| MND COMMENTARY |
N.O.W. Becomes High School Curriculum, Part
II by Bernard Chapin
Women desire men with J-O-Bs. This is only logical and appropriate. Wanting a man to work does not make them materialistic because a man’s gainful employment directly correlates with a family’s survival. For any youth who may run across this piece, take it from me, plan on working until your dead. That is the way of all men (at least those who do not hit the lotto or inherit money). There’s no point in pretending otherwise. Labor is as much a part of being a man as urinating while standing. Denying reality is not an effective strategy for a satisfied adulthood. Then we witness our authors embarking on a psychedelic tour of history as they pronounce the National Organization of Women as being responsible for all the glorious social changes that made western women the most privileged human beings on the planet: The struggle for women’s rights was then known as the women’s liberation movement. Its members became known as feminists. One large feminist group founded in 1966 by Betty Friedan is called the National Organization for Women (NOW). NOW questions the traditionalists’ idea that marriage is the final goal of all women. Yet, many people still look down on a woman who does not get married. Furthermore, NOW asks, why should a woman drop her own last name and take the name of her husband upon marriage? Betty Friedan claims that many women are unhappy as housewives and that all women have a right to a career outside the home. Friedan insists that women are not developing to their fullest capacity as long as they stay in the home. [pp.89-90] I believe discovering that the acronym NOW actually appears in state sponsored educational materials must come as a jolt to many readers, but the respectable way in which the organization is described is absolutely repellent. Can you imagine a conservative organization being condoned by the lords and lordesses of education? It’ll never happen. If it did, a rightward equivalent of the NOW passage would be, “The National Rifle Association sternly warns: ‘when you outlaw guns only outlaws have them.’ Remember this children as the police only become involved in crimes after they have been committed. No 911 operator can prevent your murder but a well aimed Ruger can!” Of course I am merely fantasizing with that entry. No positive mention of the NRA will ever appear in the pages of a scholastic work, and neither would a hypothetical command from the National Taxpayers Union that, “citizens should not confuse their taxes with charity. The government is least efficient organization in the world.” Unfortunately, most high school students are not going to be able to discern that NOW is nowhere near the righteous idealists described by the narrators. They are not defenders of women’s rights, but they certainly are partisan hacks. NOW dogmatically supports all leftist causes even though they claim to be non-affiliated politically–which is the only way they can receive tax deductible contributions. They don’t even put forth a pretense of being independent, as their homepage links to a site they created which disparages President Bush. There is nothing balanced about anything they do or advocate. It seems to me (although I’m obviously not a tax attorney) that they violate IRS guidelines for non-profit organizations which specifically state: “An IRC Section 501(c)(3) organization may not engage in carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.” Furthermore, the programs they advocate are antithetical to the interests of women and are the epitome of those who worship steroidal-sized government: The National Organization for Women (NOW), one of the most prominent feminist groups, advocates for government-provided healthcare, steeply progressive taxes, and more regulations of how businesses compensate employees. NOW fights Social Security reforms that give workers control over more of their retirement savings, and education policies that empower parents. Seemingly, NOW envisions a nanny government that provides for most of women's needs — the clear implication being that women are incapable of caring for themselves. NOW wants women to empower the government to get its grimy tentacles on as much of the GDP as possible, and thereby ensure that women will be beholden to federal masters and don’t excel on their own. Another point I’d like to mention concerns the media’s description of NOW and other radical feminist organizations as being “women’s groups.” This is de facto proof of journalistic liberal bias. How can anyone depict in respectful terms a cabal that allows one of its branches to raise funds for the legal defense of Andrea Yates? Yates killed all of her children, yet Kim Gandy believed that those who wanted to see justice done had oversimplified the facts of her case. Back to the specific subject matter cited by the text, who exactly said marriage is the goal of all women? No proof is offered by the authors, but by now one senses that these folks aren’t into the “proof” thing. If some people look down on a woman due to their marital status, that, of course, is their right. Yet to the radical mind no such right exists. Personally though, I do think unmarried mothers damage our society. They are bountifully providing our nation with a hot new variety of citizenry known as…felons. We know now that the lack of a father in the home is a major predictor of young boys ending up in prison. Since the authors of the text mention that some may look down on women who aren’t married, let me elaborate on why people should. It would be wise for all of us to start looking down on single mothers (at least those who think being a single parent is optimal) because a potent dose of societal stigma, as opposed to billowy compliments from nanny staters, is our best hope for “saving the children.” Feeling the single parent’s pain is the surest way of ensuring our own. NOW should be blamed for the societal disintegration they’ve championed. The part in the passage about not dropping the last name after marriage made me laugh aloud. Perhaps other men disagree with me, but I don’t think there’s any point in getting married to a woman who won’t take your last name. If they refuse to change their names then there will be other sacrifices in the future that they’ll never make, such as standing by you when you lose your job or saving wages for the benefit of future offspring as opposed to those employed at Ann Taylor. Marrying a woman who keeps her name is like eating at a restaurant where the owner refuses to walk into his own filthy kitchen. It’s not confidence inspiring. If they are non-traditional then there’s no reason to engage in the traditional act of marriage with them in the first place. If she’s only proud of selected parts of your venture, then there’s no reason to bring her into a managerial role. If, in response to your request that she take your last name she responds with a tirade like, “Chapin? How lame! I’m not taking that name. People will be singing ‘Cat’s in the Cradle’ at me wherever I go. Like I need that! Get out of here.” Then you should sleep with her a few more times and take her advice by getting out of the relationship. If they get mad you, answer by blaming NOW as they’re the people who de-stigmatized the whole last name business in the first place. The line after that one about NOW’s belief that we have a right to a career outside of the home tells you all you need to know about how illogical these relics are. One has a right to remain silent but not a right to use the expressway to get to work. By that line of reasoning I am currently an oppressed person because I’m typing this paragraph in my family room. Only a radical feminist would be poorly educated enough to misconstrue “stimulating time out of the home” with a job–let alone confusing an hour long commute with embodying the rights of man. Perhaps, instead of the ERA, we’ll soon see them unveil a new strategy, which consists of passing a constitutional amendment to protect the universal right to walk down the street with a bullhorn or the inherent prerogative for employer financed leave should anyone upset you at work. NOW is all about goodies but was never about rights. Lastly they give us this showstopper: Feminists have protested ads that show women as sex symbols. They have ridiculed beauty contests, which, in their view, show women in a demeaning way. [p.90] Oh this is so tired. Why can’t they just mind their own business? I know this is a cliché but I think the real reason they despise “Miss” contests is because radical feminists have no internal or external beauty. They are irritable troglodytes who no more belong in a bathing suit than a rhinoceros. They’re merely jealous of these gorgeous women who have considerably more “choices” in life than their pro-choice selves. Besides, if the truth were told, the feministas would be only too happy to have their own lives displayed on television, and, in case they’re reading along, I’d recommend calling the program, “Lifestyles of the Gnarly and Acidic.”) The male equivalent of this complaint would be, “A young man protested the arrival of Donald Trump and Bill Gates at the airport because they are rich and he is poor.” The media would certainly not cover the young man with his “Give Me Your Microsoft Cash, Bill” sign, but they dedicatedly report feminazi charges as the gospel. It’s important that I bring textbooks like this to light because most of you would never encounter the stuff otherwise. NOW is an organization built on hate and authors like these should have their political activism exposed. I do not recommend censoring them, but school districts should refuse to finance their radical advocacy. Let them talk to themselves; they’ll do less damage that way. Textbook In Question: DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE IN THE FORUM! Bernard Chapin is a writer in Chicago. |
This
would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. What woman would be pleased
with her man staying home while they had to work? No women I’ve ever
met. Even if they initially accepted their husbands as “Mr. Mom”
the great majority would gradually begin to resent their husband’s
non-economic contributions to the household. They would also be jealous
of their married friends who chose breadwinners for mates.|
|