“Women, Know Your Limits”

Optimism has never been my thing. I blame it on the rather high percentage of Irish blood I have in this body of mine. We Irish hold our traditions of pessimism dear, and if I am any kind of woman, I am a traditional one.

Nevertheless, as the election grows closer, I’m having an awfully hard time remaining true to type. There’s this strange feeling growing inside me that can only be described as hope. I am increasingly hopeful, with the occasional moment of confidence, that Mitt Romney will take Ohio and the presidency next Tuesday.

I’m also increasingly hopeful that this election cycle will deal a serious wound, if not the ultimate deathblow, to the whole idea of “women’s issues.” Or at least to the idea of women’s issues as politically conceived.

How Obama Sees Women: Alone, Dependent, In NeedI don’t want to let my hopes get too high on that count, but with Romney’s campaign finally closing the gender gap, I can’t help but dream of a day when certain politicians don’t think that the fastest way to secure a woman’s vote is to promise to be her substitute father, husband, lover, doctor, teacher, and friend (ala The Life of Julia).

Nor can I stop dreaming of a day when those same candidates don’t assume that all women are keen on having the right to kill their unborn children, and recognize that, in fact, more women identify themselves as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”

Try as I might to stop it, my mind continues to wander to a halcyon future when liberal politicians acknowledge that women own small businesses, have investments, and worry about pesky things like job creation, debt, and runaway entitlement spending.

In that future, they also recognize that women are rational creatures, with thoughts on war and peace, education and energy policy, trial lawyers and unions. In other words, they recognize that there’s a veritable laundry list of issues we consider more important than government-sponsored birth control.

Heck, since we’re dreaming, let’s just go for it and imagine a day where all politicians show some real concern for women’s health by pledging to put some of those government research dollars to work studying the many links between birth control and cancer.

Baseline minimum, I’m hoping for a future where presidents of the United States don’t think it’s anything other than nauseating to equate the act of voting with losing one’s virginity…where fathers of two young girls don’t have campaign ads mocking abstinence…and where those entrusted with safeguarding the Constitution realize that women might—just might—be more worried about the government violating the First Amendment and depriving Christians of their right to live their beliefs than they are about seeing Big Bird lose his government paycheck.

Okay, okay, maybe I’m getting a little out of control here. I should probably reign the fantasizing back in. It will take more than one electoral defeat to send the message to liberal politicians of Obama’s ilk that women are reasonable, intelligent creatures, who use our pretty little heads to think about more than sex and shopping. Indeed, that we think all sorts of thoughts and that those thoughts aren’t the same as every other woman’s.

Which I suppose, even more than the assumptions underlying President Obama’s particular approach to the politicking of women, is what really bothers me about the idea of “women’s issues.”

You see, just like men, women are capable of caring about a world that’s bigger than our own. Just like men, we work, pay bills, and worry about our children’s (or potential children’s) future. Just like men, we read and think and observe the world around us, then make decisions based on what we read and think and observe. And we do it all as individuals, not as a sex. Again, just like men.

But despite the fact that both women and men do all those things, no politician ever insinuates that men base their vote on their gender or their sex lives. They don’t cater exclusively to men’s self-interest, nor do they pander to men as a political monolith. They respect men as individuals, capable of independent thought and action. They acknowledge the differences in the opinions men hold.

That same respect isn’t given to women, not by President Obama and not by countless other politicians. Which is why the whole concept of “women’s issues” is laden with sexism from the start.

And yes, I know, there are bigger problems in the world than a president who puts his stamp of approval on raunchy, demeaning political ads. But ideas, as they say, have consequences, and in this administration, the persistent sexism of our president has had more than a few of those. The most serious infringement of religious liberty by the national government in our history is one of them. Christina Hoff Sommers uber-ably pointed out many others in an essay that ran earlier this week for National Review.

What concerns me most, however, are the numbers of otherwise intelligent women who still don’t have a problem with this administration’s conception of women. Who, in fact, seem to share it, and in doing so, are failing to grasp the deepest truths of their own dignity and worth.

What, I wonder, will it take for them to see beyond President Obama’s talk of being “pro-woman” and see the sexism underlying his every word?

What will it take for them to realize that if you strip away the Hollywood Starlets and armband tattoos, this video…

Says much the same thing as this video…

That’s Obama’s message to us lady folk in a nutshell: “Women, know your limits.”

Hasn’t the time come for us to say the same thing to him and the whole idea of “women’s issues”?

This Tuesday, we’ll get our chance.  Here’s hoping we take it.

Emily Stimpson is a Contributing Editor to “Our Sunday Visitor” and the author of “The Catholic Girl’s Survival Guide for the Single Years,” where she dishes on the Church’s teachings about women, marriage, sex, work, beauty, suffering, and more.

6,050 views

Categories:Uncategorized

88 thoughts on ““Women, Know Your Limits”

  1. Another Bad Emily Blog says:

    1) Blogging is supposed to be timely, and you message of hope for a Romney election is about 5 days too late. Maybe checking the trends more often would be good. Do the let secular news (ooh that liberal media) broadcast near FU? Or do you have to get it fist blessed from Rome?
    2) It must do your heart good to finish off your CV blogg career for 2012 with such deceit and manipulation. And to see the fans grovel, knowing what a joke you have made of them. This is Emily at her greatest, Ethics be damned, there is an election to win.
    3) You need to know that your understanding of women is not the same as the one held by most women, most americans, and even by most Catholics. Your own repressed self, and your subjegation to the men at FU seems to have put that weird sort of slant on how you view females. To make such absurd arguments about women and to be so petty and downright mean (cloaked by the appearance of ancient femine charm – you know lying nicely) is insulting to you and to your readers.
    4) Since you have nothing for which to base your supposed optimism on, everyone knows this is just trying to act boldly while finding out daily more and more to be embarrassed about supporting Romney. Yet, I doubt there are more than a handful that really care about your uneducated guess for the election, and your even less educated analysis of the state of women in modern society.
    5) I would bet that you would have as much to complain about (which is really all that your blogs seem to amount to) with Romney or Obama. Yet would you have to grace to recall all your assumptions were Romney to win and then disappoint on every account that you defended him as the best? You seem to comfortable with mistruths and manipulations, so I would not count on much honesty.
    6) Alas you will not be tested in that regard, so you can continue to play the role as the conscience of women, but only for the state, realizing that women are so well treated and respected within the Church structure. Isn’t it nice that those CV boys give you the opportunity to write on their blog. You must be a credit to your sex. Almost good enough to be a man.

  2. JTLiuzza says:

    “What concerns me most, however, are the numbers of otherwise intelligent
    women who still don’t have a problem with this administration’s
    conception of women. Who, in fact, seem to share it, and in doing so,
    are failing to grasp the deepest truths of their own dignity and worth.”

    This is the heart of the matter and the cornerstone of why secular feminism is a diabolical disorientation to which far too many women have succumbed. Thanks for the article.

    1. Succummed and loving it says:

      It would seem that Emily is more a threat to women that Obama could ever be. She is just nasty in her assessment, and her humor is abrassive and very telling of some deep rooted issues. Beware this women, she is not a healthy girl.

      1. JTLiuzza says:

        Other readers should note that your response is typical from the left. It is just a general smear on the author with a complete lack of any specifics. You accuse her of being a “threat to women” but stop short of explaining how. You attempt to impeach her by stating that she has “deep rooted issues.” An implication that she is somehow disturbed so should not be taken seriously. Is that the best you can do?

        What she has is truth. What you have is the prison of feminist lies, that you weakly attempt to defend with alinskyite innuendo, smear, and smoke and mirrors.

        Emily’s insightful comment is worth repeating here, the women who have swallowed the secular feminist lie are “failing to grasp the deepest truths of their own dignity and worth.”

        1. Grasping for Dignity says:

          Other readers? 3 of them or 4?
          What a meaningless comment on your meaningless post to Emily’s Blog of hate.
          But thanks for working so hard to justify it. Selling out your faith may not be enough, CV wants you soul. (The get a commission for Satan for each.)

          1. JTLiuzza says:

            Once again, no substance.

            Instead of addressing the points of the article, try to impeach the entire blog by implying it attracts few visitors.

            Next, accuse those you disagree with of exactly what you are guilty of, in this case being meaningless.

            Then trot out the other favorite tool of the intellectually bankrupt left, accuse those with whom you disagree of “hate.” That way you don’t have to actually strain a brain cell crafting an argument.

            Please get your head out of the leftist fog it is in and stop wasting other people’s time with your alinskyite tripe.

    2. Secular feminism denies the very femininity it avows to uphold. It degrades women into hedonistic harlots whose existence hinges on material gain and gratituous casual sex.
      God did not create women to be freewheeling libertines enslaved to acquiring stuff and random fornication- contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the entertainment industry.
      He created women to be caretakers, workers, mothers and wives- to be the heart of a family and/or someone who brings His comfort and peace.
      Proverbs 31 is a wonderful illustration of what God made woman to be. The pandering to “lady parts” that certain politicians are engaging in is offensive to those who aspire to live up to the ideal of Proverbs 31.

  3. JDub says:

    Just a quick comment for clarification. I followed your arguments right up until the videos at the end – I really don’t see how they’re at all alike or send the same message, but maybe I’m just not getting it. Could you explain your comparison of the two? Thanks!

  4. JDub says:

    Just a quick comment for clarification. I followed your arguments right up until the videos at the end – I really don’t see how they’re at all alike or send the same message, but maybe I’m just not getting it. Could you explain your comparison of the two? Thanks!

    1. Explanation and Clarification says:

      It is just a poor connection of some random and useless thoughts. If you followed it they I would guess you did a better job than she did when she proofread it befor posting. My guess is she had a few nasty comments to make, and just stiched them together trying to be humorous. She failed at that.

      1. Phil Steinacker says:

        Wow. That was pathetic.
        You are overpaid, or else they recruited you from high school. I didn’t know trolls had H.S. diplomas.

  5. bernie thomas says:

    It is a sad fact that Obama thinks if he gives women free contraception, they will vote for him. It is a sad fact that he thinks all women would like to lose their virginity to them but will take voting for him as an alternative. Single mothers are his biggest demographic. He is an exploitative man.

    1. Thomas Bernie says:

      It is sad that this old inaccuracy is still said outloud.
      Why can you be so comfortable lying?

  6. Christie says:

    Christy Stutzman says it all in this 10 minute video. You will relish this Emily!
    In a nut shell “If you have to take a pill to be equal to a man, it is the same as saying you are not!” -Christopher West

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jurQTg6sRMI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.