Anyone who doubts that Theresa Heinz-Kerry’s comments about Laura Bush were an intentional assault on the value and intellegence of at-home mothers, should remember two things. 1. When the comments were made, she was under the (mistaken) assumption that Mrs. Bush did not work outside the home. Therefore her comment that Mrs. Bush had never had a "real job" in her adult life HAD to mean that Heinz-Kerry does not consider being a full-time mother a job. It cannot be interpreted any other way. 2. Her "apology" did not include an acknowledgement of motherhood as an occupation. Obviously, she could not have forgotten that Mrs. Bush is a mother. Further--since when is being a wife not considered real work?
The only conclusion to draw from that kind of thinking is either that Ms. Heinz-Kerry is so out of touch with the real work involved in motherhood and wifehood (servants and infinite money may do that to a person) that she does not realize that it is work, or she really does buy into the ideology of the extreme feminists in her party who consider the work of a homemaker beneath the dignity of women and women who perform it as parasites. In any event, my own grandmother (who tends, generally, to vote Democrat) was so incensed by these remarks that she is voting for Bush. She lives in Ohio, by the way. My sense of it is that this kind of talk will most offend women in the mid-west battleground states. Not good for Kerry.
Since Theresa stayed home with her own children, that is exactly what we should assume about her intentions.
I deeply dislike Mrs. Kerry for many reasons, but this has given me a new reason to mistrust her. Since when is raising children not a "real" job? The reason so many parents pay others to raise their children is quite simple: It’s hard!
I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent young woman. When I get married and have children, though, I’d like to be able to stay home with them full-time. According to Mrs. Kerry, then, I’d be wasting my time and potential; I should use my skills to get a "real" job. Mrs. Kerry and the uber-feminists forget that the original point of feminism was to give women a choice of whether to stay home or go to work. It wasn’t to degrade those who stay home to devote themselves to their children full-time.
I respect that many women choose to work after having children. But I’d also like the same respect to be afforded to me and all those like me who want to stay home (at least for a few years) with our children, when we have them.
Did Teresa actually raise her kids or did she pay someone to. I highly doubt she did much child rearing on her own.
She is just a loud-mouth rich woman who has never had anyone tell her to just shut up. She is incapable of keeping silent.
Is it true that she is a closet alcoholic? There is a die hard republican in my lunch room (even more than me) who claims that her alcoholism is part of the reason why they are keeping her behind closed doors. I always just thought that they were keeping her quiet because she doesn’t have half as much class as Laura.
This is reminds me of former "First Lady" Hillary Clinton’s comments. I do not remember the specific details, but I do remember that the interviewer was surprised at how much she was able to accomplish when Chelsea was young. She responded with Heinz-esque arrogance, "what did you think, I was at home baking cookies?"
The shame is that women like this do not know the power they could have! Alas, many a poet has mourned beneath the foot of the modern feminist movement. The more that manhood and femininity are insulted, the more they blend into a muddled, androgynous mess. The world loses much of its beauty when a man and woman are competing with rather than completing eachother. I’m lucky to have found woman that doesn’t fall for that base thinking. It is no surprise, of course, that she makes me want to be a great man, both privately and publicly, sentiments which Theresa or Hillary could never cultivate in a man.
The ideal conservative marriage.
Daddy goes to work in his nice new power suit , mommy stays home, produces the babies, changes the diapers, wipes the runny noses, etc. Of course mommy is always obedient when it comes time for taking care of Daddy’s "needs." This is seen as a woman’s "proper" role under the conservative agenda and is one ot the reasons why "tradition" is seen as so important in the conservative movement. It is also one of the reasons why a strong independent female produces so much anxiety and fear in the hearts of conservative males. It’s really all about the "proper" role of the female. According to the good Dr West and the other wise elders, the founders believed in "equality" between male and female, but only under the proviso that the female had a different role, i.e. a role which is submissive by definition.
And guess who decides the proper role? The conservative white males!
Frank and Lisa:
First, I don’t think anyone is intimidated by Ms. Heinz-Kerry or Ms. Rodham-Clinton. I think that we were pointing out how degrading the modern feminist movement is toward those women who choose to put aside personal career ambitions while they raise children. Liberals have a strange habit of "imposing values" on these women.
Second, there is no such thing as an "ideal conservative marriage." I would say there is a pretty big split among conservative/republican voters. Take a look at suburban America. A good number (probably a majority) are two-income families. The children spend the day under the care of a third party. Some conservatives would say this is fine, others would have problems. Although the Left has universally assented to one ideology, the Right is still quite heterogeneous. The nature of the family is a perfect example.
If you are interested in a real conversation (brains included), we could continue. If you want to pander to emotions with unfounded assertions about the right wing conspiracy, then I won’t waste my time.