Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Feminists Consider Motherhood Oppressive

I was flipping the channels on my television a couple of weeks ago and I stopped, as I always do, on CSpan Books. There was some feminist, whose name is not important, giving a five-minute rant against President Richard Nixon because he vetoed the bill proposed by Walter Mondale to make federal daycare for preschool children a new middle-class entitlement. Nixon's veto message, which actually was written by Patrick Buchanan who was then working on Nixon's White House staff, is a splendid explanation of the importance of children being raised by their own parents. Nixon's veto was and is popular, because the majority of Americans don't want to pay taxes to provide babysitters for other people's children.

The fact that this veto, written back in the 1970s, is still being attacked by the feminists shows a lot about their attitude -- they never forgive and forget. This also shows a lot about the feminist agenda, which is not only anti-men and anti-marriage, but is also anti-motherhood. When the feminists talk about discrimination against women in a patriarchal society, one of their examples of oppression in America is that mothers are expected to care for their own children, and the feminists think this obligation should be taken over by the government.

The demand for government babysitting for preschool children was one of the feminists' four hot-button resolutions passed at the International Women's Year Conference in Houston in 1977. The other three hot-button resolutions demanded ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, tax-funding for abortions, and an endorsement of the entire gay rights agenda.

Husbands and fathers used to be expected to provide the financial support for their wife and children. The feminists have carried on a long-running campaign to make husbands and fathers irrelevant and to get mothers out of the home and into the labor force, and then demand government daycare.

Listen to this commentary:


Anonymous said...

Being made to leave your safe, warm home--your castle which you've worked hard on to make comfortable--in order to babysit a bunch of spoiled rotten execs--or to sit on an assembly line--or to scrub toilets-- is so much more oppressive than molding a child's mind for greater things. Those foolish woman have no clue! The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world and they wish to remove the power we women have and give it to the men in government!?! Brainless twits.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why it always has to be women who stay at home. Hasn't anyone ever heard of stay-at-home dads?

Anonymous said...

Without any government intervention, new laws or amendments to our Constitution, women can already do anything they want in the work force, school or at home. Enrollment is now skewed almost 60% women to 40% men in most institutions of higher learning, and more women than men are graduating from colleges and universities. Any job imaginable is available to women RIGHT NOW, be it soldier, secretary of state, senator, janitor, congresswoman, judge, attorney, doctor, teacher (which, by the way, has way more women than men), cook, cashier, foundry worker, mayor, etc. Nothing has stopped any woman who wishes to apply herself and do something with her life! New laws and/or amendments will only cause more onerous tax burdens on already strapped taxpayers.

Yes, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, but feminists refuse to see that they are already so much more than equal to men.

Anonymous said...

Yes, but we need the ERA to safeguard the liberty that women currently have. Or people will try to repeal the laws that have given it to them. Much like the Eagle Forum is trying to repeal Title IX, even though a 60-40 percent ratio actually reflects demographic reality. Because there are always more women than men in any natural population.
And women are still not allowed to serve in combat, which means they really can't be whatever they want. And women can of course attain those other jobs, but as I said, those jobs are threatened by social conservatives who want to use an assortment of means to prevent women from being judges, police officers, fire fighters, and politicians.
And Feminists do see taht women are much more equal to men, but true feminists are opposed to that as much as a patriarchy, because Feminism is about equality. The person who posted above about "those who rock the cradle ruling the world" just made a fool out of themselves. No one, men or women, should rule the world. All people regardless of gender should be equal and cooperate.

Anonymous said...

"Social conservatives" are definitely not trying to take rights away from women! Some of the staunchest "social conservatives" ARE women! Some of the most powerful voices of the conservative movement are women such as, of course, Phyllis Schlafly, but also Cong. Michele Bachmann, attorney, author and talk-show host, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, attorney and television personality Star Parker Jones, talk show host and newspaper columnist Barbara Simpson, (I could go on if you like...).

ERA is a dead amendment. It needs to be rewritten and resubmitted for a new vote for ratification because of the expiration date the Congress that originally submitted it gave to it of June 30, 1982. It was debated for 10 years and never passed. Whether or not you think it should have had an expiration date, it did, and it's been dead for almost 28 years. Please find a worthwhile project to work on instead of "beating this dead horse."

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.