Carey Roberts
What if uber-women ran the show?
By Carey Roberts
Last Thursday Good Morning America host Robin Roberts ran a piece titled, Should Women be in Charge? Remarking on the Congressional hearings of three-piece-suited Wall Street bankers, Roberts offered the astute observation, "they're all men."
Wagging her editorial finger with disgust, the ABC co-host rued all the "Greed and glory and then risk and disaster on Wall Street." Roberts then asked her predominantly female audience, "Could testosterone be to blame?...Could more estrogen around have saved them and all of us from meltdown?"
Somehow I suspect Ms. Roberts didn't have Sarah Palin or Condoleezza Rice in mind when she asked this question. More likely she was thinking of "let's hear it for the power" Nancy Pelosi or "it takes a village" Hillary Clinton.
Before you begin to hyperventilate over my imminent riposte of Ms. Roberts' misandrous foray, I will reassure you that I support women in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, and all that stuff. But that's not the issue here — Roberts is making the claim to millions of Americans that women possess a superior biological make-up that entitles them to be the caretakers of our nation's financial storehouses.
I once thought biology-as-destiny arguments were passé, if not an outright tip-off of narrow-mindedness. But obviously I erred. To be fair, let's give the question a hearing, Should we hand over the reins of power to liberal women?
To be sure, women have become more influential over the past century in the political and economic spheres. Indeed in many areas, women already are in charge, especially when it comes to ballot box issues — it's no secret that politicians pay enormous attention to the predominance of females in the electorate.
So Robin Roberts' scenario is not simply hypothetical.
Pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick once stated flatly: "Women see government as their insurance." So no surprise, when women gained the right to vote, government spending increased exponentially. One analysis by economists John Lott and Larry Kenny, "How Dramatically did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" concluded that during the decade following the enactment of women's suffrage, state government expenditures doubled.
And where did all that extra money go? Hint: Not for highways or schools. Instead, the money was used to expand existing welfare programs and create new ones. As Harvard Law School professor Steven Stark explains, the voting gender gap "tends to be on issues involving the existence and expansion of the social-welfare state."
Stephen Baskerville of Patrick Henry College commented on this unprecedented development in his recent tour de force, "The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics:" http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2202.htm .
The good professor surveys the rise of federally-subsidized programs such as domestic violence initiatives, child abuse-reduction services, and efforts to crack-down on unemployed "deadbeat" dads. There is no proof these programs reach their intended goal, but one fact is clear: All have the effect of marginalizing fathers and sending off children to live in single-parent homes.
Once ensconced in a female-headed household, the child is placed at far greater risk of delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and school failure. In her book Guilty, Ann Coulter rails against single-mothers-by-choice who possess a "narcissistic obsession with self-indulgence" that is "breeding a huge underclass."
The problems associated with daddy-less children demand another round of welfare programs. Each year the social pathologies wrought by single parenthood cost taxpayers $112 billion — that's billion with a B — according to an analysis by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.
The most shocking part is this all happened by design. As feminist-Marxist Linda Gordon predicted 40 years ago, "Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."
Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork counters, "Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come to us from the Sixties...Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature."
Echoing the same theme, Baskerville warns that allowing family dissolution to continue will lead to a "massive restructuring of the social order, demographic trends that threaten the very survival of Western civilization, and perhaps least noticed, an exponential growth in the size and power of the state — the state at its most bureaucratic and tyrannical."
And that, my friend, would be the consequence of handing over the keys to the kingdom to the radical fembots.
© Carey Roberts
February 18, 2009
Last Thursday Good Morning America host Robin Roberts ran a piece titled, Should Women be in Charge? Remarking on the Congressional hearings of three-piece-suited Wall Street bankers, Roberts offered the astute observation, "they're all men."
Wagging her editorial finger with disgust, the ABC co-host rued all the "Greed and glory and then risk and disaster on Wall Street." Roberts then asked her predominantly female audience, "Could testosterone be to blame?...Could more estrogen around have saved them and all of us from meltdown?"
Somehow I suspect Ms. Roberts didn't have Sarah Palin or Condoleezza Rice in mind when she asked this question. More likely she was thinking of "let's hear it for the power" Nancy Pelosi or "it takes a village" Hillary Clinton.
Before you begin to hyperventilate over my imminent riposte of Ms. Roberts' misandrous foray, I will reassure you that I support women in the workplace, equal pay for equal work, and all that stuff. But that's not the issue here — Roberts is making the claim to millions of Americans that women possess a superior biological make-up that entitles them to be the caretakers of our nation's financial storehouses.
I once thought biology-as-destiny arguments were passé, if not an outright tip-off of narrow-mindedness. But obviously I erred. To be fair, let's give the question a hearing, Should we hand over the reins of power to liberal women?
To be sure, women have become more influential over the past century in the political and economic spheres. Indeed in many areas, women already are in charge, especially when it comes to ballot box issues — it's no secret that politicians pay enormous attention to the predominance of females in the electorate.
So Robin Roberts' scenario is not simply hypothetical.
Pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick once stated flatly: "Women see government as their insurance." So no surprise, when women gained the right to vote, government spending increased exponentially. One analysis by economists John Lott and Larry Kenny, "How Dramatically did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" concluded that during the decade following the enactment of women's suffrage, state government expenditures doubled.
And where did all that extra money go? Hint: Not for highways or schools. Instead, the money was used to expand existing welfare programs and create new ones. As Harvard Law School professor Steven Stark explains, the voting gender gap "tends to be on issues involving the existence and expansion of the social-welfare state."
Stephen Baskerville of Patrick Henry College commented on this unprecedented development in his recent tour de force, "The Dangerous Rise of Sexual Politics:" http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2202.htm .
The good professor surveys the rise of federally-subsidized programs such as domestic violence initiatives, child abuse-reduction services, and efforts to crack-down on unemployed "deadbeat" dads. There is no proof these programs reach their intended goal, but one fact is clear: All have the effect of marginalizing fathers and sending off children to live in single-parent homes.
Once ensconced in a female-headed household, the child is placed at far greater risk of delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and school failure. In her book Guilty, Ann Coulter rails against single-mothers-by-choice who possess a "narcissistic obsession with self-indulgence" that is "breeding a huge underclass."
The problems associated with daddy-less children demand another round of welfare programs. Each year the social pathologies wrought by single parenthood cost taxpayers $112 billion — that's billion with a B — according to an analysis by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.
The most shocking part is this all happened by design. As feminist-Marxist Linda Gordon predicted 40 years ago, "Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all."
Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork counters, "Radical feminism is the most destructive and fanatical movement to come to us from the Sixties...Totalitarian in spirit, it is deeply antagonistic to traditional Western culture and proposes the complete restructuring of society, morality, and human nature."
Echoing the same theme, Baskerville warns that allowing family dissolution to continue will lead to a "massive restructuring of the social order, demographic trends that threaten the very survival of Western civilization, and perhaps least noticed, an exponential growth in the size and power of the state — the state at its most bureaucratic and tyrannical."
And that, my friend, would be the consequence of handing over the keys to the kingdom to the radical fembots.
© Carey Roberts
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
