Do you notice any bias slant in the questions posed to the young readers of my son’s history textbook? Is it “unusual” to suggest a traditional, prosperous life? This is why many home school.
__________________
I’ll tell you straight up, I am a conservative female, and yet, I hate Phyllis Schlafly. But the witch is smarter than her feminist contemporaries and tries to open eyes to a certain truth. There will never be equality between the sexes until men have the babies. They are not equal. At some things, women are better; at other things, men are. And then there are all those darn individual variations. The Equal Rights Amendment is one of those awesome little pieces of legislation that strives to change an unchangeable reality.
Sexual “equality,” or the attitude that women should be able to have sex indiscriminately, has only led to a bunch of stoopid single mothers living in poverty, and raising those children in poverty with limited opportunities. Without some kind of code of behavior, whether religion-enforced or not, our loose society has victimized those children.
Women have been made victims, too. Most women continue to work in fields that pay less, in the “pink collar ghetto.” Raising children and pursuing a career is a juggling act no one does well. They struggle to hold on to a decent job. Their education may have been sidetracked due to motherhood. They struggle to get a decent job, lacking qualifications. Hmmmm. Stoopid American Women didn’t realize by pursuing sexual equality, they would take a hit in economic equality.
Not only are the children and women hurt, but the rest of us, as well. With the influx of female workers into the labor force, who will accept lower wages, the real cost of labor has declined for all. This is a simple supply-demand equation determining price (lots of women in addition to men competing for the same supply of jobs, resulting in a lower wage paid to those selected). Add to the scenario the pressure on American Business from foreign competition with slave-like labor, and we get lowered standard of living for Americans. Married women with children MUST work (thanks to feminism, they no longer have a choice), so that the household has two crappy incomes and can maintain some quality of life, meaning a house instead of an apartment.
Not passing the ERA as the companion legislation to the Civil Rights package exacerbated the economic situation with low wages. The Civil Rights laws addressed unfair hiring, housing, and loaning practices. The ERA would have made sure all the women hired were paid the same as men. Why wouldn’t a business want to hire several women for the price of a few men? AND with the advent of Affirmative Action, businesses will be rewarded for doing it, with government money. It’s crazy, huh. They made a bunch of laws and policies that worsened the very situation they hoped to fix (low wages for some women) by dragging down wages for everyone and rewarding business for doing it.
I remember how, as a young single female newspaper reporter (all reporters are paid the same and starving), I used to snatch the fresh issue off the delivery piles, turn to the op-ed page, and rant about the latest Schlafly column. I was particularly outraged by her proposal of a “mommy track.” How insulting! I was in my early 20s and knew nothing about life, family, children, never imagined how I might one day try to balance the needs of my employer with the needs of my child. My fellow female reporters and I even made fun of her name after verbally shredding her arguments. (Of course, we were all relegated to covering the arts, entertainment, education, cooking and society beats. No females worked the police and court beats. So, we were pissed anyway.)
Fast forward 10 years. I’m a marketing mukkety-muk flying all over the world, anxiously talking to my small children in brief phone conversations in evenings. Sitting in Chicago traffic in a taxi, staring at the rain, I wished there was such a thing as a mommy track for me. Anything to relieve the pressure. I was sick from worry and guilt. I would have been happier if only the travel could have been reduced.
Look at the picture of Gloria Steinem. She’s beautiful. Wild, free, strong. Did she have kids and feel the tear in her heart? No, she did not. What if she had had a son, who came out of the womb carrying his genetic male DNA code from centuries past? Would she have understood that he now faces life in a modern world that does not value his natural characteristics? Even scorns them? Her stepson is Christian Bale, isn’t that interesting. Can you think of a more traditionally masculine male actor? Wow, who really was the British guy she was married to for three years? She recently appeared on “The Colbert Report” to tell us that men who take care of their children have better sex. How does she know this? Was there a study? Who determines what “care of their children” means and what is “better sex”? She’s a sad dinosaur in her 70s, about 30 years behind the times. Trust me, a man who doesn’t care about his children is perfectly happy with the sex he’s having, and will not fall for her promise of “better.” He’s got plenty of stoopid bitches in line.
What about Phyllis? She had six children. Still going strong with her groups, forums, books, running for offices and losing. She and her husband were lawyers. Does she ever stop to think how she played a part in creating this societal mess? Let me clarify. She defeated ERA, a simple bill proposing equal pay for equal work, which is the right thing for Business to do. If it had passed, would the radical women’s groups have disbanded with the main mission accomplished, would they have been more clearly exposed as the man-hating, anti-family, free-abortions-for-all anarchists? Schlafly stoopidly claimed ERA meant abortion funding. This is untrue and inflammatory. Socialist Democratic politicians in power means public abortion funding. These are different targets. If Conservative Republicans would do the right thing for individuals would Socialist Democrats even be necessary? They help put D’s in office who then go overboard and create crazy fiscal policy that results in one of three Americans on social welfare. Yes. Unbelievable, huh.
I’ll hate that Schlafly hag forever for the ERA thing. She says the most outrageous things, but, but…she does defend a woman’s right to not be a feminist. She is on point in her criticisms of public education.
So, what is wrong with paying women equally for equal work? Nothing. Passing ERA would have slowed down the current decline of civilization as I see it. It’s smart to treat people right. It’s not smart to relax societal standards for sex, and we women have to shoulder the task of maintaining society’s standards. We must not accept a man who beats women, who does not provide for the welfare of his children, who weakly engages in substances that inhibit his ability to thrive and compete. They should not have the joy of a companion and offspring. And if we slip, we all slide down the muddy slope.
How muddy? We now live in a society in which 41 percent of children are born out of wedlock. Hold on to your seat. Over 72 percent of America’s black children are born out of wedlock. Over 52 percent of Hispanic children are. And they will all struggle with poverty, demanding more and more from the government in exchange for their votes. Would any of these women have made the same choices without the existence of a welfare state? Hey, those women have the feminist-promised good life – have sex whenever you want, with whomever you want, no consequences to pay, because you are really just like a man…what a lie.
For all of time, women will fall in love with men (let’s assume good men) and want to have children with them. In the end, it’s the only thing that really matters. Not the job. Did you love and were you loved? Wouldn’t it be great if lawmakers quit confusing fiscal and social matters, which leads to forcing an extreme anti-family agenda on us? Has “feminism” been what is best for us? Perhaps I should say anti-people, instead of anti-family, because “family values” has come to mean extreme narrow-mindedness and hate.
Extremism is bad, no matter which direction.
By the way, Betty Friedan, author of the famous 1963 book, “The Feminine Mystique,” that started the feminist movement, wrote a second book in 1981 accusing the movement of becoming “anti-family.” One article states that as early as the 1960s, she criticized the polarized and extreme factions in her own movement that attacked groups such as men and homemakers. Yes, both Gloria and Phyllis had it wrong. Betty got it right, but no one listened to her. Her voice was lost in the middle.
No comments:
Post a Comment