The Thinking 
Housewife
 

Justice With — and Without — a Smile

June 22, 2012

 

 

FRED OWENS writes:

Compare the photos. The first one shows the Supreme Court Justices in 1917, with stern and serious faces — one would even describe them as being “judgmental.”

Of course, we don’t see the justices of 1917 in their private moments, and no doubt they smiled, joked, and laughed at certain moments in their lives, but they reserved their serious faces for their serious work of judgment.

But we’ve come a long way, baby. Now we serve up justice with a smile in this 2012 photo of the Supreme Court. Let’s be lighthearted, joyful and casual — not “judgmental” or, God forbid, serious.

Read More »

 

Procreation in Liberaldom

June 22, 2012

 

C.S. LEWIS said many of our most hailed scientific advances do not represent a conquest over Nature so much as a conquest of some men by other men. So it is with contraception. “Each generation exercises power over its successors; and each, in so far as it modifies the environment bequeathed to it and rebels against tradition, resists and limits the power of its predecessors,” Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man.

There are at least four ways in which the mass acceptance of contraception represents a form of subjugation of some by others. Read More »

 

Oh My, We Can’t Have it All — Yet

June 22, 2012

 

A PRINCETON professor who left her job in the State Department because it was wrecking havoc on the lives of her teenage sons, has tiresomely written about it in Atlantic Magazine, as if reporting on this type of conflict for the very first time. Joining the ever-swelling ranks of women who exploit their personal lives for journalistic fame and fortune, Anne-Marie Slaughter has created a virtual firestorm of controversy, however, because she states that it is hard for women to have it all. What is the solution? Slaughter asks.

The solution is this. Women can have it all, she says, but only when women have it all. Yes, friends, this is the startling crux of her argument. She writes:

The best hope for improving the lot of all women, and for closing what Wolfers and Stevenson call a “new gender gap”—measured by well-being rather than wages—is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.

The essay is no less oblivious and dishonest than the mountains of other pieces by whining feminists.

I suspect one reason it has caused such a storm, and Slaughter is viewed as something of a traitor despite her full support for feminism, is that she has had the audacity to speak of the difficulty of raising even teenage children with a high-powered and well-paying job. That’s a no-no.

Slaughter’s focus, of course, is on the happiness of women and not on the ultimate effects of their decisions on their dependents, on the mood and temper of society at large, or on employers forced to tolerate the relatively low retention rate and “flexibility” of women employees.

Read More »