Independent Women's Forum - Carol Liebau

Marriage, Deployment & Abuse

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:54:00 EDT

A couple of days ago, I posted this item on my own blog in response to a study attempting to link troop deployments to child abuse. In point of fact, it seems likely that the relevant issue in examining the likelihood of child abuse has less to do with the fact that one of the parents has been deployed, and more to do with the fact that such deployments mean that there are more single-parent homes. And abuse is more likely in these than in homes where the parents are married and living together.

Today, J. Bradford Wilcox has a brilliant defense of marriage at National Review Online. There, he notes:

Typically, two parents bring more social and economic resources to the parenting enterprise than does one parent. Two parents offer one another mutual support, encouragement, and relief when a child is difficult, disobedient, or depressed. For instance, a husband can step in and relieve a wife who has grown angry or exhausted with her children. This, by the way, is one reason married moms are more likely to have children who report good relationships with them; because of the financial, practical, and emotional support they receive from their husbands, married moms are more likely to be affectionate and authoritative-- and less likely to be abusive-- than are single mothers.

Of course, the same liberals who routinely extol the virtue sof single parenthood are quite willing to condemn the pathologies that may accompany it -- but only when they can be misattributed to the exigencies of military service.

The (Ugly) Shape of Things to Come?

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:25:00 EDT

What problem could the National Organization of Women possibly have with the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative, which aims to build job skills and help fathers connect with their children?

Well, NOW is calling the program unfair and seeking access to it on the grounds of gender discrimination -- supposedly, it only helps men (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032802065.html). Of course, that ignores the fact that responsible fathers are good for mothers and for girls . . . What's more, if this type of initiative constitutes gender discrimination, how would NOW characterize the vastly more expensive Violence Against Women Act?

Know that this is just a taste of the foolishness you?ll see if the lefties in Congress actually succeed in their efforts to resurrect the so-called Equal Rights Amendment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702357.html).

Feminism: A Health Hazard?

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:26:00 EDT

A new Swedish study has suggested that feminism may constitute a health hazard to men and women alike. Interestingly, the article talks about "equality" presenting health risks -- but it should be pointed out that the term is used in conformity with feminist theory, where equality is defined as "sameness" between the sexes. And given that fact, is it any wonder that there are adverse consequences when men are treated exactly like women and women are treated exactly like men?

It's amusing that the study also speculates that "equality has not yet been fully achieved in society and that these effects are part of a transitional process on the road to fairness." In other words, men need to be forced more completely into the private sphere before things can truly improve. Reminds one a bit of the leftist political scientists who have continued to believe that socialism (or communism, for that matter) can still work -- it's just that the theories have never been implemented correctly.

Check out an article about the Swedish study here.

A Ridiculous Phenomenon

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:02:00 EST

The Christian Science Monitor has a piece this morning about "Baby Loves Disco" -- a new program under which moms can take their toddlers to nightclubs during the day. According to the article, the program is immensely popular.

It seems like a sad sign of the times. Are there mothers out there who really don't understand why a dark nightclub, plenty of adult strangers, loud music and a cash bar combined present a less-than-wholesome scenario for little ones? Or are the parents' desires so important that the best interests of the little ones simply don't matter?

Increasingly, one reads stories like these that suggest that children have become the new equivalent of the tiny dogs starlets are wont to carry around in their purses -- seen as the season's cute and cuddly must-have accessory, but justifying no restrictions whatsoever on the grown-ups' desires or way of life.

A Miscarriage of Justice

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:45:00 EST

Just now on Fox News, Patrick Fitzgerald has announced that no more prosecutions will be forthcoming. It strikes me that Lewis Libby has been caught in the cross-hairs of two incredibly unfortunate phenomena: a politicized trial, coupled with the kind of "mental intent" case that depends on inherently unverifiable determinations of credibility. The jury chose to believe Tim Russert and Matt Cooper over Lewis Libby when the evidence conflicted -- a determination that may have been made in absolute good faith, but is also somewhat foreseeable in a city as heavily Democratic as the District of Columbia. What's likewise unfortunate is that such jury determinations about credibility are almost never overturned on appeal. The whole thing strikes me as one more object lesson in the scary miscarriages of justice that can occur in a legal system when there are prosecutors who are overzealous rather than judicious.

Steinem's Ugly Little Truth

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:58:00 EST

After a lifetime spent identifying herself as a feminist, Gloria Steinem essentially concedes in today's International Herald Tribune that racial and gender identity has little -- and should have little -- to do with political decisionmaking.

At least, that's what she must be saying, since she justifies the left's refusal to support either Justice Thomas or Elizabeth Dole.

What remains after such a major concession? Nothing but the fact that "feminism" and other racial politics have been nothing but a tool used by the left in order to bolster liberal candidates, while being black or a woman is easily ignored when conservative (or Republican) beliefs accompany it.

We all knew it . . . it's just nice to have one of 70's feminism's founding mothers admitting that it was always less about gender than about left wing ideology.

Feminism Begins at Home, Katie

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:25:00 EST

On her blog, Katie Couric laments the absence of any women (besides herself, of course) "at the table" during a high-level White House briefing before the President's "surge" speech.

Writing in the faux-naif tone that's no doubt calibrated to appeal to what she perceives as Middle American dimwits, Couric confides:

George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume -- I couldn't help but notice, despite how far we've come, that I was still the only woman there. Well, there was some female support staff near the door. But of the people at the table, the 'principals' in the meeting, I was the only one wearing a skirt.

Hm. Of course, there are very few women who have seniority or experience equivalent to that of Schieffer, Blitzer, Hume, Russert, and even Williams -- and that includes Katie Couric (whose ascent to the anchor chair could be attributed more to perkiness and high q ratings than to hard core journalistic experience). It would be instructive if Couric could point out some of the women who had put in the hours, days and years of reporting of, say, Schieffer and Hume, and who were still unjustifiably excluded (Judy Woodruff has retired, and Christiane Amanpour isn't into domestic reporting); but that, of course, isn't as easy as mouthing the politically correct feminist sentiments bound to be palatable at assorted Manhattan dinner parties.

Of course, as more women advance through the ranks, more women will be eligible to be invited to these very senior meetings. That is, of course, if the senior women in positions of power -- like Katie Couric -- are willing to advance them.

How remarkably revealing it was, then, to read that since Katie took over at CBS News, female reporters at the network have received 40 percent fewer assignments than they did under her predecessor, Bob Schieffer.

Feminism begins at home, Katie.

Flashing the Cameras

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:05:00 EST

At the risk of seeming to indulge in vulgar self-promotion, I'm linking to my piece today in the American Spectator Online about the new trend of "starlets" flashing the paparazzi -- and why such behavior should be stigmatized, rather than ignored.

Speaking of Bubbleheaded Celebrities . . .

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:40:00 EST

Just below, Allison references Meg Ryan's efforts to "empathize" with the desperately poor women of Jehangirpuri. Here at home, though, actress Scarlett Johansson is slamming President Bush for holding traditional views on sex, criticizing abstinence education, and declaring that, if the President had his way, "Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions."

In the past, Johansson has protested that she's "not promiscuous". Whether or not she's promiscuous, she is certainly a bubblehead. Perhaps it's not surprising that she condemns education that encourages abstinence as "unrealistic" -- she's opined in the past that "I do think on some basic level we are animals, and by instinct we kind of breed accordingly."

What Johansson seems to ignore is the fact that human beings have many impulses. What elevates us above animals is our capacity to establish moral standards that prompt us to curb those impulses in the service of higher values.

No doubt she's aware of the power of example . . . she's let it be known that she's tested for HIV twice yearly. Given the influence over young girls that she wields, it's unfortunate that -- rather than encouraging young girls to behave in ways that will protect their self-respect and physical and emotional health -- she simply buys into the reductionist notion that young people are little more than breeding animals, who can't be expected to exercise self-restraint when it comes to sex.

Must We ALWAYS Have Paris?

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:24:00 EST

As Charlotte Allen notes below, a healthy disgust for Paris Hilton is indeed a sign of some "lingering cultural sanity."

But it's worth noting that the contempt Hilton elicits isn't universal. According to a 2005 survey conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, Paris Hilton is one of the top five celebrities teen girls envy most. That's too bad -- because teen girls are the demographic that would seem most susceptible to Hilton's influence.

Certainly, just because girls envy Paris Hilton doesn't necessarily mean they admire her -- but it certainly doesn't suggest that they despise her, either. Perhaps the poll results suggest that either teen girls are coming to believe that notoriety in itself is a positive (even if it derives from silly, unwholesome behavior), or else they simply don't share the larger culture's disdain for the persona of Paris Hilton. Whatever the reason, it's a result that should concern parents at least mildly -- along with everyone who cares about young girls.

Clothes Make the Woman?

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:06:00 EST

It's impossible to let the weekend pass without at least a reference to the mash note to Nancy Pelosi penned by Washington Post's style guru, Robin Givhan.

As you'll recall, she's the one who criticized the utterly appropriate clothes worn by the Roberts children for the announcement of their dad's nomination as Chief Justice, turned the Secretary of State into a sex object and compared her to a dominatrix (before conceding that her clothes were "not inappropriate"), and most famously characterized Katherine Harris as someone who "can't even use restraint when she wields a mascara wand."

Of course, it's not the first time that Givhan has been accused of bias (see this, for example). But it is one of the clearest examples. Compare the slams of Katherine Harris above to this love-sick paen to Pelosi:

[S]he wore it well. She looked polished and tasteful in front of the cameras. It is tempting to even go so far as to say that she looked chic . . .

Pelosi cuts a distinctive figure. She gives the impression that she cares about the way she looks, but gives no indication that she obsesses about it. Such pride is an admirable quality . . . (except, presumably, when Katherine Harris manifests it).

Pelosi appears consciously, comfortably and authoritatively female.

Pelosi had to decide how a woman who will be second in line of succession to the presidency should look. And what she came up with is someone who wears a neutral-colored, softly tailored power suit. One that is accessorized with style rather than rote references to love of country. She looks dignified and serious. And in this case, she also happens to look quite good.

Note, in particular, Givhan's evident relief that Pelosi sports none of the emblems of patriotism -- in her view, how irredeemably vulgar would that be? It's so much more sophisticated just to downplay one's allegiance, apparently. What's more, if Givhan's liberal bias were operating consistently, she would have to note just how much the ability to buy expensive clothes -- she names brands like Chanel, St. John, Akris, (and Ellen Tracy, one for "the people") -- helps the women wearing them look "dignified" and "serious" and "good." Because the truth is that it helps a lot.

But none of that today, as Givhan basks in the glow of a new clothes-crush. And if you think Givhan likes Nancy Pelosi, imagine the raptures a President Hillary would elicit!

A Timely Warning

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:49:00 EST

Given voters' experiences with exit polls in the two most recent elections, journalists are right to warn about their potential to mislead, usually in favor of Democratic candidates. Once the real results start coming in, there may be some indicators of how things are going to go, nationwide. If both George Allen in Virginia and Michael Steele in Maryland are doing well, Republicans have reason for optimism. But if it's James Webb and Ben Cardin, the opposite is true. And if Virginia's going Republican and Maryland going Democrat, it would seem to be a pretty par-for-the-course election -- and hard to call until later.

Even so, it's worth pointing out that with a mid-term second election, a somewhat divided base, an unpopular President, a difficult war, $3 gas earlier in the year, and assorted ethics and sex scandals, it's amazing that the election is even in play. That may be because Democrats have offered nothing to inspire confidence in their leadership, as even uber-liberal Michael Kinsley concedes.

Has It Really Come To This?

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:53:00 EDT

Must everything really be aimed below the waist? This ad on You Tube is called "My First Time."

It's a 60 second PSA about . . . voting. As the title suggests, several women (including Angie Harmon and Felicity Huffman) deploy an arsenal of double entendres: Harmon asks, "You want me to tell you about the first time I did it?" and Huffman confides that she likes to "do it in the morning, when [she]'s fresh." It's supposed to convince women to cast a ballot in the upcoming elections.

Maybe I just suffer from a tragic lack of imagination, but it seems something of a stretch to try to infuse voting with sexual overtones. Or maybe it's just a regrettable sign of the times that nothing can truly be considered "fun" or even "worthwhile" without a sexual element.

Misplaced Outrage

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:52:00 EDT

The New York Times runs a blood-chilling piece on the disregard for human rights -- and brutal mistreatment of women -- that's taking place in Chechnya.

So what do the American feminists have to say? Typically, NOW has chosen instead to focus on the really important things . . . like complaining that Plan B's placement behind pharmacy counters may mean that a woman seeking emergency contraception must endure "a moralizing lecture from the cashier or pharmacy clerk." Oh, the horror.

Sexualizing Little Girls

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:39:00 EDT

The New York Times style section has run a piece reporting on the budding fashionistas of the pre-tween set.

Teaching little girls to ape women's fashion strikes me as a remarkably poor idea -- not because of some critique of capitalist, consumer culture, but because modern fashion is so oriented toward often-vulgar displays of flesh or attitude that are doubly inappropriate when exhibited by little girls. As the piece notes:

To the delight - or consternation - of their elders, the conventional sugar-and-spice girls' style formula is laced these days with sass, the clothes not so much sexy as candidly provocative in their mimicry of grown-up fare.

Who, exactly, is "delighted" at the prospect of little girls prancing around in "sassy" and "provocative" clothes? And are they the kind of people one would really want around her children?

Tragedy: A Virgin at 30

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:43:00 EDT

In a sad sign of the times, there's a blog at Jane magazine devoted to a 29 year old girl named Sarah. It's titled "Sarah Needs You" -- which forces the question, for what? Is she afflicted by illness? Has she lost a loved one in Iraq? Does she suffer from a lifelong disability?

None of the above -- although, from the perspective of Jane's editors, her condition might be even more tragic. You see, she's a virgin. At 29!!! And so you, I and everyone else we know are to hope desperately that Sarah finds someone with whom to have sex by the time she turns 30 in November. Otherwise . . . [shudder] . . . she will be a 30 year old virgin!!!

Is this really what sexual mores have come to in America? Where it's not only stigmatizing not to have slept around -- but it's perfectly okay to discuss this fact not only with everyone you know, but also everybody you don't?

Talk about tragic . . . How exactly does "Sarah" think she's going to feel about all this when she someday has a 13 year old daughter, and she wants to encourage that little girl to respect herself and her body?

Katie Couric: Surprisingly Sensible

info@iwf.org (Carol Liebau) — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:33:00 EDT

It's almost impossible for any conservative to be a fan of Katie Couric -- the oh-so-perky committed liberal slated to anchor the "CBS Evening News."

But she did show herself at least to be a person of good sense in her recent comments about whether she'd journey to the Middle East to don a flak jacket and cover the burgeoning war. "I think the situation there is so dangerous, and as a single parent with two children, that's something I won't be doing," Couric said.

No doubt the same feminists who nipped at the heels of Elizabeth Vargas when she stepped down as ABC anchor will bay at the moon once more. After all, women must feel no special obligation either to bear or raise children in order to be truly "liberated."

But the fact is that Couric is exactly right. Her husband is dead, and if she's killed covering the war for CBS, her children will be orphans -- a risk no responsible parent could ever deliberately court.

In an era when, frankly, any number of correspondents can report from a war zone as ably as an anchorman him (or her) self -- and the audience knows it -- it's a bit silly anyway to cherish the notion that the news is somehow more authentic or genuine simply because one television reporter is covering it, rather than another.

And like it or not, the feminists are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Couric wasn't chosen to anchor the CBS news because she's a heck of a war reporter. It's because she's a celebrity, with enormous appeal to women -- appeal that won't be diminished one bit because she understands the special responsibility that comes with being a mother.