Romney relentlessly pushes a sexual egalitarianism that would have made his own exemplary family life impossible

The uniquely insightful Laura Wood writes:

… Romney’s commitment to equality and masculine achievement for women—he quoted to thunderous applause his mother as saying, ‘Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?,’”—is at odds with his pledge of prosperity and jobs for all who seek them.

America once understood that jobs would always be limited in number, that they could not be magically created out of thin air. And America once gave priority to men in employment.

College graduates face unprecedented competition today in part because both men and women expect to have uninterrupted careers. It is an unsustainable vision, one that is destructive to the culture at large.

At one point, Romney said his wife’s work as mother to their sons was more important than his work. This was, of course, a fatuous statement. But if he truly believed that her work was important, why wouldn’t he promote an economy that made it possible for more women to do what his wide did and for more men to have jobs?

It was wonderful to see at the close of the convention the large Romney family gather on the stage. Such families are not built upon notions of radical equality.

That last point must be emphasized. One of Romney’s main selling points is his good character, as shown, in significant part, by his large—five sons, 18 grandchildren—stable, and harmonious family. Yet if the sex-equal workplace and society advocated by Romney had existed in 1960, Romney’s large family wouldn’t exist. Ann Romney would have been too busy with her career to bear and raise five children.

If Romney’s feminist rhetoric were put into practice, this wonderful sight would not exist.
(Photo originally posted in entry, “Romney’s threatening whiteness.”)

Also, in connection with Laura Wood’s radically anti-liberal position that men should be favored for employment over women, see her important 2009 article, “Why We Must Discriminate.” In the ensuing discussion, critics come at her from every angle, and she successfully parries every blow.

- end of initial entry -

September 2

Andrea C. writes:

What is the answer to a beloved wife’s question (which Romney says his mother asked his father), “Why should women have any less say than men, about the great questions facing our nation?”

Is it possible to move beyond the implications of asking it. Can we find the answer to this question, husband to wife? To lay it finally to rest?

Can the right answer to this question solve forever the perpetual challenge of the unique limitations of and the differences between the sexes?

And why is it fatuous for Mitt Romney to say that his wife’s job mothering their sons was more important than his? My husband said the same thing to me, way-back-when. I didn’t feel, “Yeah, you’re right.” It never occurred to me that he was lying. It surprised me. I was no feminist demanding recognition for myself—he came to say that on his own, I had no hand in it. I’ve never been a feminist. I think a lot of men in close families feel that way, they are often in awe of their wives and grateful—and happy. And I am respectful of my husband, how hard he worked to earn our home and make our family possible. There was some good luck, but it was not all fun and games to get us where we are. We are pretty solid and secure.

Now, back to the answer to that question?

LA replies:

I think Andrea knows the answer but is hinting at it rather than saying it outright. The answer is that the unquestioned primacy of women in certain spheres of life does not mean that they should have an equal say with men in the sphere of politics.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 31, 2012 01:01 PM | Send