“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
The following is an article written by the 19th century Catholic writer Orestes Brownson. This article was written in 1869 in the early stages of the woman suffrage debate in the U.S. and provides excellent argumentation against woman suffrage, and can also be read as a general statement against feminism.
What Brownson writes regarding the effects women in politics would have on the family can also generally be said about women entering the workforce as the competitors of men.
Please note, the emphases are mine.
The Woman Question (Catholic World, May 1869) by Orestes Brownson
The Woman Question, though not yet an all-engrossing question in our own or in any other country, is exciting so much attention, and is so vigorously agitated, that no periodical can very well refuse to consider it. As yet, though entering into politics, it has not become a party question, and we think we may discuss it without overstepping the line we have marked out for ourselves- that of studiously avoiding all party politics; not because we have not the courage to discuss them, but because we have aims and purposes which appeal to all parties alike, and which can best be effected by letting party politics alone.
Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s campaign manager and now his de facto spokesperson during his transition to the presidency, is not liked by those who identify as feminists.
It is being noted by some that Conway should be celebrated by feminists as a successful woman who holds one of the most influential positions in America. “Conway was the first woman in history to successfully manage and win a presidential campaign in America. She was promoted from Trump’s senior advisor and pollster to campaign manager, and successfully did what no one believed was possible,” writes columnist Melissa Lantsman in the Toronto Sun.
I was first introduced to pro-lifeism at a dinner party some years ago attended by “conservative” Catholics in their twenties and thirties. During dinner, the topic of the film Knocked Up was raised amid a discussion about the pro-life movement.
Knocked Up, for those of you fortunate enough to not have seen the film, is a 2007 “romantic comedy” about a career-driven young woman who has a one night stand, gets pregnant, and with the father of the child decides to keep the baby. “Romantic” the film is not. It is a film full of obscenity. It is the crassest of crass comedies. To watch it is to be extremely scandalized. It is a film that should never have been made. Continue reading
For Traditional Catholics, Trump’s ascendancy should be cause for concern, but not for the reasons the “establishment” is concerned or for the reasons pro-life neo-Catholics are concerned. This set of concerns over Trump’s ascendancy is an entirely different one from that as stated by Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans and neo-Catholics.
As a Traditional Catholic, I note below problems with Trump’s ascendancy, which really are the problems with America itself and other countries in the West that make an idol of democracy. America, however, the “City on a Hill,” is a special case. Continue reading
Feminists for Life is so eager to prove itself as both pro-life and feminist (and that this is not a contradiction), it revises history to suit its agenda and skims over the facts rather than providing a balanced, comprehensive look at the history of feminism and the pro-abortion movement in the U.S.
The pro-life feminist version of history is tailored to its agenda of “rescuing” feminism from the pro-abortion movement and laying the blame for abortion at the feet of men alone. But the historical record, as well as plain old common sense, stand in their way. Continue reading
A Note about Betty Friedan
In addition to misrepresenting the history of the woman’s movement and the campaign to legalize abortion, in Subverted, Sue Ellen Browder writes a defense of Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique (although she says she has no interest in defending Friedan, this is exactly what she does). I have discussed Friedan and The Feminine Mystique in a previous essay, The Total Anti-Feminist, but I will add here to what I’ve already said.
At the beginning of Subverted, which is one part confession (Browder once worked for Cosmo magazine until she repented of writing for the sexual revolution and became a Catholic) and one part indictment of the pro-abortion movement, Browder makes a case for what she terms Friedan’s “family feminism.” She writes that Friedan “insisted the new women’s movement must be pro-family.” Continue reading
Another problem with the Lader-Friedan Hypothesis is the disproportionate influence given to two players in a huge drama taking place in the 1960s and early 70s—the second wave feminist movement, the sexual revolution and the pro-abortion movement—that involved a myriad of individuals and organizations with various ideologies, goals, strategies, viewpoints, etc.
Sue Ellen Browder, in Subverted, however, states: “What happened behind closed doors between Larry Lader and Betty Friedan would misguide my thinking in such a way that it would change my whole life and the lives of millions of other Americans,” and, “That’s right, the 1960s’ women’s movement was hijacked largely due to the tireless efforts of one man [Lader], whose greatest passion was to make abortion legal.” Continue reading