#WarOnWomen: Self-loathing “feminists” continue war on stay at home moms

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Ah, yes – another “authentic feminist” (author Elizabeth Wurtzel) preaching to stay at home moms, especially those so-called “1% moms”, what “REAL feminism” is (bolded emphasis added by me):

Failing as a feminist is a unique problem of the wealthy, but consequences impact women all the way down the line. It happens that most women — and men — are living feminist lives because of economic necessity, whether they mean to or not. Most families are kind of like Sarah Palin’s was before she made her pit-bull star turn: lots of kids and both mom and dad have to bring in what money they can. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2011 nearly 71 percent of women with children under 18 worked. Most mothers have jobs because they need or want the money and fulfillment; only in rare cases are they driven by glory. To be a stay-at-home mom is a privilege, and most of the housewives I have ever met — none of whom do anything around the house — live in New York City and Los Angeles, far from Peoria. Only in these major metropolises are there the kinds of jobs in finance and entertainment that allow for a family to live luxe on a single income. In any case, having forgotten everything but the lotus position, these women are the reason their husbands think all women are dumb, and I don’t blame them. As it happens, fewer than 5 percent of the CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies, 16 percent of corporate executives, and 17 percent of law partners are female. The men, the husbands of the 1 percent, are on trading floors or in office complexes with other men all day, and to the extent that they see anyone who isn’t male it’s pretty much just secretaries and assistants. And they go home to…whatever. What are they supposed to think? They pay gargantuan American Express bills and don’t know why or what for. Then they give money to Mitt Romney.

Seriously: Did Romney actually tell his wife that her job was more important than his? So condescending. If he thought that, he’d be doing it. Being a rich mom — even with five sons, bless her heart — is not even sort of a job. Housekeepers there, servants there: it’s not just that being a wealthy wife is not work in the way that being a corporate litigator or a corporal in the Army is work, it’s that it doesn’t even involve picking up Lego pieces and putting away GI Joe dolls or much of any of the stuff that makes being a mom a job.

Hilary Rosen would not have been so quick to be so super sorry for saying that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life if we weren’t all made more than a wee bit nervous by our own biases, which is that being a mother isn’t really work. Yes, of course, it’s something — actually, it’s something almost every woman at some time does, some brilliantly and some brutishly and most in the boring middle of making okay meals and decent kid conversation. But let’s face it: It is not a selective position. A job that anyone can have is not a job, it’s a part of life, no matter how important people insist it is (all the insisting is itself overcompensation). Even moms with full-time jobs spend 86 percent as much time with their kids as unemployed mothers, so it is apparently taking up the time of about 14 percent of a paid position. And all the cultish glorification of home and hearth still leaves us in a world where most of the people paid to chef and chauffeur in the commercial world are men. Which is to say, something becomes a job when you are paid for it — and until then, it’s just a part of life.

What this (obviously envious) witch fails to consider is that, “rich” or not, most stay at home moms are there because they WANT to be there  – not because they’re being forced to be there by “the patriarchy.”  And furthermore, most find being able to stay at home and raise your children to be the most rewarding job there is. Not only that, but if the author would get out of her seemingly “rich” environment of LA and NYC -where she no doubt has encountered many a rich liberal mother who meets her definition of “stay at home mom” (that is – leaving kids to be raised by their nannies while they themselves are out getting mani/pedis and playing tennis) – she’d see what the average life of a stay at home mom, whether they have a nanny or not, is really like.

The writer really is a ball of idiotic contradictions, though – think about it: She spills her scorn all over “1% SAHMs” for “not having a real job’ because they “hire nannies” to do their work.  And even those SAHMs who are at home, she implies, aren’t really working because it’s a lifestyle choice and nothing more. REAL feminism, she asserts, comes from economic equality – the translation, of course, being that a woman actively being out there in the working world earning a top dollar living is THE definition of feminism.  But what she doesn’t mention in her breathless rant is the fact that many of the women who are out there in the working world earning that top dollar have to hire nannies or daycare to take care of their children so they can stay out there being “real feminists”, because dad isn’t home, either – he’s also out there earning a living.

At some point, even the so-called “pampered” stay at home moms who are out getting those mani/pedis end up spending quality time with their children.  On the other hand, being out there in the working world trying to be a “real feminist” as promoted by the author makes it that much harder to do because you often come home emotionally and physically drained from work, but most working mothers are like most stay at home moms in doing the best they can at motherhood – and I am in no position (nor do I want to be) to judge the choices these moms have made to work inside or outside of the home.  Some work outside of the home because they have to.  Others, because they want to.  They made those choices, and I respect them for it – because being able to make your own choices in life when it comes to home, family, and work, and to be viewed as a valuable and EQUAL member of the community without being ridiculed by a stereotypical society that sees only one chief  “role” for women ultimately is what  first wave feminists fought for.

“Feminists” who claim to know what “real feminism” is are so amusing, aren’t they? Over the last several decades (especially since the late 60s), they’ve turned into that which they abhor: they no longer fight for simple “equality” – they fight for dominance and superiority over the “patriarchy” because “stupid men have ruined the world.”   They preach that society shouldn’t be judgmental of “women’s choices”, but that’s exactly what they themselves do (Wurtzel is a classic case in point) when a woman makes a choice they don’t like (such as keeping her baby, deciding to be a SAHM, etc).  And the ultimate flip off  to first wave feminism is to have modern “feminists” who are supposedly champions of “limitless roles” for women (in contrast to the primary role of the old days being a homemaker) do the very role limiting they claim to be against by suggesting that the only equality is “economic” equality, which translates into: get off your a**es, put away your bon bons, get out there into the workforce or else you’re not a real woman/feminist.

Never, ever let liberal “feminists” fool you into believing they are all about “freedom of choice” and “respecting women from all walks of life.”  Their “freedom of choice” is entirely subjective, which is not really freedom at all.   And as far as that “respecting women” goes? Well, Wurtzel demonstrates the deeply false nature of that claim much better than I could ever possibly explain.

Previous #WarOnWomen posts

A desperate President spoils the DREAM — Updated — Obama has a public hissy

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

His “reboot” speech on the economy yesterday having turned out to be a miserable flop, President Obama will unveil today Plan B: pander shamelessly to an important ethnic group:

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin giving work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of a growing Latino electorate that has opposed administration deportation policies.

And from the the New York Post:

Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a US high school or earned a GED, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.

The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods. It tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the DREAM Act.

To borrow a famous phrase, let me be clear: regardless of what euphemism the administration chooses, this is nothing more or less than an amnesty.

It’s also a cheap, cynical political move by a cheap, cynical Chicago pol who sees his reelection chances shrinking. (When a Democratic president has to worry about Michigan…) It’s the Alinskyite community organizer in action: take a controversial issue and propose a “solution” that sets group against group, guaranteeing polarization on the issue. It’s purpose is two-fold: both groups become intransigent, preventing a compromise that would weaken your influence, and “your” group welds to your side, because they’ll think you’re with them against the other guy.

When, really, all you care about is keeping their support for your own goals. In this case, that means votes in November.

If that were the end of it, this would be nothing more than the pathetic, desperate gesture of an increasingly pathetic, desperate president. But this coming announcement does real harm:

Standing on its own, the measures are not a bad compromise on one area of the immigration problem: children brought here as minors by their parents. Call me a RINO, but I’ve never seen how justice or American national interest is served by punishing children for the decisions of their parents.

BUT…

By bypassing the legislative process and cutting out the elected representatives of the people, Obama is killing any chance for a compromise based on consensus, such as that proposed by Senator Rubio. (1) This is the same type of mistake (2) as that made by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, when it used judicial fiat to quash the political process. Obama’s selfish use of executive authority has thrown a gigantic monkey wrench into the democratic process of compromise and consensus that was starting to get underway in Congress, effectively jamming it.

Obama also has shown, once again, his contempt for the constitutional order. While the president is granted broad (often too broad) regulatory authority by Congress, this kind of major change to the law clearly is the purview of the legislature. While presidents can and should refuse to enforce laws they believe unconstitutional, constitutionality is not what’s being argued here — Obama simply wants to change the law for his own benefit. And he’ll do it on his own, thank you.

That’s called “usurpation.” Maybe even “tyranny.”

It’s also, let’s face it, another “Look! Squirrel!” moment, designed to set us all yelling at each other while we forget about Obama’s pathetic record on the economy. Well played, Barack. This one might actually work.

This decision leaves open a question: What about the parents of these now-immune children? Are they granted immunity? Are they still subject to deportation? (Yeah, let’s see how that plays on the nightly news. (3) )

And it’s not without risks, as Bryan Preston points out:

The unemployment rate among young Americans stands well above the national average of 8.2%. Unemployment among black Americans stands officially at about 16%. The president’s policy plays one constituency that he sorely needs, Hispanic voters, against another that supported him in 2008 but has soured on him since, younger voters, and may hurt black voters looking for work as well.

On top of that, how will the unions react , given they’re already annoyed with Obama over Keystone and his failure to stand with them in Wisconsin? SEIU will probably be fine, but UAW and AFL-CIO? The latter two aren’t so keen on competition from immigrant labor. And let’s extend it a bit to areas hard-hit in the current economy: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina… Do we really think out-of-work or under-employed workers in those areas will be thrilled with this news? That now they’ll have more competitors for jobs?

Me, neither.

Obama may buy some votes with this trick, but I wonder if, in November, he’ll discover the price was too high.

Footnotes:
(1) And, gee, he just happens to steal the thunder from an up-and-coming conservative Hispanic senator. What a coincidence.
(2) Actually, in Obama’s case it wasn’t a mistake at all. It was the intent. The community organizer wants polarization.
(3) Gee, this couldn’t be something Obama wants, could it? Nah…

UPDATE: A statement from Senator Rubio:

“There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.”

UPDATE II: Well, well, well. It seems that our president is, with this order, doing exactly what he said he couldn’t do just last year:

Faced by a young person who disproved his claim about his Administration’s treatment of these young people, the President now seemed to concede that students and young people eligible for the DREAM Act are being deported and says that it’s not his responsibility to change that: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.  I don’t have a choice about that.  That’s part of my job,” he said. When Ramos asked a follow-up question about granting formal administrative relief to undocumented youth, Obama was even more forceful: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Are we surprised? No. Everything, including the rule of law,  is subordinate to his reelection needs.

UPDATE III: President Thin-Skin does not like being questioned:

“This is not amnesty, this is not immunity, this is not a path to citizenship, it is not a permanent fix,” the president said before a person, reportedly Neil Munro of The Daily Caller, interjected with a question.

“Excuse me, sir; it’s not time for questions, sir,” said Obama, who didn’t take any questions at the announcement. “I’m not asking for an argument.”

“These kids deserve to plan their lives in more than two-year increments,” the president continued, adding that Congress still needed to take DREAM Act action because the order is just a “stop-gap measure.”

“It makes no sense to expel talented young persons who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans.”

As Obama walked away from the podium, a voice called out, “What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?”

Touchy, ain’t he?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

#NCDems scandal grows as fired staffer sues re: sexual harassment allegations

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Daily Caller’s Matt Boyle provides an update:

Adriadn Ortega, who was fired from the NCDP in November 2011, alleged that now former NCDP Executive Director Jay Parmley sexually harassed him. Ortega charged that his firing was retaliation for voicing complaints about Parmley’s alleged sexual harassment of him. The NCDP made a financial settlement with Ortega, and everybody signed non-disclosure agreements in an effort to keep the issue out of the press.

Then, in early April, The Daily Caller obtained emails between different party officials detailing what happened and the widespread fear throughout the NCDP that, if the issue broke, the party would be “doomed” ahead of the Democratic National Convention later this summer. The emails also revealed fears that the scandal would affect national politics for Democrats. Within days of TheDC first breaking the story, Parmley resigned. Shortly after that, amid pressure from his state’s Democratic leaders, including outgoing Gov. Bev Perdue (who first told a local news reporter to “get over it” when she was asked about the sexual harassment scandal), NCDP chairman David Parker agreed to step down at an upcoming state party meeting.

In a bizarre turn of events, Parker officially submitted his resignation — but the NCDP executive committee refused to accept it, and Parker kept his job. Local news outlet WRAL reported that Parker had lobbied executive committee members to vote to reject his resignation.

According to the local ABC news affiliate in Raleigh-Durham, Ortega accuses Parker and the NCDP of defamation and breach of contract for talking openly about the details of the scandal.

[…]

The lawsuit hits the news less than two months before the Democratic National Convention is set to roll into Charlotte, N.C., and just days before one of the NCDP’s big events: the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.

Awww. There’s a tear in my beer … er, not. ;)

Obama to far-left celebs: “You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

President Tone Deaf spoketh to ultra-left wing celebs last night at a posh $40,000 a plate fundraiser hosted at the home of actress Sarah Jessica Parker and her husband Matthew Broderick:

NEW YORK (AP) — President Barack Obama soaked in the support — and the campaign cash — of Manhattan’s elite entertainers Thursday as his re-election team sought to fill its fundraising coffers.

The president and first lady Michelle Obama made a rare joint fundraising appearance when they visited the home of actors Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick. The intimate dinner banked about $2 million, with 50 people paying $40,000 each.

The dinner was the Obama campaign’s latest attempt to bank on celebrities for fundraising help in countering the growing donor enthusiasm from Republicans supporting Mitt Romney’s presidential bid.

Speaking in a dimly lighted, art-filled room, Obama told supporters they would play a critical role in an election that would determine a vision for the nation’s future.

“You’re the tie-breaker,” he said. “You’re the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes.”

Among the celebrities on hand to hear Obama’s remarks were Oscar winner Meryl Streep, fashion designer Michael Kors and Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who moderated a private question-and-answer session between the president and the guests. Broderick, who was starring in a Broadway musical, was absent.

As one person on Twitter quipped, at least someone was working last night.

Breitbart.com’s John Nolte provides this timely reminder:

Let us all step back for a moment to remember that this is the same man who endorses Occupy Wall Street.

Obama spoke these creepy words at a $40,000-per-plate fundraiser that raked in a total of $2 million and took place in Sarah Jessica Parker’s home. Obama spoke these creepy words to the most out-of-touch crowd in the history of out-of-touch crowds. I know people who are out-of-touch who would look at this crowd and say, “Boy, are these people out-of-touch.”

Indeed. And I should note that even if these celebrities weren’t well-off financially, most of them would still be seriously out of touch because they’re liberals and any liberal (or anyone PERIOD, for that matter) who believes this country would be better off with Barack Obama staying in the White House for another four years is seriously, SERIOUSLY out of touch. Not to mention the fact that liberalism in and of itself is way out of the mainstream because of how far it takes us away from being a representative republic, towards favoring of statism. *shivers*

The People’s Cube came up with some great “Tax and the City” graphics in honor of last night’s fancy shindig. Here’s one of them:

Tax and the City

And only a select few of you people can dine with us ... if you're LUCKY!

Perfect.

I know Romney has his own high dollar fundraisers, but I doubt you’ll ever hear him telling attendees they’re the “ultimate arbiter” of the direction the country goes. Even if it is a room fully of businessmen and women who are responsible for creating a business climate conducing to hiring people (unlike left wing Hollywood celebrities). It’s just bad, bad optics. I hope Team Romney and the RNC use this quote again and again throughout this campaign season in campaign ads. It’s time to beat the Democrats at their own game.

RetroToldjah: