The Susan B. Anthony List announced today that über mom Michelle Duggar (pictured right) has recorded a robo call for its endorsed AR congressional candidate Cecile Bledsoe (pictured below left).
Bledsoe is a Republican underdog running in an open seat primary runoff next Tuesday, June 8, in a "ruby red district," according to The Hill, against Rogers Mayor Steve Womack. 8 candidates vied in last month's primary, with Womack getting 31% of the vote and Bledsoe 13%.
Hello, I'm Michelle Duggar- the mother of 19 children.
Psalm 127 says, "Children are a heritage of the Lord."
Each and every child is a special gift from God and we should be thankful to Him for each one.
That's why I am supporting Cecile Bledsoe for Congress. Cecile understands the importance of protecting children before and after they are born. Cecile has stood up for life in the AR state senate and earned a 100% voting record with AR Right to Life.
She's a caring, compassionate person who is exactly the right person to represent us in Congress.
I hope you will give Cecile Bledsoe your vote in the Republican Primary, June 8th. Thanks!
This message is paid for the Susan B. Anthony List. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
"GOP powerhouse" Sarah Palin, former AK governor and mother of 5, endorsed Bledsoe yesterday, according to the CourierNews.com, "[r]eferring to Bledsoe as a 'Commonsense Conservative "mama grizzly.'"
Two prominent women, one a mother of 19 and the other a mother of 5, campaigning for a female political candidate sure would seem to mean women have come a long way, baby - right?
Wrong. Liberal pro-abort feminists are incensed at the hubris of conservative women, particularly those who have also started calling themselves "feminist," which I think is pretty funny.
Feministing.com's Jessica Valenti called Palin et al "fake feminis[ts]" in a May 30 Washington Post op ed:
But, of course, Palin isn't a feminist - not in the slightest. What she calls "the emerging conservative feminist identity" isn't the product of a political movement or a fight for social justice.
It isn't a structural analysis of patriarchal norms, power dynamics or systemic inequities. It's an empty rallying call to women who are disdainful of or apathetic to women's rights, who want to make abortion and emergency contraception illegal....
This is the same Jessica Valenti who complained only 2 years ago in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece:
The word [feminism] has been so effectively misused and so effectively mischaracterized by conservatives for so long that women are afraid to identify with it. They'll say everything under the sun that's feminist, but they won't identify with it because they've been taught feminists are anti-men, feminists are ugly.
So you'd think Jessica would be happy that beautiful conservative women have decided to embrace the "feminist" term. But no. Now Jessica is complaining that the wrong sort of women have begun embracing our suffragette heritage, totally because we're pro-life. As Dorothy Warner wrote in a response to Valenti's WashPo piece:
While Ms. Valenti mentioned other feminist issues - universal suffrage, pay equity, the persistence of patriarchy - the one measure she invoked no less than 7 times was: abortion. There is room in Ms. Valenti's feminist tent for racists and those who oppose same-sex marriage, but there is no quarter for women who oppose abortion. The "manipulated buzzword" of feminism is no more or less than a cover for that.
Well, no longer. Because pro-life women have indeed come a long way, baby.
Thats why I said hooray when Abby Johnson said on facebook that she is taking back the term "feminist". I am with her! Being a feminist means embracing the things that make you feminine not trying to be a man. Women are strong, women are smart and women deserve better than what we've been handed!Posted by: Sydney M. at June 4, 2010 9:00 PM
IF you truly a femininst, then you will recall that the first feminists were unashamedly pro-life.
Susan B Anthony said abortion was a unthinkable act, and she blamed men more for coercing women into abortion. She was ahead of her times.
Bring feminism back to its pro-woman, pro-child roots!
Go Sarah! Go Michelle! Take back true feminism!
You go girls!Posted by: Ed at June 4, 2010 10:05 PM
As it has long been said, "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." To borrow from one of my favorite LJ-comms, the lovely Feminists for Life, "Pro-life feminism is the radical notion that pre-born women are people, too!"
Seriously, pro-aborts. It's not that complicated.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 4, 2010 11:12 PM
Feminism doesn't mean pro life or pro choice, in fact, it means many different things to many different people. Spin it however you wish, but there have been many feminist movements all working for different rights, values, beliefs, and goals. Let's not get too hasty here in stating that you are only a feminist if you believe one thing. Far too simplistic and subjective.Posted by: leslie at June 4, 2010 11:49 PM
Being that the original feminists were pro-life, and saw abortion as an abuse of women, and being that most women are abused into abortion, I would have say that TRUE feminism IS pro-life.
Just a few quotes from famous feminists to clarify:
"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." - Susan B. Anthony, The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" - Susan B. Anthony, The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library
"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged." - Mattie Brinkerhoff, The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869
"Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth." Victoria Woodhull, Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875
"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." - Alice Paul, to one of her co-workersPosted by: Amy at June 5, 2010 12:19 AM
Move over, Jessica Valenti. Because pro-life women are changing the face of feminism, whether you like it or not. Get used to it. Personally, I'm glad of it. I will be able to relate to feminism again because of this change, something my pro-life feelings have alienated me from for some time now.Posted by: Ceecee at June 5, 2010 1:39 AM
Personally I like the term "new feminism" because it was coined by John Paul II and it respects the true dignity of the feminine person.
It's what I use to distinguish my beliefs and myself from the old baby boomer feminists (although I'm a baby boomer myself!).Posted by: angel at June 5, 2010 7:03 AM
I'm a Christian, not a feminist.
Are women people? Yes, of course. Are women equal to men? Yes--and that was one of the radical messages that Jesus introduced. Male and female, slave and free, Jew and Gentile, all are equal in Christ. One might add born and unborn, or able-bodied and disabled to the list, based on logic and the words of the Bible.
There is no teaching in the Bible on what sort of government we should have, so I don't think it was wrong when women were denied the right to vote, or when those who did not own property were denied the vote. It was simply an expansion of the Republican system--a representative from each household--the male landowner--would cast a vote. His 20-year-old son, his wife, and his farmhands would not vote themselves, because he represented the household. If a woman owned property, or if her husband wanted her to vote in his stead, I would argue that should have been allowed. But the essential philosophy was not originally that women should be denied the right to vote, but that each household had a vote rather than each person. The question is whether voting should be on the basis of the household, the family unit, or the individual. I for one desire to follow and respect my husband, and so I refuse to vote against him--if we do that we might as well both stay home anyway.
Abortion is absolutely about rights, on the other hand--but it is not the rights of the person who has a say in government, all the power, and can kill the other person with no legal or social ramifications one should be concerned about.
Women having jobs and equal salaries has likewise been widely interpreted differently than those who are against it actually feel. There was a point in time when, among the middle class at least, men would work and support the family, while the woman's work would be at home raising the family. This was not oppression but a division of labor based on biological fact (women are not as strong as men in terms of physical labor; women are often incapacitated to some extent due to pregnancy and childbirth; women are best able to feed babies). It was expected that in general, a man was supporting a family, whereas (once they started entering the workforce) a woman's wages were extra, or she was unmarried. It wasn't about a woman's contribution having less value. If a woman was the only one who could work in the family, she should have been paid a wage at which she could provide for the family--or better yet, the church should support her so that she could stay home, taking care of her family.
I am very grateful that I can be a stay-at-home mom while my husband works, and I think that most families can make that work if they want to. But because it is now expected that both spouses work, men are only paid half what it takes to support a household. So in supposedly making things equal by raising women's wages, feminists took choices away from some women who would rather stay home with their children but cannot afford it.
Net effect: women are usually still expected to run the household, even though they're gone 8 hours a day, but this work is now considered worthless and expected to take almost no time. Oh yes, feminism sure has improved the lot of women....Posted by: ycw at June 5, 2010 7:17 AM
I understand our feminist foremothers were also abolitionists. The temperance movement was supported by feminists who argued that men should be responsible husbands and fathers and support their families, not spend their time and money in taverns.
Also, Susan B Anthony got in trouble for sheltering a "run away" wife, most likely a battered woman running for her life.
I've heard it said that Susan B.Anthony would be leading the charge today against abortion clinics and would be rolling over in her grave if she knew what was perpetuated today in the name of feminism.Posted by: Mary at June 5, 2010 7:47 AM
Very thought-provoking commentary, YCW. I appreciate your perspective, though it will probably raise some hackles, even in the conservative community. You are so right on many of your points. Having lived over half a century, I have seen Satan's efforts to destroy marriage and family bear much fruit in the USA. This destruction of our Biblically-defined core will lead to the downfall of the nation, without Divine intervention. Thank you, YCW, for reminding us that the "women's liberation" of the 60's has led to many bondages for both men and women in the current generation. The only thing that will return us to our traditional values, I am afraid, would be if the nation is forced into it by a total economic collapse. God have mercy on America.Posted by: Amy1 at June 5, 2010 7:53 AM
I think we have to be a little careful when discussing marriage here. We tend to give it a far more romantic and glorified history than what it has always had.
Women were sold into marriages. Marriages were arranged to cement ties between tribes and nations. They were arranged for political and economic reasons. It was for purposes of "proper" breeding, such as with royalty. It was also expected and accepted that royal men would have their mistresses. Or any many who could afford one. There's a reason prostitution is the world's oldest profession.
Oh, and the royal ladies certainly had their dalliances as well. I understand the wife of one Roman emperor had a, um, contest with the madam of one of Rome's busiest brothels, if you catch my drift, and won.
We've seen the unhappy and tragic consequences of "proper" marriages in the modern day British royal family where people were treated more like breeding cattle than humans with emotions.
Some cultures view marriage as strictly a way to unload an unwanted daughter. We "enlightened" Americans marry for "love". "Less" enlightened cultures arrange marriages. Some cultures and religions allow for multiple wives. Some multiple husbands. One culture in China allows for marriage and open "promiscuity".
Before being turned into a religious event or sacrament, marriage was viewed as a civil event. One simply went to the magistrate or whoever to be married.Posted by: Mary at June 5, 2010 8:57 AM
"I am very grateful that I can be a stay-at-home mom while my husband works, and I think that most families can make that work if they want to. But because it is now expected that both spouses work, men are only paid half what it takes to support a household. So in supposedly making things equal by raising women's wages, feminists took choices away from some women who would rather stay home with their children but cannot afford it."
I've said for years that if I have to pick between having kids and putting them in day care when they're babies and not having kids, I'd rather not have kids. My philosophy of life is that everyone should decide on a few non-negotiables that are important to them, and one of my two non-negotiables is that I'm staying home with kids when I have them. Have made sure my boyfriend is aware that this is non-negotiable. Besides, although I'm in law school and won't mind being a lawyer before I have kids, ideally I just want to write books as a career.
People like Jessica Valenti don't like conservative and/or pro-life women calling themselves feminists because it messes up the leftist narrative that women who don't approve of abortion are either poor benighted unenlightened souls or heartless "traitors to all women." Yay leftist narrative-messing!Posted by: Marauder at June 5, 2010 9:25 AM
My mother was a stay at home mom and loved it. My father's alcohol abuse forced her to go to work and she sat on the edge of the bed and cried every morning.
Again, as with marriage, let's be careful not to romanticize. Stay at home moms were a fairly new phenomenon. Our grandmothers and great grandmothers worked as domestics, in factories, and in the fields. Throughout history families suffered through wars, famine, social upheavel, epidemics. The family meal would often consist of whatever family members could find scrounging.
Life was a brutal struggle for survival, not a picture of Victorian England on a Christmas card or cookie cannister.
Working at home was time consuming and back breaking labor, in later years it was over a washboard, canning, cooking from scratch, etc. Children also worked from dawn to dusk, cared for their siblings, or got outside jobs, usually in factories where they were virtual slaves.
Children were not sheltered from life's harsh realities but were more often spectators and participants. This included domestic violence, wrenching poverty, childbirth, disease and death, Family life was hardly "idyllic".
For example, because of her husband's suicide, my great grandmother was forced to "farm out" her daughters into what would be considered indentured servitude, for their own survival. Besides witnessing their father's death these girls had also witnessed the deaths of several of their siblings as well. Who said life was easy?
Also, contrary to popular misconception, women were entering the professions. The Apgar newborn baby score was named for Dr.Virginia Apgar, you can google her. Women were prominent in medicine, science, education, the arts, and as writers and social activists.Posted by: Mary at June 5, 2010 9:29 AM
Very well said YCW. I agree with you. I am now a stay-at-home mom and I love it. I always wanted to be but my husband never thought we could afford it. I always resented making more money than my husband. I just wanted him to step up to the plate and take care of us. When I lost my job he did just that and doubled his income in one year at the same job.
how many men could let their wives BE mothers instead of breeders (which is what I felt like when working) if they would stop depending on their wives to work? Maybe its not for everybody but I know in my situation its what I desperately wanted. Once my husband became the breadwinner for the first time in our marriage I felt tons more respect for him.
But that being said, I am so so grateful for my right to vote :-) I would never give that up!Posted by: Sydney M. at June 5, 2010 1:39 PM
Yes indeed there is something really wrong with pro-death feminists. Heck, I'm all for women working and having careers. I'm fine with women voting, etc. However, the feminists lost me when they began chanting "abortion, abortion, we want abortion!" ....[sound of a record scratching backwards] WAIT a second! I don't want abortion for myself or any other woman. Abortion is destructive to women, yet pro-aborts can't even see this. We women are in bondage when we accept abortion on demand as "the norm"!!!!!!!!!!!!Posted by: Heather at June 6, 2010 2:29 PM
I can't help but love M. Duggar. She's as sweet as they come. They would have made great adoptive parents too!Posted by: Heather at June 6, 2010 3:08 PM
Okay, I'm going to have to disagree a bit here.
We made a conscious decision a few months back to move to a very small community in order to give our family a better life. Intrinsic in that move was the realization that I would be the sole breadwinner for our family. As a nurse, I can work and provide a decent standard of living for our family... but there is no work here for my husband, at least not in the sense of paid employment.
However, just as we should never malign or dismiss the value of the job of homemaker and nurturer when it is done by women, we should not have less respect for men who are willing to step up to the plate to accomplish the same.
I adore my husband and appreciate that he has sacrificed his chances of getting ahead in the workplace to ensure that we can raise our children in a nearly idyllic environment.Posted by: Elisabeth at June 7, 2010 2:52 AM
This is the quote I have at the bottom of my blog:
Although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is, in some respects, one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked... in which I have spoken of so many important things done by Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply, To the superiority of their women.
--Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
That is excellent. Thank you.
* * *
It sounds like you're in a great situation. Good for you!Posted by: Janet at June 7, 2010 3:39 PM