Hillary Clinton’s personal life has long made a mockery of traditional family values – her betrothal to a serial womanizer, the refusal to have a traditional wedding, and her smears of the females who later accused her husband of sexual impropriety.

Let’s recall her acrid put-down of stay-at-home moms: “I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do is fulfill my profession.” And when Jennifer Flowers claimed she had had a 12-year affair with Bill, Hillary ludicrously remarked, “I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.”

If that’s not contempt for women in traditional roles, I don’t know what is.

And no surprise, Hillary Clinton’s vision for families is, might we say, unconventional. And it’s not just her opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Back when she was a student at Yale Law School, Hillary wrote in the Harvard Educational Review that “marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system” constitute dependency arrangements that must be abolished. Ridiculing the notion that families are “private, nonpolitical units,” she demanded that we “remodel” the time-honored institution.

Two decades later she wrote It Takes a Village, the socialist manifesto that justifies governmental intrusion into the most intimate aspects of family life.

And Clinton’s 2003 book Living History reads like the autobiography of a woman obsessed with feminist activism, a power-mad princess in a pantsuit. She boasts immodestly, “I represented a fundamental change in the way women functioned in our society.”

Remember that Hillary Rodham Clinton, former protégé of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, is at heart a cultural Marxist. Inducing a fundamental change in motherhood would be insufficient to assure the social transformation that she seeks. Time to put dear ol’ dad on the chopping block.

European social philosopher Wyndham Lewis once noted:

“The male, the Father, is in all these revolutions, the enemy. It is he that has been cast to represent authority. Therefore in modern revolutionary Europe it was he, the male head-of-the-family, who has been aimed at in every insurrection. The break-up of the Family…must begin and end with the eclipse of the Father principle.”

So no surprise, Hillary Clinton has trained her sights on fatherhood.

A few weeks ago researcher Anna Sarkadi published a review in the Acta Pediatrica journal on the impact of fathers on children’s developmental outcomes. The studies showed paternal engagement helped to reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls. Sarkadi concludes a father’s “active and regular engagement with the child predicts a range of positive outcomes.”

But Hillary’s Living History leans over backwards to ignore any meaningful role of dads. On page 132 she writes about “issues affecting women, children, and families.” On page 380 she repeats the identical phrase: “issues affecting women, children, and families.” And on page 269 she notes “Women handle a large share of the responsibility for the welfare of their families,” again ignoring the essential role of fathers.

Then there’s the abortion issue, where Hillary has staked out the most radical of positions, even supporting partial-birth abortion and a teenage girl’s right to get an abortion absent parental permission.

Abortion-on-demand strikes a chilling blow to a father’s natural rights. As Justice White wrote in his stirring dissent to Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, “It is truly surprising that the majority finds in the United States Constitution, as it must in order to justify the result it reaches, a rule that the State must assign a greater value to a mother’s decision to cut off a potential human life by abortion than to a father’s decision to let it mature into a live child.”

Dr. Alan Carlson of Howard University adds cogently, “on the question of abortion, the father is irrelevant, with no more interest in the fate of the baby than a stranger from Mars.”

In her famous 1993 “politics of meaning” speech, Clinton called for a redefinition of personhood itself. She told the startled audience, “Let us be willing to remold society by refining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century.”

As presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has billed herself as the proponent of “real” change. One has to wonder where her “real” change will lead us — to the hollow shell of a family structure that all but shuns traditional notions of fatherhood and motherhood?