The Misogyny in the Heart of James Taranto
SDS quotes James Taranto’s post, styling it "The misogyny at the heart of contemporary feminism":
The New York Times weighs in with a bizarrely revealing editorial:[Referring to his chief of staff in the governor’s office, Romney said:] “She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school.”Flexibility is a good policy. But what if a woman had wanted to go home to study Spanish? Or rebuild an old car? Or spend time with her lesbian partner? Would Mr. Romney have been flexible about that? Or if a man wanted similar treatment?True equality is not satisfied by allowing the little lady to go home early and tend to her children.
Motherhood is by far the most important difference between women and men. To sneer at it as the equivalent of a hobby or an adult relationship, as the Times does, is to betray the misogyny at the heart of contemporary feminism.
Taranto’s argument is a trainwreck of backwards thinking.
The New York Times points out, correctly, that Romney’s alternative to fair pay and equal rights is, apparently, ensuring that women have the flexibility they need to conform to traditional gender roles.
Taranto can offer some helpful perspective to anybody who believes that feminism has accomplished its goals and ought to go sit quietly and stop making the men uncomfortable. Look at his knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that shoehorning women into the mother role isn’t an adequate response to gender inequality.
I’m all for allowing people the flexibility they need to take care of their children. I’m not, however, for Taranto’s insistence that parenting is a sacred duty that adheres only to women. And I have serious issues with Romney’s assumption that “issues that affect women in the workplace” are the same thing as “issues that affect working parents.”