Mariette Ulrich

Dangerous housewives

Mariette Ulrich
By Mariette Ulrich
Image

May 7, 2012 (Mercatornet.com) - Has enough been made of the Hilary Rosen “stay-home-moms-don’t-work” calamity? Maybe yes, maybe no, but as a college-educated full-time mother of seven, I am not about to let it go without comment. (I wish I could have weighed in a bit sooner, but, well, I was busy with family activities.)

Ms Rosen took a lot of heat for her remark about Anne Romney, from all sides of the political spectrum: fellow Democrats scrambled to distance themselves; even Mrs. Obama tweeted her displeasure. Far from censuring Ms Rosen, however, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto says she deserves thanks for being an “honest feminist”.

Taranto points out that, beginning approximately with Freud’s influence, the denigration of motherhood has been an ongoing “major theme in American culture”. If the disparagement of motherhood (especially the full-time variety) is a socio-political creed, then feminism is its prophet and the Democratic party, despite its avowals to the contrary, its church-home base.

From Hillary Clinton’s 1992 condescending “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” to the present day, the Democrat-feminist complex (can I call it the Dem-fem to save time?) has been clear on how it regards the choices of women who don’t march in lockstep with their agenda.

Heritage Foundation’s Jennifer Marshal believes that Mrs Clinton’s remark was consistent with comments made by feminist matriarch Betty Friedan in her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique: “I am convinced there is something about the housewife state itself that is dangerous,” wrote Friedan, describing the homemaker as consigned to “a comfortable concentration camp”.

Who knew that wiping noses, driving kids to soccer, dusting the furniture, and catching up on the school day over a plate of freshly baked brownies constituted living dangerously?

And why, decades after Friedan raised the alarm, are so many women refusing to buy into feminism’s brand of salvation? As Marshall points out, most young women today still view marriage and motherhood as desirable life goals. When they achieve that aspiration, nearly 70 per cent of full-time working mothers with children under 18 claim that they would prefer to work part time or not at all (Pew Research Center report, 2007). 

Feminism continues to tout “choice” ad nauseam while excoriating women who make the “wrong” choices according to the Dem-fem creed. Marshall calls this the “feminist mystique”, which (ironically) fails to treat women as intelligent individuals capable of making their own choices, but instead demands conformity to a “feminist norm”. She notes that feminists still make the mistake of categorizing women as a class.

You still hear politicians, male and female, talk about the “women’s vote” or “women’s issues”. When was the last time (or the first time?) anyone talked about “men’s issues” or the “men’s vote”? Treating women as a voting bloc is in itself a bizarre form of condescension, where we are seen, not as individual human beings, but as a homogeneous special interest group, and one with permanent victim status.

Frankly, a lot of people (and not just stay-home moms) are sick of this condescension. Hence the pushback. New York Times Sunday op-ed columnist Frank Bruni, defends his own late mother:

I know that she was proud of how she spent her time and chafed mightily at any career woman who in any way insinuated that she was performing a servile or trivial function. And since she’s no longer around, I’ll chafe for her. What Rosen said was inaccurate, gratuitous and a sad example of the way politics is practiced today.

Bruni argues, however, that Rosen’s remark ultimately generated too much political hay since her comments did not represent the Obama administration. Many mainstream media pundits likewise called the story a “non-controversy”. I beg to differ. The Dem’s reaction (to Rosen’s statement) was mere damage control: the fact that it’s an election year requires the Dem-fems to repress their true feelings about homemakers’ choices. And repression is never a good thing, is it, ladies?

As WSJ’s James Taranto points out, Rosen’s attitude does reflect feminist thought on the subject, which also tends to coincide with Democrat policy. Neither movement is a friend of traditional families and/or gender roles. Few dare suggest (with certain cultural exceptions) that such roles should be enforced or even promoted, but in the current climate they are not even respected or given equal shrift—even when traditional roles and attitudes are chosen by many Americans.

This is perhaps because the logistics surrounding such choices are not always clearly understood. Taranto, for example, says: “[A]n increasing number of women are choosing domestic life, finding it a liberating alternative to working for a boss. But to do so requires a husband with considerable means.”

Mr Taranto, you disappoint. This is buying into Rosen’s back-pedaling, class warfare-inducing view that Mrs Romney was able to stay home and raise her children only because her husband is a millionaire. Families—and there are many—who make great personal sacrifices (career, financial) to have one parent at home are weary of hearing that full-time parenthood is a luxury. For many working class families, moreover, spousal education levels, stagnant wages and punitive tax regimes make it frankly (and ironically) financially unappealing for the wife to work outside the home. A New York Times report in the wake of the Rosen-Romney fracas refuted the stay-home-mom-as-luxury myth, noting that 65 per cent of stay-at-home, married mothers of children under 18 live in a household with an annual income below $75,000.

The vast majority of stay-home moms, regardless of income or social status, choose to stay home because home and family is where we find fulfillment. Betty Friedan wasn’t right about much, but she was certainly correct that such women are dangerous: we repudiate the feminist world-view, and find self-actualization in (brace yourself) loving and serving our families.

Many of us are college educated. We think, we read, we discuss, we protest, and we vote. (Thanks, Suffragettes!) As National Post’s Marni Soupcoff observes, many homemakers indeed joined a tea party, but not quite the one Hillary Clinton had in mind. In this, we potentially threaten the existence of feminist political power; thus, feminism cannot validate our choices. Evidently, this has not yet occurred to Frank Bruni, who still seems naïvely befuddled by the Rosen debacle:

What’s most bothersome about Rosen’s comment… was its betrayal of what the Democratic Party and feminism at their best are supposed to be about: recognizing the full diversity of human experience and empowering everyone along that spectrum to walk successfully down the path of his or her choosing, so long as it poses no clear harm to anyone else.

Well said, but he misses a big fat irony: in the view of many persons (male and female) with traditional values, the Dem-fems are constantly and relentlessly advancing an anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-human, anti-freedom agenda, which poses a clear threat, not only to individuals, but to the fabric of society and by extension, the future of the nation itself.

Bruni remembers how his own mother was vexed by the feminist notion that full-time motherhood somehow meant “turning your back” on your college education: ‘“I haven’t turned my back on my education,” she continued, adding that she used it daily “to make my home the center of learning it should be.”

And there, perhaps, we hit on the chief danger posed by traditional motherhood: if moms and dads are influencing their children, there is less chance they’ll succumb to the Dem-fem worldview. Taranto notes:

Fifty years ago, Ann Romney’s life would have made her just a regular woman. Today, she is a countercultural figure—someone who lives in a way that the dominant culture regards with a hostile disdain. And she has chosen to live that way, which is why Hilary Rosen, as an intellectual heiress to Betty Friedan, regards her as a villain rather than a victim.

Of course, smart moms know who the real villains are, and we’re teaching our children (future voters and taxpayers) to recognize them too. Living dangerously? Bring it on.

Mariette Ulrich writes from western Canada. She blogs on Family Edge. This article first appeared at Mercatornet.com and is reprinted under a Creative Commons License.

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
'Don’t ever say ‘yes’ to that. It’s terrible,' said Robertson.
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

Phil Robertson: Never vote for politicians who support ‘ripping human fetuses’ from mom’s womb

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Phil Robertson is known for not pulling any punches when it comes to expressing his opinions on controversial issues, and he certainly didn’t disappoint at the Outdoor Extravaganza in Louisiana earlier this month.

Speaking to a massive crowd of some 8,000 outdoors enthusiasts at the CenturyLink Center, Robertson blasted Christians for not getting active in the political sphere.

“There are about 90 to 100 million of us who claim Jesus. The problem is only half of you register to vote and out of the half of you that registers to vote, only half of that group actually goes and votes,” Robertson said, according to the ShrevePort Times.

“Therefore, when you’re looking up there and griping and complaining about what you see in Washington D.C., you might as well shut up,” he added. “The reason they’re there is we’re putting them there. If you don’t get anything else out of this, remember this — register to vote for crying out loud.”

But Robertson reserved his strongest remarks for politicians who support abortion.

“If the dude or woman is for ripping human fetuses out of their mother’s womb, don’t ever vote for that,” Robertson said bluntly. “Don’t ever say ‘yes’ to that. It’s terrible.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Robertson also lamented the increasing secularization of the United States.  

“We’ve lost it folks,” he told the crowd. “We ran God out of our schools. We ran him out of the entertainment business. We ran him out of the news media. We’ve run him out of the judiciary, and we’ve run him out of Washington D.C.

“Well, what you get is what is left up there. They’re ungodly. You agree?”

Ever since A&E’s Duck Dynasty became the most popular reality show in TV history, members of the Robertson family have earned a name as unapologetic defenders of traditional Christian values.

At the Outdoor Extravaganza, Phil was accompanied by his wife, Miss Kay, and eldest son Alan, who also addressed the crowds. 

Phil’s blunt deliveries have occasionally landed him in hot water – most memorably when he addressed the topic of homosexuality in an interview with GQ magazine, earning him a short-lived suspension from his TV show by A&E.

But Robertson refused to apologize for the remarks despite intense pressure from homosexual activists and leftist groups.

“They railed against me for giving them the truth about their sins,” Robertson later said about the response to his GQ interview, pointing out that in the interview he had simply quoted Scriptural prohibitions against homosexuality and a variety of other sins.

"The news media didn't even know it was a verse," Robertson said. "They thought I was just mouthing off."

Share this article

Advertisement
Ulrich Klopfer wide
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Four Indiana abortionists could lose their licenses over reporting violations

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

The attorney general of Indiana, Greg Zoeller, has asked a state board to review the medical licenses of four abortionists, including an out-of-state abortionist who failed to report two cases of statutory rape.

The Indiana Medical Licensing Board will review the cases of Dr. Ulrich “George” Klopfer, Dr. Resad Pasic, Dr. Kathleen Glover, and Dr. Raymond Robinson.

A press release from the attorney general's office called Klopfer's “the most egregious complaint.” Klopfer, who lives in Crete, Illinois, failed to report abortions of two 13-year-olds – one at his Women’s Pavilion abortion facility in South Bend and another in his office in Gary.

All abortions must be reported to the Indiana State Department of Health, and abortions performed on minors younger than 14 must also be reported to the Indiana Department of Child Services within three days. Under state law, children under the age of 14 are incapable of consenting to sex, so any sexual relationship with them is considered likely statutory rape.

Klopfer reported the two abortions 116 days and 206 days afterwards, something he described as “an honest mistake.” Klopfer faces a misdemeanor criminal charge in both Lake and St. Joseph county in connection with those allegations.

Every single one of the 1,818 abortion reports Klopfer turned in to state authorities between July 2012 and November 2013 was false or incomplete, Zoeller says. The doctor often omitted the father's name and had a habit of listing the date of every abortion at 88 weeks gestation.

The abortionist is also charged with 13 violations of the state's informed consent law.

“The pending criminal charges brought by county prosecutors along with the sheer volume of unexplained violations...merits review by the Medical Licensing Board to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted,” Zoeller said.

The other three abortionists work at the Clinic for Women in the Indianapolis area. According to a press release from the state attorney general's office, they “are in alleged violation of similar record-keeping and advice and consent laws regarding abortion procedures,” but they face no criminal charges.

The allegations were collected and submitted by Indiana Right to Life, which combed through Klopfer's records. “Our legislators passed laws regarding consent and record keeping to ensure high standards of quality and care for Hoosier women,” Indiana Right to Life President and CEO, Mike Fichter, said. “We're disappointed that these abortion doctors apparently did not willingly comply with Indiana law. We hope the Medical Licensing Board immediately schedules hearings.”

“If found guilty, we believe the abortion doctors should be fined and their licenses to practice in Indiana should be revoked," he added.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

His views were shared by national pro-life leaders. “We are encouraged by the filing of these Administrative Complaints today and urge the Board to revoke Ulrich Klopfer’s medical license due to the fact that he placed young girls in serious risk of continued rape and other abuse by neglecting to report,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “Each of these abortionist require stiff discipline in order to impress it upon others that laws are meant to be followed and that they are not above it.”

Zoeller's complaint did not mention a third abortion of a 13-year-old that Klopfer reported after the legal date. The abortion took place in Fort Wayne in February 2012, but he did not report the procedure until July. Police subsequently filed two charges of child molestation against Ronte Lequan Latham, who was then 19-year-old.

Tensions this produced with another physician in his Fort Wayne office led to the first abortion facility closure of 2014.

The epidemic of underreporting presumed statutory rape is not limited to Klopfer. Between 58 and 75 percent of abortions performed on Indiana girls under the age of 14 were not reported in accordance with the law, according to an investigation by Amanda Gray of the South Bend Tribune.

Klopfer had a history of run-ins with authorities. In 2010 and 2012, state inspectors found that he allowed the bodies of aborted babies to be stored in a refrigerator alongside medicine the office gave to women who came in for the procedure.

The board has not yet set a date to hear evidence and make a judgment about their fitness to practice. If the board objects, it could respond by issuing a reprimand, suspending a license, or revoking the abortionists' medical license and imposing fines.

The accused may continue performing abortions until the board makes a final decision. 

Advertisement
Featured Image
President Obama speaks at Planned Parenthood's national conference in 2013.
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Obama remakes the nation’s courts in his image

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins
Image

It has often been said that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is President Obama's greatest achievement as president. However, that claim may soon take second place to his judicial nominees, and especially their effect on marriage in the United States.

In a new graphic, The Daily Signal notes that while President George W. Bush was able to get 50 nominees approved by this time in his second term, Obama has gotten more than 100 approved. According to The Houston Chronicle, "Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals. When Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat."

Three of the five judges who struck down state marriage laws between February 2014 and the Supreme Court's Windsor decision in 2013 were Obama appointees, according to a CBS affiliate in the Washington, D.C. area. Likewise, the Windsor majority that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act included two Obama appointees, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Obama has nominated 11 homosexual judges, the most of any president by far, says the National Law Journal.

Only one federal judge has opposed same-sex "marriage" since the Supreme Court's Windsor decision. He was appointed under the Reagan administration.

This accomplishment, aided by the elimination of Senate filibusters on judicial nominees, could affect how laws and regulations are interpreted by various courts, especially as marriage heads to a probable Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of state laws.

Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial nominees except for Supreme Court candidates last year, saying Republicans were blocking qualified candidates for the bench. However, the filibuster was part of the reason Democrats were able to keep the number of approved Bush appointees so low.

The Supreme Court may hear multiple marriage questions in its 2015 cycle. 

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook