The Wages of Motherhood

June 2012

“How thick is your bubble?”

This au courant question acknowledges that many, many people, including — or is it especially? — politicians, operate on the assumption that everyone else shares their warped perceptions and mistaken suppositions. One false assumption regularly trotted out by progressives, and which underlays most mistaken feminist ideas, is that in the old days, before many women worked outside the home, wives and mothers hung around the house doing little of real value. Tradition-minded folks know better, of course, but the myth persists. When Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen said on CNN that Ann Romney, wife of the presumptive Republican candidate for the presidency, “has never worked a day in her life,” she gave notice that the myth is alive and well in all the predictable places. By doing so, she unwittingly kicked the Obama campaign in the shin: Rosen’s a hotshot public-relations executive and a business partner of former Obama communications director Anita Dunn. Her comment gave Republicans the chance to paint their adversaries as haters of wholesome motherhood, and to decry what they perceive as the Democrats’ “War on Mothers.”

What’s amusing is that Rosen and the rest of the chicken-little feminists who’ve staked all their beliefs on “reproductive rights,” and lately feel them threatened, have long been decrying what they perceive as a Republican “War on Women.” So now we get to hear these selfsame sirens call the countervailing accusations of a “War on Mothers” a “manufactured controversy.” The pot called the kettle black.

Both so-called wars, the product of political strategists and pundits, are mostly unedifying for the electorate. But they do reveal biases that drive whole parties and White House administrations. Courtesy of candid, unrehearsed comments, we occasionally get glimpses behind the carefully managed sound bites and learn what party operatives really believe. To his credit, Obama immediately distanced himself from Rosen and flatly contradicted her, but the episode compounded the impression given by Sebelius, Pelosi, Clinton, et al., that the President is surrounded by a cabal of feminist diehards.

As the Rosen-Romney flap showed, some loud and powerful people have no sense at all of the vital role of stay-at-home mothers, and regard the occupation as some sort of luxury item for people who don’t live in the “real world.” The real world, however, begs to differ. In the world of real business (where all people vote — with their wallets) one major player understands the value of women’s work. Procter & Gamble, the planet’s largest advertiser, is laying down loads of cash to woo mothers. The consumer-product colossus’s latest, and biggest ever, campaign, tied to the London 2012 Olympics, is called “Thank You, Mom,” and focuses on thanking mothers of Olympians and would-be Olympians around the world. The New York Times (Apr. 16) calls it a “global serenade to mothers.” The international campaign, which includes digital media, print and television ads, and even a mobile-phone application, features mothers nurturing their young athletes: feeding them, getting them off to practice, then returning home to do laundry, wash dishes, and make beds.

You have two options:

  1. Online subscription: Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
  2. Single article purchase: Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.

If you're already a subscriber log-in here.

New Oxford Notes: June 2012

Read our posting policy Add a comment
I am quoting Adam Smith,Wealth of Nations ,I,8
" Poverty ,though it no doubt discourages,does not always prevent marriage.It seems even to be favorable to generation. A half- starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine line lady is often incapable of bearing any ,and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barreness ,so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury in the fair sex, while it inflames perhaps the passion for enjoyment,seems always to weaken ,and frequently to destroy altogether ,the powers of generation. But poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely unfavorable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced,but in so cold a soil and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is not uncommon,I have been frequently cold ,in the Highlands of Scotland for a mother who has borne twenty children not to have two alive"
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches on The Fecundity of marriage # 2366-2372
I will quote part of # 2368 " A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality"
One of the Natural laws of man is The vegetative laws of Man: The preservation of his body which concern the preservation of the individual and the preservation of the species( law of temperance and chastity are never to be interrupted in their agency , never to be departed from)
Posted by: laguerre12
June 25, 2012 02:25 PM EDT
Society and the State " Introduction Philosophy of history , Hegel page 3 " The state of nature is .... Predominantly that of injustice and violence ,of untamed natural impulses ,of inhuman deeds and feelings. Limitation is certainly produced by society and the state,but it is a limitation of the mere brute emotions and rude instincts; as also ,in a more advanced stage of culture, of the premeditated self - will of caprice and passion. This kind of constraint is part of the instrumentality by which only, the consciousness of freedom and the desire for it's attainment ,in it's true- that is ,rational and ideal form- can be obtained ..... Society and the state are the very conditions in which freedom is realized" Posted by: laguerre12
July 10, 2012 02:52 PM EDT parts l and 2 describe a sexualized curriculum, “Growing In Love” approved by the U S. Bishops that scandalizes youth in parochial schools. Sex education has been condemned by Pontiffs and the canonist of the St. Joseph’s Foundation, Texas, are powerless to remove the collaborating teachers who corrupt youth’s minds. Can we connect the dots to graduates of Catholic named universities and colleges having their faith severed from the Infallible Magisterial teachings of Holy Mother the Church that leads females to become more promiscuous than their peers? If youth are not taught the virtues to combat the vices in the parochial classrooms, we can only expect that new barbarians are being raised as Randy Engel describes in her book, “Sex Education, the Final Plague”. These new barbarians war against motherhood, in fact modern Catholics abort and practice birth controlling more often than their peers. Studies show that teachers in parochial schools do not accept the Catholic teachings in regards to birth controlling and other related Catholic principles. Until we protect our most valuable resource, our youth, women will war against women and the unborn. Posted by: Bayleaf
August 10, 2012 11:07 PM EDT
Add a comment