“To the best of my knowledge, I am the first mom to hold the job of the White House Press Secretary,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated at a press briefing several months ago. The implication of her statement was that this is progress and a victory of some sort.
A victory of what sort?
That Republican women are working moms too? That Donald Trump is pro-woman, a feminist even? That pro-family values now pervade the White House?
Why is it progress and a victory that a mother of three young children has taken on a demanding job at the White House? Isn’t the purpose of a mother to take care of her children? In a rational social order then, a mother would not be made White House Press Secretary. Our social order, however, is driven by liberal ideology.
Right-leaning liberals (a.k.a. “conservatives”) in America are upset that the left-leaning liberals want to tear down Confederate memorials. The issue of taking down such memorials is another arena for the internecine battle of Left vs. Right in America.
There is, for a Catholic, an important thread that is completely left out of this conversation about raising up or taking down memorials to America’s past, however.
One of the aims of feminism is to transform the world from a patriarchy into a matriarchy. In the late 19th century, the daughter of feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriot Stanton Blatch, following in her mother’s footsteps, stated in a speech that some form of matriarchy would be the best system for “human improvement” to “be carried to a high point of perfection.”
Feminists then and now have drawn more on their own feminist ideology than on anthropological research to support their belief that in prehistoric times a matriarchy existed. Friedrich Engels may have latched on to this theory, but anthropologists and archaeologists have not. The evidence just isn’t there.*
“My prophecy is that men and women will be much more like each other, mentally and physically, both approximating a type far higher than the distinct sex types of today.” –Miss Henrietta Rodman, President, Feminist Alliance, in a 1915 New York Times interview
The topic of the “feminization of men” gets discussed from time to time by various conservative commentators. An example is an article written by David French for the National Review in May, “The Feminization of Everything Fails Our Boys.”
French’s article is yet another toothless treatment of the subject by a conservative writer that fails to look the problem square in the eye.
“However carefully a woman may have organized her life, a husband and children are necessary to make her complete. It’s like going about with one arm or something, you see, you’re missing something.”
This is a line from a 1939 Madeleine Carroll and Fred MacMurray film, Honeymoon in Bali. At the beginning of the film, Carroll’s character seems content as a career woman. Then, she meets and falls in love with MacMurray’s character and realizes she wants marriage and motherhood, not a career.
In these days of the dictatorship of political correctness—the culmination of the ideology of liberalism brought into the world at the time of the French Revolution—those who call themselves “conservative” or “traditional” have supposedly embarked on a war against the dictatorship. However, there is one topic subject to political correctness that even the most stalwart of warriors against the dictatorship either avoids, fails to recognize the importance of, or fails to address properly: the role of women.
The pro-life movement has Donald Trump under a microscope—they helped elect him, so he had better implement the promises he made to them. This is a pattern in the relationship between the pro-life movement and Republican politics, with the inevitable let down at some point in a Republican president’s term. Trump, however, is said to be different—leading the “most pro-life administration ever.” It is a “new dawn for life” in America, as counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway said at the recent March for Life in Washington.
So far, most of the coverage of Trump’s presidency on pro-life news sites can be characterized as “cautious praise.” The microscope of the pro-life movement may need some focusing, however. When one looks at Trump’s position on protecting the lives of the unborn, there is a dire need for criticism. Continue reading