When I was a young teen I thought feminism was the be all end all. I was fully supportive of NOW, ERA, Women's Lib, etc. But, before I was much older I discovered a flaw in their system of beliefs. I've not been a supporter of the movement since!
The flaw was that it wasn't about real freedom for women. Not the kind of freedom that allows each of us to be who and what we want to be. It was only about being the kind of woman the feminists thought we should be.
Even worse, the feminists actually seemed to hate the women who chose a different path. They still do, from all that I've seen in the news in all the years since I walked away from "liberation".
What made me so aware of the problem with the so-called "women's liberation" was my mother. My mother is a stay-at-home wife and mother. I always thought being a wife and mother was an honorable profession for a woman. Especially if it is her choice. As it was mine. One of my daughters has also made that choice.
Isn't that what freedom and liberation are all about? Being allowed to make choices? But, the feminists, then and now, sneer at those of us who choose to do our work within the walls of our own homes … unless we are actually doing what they consider "real" work … like running a business. Being a wife and/or mother is something they seem to consider being beneath contempt.
I think there is something wrong with a movement that will support a women's right to choose … when it is about destroying an unborn child, but frowns upon the women who instead choose to support the unborn babies' right to live. Especially when these same feminists also refuse to support a woman's right to be different from the so-called "libbers". The women who walk a more traditional path. Those of us who raise our families, care for our husbands, go to church, and just generally live a conservative life.
This hatred of more traditional women is all over the current political world. Even those women who have gone into politics and the business world are being mocked, ridiculed, or belittled if they are conservatives, because they are still not quite fitting into the mold the feminists decided was the only correct way for women to be in the modern world.
Supposedly NOW (National Organization for Women) works to secure political, professional, and educational equality for women. It is supposed to be a public voice for equal rights for women. But, it is really a feminists only forum. It, like the majority of the feminism movement, is all about advancing their agenda, not the agendas that more traditional women might espouse.
I would have thought the feminists would have embraced Sarah Palin. A woman who melded traditional woman with modern feminism. She is wife, mother, business woman, hunter, beauty queen, politician, author, etc. She pretty much does what she wants the way she wants it. But, instead of embracing this living, breathing example of "you can have it all", the feminists chose to excoriate her. One of her major crimes: she chose to forgo an abortion and give birth to her son, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.
What about a woman's right to choose? You know that whole Pro-Choice, women's reproductive rights thing y'all go on and on and on about? Shouldn't Pro-Choice mean just that? CHOICE??? She made her choice. She chose life. Shouldn't feminists support her decision, her choice, as much as they would any other?
Another woman I would expect to receive a bit more sympathy from the feminists is Christine O'Donnell, the Senate candidate from Delaware. It came out that she dabbled in witchcraft when she was a teenager. What teenage girl doesn't find the occult romantic? But, she is being criticized left and right!
While I expect it somewhat from the conservatives, I thought the secular-progressives were supposed to be more tolerant. But, for both sides, what about freedom of religion? And, for the feminists, isn't Wiccan almost the "state religion" of women on the secular-progressive side of politics? Right up there with atheism? So, why the uproar to find someone experimented in witchcraft? Is it because she walked away from it? Because she made her choice, and it was for the politically incorrect religion of … Christianity.
Well, despite them being unsupportive of these more traditional women, I thought for sure they would embrace Meg Whitman of California. She is Pro-Choice, even though GOP. And, she was a successful business woman. But, no! NOW opted out on her, too. They not only opted out … they did that lovely Obama parlor trick and threw her under the bus! While I do not approve of Meg Whitman's Pro-Choice stance, I still find her more suitable than Jerry Brown. She is fiscally Conservative, and California sure needs that right now. But, she still wasn't good enough for NOW.
When it came out that someone in the Jerry Brown campaign suggested calling her a whore, the California chapter of NOW not only endorsed Jerry Brown and excused his people from the name calling, they essentially then came out and said it was okay to call her a whore 'cause she was one. Not in those exact words, but the implications were there for sure.
This is not the advancement of women that NOW professes to favor. This is being the femi-Nazi arm of the Democratic Party. The iron fist within the not-so-velvet glove that the secular-progressives use to try and beat women into submission.
This is being touted as the "Year of Republican Women", yet NOW is not endorsing any of them. And, they are not just bypassing them in favor of Democrat women candidates, they are often opting for men over women when it is a male Democrat over a female Republican. This advances women how? As I said earlier, it doesn't even matter if the GOP woman is Pro-Choice. So, tell me again how NOW is about equality and choice for ALL women? I guess the GOP female politicians' crime lays in not being Democrat sheep to be led about by the shepherd Obama.
Another "crime" against "womanity" that traditional women commit time and time again is being women of faith. But, isn't that their choice? To exercise their freedom of religion? Can't they choose to be who and what they want to be? Isn't that what liberation and equality should be all about?
It isn't just conservative female politicians who get whacked up side the head by the feminists. They go after conservative women throughout our society. Remember Hillary Clinton's comment, "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas …?" As a military wife and mother I did just that on many occasions. I did not like how she minimized my chosen career. And, I do consider being wife and mother to be a career. An honorable career at that.
As First Ladies, both Barbara Bush and Laura Bush supported literacy. Laura Bush also encouraged international education, as well as activism in women's health issues like heart disease and breast cancer, and the worldwide concerns of HIV/AIDS and malaria. But, they were both maligned in the liberal media and mauled by feminists.
As a stay-at-home wife and mother, I have frequently encountered somewhat sneering disdain from feminists. My choice to care for my children, my husband, our home, and my pets has never been viewed as "real work". The fact that I am also a political conservative and a Christian has just fueled their dismissal of me as a valuable member of the female population.
In the eyes of secular-progressives and feminists most people are weighed and many are found wanting. They are elitists of the worst kind. They decide who and what is worthwhile in society. Just like a chicken farmer grades his eggs. There are the Grade AA Jumbo (considered the biggest and the best) and then there are the ones only fit to slop the hogs with. There are also numerous grades (egg quality, appearance, and condition) and sizes in between. In the world of feminism I believe they consider me to be hog slop, while Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are thought to be Grade AA #1s. Well, if that's the case, I say bring on the pigs … 'cause I sure don't want to be a Pelosi or Hillary.
I am calling on all women to answer the call to sisterhood. Step up to the plate and support the women candidates who will best serve our country. Not the ones who have led us down this path to poverty and debt. Look to the future. Decide what is best for your families, your businesses, and your communities. Is it the failed policies of hatred and division as now practiced by the secular-progressives that will lead us back to prosperity? Or, is it a return to the traditional conservative wisdom of smaller government, living within our means, and allowing people to retain their personal liberties? I know what I'm voting for! I hope you do, too.
© Suzann C. Darnall, OCTOBER 2010