That's the hope, it seems, of those with a crazy animus against women who bear children. This is my latest column:
Despite the dog days of August, there have been some heated arguments about the foundations of culture—although the participants may not have recognized the import of their rhetoric. The announcement of Paul Ryan joining the Republican ticket rebooted the hysteria concerning Ann Romney that had previously waned, since now both candidates had well-educated wives who chose motherhood. A vocation considered typical for centuries—nay, millennia—can now be categorized as a “red meat” topic, enraging those who scorn the traditional family and women's enduring commitment to it.
One online article provided a bio for Ryan's wife, Janna, relating that she had graduated from Wellesley—her own mother's alma mater—and after attending law school went to work for PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Washington, DC. According to some, that education didn't achieve its obvious purpose of entrenching her in a vaunted career, for she subsequently married and stayed home to raise the couple's three children.
In the comment box below the piece, one woman wrote: “Lovely, another upper middle class female who got the expensive education and does nothing with it but change dirty diapers. She should have had her parents give all that education money to a young woman who needed it and would have really used it...She is a disgrace to educated women everywhere. Get a job.” Another added, “I am sick to death of what the republican party represents, war, repression of women, elitism, religious fanaticism, destruction of the environment, and nothing but an artificial, superficial value system that the rest of the world despises. That's just what we need, two stepford wives as first and second ladies.”
The venom flowed freely, indicating that there is truly a chasm between those who value motherhood and those who see it as a degrading form of slavery. Considering the fact that every person reading that piece (and this one!) was carried, borne, washed, and fed by a woman who cared for someone other than herself, such diatribes reveal more than self-absorbed adolescent petulance—they reveal a deeper animus that needs to be explored.
Ironically, in the same week that Paul Ryan was chosen there was the noted passing of a woman who may provide one key to these rants against motherhood. Helen Gurley Brown, who died at the age of 90, was the editor of Cosmopolitan magazine from 1965 until 1996. During her reign, during which she worked non-stop, 12-hour days (she boasted that the only days she ever took off were for cosmetic surgery) she shamelessly preached “men, love, work, achievement, fun” in every issue.
Ms. Brown glorified uncommitted sex, and was firm in making sure that her readers never encountered references to motherhood. The perfect female counterpart to Hugh Hefner, she prioritized carnal delights—even at the expense of family commitments and professionalism in the workplace. By the end of her career, having enthusiastically promoted decades of debauchery—with her own body a masticated parody of the perennial coquette—she had left an extraordinary influence on the culture.
The collapse of Christian values, of course, cannot be laid solely on the shoulders of those who produced such smut—for they were only serving an existing market. Surely our decline has been a coalescence of personalities, philosophies and events that has steadily led us towards moral anarchy. In that regard, the coming election is about more than health insurance, the deficit, and national security. It's just as much a referendum on marriage, motherhood, and the dignity of the human person. Truly, these are not “superficial value systems,” but the fabric on which our entire culture rests. We ignore the present moral chaos at our peril.
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.