Parenting: The most exhausting job I’ve ever had

I started working when I was 16.  Up until I had children, my jobs were all white collar. I was either a secretary or a lawyer. I found both jobs challenging and tiring (and preferred secretarial work to lawyering).  When I was working as a lawyer at a big firm, I complained a lot about the 60+ hour weeks.  I always believed that I worked hard.

Then I had children.

Being a parent is, without a doubt, the hardest job I’ve ever had. It is physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausting. In addition, although I haven’t always enjoyed it, it’s also the most important job I’ve ever had. Raising our nation’s next generation and caring for two vulnerable little souls matters more in the long run than my writing a good opposition to a demand for further document production.

I wonder how many other mothers, including working mothers, are offended by the Democrats’ denigration of Ann Romney — mother of five, cancer survivor, and MS sufferer — on the ground that she’s “never worked.” The Dems can walk this one back as much as they like, but it’s out there, and closely associated with a White House that apparently underpays its women.

 

 

Obama’s election, like Harding’s, is one where we remember the voters as much as we remember the one for whom they voted

In 1920, for the first time, American women had the right to vote in a federal election.  Warren G. Harding won that election by a landslide and, rightly or wrongly, he went down as the president whose dashing good looks and insouciance so charmed American women that they put him in the White House.  Here is the dashing, insouciant Harding:

Harding’s good looks and charm have not worn well.  Neither has his reputation.  His administration is remembered as one of the most corrupt in history — and, sadly, that first batch of women voters is remembered for having put him in the White House.

Almost one hundred years later, Tina Korbe has identified a new group of voters who may well be remembered for their role in placing one of the most corrupt presidents ever into the White House.  It seems that the millennials (those young ‘uns who come of age politically in the new millennium) are no more.  Our President has given them a new name, one that, unsurprisingly, is tied closely to his own presidency:

President Barack Obama has rebranded us. To him, we’re “Gen44.” Expanded, that means we’re the generation that elected him as the nation’s 44th president. Can you say, “hubris,” anyone? It’s almost like pleading to restart the calendar with 2008 as 1 Anno Obama.

In addition to the overwhelming narcissism this re-branding displays, Korbe points out that there is a certain truth to this horrible appellation:

What’s particularly galling about this is that he’s right. To date, our record participation in his election is our defining achievement.

What women were to Warren G. Harding, Gen44 will be to Barack Obama.  Let us just hope that Obama’s administration will be almost as short-lived as Harding’s (only Obama, God willing, will be booted out via the ballot box, rather than congestive heart failure).

 

A debate about young people’s behavior at CPAC highlights our culture’s inability to distinguish between things that are sexy and things that are vulgar. *UPDATED*

I’ve got sex on the mind today.  (How’s that for a great opening sentence?)  It actually has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with a confluence of posts and statements that came my way within the last couple of days.

It all started when Erick Erickson put up a post about the way in which the young men at CPAC were lining up to buy condoms.  (This distinguishes them from the lost, morally empty young women at Shippensburg University, who line up at vending machines to buy morning after pills.)  Erick believes that you cannot simultaneously stand for conservativism and act like a teenager under Progressive indoctrination:

We can be thankful that CPAC is not like the communications war room at Media Matters. But it should be much more than that. The young men and women who go to CPAC are often present or future leaders on their college campuses and within the conservative movement. They go to CPAC and are often on near equal terms at CPAC with people much older than themselves. Unfortunately, too many treat CPAC like spring break.

More than a few of the twenty and thirty somethings who go to CPAC seem to treat it like an extension of their college days doing their best to hook up before passing out. It’s not the majority to be sure, but it is a noticeable minority.

My friend Melissa Clouthier followed up on this by noting that the young men were aided and abetted in behaving badly by the young women, who were dressed more appropriately for nightclubbing than for political networking:

Second, have women so internalized feminist dogma that they see themselves in only two ways? Butch, men-lite wannabes or 3rd wave sluts who empower themselves by screwing every available horndog man?

Neither path is a way to self-love and respect, mind you. Both tracks will inhibit future success.

Women, if you’re at a conference where you’re learning to be a future politician or wish to succeed in the business of politics, dress the part. No, you don’t have to be in a business suit with pearls. However, modesty is a minimum.

Unsurprisingly, both Melissa’s and Erick’s posts generated a great deal of heat.  (I find David Swindle’s take the most interesting, insofar as he points out that an organization that tolerates street-corner women and rutting men is still barring GOProud.)

In my mind, all of these posts tied in with something I wrote the other day regarding Hollywood’s willingness to embrace Chris Brown (to the point of awarding him a Grammy), despite his admitting to having beaten his girlfriend, Rihanna, so badly that he ended up with a felony assault conviction.  Although I’m disgusted by the entertainment world’s stand, I’m not surprised.  In Hollywood, people are commodities, and none more so than women.  The adage that sex sells turned into a slight variation called “nothing but sex.”

Because everything that’s continuously thrust in ones face becomes boring after a while, and because Progressives as always anxious to break down traditional norms, in the last 40 years, “sexy” has been overwhelmed by “vulgar.”  For my purposes, these are the appropriate definitions for that latter term:

1. characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste: vulgar ostentation.
2. indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.
3. crude; coarse; unrefined: a vulgar peasant.

Vulgar is not sexy.  It focuses on the basest parts of the sexual appetite.  Before the sexual revolution, American women used to sell a little sex and a lot of mystery.  By doing so, they engaged men’s higher brain, not just their lower one.  And also by doing so, they reminded men that women were whole people, not just anonymous genitalia.  If a man wanted to unveil the mystery, he had to court the whole women.  Saying “Wanna f**k?” would get him nothing more than a well-deserved slap on the face.  Nowadays, that same question gets the guy some transient pleasure, and gets the girl a place in line at the Shippensburg vending machine.

Believe it or not, I’m not trying to make any moral points here, although I think that this is a pretty sad morality we’ve handed our young people, both men and women.  We’ve got women who don’t respect themselves, and men who don’t respect women.  Ultimately, a thinking, moral man is going to think less of himself too for using these pathetic creatures.  (Okay, so I am making a moral point, but I won’t beat it to death.)

What I really want to say here can be summed up in a single picture showing that, when it comes to “sexy” (not “sex,” but “sexy”), a minute of Rita Hayworth is a whole lot more attractive than an hour of Lady Gaga:

I mentioned at the start of this post that I was influenced, not only by things I’ve read, but also by something I’ve heard.  I’m very happy to say that this statement was a spontaneous utterance from my 9th grader.  “Mom,” she said, “I like the way I dress.  I wear attractive clothes, but I never show my belly the way the other girls do.  That’s just so vulgar.”

Bless her heart, my very wholesome young lady isn’t thinking yet in terms of sex.  Instead, in a refreshingly age appropriate way, she’s thinking about what’s attractive and what’s not. She’s figured out, just by observing her peers, that when you have a 15 year old with a muffin-top parading around in Uggs, shorty-shorts, a cropped shirt, and low decolletage, it’s neither attractive nor sexy.  It’s just vulgar.

Our young women think they’re marketing themselves in the best possible way, but that’s not the case.  They’ve been tricked into selling a big-box, below-the-waste product, rather than promoting the whole, wonderful boutique package that they are.

And wasn’t it our mothers who always told us nice girls, “Why should men buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?”  Today, too many young women (including the women at CPAC) have stopped making graceful mooing sounds and are just shaking their udders.

 UPDATE:  This post isn’t even five minutes old, and I’m already updating it.  Some email comments have led me to believe that readers think I’m piling onto the CPAC attendees with this post.  I wasn’t actually intending to do that, although the posts about CPAC certainly provided the starting point.

I’m just mad at a culture that trades charm and beauty for raw sex.  Sex has its place, but in social interactions, especially amongst young people, charm and beauty are the ones that I believe provide the greatest benefit for all participants in the dance of the sexes.  What goes on behind closed doors — as long as it involves consenting adults — is none of my business.

Apropos young people, I’ll just throw one thing in here that seems relevant to the discussion:  I’ve been commenting for years about the peculiar fact that, if you go to any high school campus, you’ll see a peculiar clothing divide.  In past generations, pretty much throughout history, teenagers’ clothing had a similar “look” to it, whether polished or scruffy, innocent or sophisticated.  Now though, the girls look like street corner hookers, with massive of amounts of revealed flesh and heavy make-up.  The boys, however, look like toddlers:  their hats are on backwards, their clothes are over-sized, and their shoes are untied.  This is as true today as it was ten years ago when I first noticed this trend.

I think this clothing chasm is very, very strange, and I honestly don’t know what to make of it.  All I know is that I want my daughter to look fresh and wholesome (so far, so good on that score) and that, when my son is older, I want him to bring home fresh and wholesome girls.

UPDATE II:  On right on cue in terms of my comments about boys’ infantile dressing, read the first item in today’s Best of the Web, about men felling behind women in various economic/educational measures.

She’s gorgeous, if emaciation is your thing

There’s a model out there named Karlie Kloss who is being hailed as “the new Body” because the fashion world adores her figure so. You can see her pictures here, but be warned that they’re NSFW, as there’s some partial nudity.  I have three comments:

I bet her legs would look great even if they weren’t so heavily photoshopped.

Is it just me, or is there something appalling about lauding a woman as the most beautiful body in the world when you can count her ribs and cut yourself on her jutting hip bones?  It may be the standard in the fashion industry, but it’s scary to think that our daughters look at that emaciated woman and think “If I don’t look like her, I’m not beautiful.”

In becoming “the new Body,” Kloss supplanted Elle Macpherson, who once held that spot in the fashion world.  Scanning images of Elle (probably NSFW either) reveals that Elle is a woman of flesh, not bones.  Our beauty culture has transitioned from slender to skeletal.

Guys, I’m especially interested in hearing from you.  I’ll take it as given that Kloss is beautiful, but is she your idea of what a woman’s body should be?

No surprise to Bookworm that the White House is hostile to women

Back in September 2009, I posted about Obama’s obsession with getting women into burqas which is, to my mind, a very misogynistic approach to women.  I’m therefore entirely unsurprised to learn that those women who have worked in the White House claim that it’s a hostile environment to women, and that this hostility comes from the top.

Obama always signals things:  his dislike for Jews and Israel (all his pro-Palestinian friends and advisors were the giveaway), his love for socialist economic fallacies (his Chicago organizer background, his Ivy League education, and all his socialist friends), and his misogyny (that burqa obsession).   Patting myself on the back, I consistently predicted who and what this man would be, something that was pretty easy if one paid attention to what he said and did.

 

Women in combat

Over at Ricochet, there’s a really interesting post about women in combat, written by a former paratrooper.  The point that fascinated me was his claim that women aren’t leaders.  I’ve always defined myself as a born follower.  I’ll fill a vacuum if no one is leading, and I have no problem taking a leadership role when I’m caring for children but otherwise, I don’t want to be a general.  I’m a foot soldier, and a damn good one.  What amazed me is that, apparently, I’m not the only one.

It is NO BIG DEAL that a Jewish publication got rid of Hillary’s picture

There is much breast-beating amongst the usual suspects about the fact that an Orthodox Jewish newspaper deleted all female images from the Situation Room picture the White House issued after bin Laden’s death.  Hillary was one of those deleted.

The deletion was technically a violation of federal policy, but given the way in which people have been messing with the photo — everything from party hats to superhero outfits — that’s not the issue, is it?  The issue is that the Joos hate women.  Actually, they don’t.  I wouldn’t want to live the life of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish woman (’cause I’m not a believer at that level), but the religious rules governing them are a manifestation of true respect and not its opposite number.

But here’s the real deal:  a little Jewish newspaper that has no government affiliation can do whatever it wants.  This is not the same as a government, complete with government power, demanding that there can be no images of women in the public sphere.  If Di Tzeitung deletes female images, it does so for two reasons:  (1) principles and (2) knowing its market.  It’s allowed to do that, just the way Hustler is allowed to show way too much of women.

When we should be concerned is when Saudi Arabia deletes women, not just from images, but from society altogether; or when China and India delete women by aborting them.  Those are big issues.  Yet funnily enough, the usual suspects are almost completely silent.  Go figure.

UN Commission on the Status of Women

Everyone is commenting on the travesty that sees countries such as the Sudan and Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.  It makes perfect sense to me.  If the commission had been named “Commission for the Protection of Women,” or “Commission for the Liberation of Women,” things might have been different, but but it’s obvious that the Sudan and Iran are perfectly clear about women’s “status”:  per Allah’s inviolable decree, they are at the bottom of the pecking order and need to remain there.  At long last, these nations sit on the perfect bureaucratic vehicle for pursuing their “feminist” agenda.

Islam and rape

Your matched set for today:

Andy McCarthy writes about the elephant in the liberal living room; namely, Islamic attitudes towards rape:  Women are almost always asking for it, especially Western women, and, once having forced an innocent man to give in to his base animal nature, they deserve to be beaten, arguably to death.

That analysis, of course, must get paired with CBS’s muted and delayed reporting of the horrific rape that its reporter, Lara Logan, suffered at the hands of an Islamic mob.  CBS tries to spin it as a normal tale of a mob that’s gotten out of control, but people paying attention to the Islamic world understand that, while Western mobs attack cars and shops, Islamic mobs attack women.

I’ve mentioned before, and I’ll repeat again, that one of the smartest people I know believes that, boiled down to its essence, Islamic hostility towards the West revolves around women.  One of Islam’s primary goals is the total subjugation of its women, turning them into slaves who must provide sex on demand to their owners.  The Western world, even in its most repressive eras, provided more freedom — and respect — for women.  The one thing Islam cannot risk is for its women to gain equality.

I just don’t see how this is going to work

A Congressional panel is advocating the removal of all restrictions between women and the front line.  Aside from the same problem that arises with gays at the front line — the possibility of sexual jealousy interfering with unit cohesion — there are a few biological realities that I see as problems:  (1) women pee sitting down, although there are doo-hickies that get around that; (2) women have periods, which are, to put this as nicely as possible, messy; (3) women are targets for Islamist men who already think that Western women are asking for rape; and (4) women get pregnant, which ties in with the sexual jealousy and risk of rape issues.

I know that, when the whole world is a front line, as happened to resistance fighters during WWII, women have served in active combat and acquitted themselves well.  Those have been battles of necessity, though.  Absent the exigencies of an all-encompassing enemy, I simply don’t see any practical virtue to putting women on the front line.