#WarOnWomen: A month later, some feminists still taking shots at Ann Romney, SAHMs

Because them doubling down on The Stupid last month apparently wasn’t enough. Real Clear Politics has video and a partial transcript of remarks Newsweek/Daily Beast made about Ann Romney on MSDNC on Mother’s Day (bolded emphasis added by me):

“It can’t only be me that kind of initially saw Ann Romney as maybe a sympathetic or neutral figure but who is increasingly seeing her as someone who is kind of insufferable because of the way she’s milking this thing,” Newsweek and Daily Beast columnist Michelle Goldberg said about Ann Romney writing a column about raising her children.

Goldberg found Ann Romney’s glowing praise of motherhood in a column she wrote for USA Today to be “kind of creepy.” During an appearance on MSNBC’s weekend program “Up with Chris Hayes,” Goldberg said the phrase “the crown of motherhood,” which Ann Romney used in her column, reminded her of “authoritarian societies” that give out awards for large families.

“In a lot ways, the column was totally anodyne, right? She’s, you know, yes, motherhood is beautiful. I found that phrase, ‘the crown of motherhood’ really kind of creepy. Not just because of it’s somewhat — you know, it’s kind of really authoritarian societies that give out like a Cross of Motherhood. They give out awards for big families,” Goldberg said on the program’s panel.

“You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it,” she said. 

“The other part of it is that it plays into this thing of what we, you know. We have this kind of compact in the United States, where what we deny women in social support, or status or kind of economic security, we make up for in, in sort of insipid condescending praise,” Goldberg concluded.

Unsurprisingly, once her remarks were reported on at Glenn Beck’s Blaze website and spread like wildfire to other conservative sites – prompting understandable outrage, Ms. Goldberg pretended to “apologize” – in classic liberal fashion (which is to say she didn’t apologize at all) – again, bolded emphasis added by me:

I got into trouble, however, by saying that Romney’s closing lines, about how there is “no crown more glorious” than the “crown of motherhood,” reminded me of the pro-natalist propaganda of World War II-era totalitarian regimes. That was a mistake. Not because I don’t think it’s true – when I read Romney’s words, I immediately thought of the “Motherhood Glory” medals that Stalin gave to women who had lots of children, and of the extreme Nazi cult of motherhood, which Hitler called women’s “highest exaltation.” To me, bombastic odes to traditional maternity have a sinister ring, especially when they come from people who want to curtail women’s rights. But it was an offhand point, and one that wasn’t worth the aggravation it’s caused. I should have realized that right-wingers were going to pretend that I was saying that Romney is akin to two of the century’s most murderous tyrants.

For the record, I don’t believe that Ann Romney is either Hitleresque or Stalinesque. Rather, I think she is a calculating political wife who once struck me as fairly likeable, but who is now determined to play up the idea that’s she’s being victimized for being a stay-at-home mom. Her op-ed was part of that effort. Unfortunately, if the messages I received on Monday are any indication, it’s an effort I might have assisted.

Hmm. Wouldn’t Goldberg’s rant about someone allegedly playing the “victim” card hold more water if she, as a liberal feminist, routinely denounced the rampant and phony victim card playing we’ve seen played for decades by militant feminists across this country who routinely push to get both their message and agenda passed by any means necessary, including lying their a**es off about data/stats?  Furthermore, seeing as she implied she is anti-totalitarian, does this mean she is opposed to ObamaCare, cap and trade, corporate bailouts, unlimited public sector union “benefits”, etc?  And since she is opposed to the tactics of “murderous regimes”, does that mean she’s a strong proponent of pro-life causes, considering how some historical murderous regimes engaged in eugenics in order to “cleanse” their societies of certain types of people – a tactic favored, encouraged, and promoted by Planned Parenthood founder and “feminist” heroine Margaret Sanger?

Something tells me the answer to all of the above is “no.” Consistency is not exactly the left’s strong point.  Not even close, really.

In closing, Goldberg wrote:

So my apologies aren’t for Ann Romney, but for everyone else. I’m truly sorry to have given the right a pretext for another tedious spasm of feigned outrage. I’m sorry to have stirred one of the teapot tempests that now dominate the increasingly dispiriting world of political journalism. I’m especially sorry if I’ve done anything to strengthen the conservative myth that liberals disdain motherhood. I certainly don’t. As it happens, I’m hoping to have a baby of my own very soon. When I do, like most mothers I know, I’d much prefer accessible day care, strong public schools and affordable health care to a metaphorical crown, however glorious it may be.

You know what I think would be neat? If liberal women like Hilary Rosen and Michelle Goldberg were given primetime speaking spots during the DNC, UNFILTERED, of course –  saying exactly what they’ve said about Ann Romney and other SAHMs  from day one.  Then Americans across the country would get a chance first hand to see  in this “War On Women” which side really plays the “victim” card, which side really believes there “ain’t no man like Uncle Sam”, which side really is waging the “War On Women”, which side really doesn’t give a damn about the unborn,  which side is cut off at the knees from reality, etc.   Just so the tide can finally turn, again, for the GOP in terms of its appeal to women voters.

In fact, it sounds like that is happening already – if results from a recent CBS/NYT poll are any indication:

Keep it up, “feminists.” Keep it up! ;))

Comments are closed.