Let’s get this out of the way: I have no problem with Erick Erickson’s remarks, in fact, he’s right. The quote that made so many mad:
I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.
Complimentary doesn’t mean less. It may not even equate to equality, it could mean women are greater. The reaction to this remark is total projection: Erickson didn’t say that women are less dominant than men, feminists did. They betrayed their own anti-woman bias by assuming that the remark was an insult to their lack of power within marriage. As far as “science,” if we’re going to push some flat earth theory that males are not, by way of genetic makeup and presence of testosterone, more aggressive and, by nature, domineering than women and go for big dollar jobs, then there is no point in continuing this discussion—especially since some (at Slate, for instance, which sparked this) are hell bent on assuming that this immediately means women are weaker. If you value strength by only certain measures and ignore aspects of the female sex where women’s strength is greater than that of males, you do a disservice to the debate at hand. Why are we cherry-picking strengths? Why are women undervalued for their intrinsic strengths? Does anyone else see the irony in demanding respect for women while simultaneously demanding that they be measured according to the strengths of men?
I was raised by a single mom breadwinner. It was tough. I was the kid who never had anyone cheering for her from the stands at track meets. I didn’t get the evenings around the dinner table. I spent a lot of time with my aunt, who was a SAHM. While I love my mom and realize and appreciate the sacrifice she made to stay off the government dole but I felt more security and stability at my aunt’s house. They weren’t rich by any means, but she was there. My decision to stay home with my children after school was a direct result of that upbringing. But, circumstances changed.
I’m the breadwinner in my house. It’s not by choice. I married and became a mother when I was only 21 years-old. The first few years of my marriage I stayed home with my children and freelanced for various publications. My husband was the breadwinner. Over the course of the past several years, the responsibility of “breadwinner” shifted to me. A combination of the Obamaconomy coupled with Obamacare regulations, and being blacklisted due to political ideology contributed to this shift. While I am grateful for the opportunity and blessing of providing for my family and absolutely love what I do, it wasn’t a choice. The balance of “power” didn’t shift with this change. I didn’t feel any less empowered as a SAHM or any more empowered as the breadwinner. If women are looking at bringing home the bacon as a sign of power in their marriage they’re looking at this wrong. It’s about providing for your family, not having a phallus-measuring contest with your husband. If obsessing over power is your focus, you need to reevaluate your priorities.
Speaking of priorities, this deserves a wider sociological discussion that 140 characters on Twitter or a minute soundbite on television can give. There’s the aspect of needs verses wants in this discussion. Many families say they need incomes of both parents and while every family is different (and for the picture book crowd, yes, some families are different, there, you have your penance, now I’ll continue), most don’t need all of the things for which they spend so many hours working. Even when my mother and I were at our poorest, we still had a roof over our heads and biscuits and gravy on the table.
It raises another question: where do we draw the line in values talk on the right? We can talk about life beginning at conception
My anger isn’t towards the people who accurately and openly speak about the family structure, my anger is 100% directed at the people whose policies prevent me from my pro-choice right of having the family structure I want.
How Bachmann, Palin, conservative women treated and we’re going to act like Erickson’s accurate remarks are the problem?
I’m told I’m a traitor to my gender (Linda Hirschmann)
This is the refrain I’ve heard over and over from women in the conservative sisterhood: he’s right but, it’s how he said it, the left can take it …
Oh pshaw. The left takes anything the right says and exploits it for outrage. We can’t even say “life begins at conception” without the left freaking out and feigning faint. I’m tired of the right living in fear of telling people who need to be told because of how the left will react.
