Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Rebecca Hagelin :: Townhall.com Columnist
Stirring the caldron of radical feminism
by Rebecca Hagelin
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will Congress pass Obamacare by the end of the year?

It was parents’ orientation at my son’s new college when the young female co-ed introduced her academic pursuit as “Women’s Studies.” My son and I sat stone-faced, desperately trying to hold back the smirks we knew would reveal our thoughts about the absurdity of such an “intellectual, academic” pursuit.

“Where are the degrees in ‘Men’s Studies’?” I wanted to ask. Of course, there aren’t any. Only the pro-lesbian, ego-centric, sexually perverse “Women’s Studies” majors and minors are considered politically correct. The clear bigotry and plain ridiculousness of such classes, and the messages they send our college men and women, seemed lost on the poor young girl. The reality is that she and thousands of co-eds across the country are being steeped in nothing more than the bitter propaganda, indoctrination and hypocrisy that fill the caldron of radical feminism.

Classes required in the pseudo-discipline include “Race, Gender and Politics,” “Human Sexual Behavior,” “Sex and Gender in Contemporary Society” and “The Politics of Poverty.” Not one class offering even comes close to, say, “The Power of Mothering,” or “The Beauty and Benefits of Marriage” or “Why We Love Men.”

Among the biggest feminist lies infecting the minds of our young people is that feminism is about “choices.” Of course, the lie has been spread since the disease of modern radical feminism first reared its ugly head back in the 1960s. The tale is as follows: In the old days, women were largely excluded from the workplace and expected to marry and stay home to raise their children. Now, thanks to feminism, they are encouraged to freely choose whatever profession suits them.

Not exactly. As a new, growing campus group, the “Network of enlightened Women” (NeW), will tell you, reality offers an ironic twist: One profession -- homemaker -- is off limits. Feminist professors take it for granted that the young women in their charge will work full-time outside the home -- and woe betide the female student who expresses a retrograde interest in putting her family first (if, that is, she’s foolish enough to have children at all).

Matters are no better when it comes to political philosophy. Radical feminists have yoked themselves to a brand of extreme liberalism that most people, men and women, find repugnant. They believe in big government, socialized medicine, pacifism and abortion on demand. On campuses nationwide, they exert heavy pressure on young female co-eds to get on board -- or get lost.

Just about anyone can see this view is a serious betrayal of true feminism. The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. There’s no question that women should be free to pursue the profession of their choice -- and their menu of options should include the role of homemaker. And who’s to tell them they can’t be conservative? Modern feminists have become the very thing they profess to hate -- leaders who limit women’s choices and dare to tell them they aren’t free to follow where their interests and talents take them.

That’s where NeW comes in. NeW bills itself as “the nation’s premier club for conservative university women.” It was started two years ago by Karin Agness of the University of Virginia as a book club. Today, NeW has 15 chapters at universities in states throughout the country, and, as its Web site notes, members meet regularly to discuss issues relating to politics, gender and conservative principles.

NeW held its first national conference on Capitol Hill last month and recognized four new chapters -- from as far west as California and as far south as Texas. The goal is to “cultivate a community of conservative women and expand intellectual diversity on university campuses.”

And NeW is attracting some serious attention -- from both sides of the political spectrum. Speakers at their July conference included conservative firebrand Ann Coulter and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. But Professor Ann Lane, a former director of UVA’s women and gender studies program, is no fan. “I’m not opposed to the group’s existence -- I just don’t like it,” she told TIME magazine. “I particularly don’t accept their premise that men and women occupy such culturally different spaces.” As TIME’s reporter notes:

“As female college activist groups go, the Network of enlightened Women, or NeW, is a very different breed. They don’t distribute condoms on the Quad or march for a woman’s right to choose. Instead, they bake chocolate-chip cookies and protest campus productions of Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues, a controversial play about female sexuality that conservatives say degrades women and glorifies rape.”

The idea for NeW came after Agness spent a summer in Washington interning for Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana. “I loved being around other conservative women and wanted to find more women like that at UVA,” she says. “Unfortunately, all the women’s groups on campus were really liberal and biased. And when I asked a [women’s studies professor] if anybody would be interested in sponsoring a conservative women’s group, she just laughed at me.”

A UVA student magazine also found the idea humorous. Soon after the group started, it published an article about NeW with a cover illustration, Agness said, “of a woman dressed in a perfectly ironed pristine shirt with a checkered apron, connected to a machine with 12 babies popping out while stirring her batter and reading her recipe with the headline ‘Manifest Domesticity.’

“We were really portrayed as baby-making machines, and at that point I knew we were onto something. We were a threat.”

A threat to radical feminists, all right. But to conservative young women, NeW is a tonic -- one that offers far more intellectual stimulation than modern liberalism. Here’s hoping it has another highly successful school year.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Rebecca Hagelin is a public speaker on the family and culture and the author of the new best seller, 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rebecca Hagelin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
It's not just womens studies
This type of crap is all over university humanities departments. At my school WSSU, nearly every one of the professors in the humanities department is a left leaner that promotes all of the PC and feminist agenda that they can work into a lecture.

NeW. . .
...is surely a great place to meet women.

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/002188.html

(hat tip: John Galt. It was too funny not to bring up again!)

Yay, Rebecca!
Back in 1973, I read where one feminist called
Ta-Tanisha had said something like this: "The
oppression of women by men is the basic cause
of all the problems of civilization." I wondered
what planet she was living on. It had to be a
planet where no woman was ever oppressed BY
ANOTHER WOMAN, and where no evil man oppressed
OTHER MEN.

Some guy once observed, "A capacity for self-
pity is the last vice a woman is willing to
give up." And you know what? The fact that a
man said this does NOT automatically make it
untrue! Self-pity has been exalted to a high
virtue by feminism; and the more addicted one
becomes to self-pity, the less compassion one
feels for anyone else--like the unborn.

Joseph Ravitts

Hey Wingo: went there, loved it
Like their mantra - the sexes are EQUAL/SAME and they will defend that to ANY MAN'S DEATH. The mere hint of non-sameness has them frothing.


Feminists
Of course, logically, the preponderance of anti-child-rearing feminists, like that of the Paul Ehrlich "Population Bomb" believing branch of progressivism, is an inherently self-correcting phenomena. After all, they are very unlikely to reproduce, so they are most likely a single-generation manifestation. Sort of like the Know-Nothings, whom they resemble to a remarkable degree.

eon
The left recruits for all its pet made-minorities, such as gays and feminists/lesibians. It's partly why they're still around. The other reason is that rebellion against God-given sex roles is a part of fallen human nature.

Second-class citizens on the left
Feminists are nothing but second-class citizens on the left in that they are utterly ignored when it comes to leftist foreign policy. Leftist foreign policy currently gives unconditional support to all Muslim causes. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of horror stories circulating about the way women are being treated, not just in Muslim countries, but in Muslim sections of Europe. The murder of Theo van Gogh should have caused campus riots, but instead almost nothing happened. It always amazes me the way feminists stick up for the Palestinians rather than the Israelis, given the way the two societies treat women. If I were one of them, I'd be saying, "No, I'm not going to support the Palestinians, until they stop oppressing their women."

Actually, this is nothing new
Universities have always been the hotbed of revolution and liberal thought. In every civilization and every time. And there is good reason. As NRA Lifer said, it is the perfect place for them. The idea of the "ivory tower" intellectuals held sway back into Greek times. It is only in universities where you are not pushed by the realities of the world and you can live in the theory. And face it. The theory of communism is great. It is just when it hits reality and people that it falls apart and devolves into chaos. And in theory, we should all love one another, respect each other, etc. But people are ornery things and don't seem to obey theory.

How to pick a college major
I don't worry about those 'fields' of study because of the careers they lead to.
Science: 'How does that work?'
Engineering: 'How do I build one?'
Economics: 'How can one profit from making those?'
Women's Studies: 'You want fries with that?'


Lazlo
ROFLMBO

NeW
Sounds great!

Who is surprised Agness was laughed at when she started it. These people are so lost in what their version of reality is they cannot see it for what it really is. Worse, they don't want to.

Is not the irony staggering?
“I’m not opposed to the group’s existence -- I just don’t like it.”

Amusing, isn't it? Oh, their so for choice...unless that choice isn't THEIR choice.

The left wing is IRREFUTABLY the most bigoted group of people on the planet.

As for the Ensler's play glorifying rape, that is actually quite true. The original production featured the rape of a child, after which the little girl claimed she enjoyed the rape. The writer, after probably having her life threatened by a few hundred parents whose children were raped, rewrote that scene to feature a 16-year-old instead of a 12-year-old.

Jeff Writes:
Universities have always been the hotbed of revolution and liberal thought.

What is great now, is that the liberal establishment is the MAN! The liberal mantra of the 60’s was you had to rebel against those that were in authority! Now that they are the ones in authority at the Universities they are the ones that are being rebelled against. You reap what you sow! This must be so mind blowing for them that people are really rebelling against what the liberals believe.

It's about empowerment
Women have decided that if a man is not going to support them in a way that they like, they'll divorce him and support themselves, they guy walked, or just had a kid outside marriage.

The other reality is that for a couple to support itself at what most see as the norm ($200,000+ house in the burbs, a new car at 25, and all the electronic toys), it takes both people working.

As for the college courses, they are legitimate classes, though I doubt the usefulness of an entire degree based on them other than showing the discipline to attain a degree. My example of human sexual behavior: guys go out on Fridays wondering if they'll get lucky. Women already know.

As far as NeW: They're entitled to their views, even if I think it will put women back in the 19th century, but that's their choice and not mine. As long as I and mine still have choice.

And yes, liberals are everywhere, and we're not all James Carvilles, just as you Conservatives are not Ann Coulters (at least I hope not). Most of us cluster around the middle. That would make most of us centrists.

Agreed
"The theory of communism is great. It is just when it hits reality and people that it falls apart and devolves into chaos."


Yep. Marx failed to account for greed.


"And in theory, we should all love one another, respect each other, etc. But people are ornery things and don't seem to obey theory."

Once again, greed, either for the primacy of the self or the self's viewpoint.

Milwakee Jaybird
Agrees with me on why communism and other ideal situations fail.

But don't you see Jay that is the problem with most of the liberal positions I reject? In my blog, I make MY case against gay marriage. Not because of theory, but because of how people behave. Affirmative action? Same thing. People abuse it and are abused by it. And it goes right down the line.

I agree with the feelings behind almost every liberal position, but they are all ivory tower positions that sound good, and show compassion, but just don't work.

You comment on greed as if it is a bad thing. Greed is a survival trait and is built into us. Maybe we would reach utopia if we could engineer humans to not be human, but then again....

I even agree with the liberal position in Iraq, if you posit that the Iraqis and Iranians are fully rational and not acting on emotional bases. In that case, world pressure can force civilized behavior. Sanctions can work. Unfortunately, once again we are dealing with messy and illogical people.

more mountains out of molehills
The neo-con pundit army is at it again -- using the SMALL portion of academia that concerns itself with partisan politics and trying to say that they represent all of academia.

The VAST MAJORITY of college students study science, engineering, or business. Those of us who teach and do research in one of these areas could compete just fine in the "real world". In fact, what we do actually helps YOU compete better.

About the actual column . . . the choice to be a homemaker is something that is totally foreign to most of us in academia -- we wouldn't be here if we didn't have a strong inner drive to accomplish as much as we can professionally. We hate to see students turn their back on their professional potential. It's not that being a homemaker is a bad choice. It's just that it doesn't resonate with the professional drive in us as faculty. My wife and I have debated this issue a number of times -- usually after I tell her how a female graduate from our department turned out a spot in a quality graduate program because her mechanic or construction worker boyfriend doesn't want to move more than 5 miles from his home town. My wife will then point out that because I'm not a woman, I can't fully understand the desires and pressures involved in making such decisions. Maybe she's right.

Another liberal pyramid scheme
That's all the Women's Studies major is. Graduate with a degree in Women's Studies, and it qualifies you for a job teaching Women's Studies.

Fortunately, there aren't enough of those positions to accomodate all the graduating WS majors. And it's hard to take a person's ideas very seriously when they're spouting them over the sound of sizzling meat while wearing a hair net and a paper hat.

(Thanks for the laugh, Lazlo.)

Women studies in the church…
Women studies in the church...

Hey GoodOnPaper,
That was some real nice drivel, did you get extra credit for it? Only your last statement has any shread of intelligence in it, maybe you're wrong! What concern is it of yours what your students do or don't do with their education or indoctrination from those of you with your heads in the sand. The old line that those that can, do those that can't teach and those that can't teach become critics, is very much true. You think you could make it in the real world, HA! I don't think you could run a cash register at Wal-Mart.

Mountain Rose:
This also holds true for boys, I've seen. I'm a single parent of a teenage boy. His friends come to our home daily just to hang out. I love it. Its hard to be a working-oustide-the-home Mom, but its necessary.
What I find so endearing, is that one of the boys loves it at our house so much he wants to move in. It is amazing what love in the home can do.

I've always told my son, "we may not have monetary wealth, but we are rich in what is truly important...love, family and friends".
Tobymac said it right in his chorus of Love Is In The House....
"Love is in the house, and the house is packed
So much soul I left the back door cracked
Mamma always said it's a matter of fact
When love is in the house the house is packed"

A quote from Lois Bujold
Could one judge a man by his company? Could she judge Miles that way? Ivan was charming and funny, Lady Alys fine and formidable, Illyan, despite his sinister history, strangely kind. Miles’s clone brother Mark, for all his bitter bite, seemed a brother in truth. Kareen Koudelka was pure delight. The Vorbrettens, the rest of the Koudelka clan, Duv Galeni, Tsipis, Ma Kosti, Pym, even Enrique . . . Miles seemed to collect friends of wit and distinction and extraordinary ability around himself as casually and unselfconsciously as a comet trailed its banner of light.
Looking back, she realized how very few friends Tien had ever made. He’d despised his coworkers, scorned his scattered relations. She’d told herself that he hadn’t the knack for socializing, or was just too busy. Once past his school days, Tien had never made a new good friend. She’d come to share his isolation; alone together was a perfect summation of their marriage.

"Women's Studies": the Pamela version
Good morning, students. Let me begin by gladdening your hearts and telling you this is the shortest course you will ever take. You won't need me to guide you toward the answers to the questions you'll be hearing today; you'll do far better, in school and in life, if you seek the answers on your own.

First, what do you love more than anything else in the world? What do you value most? What do you think is the most important quality a human being can possess?

Second, what do you love to DO more than any other activity in the world? What pursuits fill you with the thrill of genuine accomplishment? How and where do they not only provide you with personal satisfaction, but positively influence others around you?

If you can answer these two questions, then you will understand, far better than anyone could tell you, what you should do with the rest of your life. The more you think about these questions, and the surer you are about your answers, the less susceptible you'll be to OTHER PEOPLE trying to tell you who you are and what you're meant to do. You'll be confident that you know yourself better than anyone else could, and you'll know your "talent, which is death to hide" (with your permission, John Milton). And best of all, you won't need to look to the outside world for validation. You'll understand the crucial difference between equality of opportunity (a good thing) and equality of result (a dangerous piece of social engineering).

So who are you? Perhaps you're a "Mary," as in Mary of Nazareth -- one who finds her greatest joy and satisfaction in guiding and nurturing children and training them up in the way they should go. "Marys" gravitate toward homemaking; they are nest-builders. Their children grow up under their eyes with the full knowledge that they are loved. Their names will probably not appear in the newspapers, but the lives of those around them will be the better for their presence. A few "Marys" are well-known -- for example, Madeleine L'Engle, a devoted mother and grandmother and the author of many novels and works of non-fiction. You will find a list of her works here. (See handout.)

Or maybe you're a "Deborah," as in Deborah the Judge. You find your greatest joy and satisfaction in leadership roles. You can make your voice heard. You can articulate ideas with strength and clarity, and those who hear your voice will be the wiser for it. Some "Deborahs" include Condaleeza Rice, Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Meir. Here are some excellent biographies. (See handout.)

Or perhaps you're a different kind of "Mary" -- a "Mary of Bethany," one who finds her greatest joy and satisfaction in the life of the mind and the exercise of the imagination. You have close friendships, but you're also drawn to solitude; you think time alone is one of life's greatest underrated pleasures. You think, read, learn, and contemplate, and your wisdom touches others' lives. Some "Marys of Bethany" include Jane Austen, the sisters Bronte, Emily Dickinson, and George Eliot. Their works are listed for you here. (See handout.)

Or maybe you're a "Mary Magdalene" -- not in the Da Vinci Code sense, but in the sense of the "apostle to the apostles," among the first commissioned missionaries. Your greatest joy lies in spreading the word of God, and doing His work at home and abroad. Some "Mary Madgalenes" include Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Amy Carmichael, Lottie Moon, Corrie ten Boom, and Gladys Hallward. You'll find a list of biographies here. (See handout.)

Or perhaps you have a little bit of each of them in all of you. Perhaps you're a mix. Whatever you are, you're a unique individual; God made you thus, and it is your responsibility to discover His plan for you, and your greatest gifts. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. But you must not look to others to validate your decisions. Only God and you can do that. If you are meant for the work you choose, in your heart you will know it.

As for these handouts, they're yours, to use as you please. Read as much, or as little, as you wish for them. Their purpose is to ignite your curiosity, and to help you discover the infinite variety of opportunities open to you. We will not meet again as a class; take this time to consider the questions on your own. Good luck, and God bless all of you. That is all.

Women studies in the church…

Contrary to new culture myths the Bible does not prohibit women from teaching in the church. Rather this is the ordained means of grace whereby young women are to receive instruction in practical godliness.

Paul gives instruction to Titus on the proper role of women in the church…

“Speak the things that are fitting for sound doctrine…Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.” [Titus 2]

In the church is where the real women studies are done; the older women of good report [reput*tion is filtered by TownHall as a bad word] teaching the younger women how to live out their faith in the home.

Controversy over the role of women in the church is a result of radical feminism infecting the visible church and assaulting the authority of the Scriptures.

Prohibition of women pastors has to do with the created order and the Fall. The belief that this doctrine is cultural ignores Paul’s instruction to Timothy concerning worship…

“I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” [I Timothy 2]

The apostle appeals to the Genesis account of the creation and Fall to teach the proper roles of men and women in the church. To ignore this teaching is to disregard the second commandment which instructs the church that God defines the proper method by which He is to be worshiped.

Finally, let’s look at the forgotten words of Paul that has elevated women and freed them from the enslavement in which all men are born. The apostle declares to the world that the grace of God is extended to all men without reference to nationality, social standing or gender. The gospel is that the covenant made to Abraham is fulfilled…

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” [Galatians 3]

Thank the Lord for the precious gift of godly women. “Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.” [Proverbs 31]


Conservatives shouldn't be
Conservatives shouldn't be feminists in any sense. Rebecca Hagelin summarizes radical feminist views she opposes, writing; "Just about anyone can see this view is a serious betrayal of true feminism."

Perhaps she's what some conservative women call an "opportunity feminist," as the following sentence suggests:

"There’s no question that women should be free to pursue the profession of their choice -- and their menu of options should include the role of homemaker."

A genuine conservative would understand that the very idea that women should be free to pursue the profession of their choice has nothing in common with conservative principles.

ValiantForTruth takes the proper conservative position when she writes: "Prohibition of women pastors has to do with the created order and the Fall." Although this writer goes on to cite Biblical authority for her position, conservatives don't have to agree with this authority to agree with the main point. Conservatives teach, or should teach, that the natural order (whether or not God is invoked here)shows us that women should not have such freedom. What the Biblical authority specifies with respect to women serving as pastors can and should be applied to women in society generally. Such is the true conservative position.

Many conservative women take advantage of arguments about opportunity and equality that have nothing whatever to do with conservatism, but rather were invented by liberalism. They pick and choose what benefits them from the liberal tradition, which they then turn on and would destroy if they could. Sort of like biting the hand that feeds them...





I'm glad
Feminism is losing ground. On campus we still have the lunatic ethnic studies, womens studies, homosexual/bisexual/transgender studies idiots. Faculty jobs in academia is probably all they can do. They are too crazy to make itin the real world.

In the real world more and more people are recognizing the destructive conteribution Feminisim has made to society. Thank God.

Proverbs 31
Just read what is below. As a Christian, I consider the Bible to be my ultimate authority.

Verse 10 and on:

"Who can find a capable wife? She is far more precious than jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her and he will not lack anything good. She rewards him wiht good, not evil, all the days of her life.

"She selects wool and flax and works with willing hands. She is like the merchant ships bringing her food from far away. She rises while it is still dark and provides food for her household and portions for her servants.

"She evaluates a field and buys it; she plants a vineyard with her earnings. She draws on her strength and reveals that her arms are strong. She sees that her profits are good and that her lamp never goes out at night.

"She extends her hands to the spinning staff and her hands holds the spindle. Her hands reach out to the poor and she extends her hands to the needy. She is not afraid for her household when it snows for all in her household are doubly clothed.

"She makes her own bedcoverings; her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known at the city gate where he sits among the elders of the land. She makes and sells linen garments; she delivers belts to the merchants.

"Strength and honor are her clothing and she can laugh at the time to come. She opens her mouth with wisdom and loving instruction is on her tongue.

"She watches over the activities of her household and is never idle. Her sons rise up and call her blessed. Her husband also praises her, (saying) 'Many women are capable, but you surpass them all.'

"Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting, but a woman who loves the Lord will be praised. Give her the reward of her labor and let her works praise her at the city gates."

I share this with you because this is the ideal Biblical woman. Clearly she is married to a man of some status, but she is independantly employed, making her own business decisions and is praised by her husband and the community for her works. She speaks the mind God gave her when she needs to do so.

Although I think Paul had good instruction for young churches that we need to learn from today, I don't think women are relegated by the Bible to second-class and silent citizenship and I think this proverb is strong evidence that folks who believe that is the Bible's stance haven't bothered to read Scripture.

I am not defending radical feminism, which I consider to be a minor mental illness, but I am defending the rights of women to use the brains and talents God gave them without running every decision past a man, even one they happen to be married to. The Proverb 31 woman is praised by her husband because she is capable of thinking and acting independently from him. Her activities contribute mightly to their household and perhaps free him to be an elder at the city gates. She has a value above rubies. Make no mistake -- this is the Biblical idea of a woman!

Mountain Rose
God bless you!

I'm 64 but was fortunate enough to have raised 4 kids with a wife such as you. And our house was always filled with the teenagers of other parents whose kids were often thought of as inconviences. Some of our kids' friends referred to us as the Brady bunch family.

While my wife can retire, she prefers to still be the office manager of my son's remodeling company because he refuses to let her quit. I prefer to work part time. After 42 years, I still regard her as a prize - for example, she refuses to let me iron my own clothes saying "A man shouldn't have to.", and if I happened to mention we're out of Snow Balls, on her way home from work he'll stop off at Publix and get me a couple of packages. I finally stopped mentioning my faviorite junk food that I was out of.

The other kids, especially my two daughters, 35 (and out of state) and 37, call her daily.

These far left feminists really have no clue as to what is really important in life - people, and especially one's own families. Too bad most of them will never know what's it's like to have a family, and true love.

Women
I narrowly construe the Biblical teaching of women's limited role in the church setting. They aren't to speak when gathered together in a formal congregation of men. In context, I think speaking refers to preaching. Paul even said that he does not allow a woman to teach a man.

I would not apply this rule outside its context, such as socially. I think women make excellent teachers of boys, for example, and they can also make good professors in non-spiritual subjects. However, I have only had bad experiences receiving teaching from women in a church context. They also tend to get puffed up teaching men in spiritual matters, and I find they usually have little to offer. Whereas, between man and wife, a wife will probably often have good insights to help her husband and should not be restrained in offering them. The proper role will be maintained if the husband takes the lead in the spiritual enrichment of his wife and himself.

Of course women and men can talk to each other outside of a teaching role without restriction.

Women ?
jerubaal said: "The proper role will be maintained if the husband takes the lead in the spiritual enrichment of his wife and himself.

Of course women and men can talk to each other outside of a teaching role without restriction."

Baloney! What are we discussing here, a different species from men? Are men some form of deity?

And at one point or age do girls become women, and boys become men? And from the mouths of babes, eh?

And "the proper role" is an insult to any woman. IMO everyone learns from everyone, and everyone has something to teach, as in "contribute" to everyone else. I still learn even from my children - both sexes. One of the best advice I received was from a mentor decades ago. He said that I should always learn something from everyone, including those I detest, because everyone has wisdom from which I could glean bits of knowledge. He was right, and I did, and still do. Even morons teach/remind me how "not" to be a moron.

Sonny
Don't try to understand the context. You obviously will not get it no matter how much we try to explain.

You see what you want to see and not what really is.

If you'd like to understand, which I am willing to be you won't, ask Christ about it. He'll show you what its about.

And really, believe it or not, it sets the woman free, too, to be in such a relationship.

Gestell
Gestell,
I am not sure why you are posting here. If you are hoping to influence anyone, I can't imagine a worse way to go about it. If you are hoping to impress anyone, I can't imagine a worse way to go about it.

If you are trying to enlighten people as to what and how a typical liberal thinks, I can't think of a better way to go about it. You presume to tell us what we are and how we think. Bingo. Now that is typically liberal.

Condensending: check
Self Important: check
Unwilling or unable to listen to what others say: check
Self-Professed Expert in areas in which you have no apparent actual knowledge or expertize: check

Now if you could do me the favor of some name-calling and then change the subject, that would fill it out perfectly. Thanks

Kudos to Pamela
If TH ever inaugurates a "Townie" Awards ceremony, I'd like to nominate "Women's Studies": the Pamela version" for the Best Post of 2006. In fact, I saved it to share with my daughter when she's old enough to read.

Sloopy
Sloopy, don't you find anything at all odd about a conservative like Rebecca Hagelin siding with ANY sort of feminism?

Don't you find it strange that conservative women columnists who appear on TH see no difficulty in using opportunities made possible by liberal reformers? Or do you believe that conservatives were major supporters of women's right to vote?

Do you believe that conservative women were the first women to publicize unequal treatment of women in the workplace? Do you fantasize that conservative intellectuals or activists or politicians led the fight against spouse abuse?

Conservative women don't turn down the protection or assistance facilitated by the changes in laws and public policies that now benefit them, but they also have memories that are conveniently short.

Now: how do I know what you think? You miss my point. Conservatism (like any other ideology) isn't just something you make up as you like. In regarding yourself as a conservative, you attach yourself to a tradition of political ideas and principles that you did not in fact invent for yourself.

One part of that tradition is a set of views on the proper status of women, and a deeper set of views in terms of which the views on women are justified.

ValiantForTruth grasps this point, as evidenced by her citation of Biblical texts. It is possible to reach similar conclusions about the proper status of women by turning to nature--as conservatives more enlightened than you recognize [See? There's the insult you were looking for! Happy now?]

Now here comes the condescension: I don't really expect that you'll get this sort of analysis at all. Like so many other present-day conservatives, you are indifferent to the history and principled content of your own beliefs. Such indifference amazes, but hardly surprises.






Sloopy
Sloopy, don't you find anything at all odd about a conservative like Rebecca Hagelin siding with ANY sort of feminism?

Don't you find it strange that conservative women columnists who appear on TH see no difficulty in using opportunities made possible by liberal reformers? Or do you believe that conservatives were major supporters of women's right to vote?

Do you believe that conservative women were the first women to publicize unequal treatment of women in the workplace? Do you fantasize that conservative intellectuals or activists or politicians led the fight against spouse abuse?

Conservative women don't turn down the protection or assistance facilitated by the changes in laws and public policies that now benefit them, but they also have memories that are conveniently short.

Now: how do I know what you think? You miss my point. Conservatism (like any other ideology) isn't just something you make up as you like. In regarding yourself as a conservative, you attach yourself to a tradition of political ideas and principles that you did not in fact invent for yourself.

One part of that tradition is a set of views on the proper status of women, and a deeper set of views in terms of which the views on women are justified.

ValiantForTruth grasps this point, as evidenced by her citation of Biblical texts. It is possible to reach similar conclusions about the proper status of women by turning to nature--as conservatives more enlightened than you recognize [See? There's the insult you were looking for! Happy now?]

Now here comes the condescension: I don't really expect that you'll get this sort of analysis at all. Like so many other present-day conservatives, you are indifferent to the history and principled content of your own beliefs. Such indifference amazes, but hardly surprises.






Gestell
If I may interject here, what does comparing a mondern conservative woman to the old feminists have to do with anything?

Is it not true that movements change direction? Does what the conservative women say now not ring true based on your historical interpretation?

I'd be happy to go over things that liberals used to value but no longer do. Does that negate what liberals stand for now?

And for one thing, you misrepresent what modern conservative women argue today. They acknowledge and appreciate the opportunities opened up by the previous feminists. What they do not do is support what modern feminists stand for. The the groups of feminists are not the same.


Transmogrification
Feminism is like a Federal program. It starts out with a real problem and through dint of effort solves the problem . . . then it takes on a life of its own. The funding, organization, and the network now exist primarily to perpetuate themselves. Feminism in the classical sense has acheived its original objectives. Women are free to choose field of endeavor that suits them.

What feminism is now is an organization in search of relevance that has to be ever more provocative in order to gain attention. Most women don't want the kind of attention being a modern feminist draws.

From the Gipper
"A liberal is someone that reads Marx;
A conservative is someone that understands Marx", Ronald Reagan

reply to justaguy
Rebecca Hagelin herself, in this column, sounds like she agrees with and even admires oldtime feminists. My point is that she shouldn't.


I'm going to run this again: I'm asserting that conservatism is a tradition of political thought with a distinctive content. This content consists of principles and beliefs based on those principles. Among the principles is an understanding of women according to which God and/or nature gave women a set of attributes--some physical, others emotional--that makes them unsuited for such political responsibilities as voting and holding public office and unqualified for certain types of employment. If conservatives are people who believe in absolute principles that do not, by definition, change, then conservatives today should accept the conservative principles of earlier times.


A conservative who thinks that there have been "changes" of some sort that allow modification of these principles is not much of a conservative. Liberals can think like this, but not you guys.

So, a "modern conservative woman" who supposes that there were inequalities and discrimination against women in the workplace that should rightfully be ended is thinking in a decidedly unconservative way.Such a woman, who thinks it was a great victory when women got the right to vote, isn't much of a conservative. She may be some sort of liberal, but her conservative credentials are pretty weak.

Again, I say that many contemporary conservatives, men and women, are operating with something very strange: a historically illiterate conservatism. Conservatism, if it is to stand for anything, must do much more than tell its followers to vote for (most) Republicans and against (most) Democrats.

Conservatism in its proper sense contains a body of doctrine about the nature of a good society and good government. It contains doctrines about all aspects of human life and its followers, if they understand this, must work to bring about the society projected by conservative principles. That society will resemble, or be as close to possible, a re-creation of a previous condition of the present-day society. Conservatism has no room for such ideas as "progress" in human liberty. It is fatally compromised once it begins to be open to what it should regard as the fantasies and delusions of the left.

Gestell
I think, then, you need to look again at what conservatism is.

It is not an unchanging set of beliefs. Yes, we tend to honor tradition more and ideas that have worked in the past. But we certainly do not believe that our beliefs are set in stone. Quite the contrary actually. If there is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives it is how we view change.

Conservatives view change as bit always positive. Liberals think almost all change is positive. Conservatives think that there are many ideas that work that have been time tested. Liberals seem to think that anything old is somehow flawed.

You can interpret some of this to conservatives resisting change. OK. But we do not think all change is for the best.

Most of conservatism is based on something many liberals do not accept: an overarching truth. We believe that there is something out there that is true, and increasingly liberals assume a more relativist view point, essentially denying a truth exists.

So, for a conservative woman to work is nothing at all against conservative principles. We acknowledge things were wrong in the past, and we are happy to have corrected that wrong. However, we do not believe that women should be engaging in the behavior that many modern feminsits do now. Really, many of them are reduced to, pardon the word, wh*res, one of the very things the original feminists saught to eradicate-- the subjection of women.

You keep a very strict doctrine of what conservatism is. It is not correct. Conservatives are not perfect, but we are also hold fluid beliefs that are based on truth.

Double Kudos to Pamela, Nuts to Hagelin
I opened up this website, not because I had to be informed once again that the only good mother is a stay-at-home mother, that all liberals are bigots, that radical feminists should be used as toilet paper, etc. I opened it because I had just finished watching the Indian movie "Water," a heart-breaking story about how the conservative sector of the Hindi religion treats widows including those who are children (in the movie, an 8-year
old). I was reminded once again that the conservatives of all major religious faiths do a big-time number on women and do so with a self-righteous smugness that assumes they have God's personal OK on it.

The very last thing that feminists do today is try to
keep women from staying at home. I will grant that
there are probably a few dinosaurs left, but they do
not in any way, shape, or form represent feminism today.
And I think you know that.

Back in the 60's and 70's, when I was in college, it
was a different ballgame. You really could be
kept from getting a job because you were of child-bearing
age or sometimes just because you were a woman. If a
girl was engaged that was reason enough to not hire
her. My mother could tell you about not being able to
open up a bank account without dad's permission. My grandmother could tell you about not being able to vote. When I got married, my credit card had to go into my husband's name, even though his take home pay was exactly $3.24 more per pay check than mine. Getting birth control was still very iffy.

My anger with how society treated women affected my
marriage for a number of years. Fortunately, we toughed
it out and we are still together happily with grown and married children. Things got so much better because essentially the battles were won. Women wanted equality and we got it, at least in the law books, which is a whole lot more than was there while I was growing up.

For the record, Hagelin, why don't you name names? Tell
me the name of one feminist who wants to take away the
right of women to be homemakers only. Tell me the
name of one who even wants to discourage it. In 40
years of running around with all those loony pyscho frantic feminists I have never heard one woman say that. The message is just not out there, and again, I think you know it.

I also have another piece of information. Mothers who
work have kids who love them also. Can you believe it?
Life isn't fair. We deserve drug-addicted beasts,
of course, but instead they turn out decent after all.

If you want to check with a school psychologist (my
friend) or a Harvard study, the two most important
things that will help make a kid fly right are
organized religion in the home and the father in the
the home. I am sure it would be true also for
mothers, but then mothers are there. It is the fathers
who keep disappearing.

As for your little tyke who is off to college, the fact
that he sat in on the college orientation with a smirk
on his face does not make him in the least bit appealing.
He needs to have a little more experience under his own
belt before he has earned the right to sneer at someone
else's credentials. Maybe he has been hanging around
his mamma just a little bit too much.

And leave it up to the conservatives to disparage the
study of women in the world because it doesn't produce
income. I majored in English and it doesn't produce income directly either, since I did not become a teacher. But I grew up believing that learning was a good thing unto itself. No wonder the Europeans call us the "money-grubbing barbarians from the West" - a direct quote from the English version of The Hearld read in a hotel in Rome. The article didn't say exactly who the writer was talking about but I think it was a safe bet to say that it wasn't the Mexicans.

Lisa
I cannot name names, but when women are looked down upon for staying at home. When women are questioned to leave the workplace or feel pressure to continue a career when their heart is elsewhere is what Ms. Hagelin is addressing.

These do happen, and it is a shame it does. I have seen it. I have heard women talk about others who have made the choice, usually in the sense that "it is a shame she gave up so much".

What they fail to realize is what she is gaining.

Women are *not* men
Gestell is intuitively on the right track in spite of missing the mark with his justifying arguments. We humans are distinctly dimorphic creatures. To cut to the chase, women bear children and men fight wars.

In times when our nation is truly threatened, feminism will be forgotten and it will be our men who will lay their lives on the line in defense of our way of life, our country, our women and our children. Yes, there will be *some* exceptional fighting women too, but human nature (not the evil patriarchy) dictates that these will be rare and few. This (the open blood debt in life and limb to be called in at any time) is the reason men and only men are due the right to participate directly in our national government (i.e., vote and stand for national office).

Women stand on equal footing to participate politically at the local and state level, but only those who have explicitly taken on the risk faced by every able bodied man (ask yourselves why men only are still required to register for the draft under threat of substantial fine and imprisonment) have earned the right to stand with their menfolk at the national level.

To state these truths is extremely politically incorrect, even for a conservative forum such as Townhall, but it is important to recognize that men and women are not interchangeable and that the differences have consequences.

Just my two cents.

PS to Lisa: if it can be shown (and I think that it can) that childbearing women work less hard (at the office), take more time off and quit work more often than men, then it is fair and just that companies take that into account in pay and promotion. That is reasonable discrimination to be unapologetically proud of.

reply to justaguy's reply
Most liberals do indeed believe in an over-arching truth, which is that the maximizing of human freedom is good. Arguments arise about what necessary limits there should be to some exercises of human freedom. Conservatives can't believe this because their over-rching truth opposes the concept of maximizing human freedom.

You don't explain precisely how a conservative can identify some practice or restriction (such as those directed against women) as having been "wrong." Your overarching truth is the maintenance of order--whether divine, natural, or some combination of the two. EVERY goal of feminism--whether early or contemporary--violates that order, as far as conservatives are concerned. That's why Hagelin is contradicting herself.

A sidebar for thinkwell: I was describing a belief I do not share; you confirm that I was on target.

Gestell
My take on what a liberal believes an overarching truth is that it is up to the liberal.

You call it maximizing of human freedom.

But this is in itself impossible by the direction you are heading.

Conservatives do indeed believe in maximizing human potential, just that it is achieved through different means.

You again are putting words into the mouths of conservative that are not there. You take some beliefs and assume they hold people back.

It is obvious you would not agree if I were to explain the freedom found in Christ, which most, though not all, conservatives acknowledge.

Christ does indeed offer more to maximize human freedom than any other person who has ever lived. Since you do not beleive, you will not understand, and you will likely claim HE is exactly why human freedom is held back.

To do justice to this issue, would take more space than any of us would like.

But rest assured, the answers are there for you to find.

::rolls eyes at hatred for "liberals"::
It's NOT a bad word you know.

Although as a graduate of one of those liberal colleges who offered women's studies but DID have men's studies as well, and who is very much employed and very much married and happy....

Hagelin, I hereby revoke your uterus. You don't deserve it. People like me make it possible for people like you to have a job and put your name on the title to your home, yet you slap us in the face. Thanks.

Politics is not about gratitude
This comment is inspired by Jen's remarks. Of course we should not expect conservatives to show any gratitude to liberals for having provided opportunities conservatives enjoy. Politics is not about gratitude. Conservatives had no role to play in the history of the extension of voting and other rights to women, and had nothing to do with promoting the processes of social and cultural change that allow Hagelin to publish a column in the first place.

Conservatives--quite correctly, given their principles--had, and have, no place in their thinking for any sort of feminism, yet conservative women benefit from the legacy of liberalism. Don't expect thanks, Jen. You won't get it.

Conservative women are parasitic on the accomplishments of liberalism. There. Have I managed to draw some fire?

I love how
Gestell cannot separate historical conservatism from modern consevatism.

To say modern conservatives do not look back and say that many past activists did goog for our country is disengenuous. Labor rights, civil rights, women's rights. All originally made the country better.

Here's another way to look at modern conservatism: we believe in what is right, not what we'd like to see be right (which is where liberals tend to go).

We see that we have achieved much of what was set forth by these early activists.

I'm a REAL feminist.
I am what you would call a "leftist feminist" or "radical feminst", whichever you choose. Here is my question: Why do all conservative anti-feminists automatically assume that feminists like me are against the home and family and don't want to have children? Yes, I believe that women should have the option to become full-time career women if they choose to and can choose whether or not have have a family, but that doesn't mean I'm AGAINST it. I want to have a husband and children very much someday. And I'm even thinking about taking time off from my teaching career to be a stay-at-home mother for a few years while my children are very young? So what do you have to say about that? I'm a liberal, pro-choice feminist who wants to be a wife and mommy someday. And if you don't find that disturbing enough, here's something else about me--I actually don't have a problem with your group. You say that you want to offer women more choices, including the choice to become a conservative if they wish, and that's fine. Even though I don't agree with the conservative ideals and values, I think it's every woman's right to be what she chooses...even if it's a conservative housewife in a checkered apron baking cookies and having babies. I have always been a firm believer that women should be allowed to choose whatever destiny in life makes them happy and that they should be allowed to make whatever decisions they need to make in order to live with dignity. So to the corporate women and housewives of the world, more power to you all. All I ask is that you don't try to force your decisions and beliefs onto others, because that is what feminism is NOT about.

Fem-me-ME-ME-ism
Shame on you, Ms. Jordan, for your self professed female-ME-ism. As the fully self-absorbed message of your post so clearly exemplifies, feminism is all about gaining ever more special choices, rights and privileges for women without a nary a thought to any possible obligation to take on corresponding responsibilities.

For example, feminism is always harping on equality of pay in the workplace, but when was the last time mainstream feminists were clamoring for the "right" to be maimed or killed in equal numbers in all the dirty, dangerous unglamorous jobs that turn the wheels of society? (One would think that the 20:1 disparity in workplace deaths would have the "noble" feminists absolutely screeching in protest.)

Did you know that while over 85 percent of the military is now fully open to women, the little ladies have deigned to serve to the tune of a mere 15 percent. Where are the feminists demanding their right to body bag parity, Ms-sss Jordan? (With less than 2 percent now being filled by females, you've a long way yet to come, feminist baby.)

In fact, sex roles exist for good reason, and thus real men have no problem carrying a disproportionate extra load where nature dictates. Just accept that men thereby have earned (and should get) the corresponding extra rights and privileges.

Ms. Jordan
What's your point through all of that?

I doubt many on this site would disagree with your stance on this particular issue.

another reply to justaguy
Now you're telling me that a conservative can believe that "labor rights, civil rights, women's rights" all "originally made the country better." Liberals can say this, because they were important sources of the movements that made these changes happen. Conservatives who can buy into justaguy's antihistorical, purely subjective "conservatism" need a reality check. Conservatives are always telling us about their principles and how liberals are all a bunch of moral relativists. Who's the relativist here?

On second thought, I'll go back to what I've said before, but generalize it: conservatives are parasitic on the achievements of liberalism but deny the patrimony of these achievements. They benefit from a host of liberal laws, policies, and cultural changes, but don't see any problem with their saprophytic attachment to that which they claim to oppose.

Feminists in Universities
I wonder if the reason there seem to be so many liberals in academia is that the logically outcome of higher education is a liberal persepctive on life?

Education and knowledge inevitably leads to liberal viewpoints.

Married to the State
Such ideas as equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity for all are conservative principles.

Paternalistically forced equality of outcome through heavy handed social engineering is of the provenance of Democrats. Who do you think has been the most responsible for illegal gender and race based quotas in recent decades?

Ask yourself, why, if many, many times more men than women are victims of violent crime, do we need a special Violence Against Women Act? (Hint: follow the money.) Organized feminism is perhaps the most blatant perpetrator of egregious, open discrimination today.

Feminism is a scourge and a cancer on society (and anyone calling him or herself a feminist today is at best an ignorant dupe).

Gestell
Wake up and acknowledge that times change.

Modern conservatives do believe that all that was gained is good.

You are so stuck on this idea that conservatives and liberals cannot change that you deny reality.

If liberals cannot change, then what areliberals today? Modern liberals embrace things that go so far beyond what they originally thought the originators would be shocked.

Do you really believe that Stanton and Anthony would stand for the Vagina Monologues?

Do you really think Martin Luther King would applaud Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton of today? I beg you to read Dr. Kings speech on the Mall.

Come on now, lets be honest about what the reality of political thought is. It is fluid. It is not static. If it were static, we would all still live in a town protected by the kights of a round table.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: modern conservatives ackowledge, and appreciate the gains made by various groups in the past.

Proverbs 31
Aurorawatcher:

You'll notice from the Scripture that this virtuous woman never leaves her home except take her wares to sell and to bring food. Also, you say she is "independently employed". Not so. She is self-employed.

She is always aware of what is going on in her home. She oversees it or "looks well to the ways of her household". She prepares her home for the winter. Now how do you think she could do that if she was working outside the home?

You have to take the Scripture as a whole. You can't use it as "caffeteria theology" where you pick out what you want. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. So, when you consider Paul's words, this woman surely would not be going against these instructions. The Proverbs 31 woman is indeed, "Sensible, pure, (a) worker at home."

CLARIFICATION
Just wanted to clarify my statement that the Proverbs 31 woman "never leaves her home"...

What I meant to say was that she did not leave her home to go and sew in a sweatshop somewhere. Here work was accomplished from her home.

"she selects wool and flax and works with willing hands"

"she rises while it is still dark and provides (prepared) food"

"she evaluates a field and buys it--she plants a vineyard"

"she makes her own bedcoverings" ... and her own fine clothing.

She looks well to the ways of her household and doesn't expect them to fend for themselves.

Those who suppose that the role of a homemaker/mother is an easy one, I suggest you try it for a week or so and see how challenging AND REWARDING it is.

Those who think that a homemaker is "lazy" and "doesn't want to work" needs to consider the multiple jobs that are handled by these women on a daily basis (granted there are some women who discrace us by their laziness and apathy, but they are NOT the norm).

Conservative, Bible-believing women are an industrious lot, and we don't have to have careers outside the home to prove our worth. We are intelligent, capable and are also compassionate, nurturing. My almost-19-yr-old daughter has decided to make "Family and Consumer Science" (Home Ec) her degree. I could not be more proud.

And from this article, I encouraged her to check into NeW and possibly start a chapter at her school.

It may sound crazy to you...
but I am a college student in Central Arkansas who is attending college so that I can be a homemaker. I once said that in the end, I would be a "Certified homemaker."

Allow me to clarify "certified homemaker."

My projected course outline (PCO) for the next four years consists of courses entitled: "Clothing construction, food science, and interior design." Peppered throughout my education are the inevitable History of Western Civilization (so far an extremely liberal class with an extremely liberal teacher who has a doctorate and thus considers him self very high above his company), typical Composition classes, Algebra classes and science classes.

This PCO excites me! You see at the end of my college years (approximately 5 years away for me at this point, two years into it) I will have a teaching degree. With this degree, I can be an example for the children I will one day have. I intend on homeschooling my children. Teaching them math and reading and history and science, and then take them to the Bible and give them REAL history, take them to the kitchen and show them real science and math. And with this degree, I will be able to teach my children high school courses as well.

My mother (Gina on the post listing) was at one time a feminist. A real feminist. She was a single mom and raised me well. When I was 8, ten years ago, we both became Christians and what a beautiful difference Christ makes in one life. He seems to ripple out to others, doesn't he? ANYWAY... I grew up with feminist junk, and it's a good thing I don't remember much of it.

What I am reading on here, in some places, terrifies me.

My thoughts:
From Jen:
"Hagelin, I hereby revoke your uterus. You don't deserve it. People like me make it possible for people like you to have a job and put your name on the title to your home, yet you slap us in the face. Thanks. "

One: May I aske who you are that you feel you have the power to revoke someone's uterus? You are definitely not God, nor am I...
Two: If you don't want to get slapped in the face, don't put yourself in that situation.


From GoodOnPaper:
"we wouldn't be here if we didn't have a strong inner drive to accomplish as much as we can professionally."

I am sorry, I must have misread this... I am in college because I have a strong inner drive to NOT accomplish as much as I can professionally.

I would write more, but there are dishes to be done and papers to write.

God Bless You all!



A few Misconceptions
Hello women across the political spectrum! It's good to see us communicating! I hope that effort continues, though I don't think NeW has the answers for that anymore than radical feminist groups do. I'm sorry Ms. Hagerlin but you've made some mistakes in your argument. Radical feminism, which started closer to the ladte 60s/early 70s, included many different beliefs about women who stayed at home. One of these was the idea that women should be compensated by the government for unpaid labor at home. I also believe that choice is a true tenant of feminism and not something we proclaim but can't back up, unlike the Republican party's platform of morality.
Many women's studies departments have changed their names to gender studies departments where men and homosexuals are studied just as much as women. I think you're missing the point though- take any history class and you'll learn the history of men. The goal for women was to find their own space, history, and identity. I think we can only credit these programs for such space.
Also I have to strongly disagree with your interpretation of the Vagina Monologues. I've read several conservative articles now which miss the point of the monologues entirely. They're not about staring at your vagina or glorifying rape, they're a metaphor for accepting you body and your femininity. If you think about the difference in the way we view penises as symbols of power (look at the Washington Monument, largest phallus in the US) and vaginas as symbols of embarassment (who really had a good experience with their first menstrual cycle?). It's not about sex, it's about empowerment through love of the body/self first. In this age of eating disorders, you can't really argue against something that allows women to love their bodies just the way they are, and that's what the monologues encourage.
Finally I can't help but add that conservative women like Karin Agness, no matter how much they want to deny it, owe a huge debt to feminism. Women would not outnumber men in graduating classes throughout the nation today if it weren't for the movement. So go ahead and create your conservative groups and pretend to open up dialogue with those against whom you're already biased, but don't forget the price those radical women you now claim to hate paid to get you here today.

Missing the point entirely..
To answer Ms. Hagerlin's query as to "What about Men's Studies?" I'd like to offer a few answers, namely history, political science, and philosophy. The study of any of those three fields begins with an in-depth look at their beginnings and history -- and since women were essentially prohibited from participating from the public sphere of life for hundreds of years, women are excluded entirely from the study of how politics, modern thought, and all western and eastern cultures developed. That causes a great gap in our understanding of women. Some of us would like to better understand what exactly the role of women was while men were tromping about setting up societies and governments. Some of us would like to focus on literature as written by women, because of the undeniably difference in their perspectives from men, different because of the incomprable differences in their everyday lives. Some of us want to actively engage in discussions on womens' issues, what the role of women in society or government should be, abortion, body issues, etc.

I think it's pretty clear that there is substantive cause for creating a field dedicated to studying womens experiences and creations -- to deny that is to claim ignorance. If Ms. Hagerlin is claiming ignorance, that's fine. It'd be a proud moment for American conservativism, for once someone within the movement would be guilty of being honest.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.