Posts on Women

When she first burst onto the Republican scene, we wrote a few posts about the Religious Right’s newfound love of the idea of Sarah Palin as Vice President even though they would have opposed the idea of allowing her to be a leader in their churches.    

For those right-wing leaders who didn’t outright oppose the idea that Palin might have an “unbiblical” career outside of the home, their explanation was that so long as her husband Todd approved of her candidacy it was okay.

So I wonder what these Religious Right leaders think now that they are finding out that Palin wasn’t even planning on asking Todd if it was okay until John McCain suggested that she should at least run it by him:

PALIN: Just looking right in my eyes and saying, Are you ready for this? Would you like to do this? And I said, I would be honored to run with you. Absolutely. […]

VAN SUSTEREN: Todd wasn’t with you. Did you call Todd then?

PALIN: Well, before I said yes. That was Senator McCain’s recommendation. He says, Why don’t you call your husband and find out, you know, if he’s good with this also. I called Todd, and Todd, too, was no hesitation. He was like, Absolutely. This will be good. Yes, do this. And just good confirmation that, of course, we were to say yes.

It must come as something of a shock for Richard Land, who was advocating for Palin months before McCain chose her, to find out that Palin had to be reminded to talk to her husband about it - especially since Land believes that her husband’s approval was a fundamental requirement, saying the “only thing that would disqualify Gov. Palin from being governor or vice president … would be if her husband didn't want her to do it.”

Over the weekend, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a story about a man who had worked for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for 17-years and then lost his job when it was discovered that he had failed to register with the Selective Service.  He has now joined three other ex-federal employees in filing a lawsuit arguing that the Selective Service System violates the Constitution by discriminating against men.

You just know that in any article about women in the military, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness is going to be quoted saying something predictably reasoned and insightful, and she does not disappoint: 

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush opened a discussion on the gender issue, convening the "Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces." The commission was overwhelmingly against both forced military service for females or placing them in combat units.

"You don't draft anyone unless you need combat replacements," said Elaine Donnelly, a member of the commission and president of the Center for Military Readiness, a non-partisan group. "Female soldiers in direct ground combat situations would not have an equal opportunity to survive."

She criticizes feminist groups for making "unreasonable" demands on the military.

It is exactly that sort of expertise and commitment to equality that landed Donnelly on the cover of the last issue of Focus on the Family’s “Citizen” magazine and won her accolades from Robert Knight and Tom Minnery:

[I]t’s hard to run over Elaine Donnelly. She has credentials, and she knows her subject. In 1984, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger appointed her to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; in 1992 Presi-dent George H.W. Bush appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Her articles have been widely published, and she has appeared on many national news programs.

But hers is a small organization, and she needs reinforcements. She needs to know that she is not the only civilian willing to defend the Defense Department. Let me ask you to do three things:

1) Find excerpts of her testimony on the Internet and watch the nastiness leveled at her. It will make you mad, and that will get you energized for points two and three.

2) Find your way to her Web site, CMRlink.org, and read her testimony—all of it, including her highly-detailed footnotes, and you will get an expert’s analysis of the problem of homosexuality in the military as well as the growing reality of women in infantry combat units.

3) Make a generous donation to her Center for Military Readiness—it’s tax-deductible—and then keep on making them, and from time to time enclose a personal note about your pride in participating in this particular battle. It is one we must win.

Elaine Donnelly is indeed a hero to a lot of us at Focus on the Family, including Dr. Dobson. We’ve supported her work every way we know how, for a long time. Now it’s your turn to step up.

Apparently, tomorrow the Eagle Forum and RADAR [Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting] are co-hosting an all-day event entitled “The Conflict between Federal Domestic Violence Policies and Traditional Family Values” [PDF] at The Heritage Foundation that will focus on how to do away with the Violence Against Women Act: . 

The Violence Against Women Act, which now costs the federal government $1 billion a year, has spawned an industry that undermines Constitutional protections, thwarts welfare reform, weakens military readiness, fosters immigration fraud, and is harmful to families. This conference will probe how to rein in a federal law that increasingly encroaches on the personal lives of millions of Americans.

Just check out the forum’s agenda:

9:30
Feminist Fatherphobia and Domestic Violence
Phyllis Schlafly – Eagle Forum

10:00
How Marriage Protects Against Domestic Violence
Robert Rector – Heritage

10:45
How Domestic Violence Policies Weaken Families and Harm Children
Stephen Baskerville, PhD – Patrick Henry College
Foundation

11:15
VAWA: Victimizing All Taxpayers Act?
Benjamin Foster, PhD, CPA – University of Louisville College of Business

11:45
Impact on Military Readiness
Elaine Donnelly – Center for Military Readiness

It’s easy to understand that “marriage protects against domestic violence” provided that you share Schlafly’s view that wives cannot be raped by their husbands.

Just yesterday we were noting the strange disconnect among the Religious Right between the idea that it is perfectly okay for Sarah Palin to be Vice President when she could not, in many religious denominations, serve in the capacity of a priest or pastor.  

As we noted then, this was especially obvious when it came to Southern Baptist leaders who are well-known for their belief that women must submit to their husbands and notoriously opposed to female pastors  … but even we are amazed at how deeply this opposition apparently runs:

Smiling women on the cover of a slick magazine. Sold from under the counter. Must request it from store clerk.

That’s not something a buyer would typically find in a Christian bookstore. Not unless it’s one of the more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores across the United States, including about six in metro Atlanta.

Gospel Today, the Fayetteville-published magazine, was pulled off the racks by the bookstores’ owner, the Southern Baptist Convention. The problem? The five smiling women on the cover are women of the cloth — church pastors.

Southern Baptist polity says that’s a role reserved for men.

Teresa Hairston, owner of Gospel Today, whose glossy pages feature upbeat articles about health, living, music and ministry, said she discovered by e-mail that the September/October issue of the magazine had been demoted to the realm of the risque.

“It’s really kind of sad when you have people like [Gov.] Sarah Palin and [Sen.] Hillary Clinton providing encouragement and being role models for women around the world that we have such a divergent opinion about women who are able to be leaders in the church,” Hairston said. “I was pretty shocked.”

Chris Turner, a spokesman for Lifeway Resources, which runs the stores for the Southern Baptist Convention, said, “It is contrary to what we believe.”

Adelle M. Banks of the Religion News Service had an interesting article the other day looking at the issue of why Religious Right leaders who tend to think that wives should submit to their husbands and that women can't be church leaders are nonetheless gung-ho about Sarah Palin's VP candidacy: 

There may never be a female pastor leading Tony Perkins' Southern Baptist congregation in Louisiana, but there could be a woman taking over the vice president's mansion in Washington.

And as Perkins sees it, there's no contradiction there whatsoever.

"It's not a spiritual role," said Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a church elder, who calls Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a "brilliant pick" for the Republican ticket.

"An elected official is not a spiritual leader -- and that's what the Scripture speaks to."

As Richard Land explains, "where the New Testament is silent, we're silent. Where the New Testament speaks, we're under its authority." And, as such, Palin is allowed to serve as Vice President because the Bible doesn't say she can't.  But if her husband decides he doesn't want her to be VP, then she can't: 

Land's wife works as a psychotherapist, but he said he couldn't see himself as "first dude" (a term used by Palin's husband). Still, he thinks decisions about roles are up to each husband and wife -- including Sarah and Todd Palin.

"The only thing that would disqualify Gov. Palin from being governor or vice president, in my opinion, would be if her husband didn't want her to do it," he said.

This issues seems to be especially difficult for Southern Baptist leaders like Land who, after all, are the primary proponents of the idea that wives must submit to their husbands, which is why we end up getting confusing pieces like this from Al Mohler:

When Gov. Palin was announced as Sen. John McCain's choice as running mate I was elated about her pro-life commitments and political philosophy, and I remain so. I also told The Wall Street Journal that, if I were her pastor, I would be concerned about how she could balance these responsibilities and what this would mean for her family and her roles as wife and mother. The news that broke over the weekend would make me only more concerned. But my concern would be for her and for her family -- not for the nation.

I am doing my best to be honest -- and not hypocritical -- about how I see this new situation. I could not imagine this in my own family, nor, I am confident, could the vast majority of those conservative Christians who are celebrating the nomination of Gov. Palin as Vice President. I have full confidence that my wife Mary can lead and run anything, from General Motors to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nevertheless, I also know that I, along with our children, would find our worlds turned upside down. Beyond this, I believe that she would be less happy, less fulfilled, and less strategically deployed. She runs a program that influences the lives of hundreds of women and serves on the board of directors of our local crisis pregnancy center, but her most significant impact will be on the lives of two children who cannot imagine life without her -- and without her active engagement and motherly love.

When John McCain named Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Right could barely contain its glee and among those most ethused by the pick was Phyllis Schlafly who, even after Palin was a no-show at her convention reception, had nothing but praise for her and her priorities: 

Schlafly told WND McCain's choice of Palin was the best he could possibly have made.

"Sarah Palin has reinvigorated the entire Republican Party," she said. "And it's across the board. It's not just pro-lifers. She's a breath of fresh air. She's right on every issue."

Schlafly addressed criticism that Palin is hypocritical, because her demanding job as a political leader, while mothering five children, conflicts with the traditional values she espouses.

"We do stand up for the role of the full-time homemaker," Schlafly replied. "On the other hand, a lot of women work hard. I think people who don't have any children, or have one or two, don't understand what life is like with more children."

This reminded me of a post entitled "Don't Marry Phyllis Schlafly" that I wrote a few years back after Schlafly blasted Steve Forbes for apologizing for publishing a widely criticized piece by Michael Noer in his magazine entitled "Don't Marry Career Women."

In the original piece, Noer listed several reasons why "whatever you do, [no men should] marry a woman with a career."  When Forbes, the publisher, was forced to apologize for running the piece, Schlafly came to Noer's defense:

Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly feels Forbes has no reason to apologize since the facts and statistics Noer cited were sound. In fact, she suggests, an article like this should have been written 20 years ago, and this one still hits the right note today because, contrary to the feminist myth, a woman really cannot "have it all" -- at least, not all at the same time.

To Schlafly, this is a simple question of practicality. "You can't have it all at the same time. There are not that many hours in the day," she asserts. "Now, with our lengthened lifespan, a woman can have it all; I think I've had it all," she says, "but you don't have it at the same time. A baby is extremely demanding -- even more demanding than a husband."

But the issue Noer's article raises is not really about women who have careers, the pro-family spokeswoman points out. What the author is really highlighting in the Forbes article, she contends, is the problem of wives who set the wrong priorities.

"A lot of the newspapers ... have published articles about how some of the most highly educated women -- women who graduated from the elite colleges and then got graduate degrees like MBAs or JDs -- have put their career ahead of husband and family," Schlafly notes. "In many of these cases, in the woman's scale of values, the husband is ranking third," she says.

The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around.

Presumably, Schlfaly's enthusiastic support of Palin stems from the fact that Palin has her priorities straight and won't be putting her "career ahead of husband and family" because, after all, a "baby is extremely demanding -- even more demanding than a husband."