Home ›

Women

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Fischer Laments that ‘We Have Feminized Public Policy’

Submitted by Miranda Blue on January 9, 2012 - 6:00pm

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer was excited today to read about a Public Library of Science One Journal study that finds distinct differences in personality traits between men and women. Although the study did not explore to what extent those differences are due to nature or nurture, and other researchers are already questioning the results, Fischer took the opportunity to expound on his views on the proper role of women in the public sphere.

Two years ago, Fischer provoked national controversy when he said that the United States had “feminized” the Medal of Honor by granting it to those who who have saved lives, not just those who have killed enemy troops. Today he goes back to the theme, claiming that America is in trouble because we have “feminized public policy”:

If these differences are as profound as this study suggests, could that be the explanation for why God has designed men to be leaders in the home, leaders in the church and leaders in society? And I would suggest that the answer to that question is, “Yes.”

In fact, I’ll tell you how we have gotten into trouble in our public policy, is – I don’t know how to say this without getting myself in big trouble here – but the way we have gotten in trouble in our public policy is we have gotten away from masculine characteristics of public policy. We have feminized our public policy. Our public policy ought to be about stability, it ought to be about rule consciousness -- that’s the rule of law, the same rules apply to everybody, that’s what it ought to be about -- and vigilance. Instead, so much of our public policy has been driven by what? Sensitivity, warmth and fear. These are female characteristics, they’re feminine characteristics, they should not be the things that guide and control public policy.

So anyway, I probably just got myself in a big mess there, but again that’s not me saying it. That’s not me saying that men and women have distinct personalities and it’s inate, that’s a secular outfit, the Public Library of Science One Journal.
 

PFAW Foundation
Filed under:

Barton Suggests Biblical Law Is Best For Women

Submitted by Brian Tashman on October 27, 2011 - 4:05pm

On a Believers Voice of Victory episode that aired today, David Barton told televangelist Kenneth Copeland that women are most elevated in a society that has “conformed to the Scriptures.” Citing Religious Right activist Rabbie Daniel Lapin, Barton said that the Bible is actually the basis of women’s rights, while in “Islam” and secular societies like France and “the Norwegian countries,” women have fewer rights and less respect. Perhaps Barton should read The Handmaid’s Tale before arguing that women will prosper in a society run strictly according to biblical law:

Watch:

PFAW
Filed under:

Bachmann Gushes, Says Schlafly "Most Important Woman In The United States In The Last 100 Years"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on September 6, 2011 - 1:24pm

A few weeks we wrote a post noting that, at her core, Michele Bachmann was just a Religious Right activist who got elected to Congress and now hopes to become president.  

In that post, we compared Bachmann to fringe right-wing activist Janet Porter but it would probably have been more accurate to compare her to Phyllis Schlafly, as that is what Bachmann herself did on a recent "Tea Party Cyber-Town Hall and Webcast" where she lauded Schlafly as her heroine, mentor and everything that Bachmann hopes to be while also calling her the most important woman in the US in the last century:

If I could just say a couple of words about Phyllis Schafly, she is my heroine and my example as a forerunner. As a young bride and a young mother, I read faithfully "The Phyllis Schlafly Report;" she was my lifeline to what was happening in the world.

She truly is the mother of the modern conservative movement ... I think she is the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years.

Whatever Phyllis Schlafly says, it's important that we listen because she's there on every issue, on every front. She is our hero, our heroine, our stalwart and I absolutely adore her. So God bless you, my dear mentor and the person that I hope to be some day. So thank you very much, Phyllis.

Really?  We should listen to whatever it is that Schlafly has to say?  You mean like how feminists are "bitter, unhappy and not successful women" and how men should not marry "career women" and how the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech was the fault of the English Department and how, by getting married, women have consented to sex and therefore cannot be raped by their husbands?

PFAW
Filed under:

Did Michele Bachmann Destroy Feminism?

Submitted by Brian Tashman on August 18, 2011 - 3:42pm

When Sarah Palin was chosen as the GOP nominee for vice president, Phyllis Schlafly hailed her as a role model of the non-feminist woman who by her very existence discredited the women’s movement. Feminists “are really spooked by Palin because she’s done everything and she is a success,” Schlafly said, “besides she is pretty and they cannot stand her.”

Now that Palin’s star has significantly subsided and she has become one of the most unpopular politicians in America, Schlafly’s niece Suzanne Venker is crowning Michele Bachmann as the new conservative woman who destroyed feminism. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, told James Dobson that women shouldn’t pursue challenging professions like brain surgery because it might prevent them from having children.

In an article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today, Venker lauded Bachmann for showing the bright side of biblical “submission” and proving that the women’s movement has contributed nothing beneficial to society. Venker writes that for “the first time in decades, the liberal feminist establishment is up against something new: outspoken conservative women who undermine the feminist agenda.” But haven’t conservative women, like say, Phyllis Schlafly, been involved in politics for decades?

Venker argues that now Bachmann is being unfairly depicted as “a religious nut and a doormat,” and says a man would never be asked about biblical submission (not so). And even though Bachmann may be one of the easiest GOP candidates for President Obama to defeat, Venker says that she is actually making liberals run scared:

For 40 years, this country has endured a social movement that has been relentless in its goals. Women on the left believe the feminist movement is responsible for liberating women from constricted lives; women on the right see things differently. Feminists are consumed with their place in society; conservative women are not. They are especially uninterested in fighting a gender war. That's why the Submission Question could be asked only of a conservative female candidate. It's women on the right, we're told, who want to keep women in their place. Conservative women are anti-woman.

So what to do when faced with a female candidate who's conservative and popular? Why, portray her as a religious nut and a doormat, of course! Indeed, feminists know most women won't identify with that kind of woman. And they're right: they won't. Women on the left don't appreciate that traditional values, even Biblical values, are not at odds with female empowerment. No matter what you think of Bachmann or Sarah Palin, these women have proved this in spades. No one gets to their position by being oppressed or mousy.

For the first time in decades, the liberal feminist establishment is up against something new: outspoken conservative women who undermine the feminist agenda. Conservative women are supposed to stay home! Conservative women are supposed to lead nice, traditional lives: raise a gaggle of children, be subordinate to their husbands and stay out of the public sphere. Why are they asserting their independent minds?

…

The implication that Michele Bachmann is a Stepford wife in disguise was a pitiful attempt to bring down a female conservative candidate who has sinned in the worst way possible: She does not carry the feminist torch. And, yet, she still won the Iowa straw poll.

Perhaps feminism really is dead.

PFAW
Filed under:

Schlafly Reminisces About The Days Of The Shotgun Wedding

Submitted by Brian Tashman on June 14, 2011 - 3:41pm

Phyllis Schlafly is out with another article on the rise of single motherhood. According to Schlafly, the usual culprits are to blame: feminists, Barack Obama, ‘big government,’ and gay people who want the right to marry. Schlafly also says that single motherhood is increasing and marriage is declining because the legalization of abortion is “diminishing the custom of shotgun marriages, which in earlier years was often the response to surprise pregnancies.” Schlafly’s nostalgia for forced marriages shouldn’t be a surprise, as she is also a long-time apologist for marital rape.

Schlafly writes:

Prior to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, husbands and fathers provided for their families. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year and their unmarried moms now look to Big Brother as their financial provider.

The left is content to let this problem persist because 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama for president. They vote for the party that offers the richer subsidies.

…

Among other unfortunate effects, the trends toward non-marriage and toward same-sex marriage are a direct attack on fathers. The bond between a child and his mother is an obvious fact of nature, but marriage is the relationship that establishes the link between a child and his father.

There are many causes for the dramatic reduction in marriage, starting with unilateral divorce, which spread across the United States in the 1960s and '70s, putting government on the side of marriage breakup. Then came the legalizing of abortion, diminishing the custom of shotgun marriages, which in earlier years was often the response to surprise pregnancies.

The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker "must be eliminated." These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.

PFAW
Filed under:

Massachusetts Republican Wants Rape Victims To Stay In The Shadows If They're Undocumented Immigrants

Submitted by Brian Tashman on June 8, 2011 - 2:56pm

In a speech berating Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s opposition to a controversial federal immigration program, a Republican state legislator said that illegal immigrants who were victims of rape should be afraid to come forward. State Rep. Ryan Fattman brushed aside the claims of immigrant advocates that the program, which would allow local police officers to refer undocumented immigrants they arrest for any reason to federal authorities, would damage the relationship between law enforcement and immigrant communities or lead to racial profiling.

The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that Fattman even claimed that undocumented immigrants who are victims of rape should be afraid to talk to the police:

Mr. Fattman dismissed concerns of some law enforcement officials — cited by the governor — who said using local police to enforce immigration laws could discourage reporting of crime by victims who are illegal immigrants.

Asked if he would be concerned that a woman without legal immigration status was raped and beaten as she walked down the street might be afraid to report the crime to police, Mr. Fattman said he was not worried about those implications.

“My thought is that if someone is here illegally, they should be afraid to come forward,” Mr. Fattman said. “If you do it the right way, you don’t have to be concerned about these things,” he said referring to obtaining legal immigration status.

…

“If they are here illegally, they have committed a crime,” he said. However, under federal law, illegal status is usually a civil offense.

“My philosophy is a little different,” Mr. Fattman said. He said he believes all illegal immigrants should be deported, including the children of immigrants who came with their parents to the U.S.

PFAW
Filed under:

CWA: Obama Wants Communists To Raise Your Children

Submitted by Brian Tashman on May 9, 2011 - 11:52am

Concerned Women for America has led the fight against the U.S.’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women since Jimmy Carter first signed it in 1980, and is now ramping up pressure against ratification following a Senate hearing on the treaty. Thanks to pressure from CWA and other Religious Right groups, the U.S. joins Iran, Somalia and Sudan in not ratifying CEDAW, which works to end political, economic and healthcare gender disparities, sex trafficking, and violence and discrimination against women.

In an email to members, Bevery LaHaye writes that ratification will mean that a “twisted ideology of extremist feminism rebelling against God and His law” will allow communist China and North Korea to dominate American society:

Would you trust your children or grandchildren to be raised by Hugo Chavez, the brutal dictator of Venezuela?

Or Hu Jintao, the Communist president of the People's Republic of China?

Maybe Kim Jong-Il, the deranged "Supreme Leader" of North Korea? Of course not! And you and I must act NOW to stop President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their allies from doing exactly that!

…

Simply put, CEDAW would give foreign thugs and tyrants dictatorial power over American laws related to:

• The legal rights of wives and mothers,
• the protection of life,
• the definition of marriage,
• and the education of your children!!!

…

CEDAW backers like Obama, Clinton, and Reid disagree. They mouth high-sounding language about "equality" and "empowerment" as a fog to cloak their dark plans.

But when I read CEDAW, I see anger, bitterness, the breeding ground for generations of conflict, and the twisted ideology of extremist feminism rebelling against God and His law.

Harold Hongju Koh, a State Department aide who is a past Dean of Yale Law and Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, testified in 2006 that allegations from opponents like CWA were “preposterous” and “flatly untrue.” CEDAW is neutral on the issues of legal abortion and same-sex marriage, and many CEDAW-ratifying countries have outlawed both, and the treaty would not lead to international bodies enforcing their laws on the US.

“Our nonratification has led our allies and adversaries alike to challenge our claim of moral leadership in international human rights,” Koh said, “Ratification of the CEDAW by the United States would similarly make clear our national commitment to ensure the equal and nondiscriminatory treatment of American women in such areas as civil and political rights, education, employment, and property rights.”

PFAW
Filed under:

VIDEO: Does Bob Marshall Agree w/ Rev. Ellison that Haitian Earthquake Was God's Punishment for Voodoo?

Submitted by Josh Glasstetter on February 25, 2010 - 1:45pm

Rev. Joe Ellison introduced Del. Bob Marshall last week as a "warrior who will fight for our cause." Ellison – with Marshall at his back – agreed with Pat Robertson and said that the Haitian earthquake was God's punishment for practicing voodoo. Two minutes later, Marshall said that disabled children are God's punishment for abortion.

Here's the video of Ellison's comments on Haiti and introduction of Marshall:

"From a spiritual standpoint, we think the Dr. Robertson was on target about Haiti, in the past, with voodoo. And we believe in the Bible that the practice of voodoo is a sin, and what caused the nation to suffer. Those who read the Bible and study the history know that what Dr. Robertson said was the truth."

Does Marshall stand behind Ellison and his remarks on Haiti? Or will Marshall blame the Washington Post for first reporting Ellison's comments, just as he has blamed the Capital News Service for first reporting his own?

It is not an accident that Marshall and Ellison echoed one another and Pat Robertson. They all believe that God exacts vengeance on those who do not follow their peculiar and ultraconservative interpretation of the Bible.

Ellison may like to believe that Robertson's comments merely "angered a lot of the so-called, in my opinion, liberals." But the truth is that Americans overwhelmingly reject such views, just as they reject Marshall's views on disabled children and abortion – including a not-so-liberal Governor named Bob McConnell.

And for those of you who missed it, here’s the video of Bob Marshall claiming that disabled children are God’s punishment for abortion:

PFAW
Filed under:

Schlafly: Feminists are "Bitter, Unhappy and not Successful Women"

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on January 29, 2010 - 1:32pm

Phyllis Schlafly went down to Furman University in South Carolina last week to spread her unique brand of militant anti-feminism and reiterate her belief that married women cannot be raped by their husbands while warning that feminism leaves women childless, bitter, and lonely: 

Feminists are "bitter, unhappy and not successful women."

These words were spoken to a packed house in the Watkins Room in the University Center on Wednesday, Jan. 20, as the Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow hosted 85-year-old conservative activist and author Phyllis Schlafly ... Schlafly made two main points in her lecture. First, that feminism is unnecessary and there is no such thing as a glass ceiling for American women. Secondly, women who are feminists will end up unhappy and alone.

In discussing the radical and superfluous nature of feminism, Schlafly argued that American women are the most fortunate class in history.

"The number one problem with feminism is it teaches women to be the victim," Schlafly said. She continued that there was no need for further feminist legislation or movements due to the ability for women in current times to receive an education and work in whatever field they wish, adding that feminism was never really necessary because her mother was able to receive an education from Washington University in 1920.

Many in the audience laughed when Schlafly proposed that women couldn't possibly be oppressed because they lived, on average, eight years longer than men, and again when she offered the success of Sarah Palin as proof that there was no limit for women.

Schlafly challenged the legitimacy of a variety of social programs and legislation put in place by feminist agenda, including abortion, shelters for battered women and sexual harassment counseling. She also said that welfare was a financial incentive for women to have children out of wedlock.

Other controversial comments included Schlafly's denial of the existence of spousal rape, as well as her statement that individuals shouldn't be able to "check out" of marriage.

Schlafly ended by discussing a women's biological clock and need for children. Her argument was that if women focus on careers first, they will end up forty, single and desperately wanting a child they can no longer produce.

PFAW
Filed under:

Scott Brown's Victory Becomes All Things To All People

Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on January 26, 2010 - 9:58am

The most amazing thing about Scott Brown's Senate campaign is that his victory last week has seemingly become all things to all people and giving right-wing pundits an opportunity to portray their own narrow agenda as central to his win. 

For some, Brown's win was a sign that voters don't like President Obama or Nancy Pelosi, for others it was proof that people oppose health care reform, or abortion, or immigration. 

But Phyllis Schlafly offers a different take, claiming that what voters were really doing in this election was rejecting Martha Coakley because of her feminism: 

Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama's stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.

It's no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Brown.

Brown's driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.

Commentary about Brown's appeal to women is diversionary -- it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and independent to elect a Republican.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content