vote or not. For the man without children, the future is not as alive; even property or personal wealth may not make him care for those who will live many decades from now. The father is more apt to possess both public-spiritedness and loyalty, dispassion and compassion.

Patriarchy is often misunderstood. Too often it conjures images of despotic chiefs or overlords. A democratic patriarchy is the rule of ordinary fathers. As Pericles said in his famous funeral oration:

   … for never can a fair or just policy be expected of the citizen who does not, like his fellows, bring to the decision the interests and apprehensions of a father.

Kidist Paulos Asrat reflects on Sarah Palin’s use of the title Ms. At her blog Camera Lucida, Miss Asrat writes:

But, why not Mrs. Palin? Why resort to the Ms. title which is more liberal than conservative, more feminist than traditional? Well, Ms. Palin is neither conservative nor traditional. In fact, she is a member of an organization titled “Feminists for Life” whose anti-abortion platform also supports single motherhood (including single mother college girls), and motherhood and careers, amongst other things. In keeping with that membership, Palin became the focus of a strange video called “I am Sarah Palin” taped by prominent “conservative” women of the non-MSM. For anyone versed with feminist history, this “slogan” strongly resembles the hard-core feminist song “I am woman, hear me roar,” with lyrics like this:

If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman

Read More »

In his pep talk to the nation’s children today, President Obama forgot to mention that many of the greatest Americans never went to school or hardly went at all. It’s a fact that contradicts much of what he said. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Graham Bell, and Thomas Edison had very little formal schooling. Most prominent early Americans who did attend schools, men such as Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, attended small institutions that have nothing in common physically or culturally with today’s large factory schools. 

Obama displayed the sort of earnest, well-meaning belief in school that is held by the majority of Americans. The nation’s public school system has two redeeming features: it employs hundreds of thousands of decent and hard-working adults, and it provides childcare. It is a jobs program and a babysitting service. As an institution devoted to learning and to individual development, mass government schooling fails. It is an enemy to liberty, to the family, to individual happiness and to the American way. People succeed in spite of school not because of it.

 Jim Greer, chairman of Florida’s Republican Party, stated this week in regard to President Obama’s upcoming speech to the nation’s schoolchildren: 

“As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power. 

While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. 

This is silly. The entire American school system bypasses parents through an invasive abuse of power. Children are used as tools to spread liberal propaganda every hour of the day. The president is the Teacher-in-Chief and this speech is no departure from business as usual. Has Greer looked at any of his children’s textbooks? Has he ever asked them what goes on in school?

If you want to get a sense of the sort of bootless, flap-mouthed man who leads America today, read this Washington Post story about Virginia gubernatorial candidate Robert F. McDonnell. Two decades ago, McDonnell stated in a master’s thesis that working women and feminists were “detrimental” to the family. Now, though he still claims to be a family-values conservative, he’s running away from his previous views. McDonnell is a real-life version of Joe, the Dickens character in Great Expectations who was beaten by his wife with a switch called “The Tickler.” McDonnell is being tickled to death by feminists. They are loving every minute of it.

McDonnell now says he is “fully supportive of the tremendous contributions women make in the workplace.” His grown daughter was even a platoon commander in Iraq.

Meanwhile America continues to reel under the effects of the massive entry of women into the workforce. The families of America are unhappy. Couples have fewer children, illegitimacy is high, marriages are unstable.There is less financial security, and more domestic chaos, than there was  when McDonnell’s traditionalist views were mainstream. McDonnell is either a liar or has yet to discover that to be feminist is not to be pro-woman.

Show me a man who has the guts to stand up to feminists and to the myths about working women and I will show you that the Y chromosome has not evolved out of existence.

Read More »

The idea that women in power are more sympathetic to women is false. This notion has been used countless times to justify the choice of women over men as lawyers, judges, and politicians. In fact, women in power are often actively anti-woman, despising the very things most women cherish.

Here is a good example. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talks with dripping disdain of women who regret having had abortions. Emily Bazelon is the interviewer:

Q: Since we are talking about abortion, I want to ask you about Gonzales v. Carhart, the case in which the court upheld a law banning so-called partial-birth abortion. Justice Kennedy in his opinion for the majority characterized women as regretting the choice to have an abortion, and then talked about how they need to be shielded from knowing the specifics of what they’d done. You wrote, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution.” I wondered if this was an example of the court not quite making the turn to seeing women as fully autonomous.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The poor little woman, to regret the choice that she made. Unfortunately there is something of that in Roe. It’s not about the women alone. It’s the women in consultation with her doctor. So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him. [emphasis added]

Ginsburg goes on to speak contemptuously of housework, seemingly unaware that a major reason why women do more housework than men is because they want to do it. She laments the fact that the legislature has not acted more aggressively to overturn this state of affairs and require men to make the beds and do the laundry. Too bad the highest court has no jurisdiction here:

Q: In the 1980s, you wrote about how while the sphere for women has widened to include more work, men haven’t taken on as much domestic responsibility. Do you think that things are beginning to change?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: That’s going to take time, changing that kind of culture. But looking at my own family, my daughter Jane teaches at Columbia, she travels all over the world, and she has the most outstanding supportive husband who certainly carries his fair share of the load. Although their division of labor is different than mine and my husband’s, because my daughter is a super cook.

Q: Can courts play a role in changing that culture?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage.

Bader would like to see the legislature “facilitate” the arrangement of household duties. What does she envision? A Family Chores Bill? Her daughter is a “super cook” and travels all over the world at the same time. Poppycock. This reminds me of a Wall Street Journal interview last year with women chief executives. One of the women claimed that she spent 90 percent of her time out of the country and yet also cooked a hot breakfast for her young son every day. Feminists lie about their home lives.

It is interesting to contrast and compare two of the most prominent women in American politics this summer. They are dramatically different figures.  Let’s leave aside their sharply differing political views for a moment. It’s interesting to look at these women simply as models for women.

What do they have to say to the young women of America about their hopes and dreams? Sonia Sotomayor is far less dangerous in this respect than Sarah Palin.

Sotomayor has justified her radically feminist speeches on the ground that they were purely inspirational. She was trying to motivate young women and Hispanics to succeed in the tough realm of law. This is a poor defense for her remarks and no disavowal of the content of the speeches. But, the question here is this. Is she truly inspirational?

Sotomayor is the sort of woman whose life speaks honestly to women who wish to reach the pinnacles of law. It shows what sacrifices are involved. Sotomayor is divorced and has said publicly that her work contributed to the break-up of her marriage. She has no children. She is manly in manner and appearance. Young women look at Sonia and realize that they must make real choices. In other words, she is inspirational, but only to those willing to pay the inevitable costs.

Sarah, however, offers an image that is an illusory bargain. She has five children, a handsome husband, a pretty face, and a feminine style. Young women look at Sarah and think, “Ambition carries no price. I can have it all.”  Sarah, for all her populist charm, is removed from real life. Many women who try to emulate her will find themselves with haphazard homes, few children and divorce. It’s a bargain they cannot replicate.

Sarah lives the feminist dream. Sonia lives the life of the female exception.

Sonia Sotomayor at her eighth grade graduation

The women’s franchise seems to be the deadest of dead issues. To express the opinion that it has been damaging to the country at large is to relegate oneself to the marshy backwaters of political discourse. Unless, of course, you’re a billionaire, such as Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, who expressed in a recent article that the women’s vote has ruined chances for libertarian-style democracy. He is so despondent about the nation’s future, he is putting his hopes in seasteading and outer space communities.

Read More »

Sarah Palin is not simply a personality. She is an idea. From the moment she stepped through the gates of national politics, she presented herself as a normal all-American mom. People went gaga. The hockey mom routine was a sensation. They roared with approval, not just at the convention but all across the country in the aftermath of her speech. It struck a chord because of what it said about women. They can be aggressive and maternal with no inherent contradiction between the two. Things are not as bad as they seem! People who reject her for reasons other than, or in addition to, her political inexperience know this is a dangerous illusion.

America’s women were unfairly and unnecessarily denied entry to the legal profession, Sen. Lindsay Graham said today during senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. For years, women were asked only, “Can you type?” when considered for legal jobs. “Count me in,” Graham said, referring to hopes for many more women as lawyers and judges.

Given that almost half of all law students are women today, it’s uncertain why the South Carolina senator is anxious about their plight. He also said Iraq would be a better place if women were judges. In other words, the supposedly conservative Republican concurs with Sotomayor that male judges because of their sex cannot be trusted to protect the legitimate interests of both men and women. Graham made a show of criticizing Sotomayor’s famous remark about being a “wise Latina,” but he stunningly agreed with her point. Justice cannot be administered by predominantly male courts.

There seems to be no connection in Graham’s mind between abortion, which he passionately opposes, and the careerism of women. There seems to be no connection in his view between the deterioration in society and the already significant presence of women in many professions. In fact, he feels this trend has not gone far enough.

When the abortion issue is viewed in a vacuum, it leads to this sort of blind cheerleading for the very things that have led to a world with more abortion.  Who but a conservative can articulate the benefits to women of previous customary discrimination against them? Who but a conservative would take this public opportunity to explain to a world steeped in feminist history why so few women were lawyers and judges? Women did not seek to become lawyers and judges in large numbers for most of history. And, they were granted only limited entry for good reason: to protect the interests of children, women and society a large.

Sotomayor was likable. She defended her radically feminist speeches with aplomb. She clearly believes, despite her claims otherwise, that society will be better with many more women in the judiciary. “Life experiences enrich the legal system,” she said.

In light of the renewed discussion of Sarah Palin, I offer a short, politically incorrect list of the reasons why women should not hold the reins of power, even at levels less significant than the presidency: 

Women, even highly intelligent women, are more emotional than men. 

Women govern with ideas of nurturing. Society functions on notions of duty and discipline. 

Women have too much to do in the private realm. 

The future depends on the child-rearing of today. 

Birth rates sharply fall under egalitarian leadership. 

Men lose interest in fields dominated by women. The more women govern, the less men seek to govern. 

Female public figures are judged more than men on their physical appearance. 

Women who hold power tend to disparage the powerlessness of most women, making it difficult for women in general to forsake ambition for greater goods.

Many patriotic Americans are madly in love. They’re madly in love with Sarah Palin. Sarah will break the stranglehold of the Washington elites. She will stick up for nation and family. She will be to the GOP what Obama is to the Democrats. Only read the comments on this column at American Thinker to get a sense of all that is riding on Sarah.

It’s gotten to the point where the more Sarah disqualifies herself from higher office, the more popular she becomes. Sarah has just betrayed the voters of Alaska by leaving her elective office. She has resigned for no reason other than that she wishes to explore better possibilities for herself. She appeared afterward at a July Fourth parade in Juneau, smiling with daughter Bristol and her baby at her side. All along, she has taken the view that the more publicly she flaunts her daughter’s private life, the more acceptable it will be.

She has offered no compelling reason to support her candidacy for national office other than her identification with Red State America. Yet, her supporters view everything Sarah does as an act of wisdom and idealism. Why don’t they see it as ambition? For a simple reason. They are in love. Love is mad. Love is irrational. Love is often self-destructive.

Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger is one of the few journalists in America who offers clear-eyed commentary on Sarah Palin, with neither the infatuation of the right or the venom of the left. He says:

“What makes someone who has never won election before a polity bigger than Bergen County’s think she could handle the most power[ful] job on the planet?

Whatever it is, it’s not pretty – though she certainly is.

But if she had a bit less ambition and a bit more humility, Palin would realize that without her looks she wouldn’t have appeared on the national political scene in the first place.”

 

Time Magazine’s latest admiring article on Michelle Obama highlights the wistfulness of American women in an era of triumphant egalitarianism. Michelle is enviable not just because she has all the clothes and servants she wants, but because after years of career, she is now that rarest of all things: a housewife. According to the authors, Nancy Gibbs and Michael Sherer:

After working hard for 20 years, she gets to take a sabbatical, spend as much time as she wants with her kids, do as many high-impact public events as she chooses and, when it’s all over, have the rest of her life to write the next chapter. “I don’t even know what that is yet,” she says, but she’ll have choices then, as she has now, that most working mothers only dream of.

Of course, it is ludicrous to say Michelle is taking a “sabbatical.”  Being First Lady is a job – a difficult and exalted job. Predictably, feminists have complained that she has sacrificed too much of herself for her husband’s career. Apparently even having a president for husband does not warrant giving up one’s job in public relations. How long before we have a First Lady who leaves the White House with a brief case every day?

Americans apparently still care when national figures show contempt for traditional morality. The widespread interest in the hypocrisy, lies, and adulterous affair of John Edwards is a sign of life.

Edwards is the Dorian Gray of American politics.  No painter, however, could truly capture his self-conceived beauty. The canvas itself would rebel. Elizabeth Edwards is right to let the country know the full extent of his lies and she is right to decline to leave him. He made himself a poster boy for famly values. Now let him be a poster boy for deceit.