Posted on 11/26/2003 6:48:48 AM PST by ReleaseTheHounds
Hmmm. In my opinion, this is a blessing.
Sad, isn't it? In my opinion a success is to create a home that's a haven for my husband and daughter....the very opposite of what many people consider successful in a woman.
Thank you.
My favorite line, too :-)
I think the column does a superb job of examining the real status of women in America today and then exposing the factually and morally incoherent foundation of the current "womens lib" movement.
As a women thawing a turkey as we speak, I'm bookmarking this as a keeper and thank you for such a terrific post!
The hardest job of them all and yet given such little credit.... it's turning back around, though, IMHO. I read something recently about the high numbers of "career women" that increasingly and voluntarily drop their high-powered positions to stay home when they have children because they find it more fulfilling and valuable :-)
Great opportunity for women without young children and more respect in society for women who are homemakers... it's a great time to be a gal :-)
The future for American women looks even brighter. Telecommuting and innovative new work arrangements, such as job sharing and flextime, promise to replace the once stark choice between working and parenting with the ability [to do] both....
(1) There is no such thing as generic "parenting". Fathers and mothers contribute to their children's rearing in distinct ways, as God designed. Pretending otherwise is just an excuse for one or both parents to neglect their children for their careers (This project is really crucial and, besides, my spouse or the nanny or the day care center can contribute sufficient "parental" unit inputs...)
Another negative consequence of the "generic" parenting idea is that it removes any possibility for objection to children being raised by two same-sex "parents".
(2) Raising children is work; it's not the alternative to work. Good mothers have always worked hard to raise their children. Furthermore, before the modern industrial era split up the family household-centered economic unit by providing jobs in factories and other locations far from home, wives also contributed to the family's income by assisting their husbands in their work.
Still, this is not 1950. Women today enjoy choice and opportunity, both in and out of the home.
This snide aside is likewise misplaced in implying that women had neither choice nor opportunity in or outside the home in the 1950s. Why is the author giving up so much ground to the feminists by buying into their caricature of the 1950s?
Are you saying that women had the same educational and career opportunities as men in the 1950's?
As a woman and homemaker, I agree that a woman's highest priority should be as caregiver for the children and wife in the traditional role. I've put a serious dent in my career by staying home with my children. I did so joyfully and humbly and don't regret it even a tiny bit. I am pleased, though, that when they are grown and I am back working full-time that I won't have to fight tooth and nail to work as other than a nurse, teacher or secretary.
Additionally... not ALL women are mothers or mothers yet. It is not "feminist" to acknowledge and be satisfied with the fact that those women who are facing higher education and the workplace DO have expanded opportunities.
This author destroys much of the traditional myth that supports the current womens lib agenda... I think she is an asset to conservatism and am happy to see her addressing this issue :-)
"Despite the good news, groups that claim to represent women often fixate -- and overstate -- old grievances that are anachronistic in our modern world..." Now that's pitching to the NOW-crowd... ;)
"Confiscatory tax rates discourage married women from entering the workforce; at the same time, they push women who would rather stay home with children with children to work in order to pay the bills." That statement should make Jill Ireland proud, right?
"America's outdated Social Security system often shortchanges working, married women, and denies all workers the opportunity to build real wealth for retirement. Social Security reform is particularly important to women because they are less likely than men to work in jobs that offer retirement savings plans." Yeah, look for Hillary Clinton to adopt this into her campaign advertising!
Why is the author giving up so much ground to the feminists by buying into their caricature of the 1950s?
Tamsey: Are you saying that women had the same educational and career opportunities as men in the 1950's?
SLP: No. Reread the excerpt from the article, reproduced above. The language of the excerpt necessarily implicates the 1950s as a time when women enjoyed no choice at home or in the workplace. Obviously, that's historically inaccurate. Just as obviously, it's the modern feminist line.
You may say the author could have chosen her words better, and indeed she could have. But the fact that her error in word choice just happened to be one that reflects the false femist line and the fact that this error, like other errors in the article, was not caught by the editors suggests many feminist assumptions have been internalized at NRO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.