by S. T. Karnick
The tendency of the nation’s schools to suppress boys’ natural way of seeing and doing things, brilliantly documented by Christina Hoff-Sommers in her 2001 book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, is becoming increasingly evident in the culture. Read more…
by Terrell Clemmons
When I turned 27, I thought my life was right on track. Respectable job? Check. Marriage? Check. Nice home in the suburbs? Check. Family? Check. Well . . . almost. My husband and I were expecting our first child. Three months later, when she was born and I laid eyes on her and held her in my arms, my heart jumped tracks. But my life didn’t, at least not yet. Read more…
by Phyllis Schlafly
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to Members of Congress who voted for it. Read more…
by Erika Bachiochi
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 34, No. 3, Summer 2011
Abstract:
Within legal academic circles and the general pro-choice feminist population, it is axiomatic that women’s equality requires abortion. Indeed, pro-choice legal scholars, foremost among them Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have argued that the Equal Protection Clause provides a far more appealing constitutional justification for the abortion right than the roundly criticized right to privacy offered in Roe. Read more…
Note from Dr. Morse, who is a contributor to this volume,: “Erica’s personal journey is precisely the story we are looking for at the Ruth Institute: people who have learned from experience that the sexual revolution is a lie. ‘The divorce at 12 was the hardest one.’ That is just an awful, and very telling statement.”
Note from Betsy: Here’s a quote from the article about Dr. Morse: “I knew Jennifer Roback Morse’s work and thought having an economist write on marriage was a good idea. She is well-respected, and her credentials are outstanding.”
by Judy Roberts
The popular media view of the Catholic Church as anti-woman gets a vigorous challenge in a new book edited by Erika Bachiochi. In Women, Sex, and the Church: A Case for Catholic Teaching (Pauline Books & Media), Bachiochi and eight other contributors expound upon the Church’s teaching on sex, contraception, marriage, abortion and priestly ordination from a pro-woman perspective. Bachiochi, a 35-year-old mother of five, lives in East Walpole, Mass., with her husband, Dan. She spoke to Register correspondent Judy Roberts. Read more…
by Marcia Segelstein
Without a doubt, the feminist movement has left a legacy of deep-seated social changes which continue to influence the culture in ways most of us don’t even realize.
Authors Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly, in their new book The Flipside of Feminism, connect the dots from the feminist movement to some of our most pervasive societal ills. Read more…
Marcia Segelstein – OneNewsNow Columnist -
Authors Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly, in their new book, The Flipside of Feminism, have courageously laid bare the false premises — and promises — of “the women’s movement.” And they have mercilessly quantified, to the extent possible, the negative effects that the feminist movement has had on American culture. Read more…
Security in the workplace is taking the place of security in marriage. I have been saying this for some time. But now, the major league self-styled feminist groups are coming right out and saying it. Women and children don’t need stability in marriage if they can have stability in employment.
CNSNews.com asked both activists if the federal government should do all it can to promote marriage between a man and a woman to ensure economic security for women. The “activists” in this quote are Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women and Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Policy.
CNSNews.com asked both activists if the federal government should do all it can to promote marriage between a man and a woman to ensure economic security for women.
“Personally, no, I do not believe that and I don’t think you’ll find any of the women’s groups who are members of the National Council of Women’s Organizations advocating that position,” Read more…
The thought alone is provocative. ‘Who’s lookin’ out for you, kid?’
Kathryn Jean Lopez points out the irony of reproductive rights activists targeting an order of nuns devoted to women and children.
They are a Catholic group of women religious established in 1991 by the late John Cardinal O’Connor, “for the protection and enhancement of the sacredness of every human life.” Eleanor Bader, co-author of Targets of Hatred: Anti-Abortion Terrorism, is outraged that the Sisters have been so successful in their mission to serve women, children, and families who feel hopeless in the face of a pregnancy. They take women in, they take their children in, they serve them, encourage them, feed them, and get them on their feet. They also serve women that liberal feminism, all too often, leaves behind: those who are mourning the loss of a child who was a casualty of the celebrated “freedom to choose” that isn’t always actually a choice, due to desperation and a failure to see viable alternatives. Read more…
One consequence that is sure to follow from marriage redefinition is that courts will be yet more empowered to assign parental rights and responsibilities.
How wonderful that would be!
If we just allow biology to determine parental rights, what a disaster! In disputed cases, we would send wet, messy biological samples to labs! There, those samples will be analyzed by scientists. Scientists who probably never took a humanities course in their lives! How can we let people who don’t know the first thing about postmodern critical theory make decisions like that? How would social justice be served?
And that’s not just in same sex cases, either.
Andrew Stuttaford discusses an article in which this frightening idea is aired: Read more…
I have been reading the new book, Never Enough, by William Voegeli at Claremont McKenna College, with great interest. His theme is that the advocates of the welfare state have never been able to give a coherent account of the proper size and scope of their ambitions. How much assistance to the poor is enough?
I think he is correct about the “Progressive” economic agenda. But I believe there is an even more insidious and destructive part of their agenda: their revision of what we might call the “sexual constitution.” The radical forms of feminism, as well as the destruction and redefinition of marriage, are part of restructuring the fundamental rules of engagement between women and men, and between adults and children. I have come to the conclusion that the Left’s inability to define limits is no accident.
My thesis is that the impossibility of achieving the agenda is precisely its appeal to the Left. In economics, it is impossible to eliminate all income differences in even a partially free market, since the huge variation in personality, abilities and behaviors that are normal among human beings are precisely the basis for differences in income. Yet, if the Radicals are able to create a moral urgency around “equality,” they will have justified an unlimited amount governmental power.
The feminists have insisted that any difference between men and women are the results of unjust discrimination and hence must be eradicated. The government must “do something,” to eliminate these differences. However, since men and women really are different, Read more…
An Australian study has set the traditional-role-division cat among the gender equality pigeons: the tide of opinion seems to have swung against the feminist ideal of an equal division of domestic and market work between husbands and wives. Read more…
Lately there have been quite a few blog posts about the goings-on at last weekend’s Catholic Women’s Conference in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where Dr J gave two talks. They’re now available on our podcast page so you can go straight to the source.
On one of my recent trips, I heard from some old-time pro-life sidewalk counselors. These are folks who have been praying outside abortion clinics since Roe v Wade practically. They made this observation: “in the old days, our opponents on the sidewalks would be feminists of some sort. Today, it is far more likely that our opponents will be gay rights people, especially gay men.”
Has anyone else noticed this? What do you make of this observation?
Economists have known for a long time that discrimination per se accounts for relatively minor part of the wage differences between men and women. By far the largest factor is the impact of children on people’ work/life decisions. Children affect men and women differently. This was already very apparent in data when I started in economics back in the 1970′s.
Now, here is a story from USA Today that demonstrates that the process of wiping out labor market discrimination is complete:
Single, childless women in their twenties are finding success in the city: They’re out-earning their male counterparts in the USA’s biggest metropolitan areas.
Women ages 22 to 30 with no husband and no kids earn a median $27,000 a year, 8% more than comparable men in the top 366 metropolitan areas, according to 2008 U.S. Census Bureau data crunched by the New York research firm Reach Advisors and released Wednesday. The women out-earn men in 39 of the 50 biggest cities and match them in another eight. The disparity is greatest in Atlanta, where young, childless single women earn 21% more than male counterparts.
Take away the impact of children, and voila! No more wage difference. Read more…
The End of Men recently published in the Atlantic, can’t decide whether the marginalization of men from the family, the economy and the academy, is a nightmare or a dream come true. Steve Baskerville takes on the questions no one else will and says what no one else will say. The End of Men is not a naturally occuring result of natural forces, but something aggressively constructed by committed ideologues:
While elite feminists did assume previously male occupations, many more women have entered the workforce in professionalized versions of traditional homemaker roles. This has transformed childrearing and other domestic tasks from private family matters into public, communal, and taxable activities, necessarily expanding the size and power of the state and leading to the creation of vast bureaucracies to oversee public education and social services. Read more…
A commenter here on the blog made the ridiculous statement that Feminism is about choice.
But feminism has little, if anything to do with choice. For instance, Feminism has been dead set against the choice to be a stay at home mother. It has derided that particular choice ever since the author of The Feminine Mystique condemned the homes of housewives as “comfortable concentration camps.”
This article discusses the stunning success that feminism has had in stigmatizing housewives.
STOCKHOLM — When the Swedish journalist Peter Letmark tried to track down a housewife for a series on 21st-century parents in the newspaper Dagens Nyheter recently, he failed.
“Housewives,” he explained, “are a near-extinct species in Sweden. And the few who still do exist don’t really dare to go public with it.” Read more…
Our critics allege that we here at the Ruth Institute want to turn women into “baby factories.”
Okay. So let’s consider that position for a second.
But before we do so, I think we should note this. We can quibble about the number of babies the world needs, but what cannot be disputed is that at some time and in some number, human society is going to need to make babies for its continued existence.
Who should make those babies?
We believe that this responsibility should fall upon women. There are two reasons we believe this. First of all, we’re EEEEEEEEEVIL right wingers. Read more…
by Maggie Gallagher
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 Townhall.com
I walked in late for the Susan B. Anthony List breakfast last Friday and, right away, Sarah Palin blew me away.
Trig. Read more…
Evidently, some self-described feminists have no regrets about the hook-up culture, and are stressed out about the “back-lash” of a “new wave of anti-orgasmic sexual conservatism.” S.T. Karnick dissects their pity party. Oh wait. He didn’t call it that. I called it that. In any case, here is Karnick’s bottom line:
I sympathize with Grose’s dismay at the world not being exactly as she wishes it to be, but I find her article (and others like it) charmingly transparent in their elitist hunger for power: women should be free to do whatever they want, provided that they want what feminists such as Grose want them to want.
What does this mean for the future of feminism? Who knows? But the grotesque crassness of the past decade may well have brought about at least one very good consequence: the tawdry reality behind the ideals of orgasm-obsessed feminists such as Grose has been laid bare for all to see and judge for themselves. Now that’s liberation.
Read it all here. I love it, I must say.
Loading ...
