Ruth’s Real Aims
I am flattered by the attention from Daily Kos blogger, Dante Atkins. Sadly, this post is short on substance, and long on ad hominem attacks and innuendo. I will leave aside for now, his silly attack on our logo, of all things. I will ignore his mangling of the Biblical story of Ruth, except to note one thing: I chose Ruth because she is a unifying figure, loved by all the major faith groups. Catholics love her; Jews love her; Evangelicals love her; Mormons love her. Everybody loves Ruth, it seems, except for leftist bloggers. I’ll leave it to the reader to imagine how leftists like Dante expect to build a coalition when they alienate every major faith tradition in America.
But leave all that aside for now. I just want to concentrate on the core values of the Ruth Institute, and our list of goals that he lifted from our Strategic Plan. I am proud to have him call attention to the goals of the Ruth Institute:
“It aims to work hand-in-hand with other organizations in the marriage movement to:
• Decrease the divorce rate
• Increase the marriage rate
• Decrease the cohabitation rate
• Increase the number of children who grow up with both married parents
• Reduce the lag time between the age of sexual initiation and the age of first marriage
• Maintain at least a replacement-level birth rate, so that the devastation of a European-style “demographic winter” is avoided.”
Poor Dante can’t quite contain himself. Is he really in favor of more divorce? Does he actually have a problem with more children growing up with both of their married parents? All he can do is fulminate about how we are some kind of well, let me quote him directly: “The Ruth Institute–officially sanctioned by the National Organization of Marriage–is an organization with an overtly sexist and racist organization.” Never mind that the last sentence is incoherent, and evidently has some words missing. We are able to get the gist of it. I am a racist because I am concerned about population decline. Does poor Dante offer any answer to the question of how the socialist governments of Europe are going to provide the benefits they have promised their citizens, if the population continues to decline? He does not because he has no answer. All he can do is change the subject. Instead of the subject being the unsustainability of the current combination of welfare policies and demographic trends, Dante wants the subject to be all about little old me, with my computer and my one full-time employee, ruling the world from my dining room table.
And I am a sexist, according to Dante, because, “The real mission of the Ruth Institute is to erase the gains that women have made with regard to their social, economic and sexual liberation and ensure that they become baby factories.” Dante evidently has missed the fact that many, many women, are fed up with the sexual revolution, the divorce revolution and all the false promises of Leftist Feminism. The fact is that the trends toward increasing labor force participation for married women and increasing higher education for women were under way well before Betty Friedan ever showed up to steer the whole conversation in the destructive direction that Leftist feminism has taken.
Poor Dante takes issue with our criticism of artificial reproductive technology this way: “if you thought that the Ruth Institute would be content to let women have children on their own time–say, using techniques like fertility treatments or artificial insemination–you’re wrong. Two of the top featured articles at the Ruth Institute’s website–this one and this one–openly decry these practices.”
The first article tells the story of a woman who donated her eggs to help a friend become pregnant. She became infertile as a result of the procedure for extracting her eggs. Evidently, Dante thinks it is objectionable for me or anyone else to call attention to the risks that young women are subjected to by the increasing commercialization of child-bearing. Whatever happened to the Left’s suspicion of commerce? The new position of the Left is evidently that the free market is terrible, unless it is a free market in human reproduction, and then it is all good.
The second article is about an anonymous sperm donor who evidently has fathered 400 children, with no responsibility whatsoever for any of his children. Does the Daily Kos really think this is an unambiguously good development that deserves no further scrutiny? I’m proud to be calling attention to the hazards associated with ART. Not many other people are. Whatever happened to consumer protection?
But Dante gets to the heart of his objection right here: “The only way women ought to have children, if you ask the Ruth Institute, is if a man is present to control the situation.” He surely knows this inflammatory statement is a half-truth: it is better to have children with a man, but not because the man is there to “control the situation.” It is easier for the woman if she has a partner; it is better for the child to have the love and support of both parents; it is better for the man to be connected with his offspring, taking responsibility for their support and protection, rather than leaving the woman to fend for herself, or rather than being ejected from the family home. What about this doesn’t poor Dante understand?
The Ruth Institute is all about spousal cooperation, a concept that his fevered Leftist brain cannot grasp. That is because in the Leftist fantasy world, the relationship between men and women is a special case of class conflict, as Engels argued: “the husband is the bourgeois, and the wife represents the proletariat.” Male and female are primarily political categories, not biological categories. And the differences between men and women are evidence of cosmic injustice. All sex differences have to be wiped out, as an act of social justice. Conservatives and libertarians take note: This leftist formula is more than moral posturing or empty rhetoric. Since differences between men and women actually exist and will assert themselves, the Left is writing itself a blank check for unlimited government intervention into the lives of ordinary people.
Even bad arguments have to be refuted, or else they will take on a life of their own, and become common currency. Dante’s “arguments” if you can dignify his screed with that description, are indeed bad arguments. I intend to refute them. Too many bad arguments have been allowed to go by unchallenged because people are afraid of being called names such as “racist” or “sexist” or now “homophobic.” This is what the Left does best: create a new epithet to put a stop to arguments and ideas that challenge their worldview.
There is much more I could say about these very interesting topics. But I have said enough for one night, and one post.