HERE’S an excellent piece by Ilana Mercer at WorldNet Daily on the utter falsity of the claim that women on average are paid less than men because of unfair bias in the workplace. Mercer makes one especially important point:

If your average Republican were capable of dispelling distaff America’s claims of disadvantage with economic logic, this is what she’d conclude:

If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, as Pelosi lamented, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. The fact that entrepreneurs don’t ditch men for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.

As I said earlier this week, the pay discrimination argument entirely rests on the assumption that businesses are prone to violate their own interests flagrantly and knowingly, and to turn down profit. The animosity of employers toward more than half the population must be so deep that they would rather see good women employees go elsewhere than pay them fairly. This antipathy must be so pervasive and automatic that businesses need not even conspire together to work against women, who, again, represent more than half of the population. They just dislike them and so pay them less. And they don’t hire more women even though women are so darn cheap to employ.

That the pay inequity argument is routinely referred to by politicians as if it were sacred and indisuptable fact is an indicator of just how dormant the American mind is.

THE SENATE this week rejected the second effort by Democrats to pass the draconian Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have multiplied the number of sex discrimination suits and further eroded the autonomy of the private sector under feminist tyranny. This is one small victory. Phyllis Schlafly writes of the bill:

This bill is another costly item on the feminists’ wish lists that would allow the federal government to artificially inflate salaries for jobs traditionally held by women, while freezing wages for jobs traditionally performed by men and empowering women to sue their employers to enforce these controlled wages. Read More »

JESSE POWELL writes:

Looking at fertility of white women in America over the past 40 years, we see the development of a sharp divergence between college-educated and non-college-educated women.

In 1970, the fertility patterns of college-educated women, who represented a much smaller proportion of the overall female population, didn’t differ much from the non-college-educated.

Both groups of women had a strong preference for having their children young, before they were 30. Delaying childbearing until later in life was not common in either group. Also, illegitimacy was low for both.

Much has changed since. The group of college-educated women has expanded dramatically and a sharp disparity has developed  between the fertility of the non-college-educated, who account for more than 60 percent of all births, and the educated.

The non-college-educated woman in 2009 is more prone to delay having children until 30 than the college-educated woman was in 1970. And, among the college-educated, the desire to have children before 30, which was very strong in 1970, almost completely disappeared by 2009. Also, overall fertility has dropped greatly among both groups of women.

The high school dropout in 1970 had an illegitimacy ratio of ten percent while the esteemed college graduate had an illegitimacy ratio of only one percent; the ratio for the high school graduate was four percent. Read More »

IF WOMEN knew the truth about the causes of breast cancer, would they behave with such silliness and immodesty at breast cancer fundraising events such as the recent Moonwalk in London? Would they be so enthusiastic about supporting the organizations that are, if not lying to them, at least consistently downplaying the truth?

The truth is, feminism causes breast cancer.

Abortion, delayed childbearing, childlessness, lack of breastfeeding, the birth control pill — many medical experts agree these phenomena, all abundantly supported by feminists, are connected to the striking increase in breast cancer in Western women.

Here are some relevant quotes from medical experts provided by the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, which has a wealth of information on the issue: Read More »

PRESIDENT OBAMA, in another speech demonstrating his selfless devotion to female voters, told the graduating class  at Barnard College yesterday that it’s totally unfair that women have not taken over the world yet. He said every single woman, no matter who she is, needs to participate in the struggle to help women take over the world.

He’s right, of course. It is truly shocking how powerless women are. When I look at this picture of women dressed up as Barbie dolls, it reminds me of how much we have yet to gain. These women could be CEO’s or congresswomen or even PRESIDENT. If not for the Republican War on Women and millennia of oppression, they would be very busy right now. Someday, when equality is achieved, they — or women like them — will ascend the heights of power and become the bureaucratic goddesses they are meant to be.

There is a beautiful mountaintop, a Valhalla where all women will someday reside as CEO’s, congresswomen, college presidents, generals, franchise owners, etc. There they will rule the world, feasting on contraceptives and looking down on the male mortals below, who will have finally gotten their comeuppance. The laughter and shrieks of joy of these divine CEO’s will resound throughout the universe. Their home will look something like this:

Walhal, Max Bruckner

Obama said yesterday, “You are now poised to make this the century when women shape not only their own destiny, but the destiny of the whole nation.” How stirring! It’s amazing what a good deal a degree at Barnard is. If we are lucky, we may have Barbie as a president this century or, if the Paycheck Fairness Act is passed, Barbie as Ruler of the Universe. Imagine how smoothly things will run. Barbie never makes a false move. Despite what people say, she is extremely smart.

Thank you, by the way, to the reader Natassia, who sent the above photo of the real-life Barbies. Natassia makes some interesting comments below about women who are already residing in an earthly Valhalla of their own. She writes:  Read More »

VINCENT C. writes:

When one reaches a certain age – mine – and looks back at today’s child rearing practices, I cannot help but notice how U.S. society has been transformed in the past half century. No societal change has been more dramatic than the victory, temporary, I would pray, of convincing young women to allow other people to raise their children. Where I live in Northern Virginia this profound mistake is accepted as readily as many young women accept advice about such things from the feminists who dominate “The View.” Sending babies to “day care” when the child is 6 months old can only be explained if one understands that far too many of today’s mothers see that practice lauded on the television programs they watch, the books they read, and is further nurtured in the movies they view, and the classes they attended. In short, it is pervasive. Read More »

LEAVE it to The New York Times, the newspaper that checks the pulse of today’s narcissistic female every 30 seconds, to invite women who are noticeably lacking in maternal qualities to write essays in honor of Mother’s Day. In the latest entry, Varda Steinhardt describes her return to paid work after ten years at home with her twin sons as “exhilarating, exhausting and deeply satisfying.” Taking care of her children, husband and home was thus not deeply satisfying.

She writes:

It’s taken a toll. I have fed my kids way too many organic chicken nugget dinners. I have heard my son wail, “You love your computer more than you love me,” as my “just a minute more” stretched into another hour of e-mailing. Read More »

ONLY a culture amusing itself to death would listen to the Mother’s Day ramblings of an intentionally infertile woman who wonders, at the advanced age of 44, whether to have a child without a husband. Eve Ledermain writes in her anti-motherhood Mother’s Day essay in The New York Times:

I’m afraid of undertaking motherhood alone, in a tiny apartment with a three-flight walk up and little savings. I’m equally scared of the drone of doing so with a husband and a good job in a nice home. And what I fear the most is missing the indescribably deep connection with a child that yields a lifetime of stories.

Paralyzed by uncertainty, I nearly want to flip a coin to end the wrenching lack of knowing. But as T.S. Elliot said, “Things don’t go away. They become you. There is no end, but addition.” So undecided and waiting for my soul to speak, I’ll wait on, for the choice to become me.

Okay, instead of a “wrenching lack of knowing,” Eve, try this. Admit that it’s way too late for you. You’ve wasted your youth. Given your self-centeredness, you’d have made a lousy mother anyway.

Read More »

HERE IS a sickening glimpse into the worldview of feminist Catholic nuns. It’s an interview in the Minneapolis Post with Sister Brigid McDonald of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet. This is a woman seething with resentment and bitterness toward male authority. The Vatican’s recent disciplinary action against American nuns stems from a fear of powerful women, she contends in the interview:

Because [before] we were just school teachers and we just had nice little kids in front of us, you know, and we just emptied bed pans in the nursing homes and in the hospitals. But now they are right, we are out there in the different movements. We help with the Occupy movement and the right-to-choice movements.

It is giving us more credibility in the public. Lots of times people will call and seek out our opinions about certain issues, where it never was that way when I entered the convent. After we taught school, we went home, and said our prayers and ate supper and did our lesson plans and went to bed. Now we are out there.

Notice her contemptuous view of the work of nuns of the past, whose care for the sick and the young she considers demeaning, menial labor.

Read More »

MARK RICHARDSON at Oz Conservative further explores the leftist ideology of the nuns of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

Emily Post

AT Tradition in Action, Marian Horvat examines the life and influence of Emily Post, the famous etiquette writer.  Mrs. Post, she says, went through a gradual transformation over the course of her life and ultimately embraced many of the abuses she once condemned. Ms. Horvat writes:

Emily Post’s central commandment was to always put others at their ease. More than relying on rules, she held that kindness and consideration for others covered all evils. This is true in the matter of a broken glass or a spilled drink, but good manners must also be governed by absolute morals. At times, one must choose to do or say what is right and correct over what is kind or accommodating. Such morals are missing in Emily Post’s Etiquette. Read More »

Mothers of large families receive the Medal of the French Family

TIBERGE of Galliawatch writes:

Elizabeth Badinter, like Simone Veil, has consistently closed her eyes to the reality of the destruction of the French family and the slow steady takeover of the country by Islam. Both women, being Jewish, have aroused no small amount of resentment among traditional Catholics. Robert Badinter, her husband, was responsible for the ban on capital punishment.

Badinter claims that fertility of  French women is just fine, denying statistical evidence to the contrary. Tiberge has posted twice, here and here, on the Medal of the French Family, which goes to mothers of more than five children. Muslim women have dominated the awards in recent years.

Read More »

DON VINCENZO writes:

In January, 2009, the Vatican announced that an Apostolic Visitation would be made to inquire about the state of “women religious” in the U.S. What this generally means is that Vatican clerics or their representatives are directed by members of papal “dicastries” or departments to investigate charges of serious and on-going irregularities in any Catholic organizational structure. The Vatican’s rationale for this particular visit was that for decades the traditional idea of “sisters religious” (the term “nun” is usually applied only to cloistered sisters, but often the words are used interchangeably) were arbitrarily discarding their religious duties for what they called their “social ministry.”

Two months after the announcement, Sister (Sr.) Sandra M. Schneiders (center photo), Professor of New Testament Studies and Christ Spirituality at the Jesuit School in Berkeley, California, in a comment to The National Catholic Reporter said that: Nuns should receive the representative of Rome politely and kindly for what they are, uninvited guests, who should be received in the parlor, but not given the run of the house.

Welcome to the new world of women religious! Read More »

IN THIS previous entry, I discussed Susannah Cornwall, the British academic who has written a lengthy, well-funded academic paper stating that there is no conclusive proof that Jesus was male. According to Cornwall, Jesus could have been an “intersex” person (the latest fad in the Gender Confusion Movement) and possessed characteristics of both sexes, as do some rare human beings. Thus he may have been outwardly a man, but still anatomically a woman.

Lawrence Auster points out the logical implication of this remarkably inane theory: We cannot be sure of the sexual normality of many historical figures. Virtually any man could have been a biological freak. This is a dream come true for feminists. The prophets, the geniuses, the male artists, the famous statesmen — perhaps many of them were women.

Mr Auster writes: Read More »

THE degree to which the Republican Party has failed to respond to the Democratic Party’s current “War on Women” campaign is breathtaking. Once again we see a GOP leadership that is spineless and lacking in the most basic understanding of what should be its core principles.

In the face of Obama’s dictatorial mandate that employers provide contraception coverage and rejection by Republicans of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Democrats are plugging away at the idea that Republicans are medieval misogynists. The Democrats had raised over a million dollars by early March with this utterly stupid campaign.

What should the Republicans say in response? Instead of shying from the battle, they should plunge in. They should point to what feminist values have brought to women: unwed motherhood, divorce, slavery to unsatisfying jobs, high rates of breast cancer, infertility, and sexual disease; demographic decline and children who are unhealthy, neglected and depressed.

Why can’t Republicans launch their own War on Women campaign? They can’t. The truth is, they think the Democrats are right.

Read More »

AT THE third annual Women in the World Summit in New York yesterday, Nancy Pelosi called for more power for women. Echoing the claims of the suffragettes, Pelosi asserted that women make better decisions than you-know-whom. “Many ills, one cure—the increased participation of women in leadership and the decision-making,” Pelosi said.

Her shameless denunciation of men and appeal for power was characteristic of this glitzy gathering of elite women in New York. Never in the dark bowels of patriarchal history have men ever gathered like this and openly trumpeted their power as men. The convention, which features feminist celebrities such as Angelina Jolie, Christine Lagarde and Madeline Albright, is all high heels, hot air, and self love. The call for a global women’s movement creates fumes of feminine self-approval above the streets of Manhattan.

Though heavily subsidized by multinational corporations and sponsored by Newsweek, the main organ of feminist propaganda in America, the convention of global goddesses persists in evoking the idea of an embattled movement. Women of immense wealth and influence get away with claiming they are oppressed by linking their cause with the African peasantry or basket-weavers in Bangladesh. Women who ride in limousines and wear artificial, Botox smiles claim victimhood by pointing to their Third World sisters.

Pelosi wants more women in government and leadership positions (the point is, of course, that women have been held back from these positions) but seems uncomfortable with the processes of representative democracy. She said the recent controversy over contraception calls for a new direction.

“We need to take the opportunity to make the changes necessary so that nobody has to fight this fight again,” she said.

I wonder how this remarkable idea could be achieved. Is there a way to make all future generations as blind as this one? Is there a way for Pelosi to rule forever?

Whenever large numbers of women get together to claim they should occupy the corridors of power they unwittingly prove why they should never rule the world. Authority to them is all privilege and no responsibility. Their overweening vanity could never make the world a better place.

Read More »

The Artist's Wife with their children, Philip and Caterina, Hans Holbein the Younger (1528)

THE current practice of referring to mothers as “moms” and women at home as “stay-at-home moms” is part of the trivialization of motherhood, as I discuss here. Mommy-ness suggests fun and play. But motherhood is, by its very nature, sacrificial. Even in modern life, the mother is called upon to give up self and die for others.

When motherhood is equated with fun, it is often shocking for women to learn the truth. They may think something is wrong with them that it is so difficult. By contrast, a job may seem easy. The expectations are clear and the rewards are concrete. Besides when people say, “What do you do?” which they inevitably will in a world in which identity is based on career and consumption, a woman can hold her head up high and say, “I am a teacher” or “I am a lawyer” or “I am a marketing associate.” By comparison, to say, “I am a stay-at-home mom” suggests she is a child herself and has yet to grow up and enter the real world.

The mother has gone since the time of the above portrait by Hans Holbein from heroine to playmate.

MRS. HAYWOOD writes from Indiana:

I just spent a very interesting evening reading many columns on your website. You represent sanity and common sense on the topic of women and work, which is never allowed in mainstream media. 

Just a quick thought/question: Are you as offended by the term “stay-at-home mom” as I am? It seems clearly a feminist linguistic fabrication to avoid the obvious and truthful “full-time mother” (which of course has the corollary that working mothers are merely “part-time mothers.”) “Stay-at-home mom” also implies that it is the mother who stays at home who needs a qualifier, as the one departing from the norm. Read More »