Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Where Are the Socially Conservative Women in This Fight?

  1. #1
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 07:12 AM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,123
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,432
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,476
    Thanked in
    1,073 Posts

    Where Are the Socially Conservative Women in This Fight?

    The American family needs defending and right now men are leading the charge.

    By Helen Andrews - Ms. Andrews is the managing editor of The Washington Examiner magazine.



    Forty years ago, Phyllis Schlafly hosted a gala for 1,100 guests at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington to celebrate the expiration of the deadline to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. A bomb threat was not enough to dampen the evening’s festivities, which included not only dinner and speeches but a musical revue featuring parodies of “The Impossible Dream” and “Old-Fashioned Girl” with lyrics adapted for the occasion by Schlafly herself. The celebration did not just mark the end of the E.R.A., Schlafly later said, but “the end of an era, the era of conservative defeats.”

    Not in women’s rights, it didn’t. In the 40 years since that banquet, nearly everything that Schlafly warned that E.R.A. would bring about has been achieved by other means, from coeducation at military academies to gay marriage.

    Schlafly and her organization Stop E.R.A. won the battle but lost the war. Hardly surprising when you consider that they were the underdogs. Politicians in both parties initially assumed that voting for the amendment was the safe option because its supporters were passionate and organized, whereas its opponents were politically inert — which they were, until Schlafly, who had run for Congress and worked as a researcher for what would become the American Enterprise Institute, turned masses of women who had never been involved in politics into an army of effective lobbyists.

    Today there are many times more women in the conservative movement than there were when a 21-year-old named Phyllis Stewart first arrived in Washington in 1945. And yet none of those brilliant and articulate women have stepped in to fill her role as America’s foremost anti-feminist.

    Those who attack feminist orthodoxy today do so because they are committed feminists themselves, as in the case of the A.E.I.’s Christina Hoff Sommers, who calls her position “equity feminism” as opposed to “victim feminism.” Dissenters from the feminist line are more likely to be motivated by a libertarian commitment to equal treatment of the sexes than a socially conservative commitment to gender roles as an affirmative good. Four decades after the death of the E.R.A., Schlafly has many descendants, but no heirs.

    To some, the question of why a new Schlafly hasn’t emerged is as absurd as it would have been to ask in 1972 why no woman had appeared to lead the opposition to the E.R.A. Why would a woman sign up to defend her own oppression? Of course, that’s not what Schlafly thought she was doing. She believed she was protecting women from having a feminist agenda they did not agree with imposed on them against their will.

    Today, much of that agenda has prevailed. The obstacles to expanding women’s options and empowering them to make the choices they want are now, in many areas, precisely the products of that egalitarian revolution. By making it easier for women to pursue success in the workplace, we have made it harder for them to do anything else. Pressing the brake on the trends set in motion by the feminist revolution would leave women more free to follow a diversity of paths. In that case, another Phyllis Schlafly may be just what America needs.

    The worst thing about the “mommy wars” used to be their suffocating sameness. The essays that went round and round about whether women can “have it all” were often well written, but the repetitiveness of the arguments was enough to make a person believe in eternal recurrence. Not anymore. Now, the worst thing about the mommy wars is that they are about to enter a new phase and the conservative side is unprepared for it.

    The American family is once again in crisis. The statistical bellwether this time is not family breakdown but failure of families to form in the first place. In 1960, 82 percent of Americans between 25 and 34 were married. Even as late as 2000, 55 percent were. In 2013, for the first time, a majority of that age bloc had never married, and the downward trend shows no sign of stopping. Even allowing for the likelihood that some of this cohort will marry in their 40s or 50s, a 2014 Pew report predicts that “today’s young adults will experience the lowest marriage rate in modern history.”

    Marriage has become less appealing in part because of the “two-income trap,” as Senator Elizabeth Warren, now a 2020 presidential candidate, christened it in 2003, when she was a Harvard professor. Marriage simply no longer offers the financial security it once did. The consumer goods that singles buy have gotten cheaper, but the things that middle-aged parents spend the most money on — houses, education, health care — have gotten more expensive, while wages have stagnated. It has become difficult for a family with one breadwinner to afford a middle-class standard of living. “Mom’s paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of keeping the children in the middle class,” Ms. Warren’s book “The Two-Income Trap” explained.

    The mass entry of women into the work force is one reason for this financial insecurity. Ms. Warren said as much in her book, although she has since backed away from such a politically explosive suggestion. Those of us who don’t have a Democratic primary ahead of us can say what she won’t: When mothers started entering paid employment in large numbers in the 1970s, it led to a bidding war over middle-class amenities that left everyone paying more for the privilege of being no better off than before.

    The result is a two-tiered system that isn’t working for anybody. In the bottom tier, marriage is disappearing as lower-income women have too few men with solid jobs to choose from and as the growing number of men without regular work — by one analysis, 20 percent of prime-age males were not working full time at the start of 2018 — are being cut out of the marriage market altogether.

    In the top tier, college-educated women feel they can’t afford to take time off from their careers to raise their children even when they want to, as many of them do. A survey by the Institute for Family Studies found only 17 percent of mothers with children 3 or younger prefer to work full time. Many career moms manage their stressful work-life balance thanks only to low-wage immigrant labor to take care of their children, clean their houses and deliver their takeout. Even with hired help, working women still spend nearly as much time on household tasks as their stay-at-home mothers and grandmothers did. The result is stress, frustration — and cries for national action.

    The response of the conservative establishment to this crisis has been to double down on shoveling women into the work force.
    In 2018, the American Enterprise Institute released a report on paid family and medical leave in collaboration with the Brookings Institution that specifically cited a recent dip in the number of American women working as a problem needing to be solved. “Research shows that the proportion of working women in the U.S. has fallen behind that of other countries,” the A.E.I. website lamented. “Access to paid leave has been shown to promote labor force attachment, especially for women, which is vital for economic growth.”



    In this fixation on economic growth, even when it means nudging into the work force women who would have preferred to stay home, all sides of the political spectrum are in agreement, from the conservative A.E.I. and the centrist Brookings to the liberal Center for American Progress, which crows that if child care assistance and other family-friendly policies became the norm, “the United States would see an additional five million women in the labor force and $500 billion in increased G.D.P.” It is precisely this cross-ideological consensus that has allowed the problem of the two-income trap to get worse for so long.

    What is needed are dissenting voices. The conservative Independent Women’s Forum has had some success promoting the idea of “Social Security earned leave,” which would give new parents up to 12 weeks of paid leave in exchange for delaying their retirement benefits by weeks or months. The plan has the benefit of being budget-neutral over the long term, because parents borrow against their own retirement benefits, leaving everyone else unaffected. Senators Joni Ernst and Mike Lee, and separately Senator Marco Rubio, have turned this plan into proposed legislation, making it an excellent example of policy entrepreneurship on the part of the Independent Women’s Forum. However, this laudable plan seems to respond to the last era’s Republican worries about paid leave — that it was anti-business or too expensive or would promote long-term government dependency — and doesn’t address the fundamental issues that families are facing.

    Join Jamelle Bouie as he shines a light on overlooked writing, culture and ideas from around the internet.

    There is interesting work being done on what it would mean to make the happiness and stability of America’s families a policy goal on par with G.D.P. growth. There is Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute, whose book “The Once and Future Worker” criticizes the single-minded focus on expanding the economic pie regardless of other considerations as “economic piety” (get it?). “If, historically, two-parent families could support themselves with only one parent working outside the home, then something is wrong with ‘growth’ that imposes a de facto need for two incomes,” he writes.

    There is also Samuel Hammond at the Niskanen Center, who has written incisively on the benefits and drawbacks of various child tax credit plans and “the false promise of universal child care,” which would impose a one-size-fits-all model on America’s families.

    Earlier this year, National Review published an essay by Patrick T. Brown, a graduate student at Princeton, called “Leaning Out,” which argues that public policy should make it easier for one parent to stay home. He proposes a “grand bargain — expanded child-care subsidies, with payments equivalent to the value of those subsidies to parents who choose not to pay for care” Mr. Brown says he got the idea for the essay during the year he was a stay-at-home dad for his two children while his wife pursued her Ph.D. studies. “I realized being a stay-at-home parent is really hard,” he said.

    More: NYT
    “Remember that all worlds draw to an end and that noble death is a treasure which no-one is too poor to buy.” - C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Senior Member Dani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Last Online
    Sunday, August 11th, 2019 @ 07:31 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    Gender
    Posts
    64
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    45
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    96
    Thanked in
    44 Posts
    There's a lot in the article and I admittedly just scanned it rather than really reading it... but I'll still offer my two cents:

    1. Most women my age are apolitical and have no real interest in the culture wars.

    2. Women are more influenced by social norms and wanting to feel that you're 'part of the in crowd' and, since socially conservative views are demonized, many women don't want to be associated with them.

    3. There is an argument to be made that many women are naturally rather liberal and tend to want to compromise more than men.

    4. 'Conservatism' is not an actual ideology. It's just a bunch of reactionary viewpoints melded together so obviously it's not going to draw in all that many young people.

    One more thing I want to say is that, at least in the Anglosphere, our 'nationalist movements' have a total lack of standards and are often co-opted by literal disinfo agents, buffoons, and religious cultists.

    Just look at the Christian Identity buffoons on Stormfront or all the 'we are gonna storm the capitol with our shotguns' guys on other sites. It's all just a very weird role-playing game and women don't find that attractive.

    Create a smart, lean, 'sexy', movement with standards and high quality women will start showing up. Women like winners.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dani For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Make Having Children Socially Desirable Again
    By Blod og Jord in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 17th, 2018, 03:06 PM
  2. How You Are Socially Engineered By the Elites
    By Thorburn in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, March 16th, 2018, 03:46 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Monday, March 12th, 2018, 02:38 PM
  4. Serial Sneezing... a Socially Undesirable Problem
    By feisty goddess in forum Health, Fitness & Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Friday, February 4th, 2011, 03:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •