I’m the mother of two athletes, a son who currently plays college baseball and a daughter who was captain of her volleyball team and on elite club teams. Today, my daughter’s leadership, work ethic, and resiliency from sports is translating in her college endeavors, including Army ROTC.
Doors of opportunity open for female athletes through sports. But in today’s age of gender identity, this could all radically change.
Senator Birch Bayh was a Democratic Senator from Indiana who spearheaded the Title IX amendment that banned discrimination against women in college sports. Obituaries from his passing on March 14, 2019 hailed him as the “father of Title IX.”
The senator’s crowning legacy achievement will go to the grave with him if his own party has its way in passing the Equality Act…
In 2016 after her loss in the presidential race, Hillary Clinton warned women, “You have to be prepared for what it means to literally be brutalized. … It’s not to say men don’t get harsh treatment, but you are carrying the burden of the double standard.” She said a few months later that “[Women] get constant messaging our whole lives: You’re not thin enough, talented enough, smart enough. Your voice isn’t what we want to hear.”
I rarely say this, but Hillary is right.
She was talking about her experiences, not of the women who are now being dragged through the mud every single day: the women working for the Trump Administration. These women are experiencing the most brutal and personally spiteful attacks in recent memory.
This weekend’s shocking treatment of Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family at the hands of the Red Hen restaurant in Virginia serves as only one more data point in a litany of hateful examples of – in Hillary’s words – “brutal treatment.”
Based on Hillary’s claims, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that it is the women in President Trump’s family and administration who are singled out for the most vicious attacks. Here are just a few:
Sarah Sanders, the Press Secretary of the Trump Administration, is an especially favorite target.
Chelsea Handler called Sarah a “harlot” and “trollop” on her show. She made fun of her makeup with a parody tutorial. Wonkette columnist Evan Hurst went on an f-bomb bender against Sanders for a litany of perceived wrongs.
Dana Milbank, the creepy Washington Post columnist who has made it his life mission to dehumanize conservative women, mocked Sarah’s accent. And David Horsey, a writer for the Los Angeles Times, disparaged Sarah so badly as a soccer mom that the newspaper was forced to take down his column.
Kellyanne Conway, who holds the distinct honor of becoming the first woman in history to lead a successful presidential campaign, has had to endure criticism for her hair, her weight, her makeup, and her family.
First Lady Melania Trump is frequently in the crosshairs of public humiliation at the hands of the media, celebrities, and comedians. Jimmy Kimmel mocked her accent, and several high-profile individuals made fun of her looks while she unveiled her anti-bullying campaign.
Ivanka is a target of ire as well. Both she and Melania were called out in a Newsweek piece because they wear stilettos. You can’t make this stuff up. The left doesn’t even like their beautiful shoes. Samantha Bee took it to a new low and railed against Ivanka recently, calling her a “feckless c***.”
C-list comedian Michelle Wolf went from funny to mean girl at the White House Correspondents Dinner, brutally insulting Kellyanne Conway, Sarah Sanders, and Ivanka Trump. She insulted Kellyanne, made fun of Sarah’s looks, and implied Ivanka cares nothing for women.
These attacks on conservative women who work for or are part of the Trump Administration have gotten so bad that even the New York Times felt compelled to call it out – a year ago. Karen Finney, an advisor to the Clinton campaign, told the Times that “These sexist memes are not the purview of one party. … We fear strong women and women with power. These attacks are meant to delegitimize that power.”
That’s true. If the left can marginalize and dehumanize conservative women, then they render them ineffective. It is sexist, and despite decades of big talk from feminists, they have been largely silent, except to join in the cattiness.
Remember when Madeleine Albright went so far as to say that there is a “special place in hell for women who don’t support other women?” Does she really believe that? If so, why hasn’t she come to the defense of these women?
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem expanded on Albright’s words, saying that, “Any woman who chooses to behave like a full human being should be warned that the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of a dirty joke. That’s their natural and first weapon. She will need her sisterhood.”
Whether it’s disparagement of Hillary Clinton’s clothes or Kellyanne’s svelte figure, clearly there is a problem.
So I am asking you, Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinem, to say something now. Your lofty words about equality and respect mean nothing if they don’t apply to all women. Did you mean it, or are you complete, hypocritical phonies? This is the moment for you to put up or shut up. You can either rise to the occasion, or we will know for sure that – as we have long suspected – you value leftist ideology above all, even women.
This nastiness is a disservice to all women. We can disagree on policy, but going forward, let’s all take a stand against petty personal attacks. As the first lady reminds us, “Be Best.”
Sorry, young ladies in Staten Island, but because father-daughter dances are triggering and scary, you won’t be able to have a special night with your dad.
The New York Department of Education passed a policy last spring that demanded schools scrap any “gender-based” activities that do not serve an educational purpose. Apparently the father-daughter dance violates those guidelines and fell under the horrible practice of a “gender-based” activity. The school postponed the dance, which was supposed to be held this Friday, until they could figure out the legal ramifications.
It might sound like a small thing — a school dance being canceled — but it is anything but trivial. Ridding schools of a father-daughter dance points to a larger issue: the politically correct culture that we used to joke about all those years ago has become today’s actual default culture. Jokes about the ridiculous rules and regulations political correctness would usher in are our current reality, and our children are paying the price. They are living with the ramifications of a world where the mere mention of a time-honored tradition like the father-daughter dance — which is needed in today’s world more now than ever — sends adults into a tailspin.
Fathers have an enormous influence on their daughters, whether they are in their lives or not. Dads who are involved in the lives of their daughters in positive ways are key to high self-esteem, self-worth, grades, college education levels, and overall intellectual well-being.
Studies consistently show that fathers who are more involved in their daughters’ lives, who have loving relationships with them, who were supportive and had positive interactions with the girls’ mother, and who were involved in care giving during the early years, encouraged greater self-esteem in their daughters and added stability to their lives.
The influence of a father on the life of his daughter is no small deal.
For fathers who are less involved with their daughters, who are not there at all, or who exert a negative influence, their daughters have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, and substance abuse.
The National Fatherhood Initiative rightly points out that there is a national father crisis in our nation, where one-in-three children do not have their biological father living in the home with them. There are huge ramifications for these children without fathers: seven times more likely to become pregnant as a teen, more likely to suffer abuse, twice as likely to drop out of high school, four times as likely to face poverty, and twice as likely to suffer from obesity.
We need fathers in the lives of their children, and we need them to be the best dads they can be. When a school pulls the rug out from under dads who are trying to do the right thing in the name of equality, it’s a slap in the face to them and to their daughters.
Even in a culture in which dads are increasingly absent, we see beautiful examples in which good men from the community or church step forward to fill the gap. A biological father isn’t the only man that can fill the role of a father at a dance or in our hearts, but the role will be filled in one way or another. We must all work to make sure it’s filled well.
I am so grateful that my daughter has beautiful memories of getting dressed up and being showered with flowers, compliments, and attention by her proud father — my sweet husband — at her father-daughter dance. These are occasions where Dad teaches his daughter how a young man is supposed to treat her and provide her an example for how she should expect honorable men to respect her later in life. It’s an opportunity to set a high bar in showing her how it feels to be loved and honored, teaching her she deserves the best. I want that for every young woman in this country. It is something we should be fighting for instead of tearing down.
The transgender activists are foolishly attempting to eliminate gender from the equation of the natural world, where being male and female have deep meaning and unique responsibilities. Stripping males and females of their God-given, inherent gifts and talents has consequences far more reaching than postponing a father-daughter dance.
Men are constantly being told by leftists that they are not wanted, that their importance in the lives of women is overrated and, frankly, not needed.
That’s not true. We need men in this world to step up and be the men they are called to be, to be honorable and just and loving. We want them to fight for their daughters and for the women they love. Yes, I have taught my daughter to be strong and self-reliant. My husband, thankfully, has taught her that, as she considers a mate, life is sweeter with a man who will love her unconditionally and selflessly. We need our daughters to know what it looks like to be respected and have a man treat them honorably. We want those fearless and courageous men to stand up for what is right and not be afraid of what the culture will say about them. The health of our daughters depends on them.
Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to view it.
Shalane Flanagan was virtually unknown outside of the elite running world until yesterday, when she won the New York City Marathon, the first American woman to do so in the women’s competition since the late 1970s. And she did it by running a minute faster than the second-place finisher, Kenyan Mary Keitany.
If that doesn’t mean anything to you, a minute faster in the racing world is incredible. To beat an opponent by even 15 seconds is an eternity, but to beat a seasoned racer by an entire minute is almost unheard of today.
Flanagan is an interesting woman. She has won medals in the Olympics and set records at world competitions. She and her husband are foster parents as well, providing a home for teenaged twins. She also took time off after a back injury in late winter of last year and was unable to run the Boston Marathon.
She told ESPN in April that she was able to take her first vacation in seven years with her husband and foster children and that “when given lemons, you make lemonade — let’s celebrate the fact that I have time to do this with them. It’s one of the best vacations I’ve ever taken.”
As a wife, foster mother, and professional athlete, Flanagan realized she needed the time to heal and take a break from the insane pace of her life. It’s an example of listening to her body, listening to her family, and taking the steps to heal what needed to be healed, instead of continuing to recklessly put pressure on those aspects of life that needed rest. She is working for balance.
As women, we can take so much from Shalane Flanagan’s story, without any kind of political angle. She is a much-needed and welcome addition to the world of female role models. As a noncompetitive runner, I have had the thrill to observe the moment in a race in which we see the first “lady runners” sweep by us toward the finish line. It is a moment of great pride in which both men and women yell our affirmation.
As New York struggles to recover from the latest terror attack, the city once more rises with great dignity and goes about its life with aplomb. Flanagan is part of that healing. The rest of us are blessed to cheer her success with sustained applause and the shout of “GO Lady Runner!”
Editor’s Note: A version of this article was published by Fox News. Click here to read it.
While the radical feminists in the U.S. continue their hysterical push for abortions after five months of pregnancy, TheBlaze reports that another Afghan woman was killed at the hands of Islamists extremists. Read More
In a debate where “equal” means repressive and “right” means agenda, Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) is leading the charge to demand a constitutional amendment that will “finally guarantee women equality.” The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) endeavors to remove all differences — social, biological and sexual — between males and females, while granting enormous flexibility to increasingly activist judges to interpret the amendment as they deem appropriate. Several states that have already ratified a state ERA are finding that they’ve done little more than pave the way for homosexual marriage, federally funded abortion, the inclusion of women in the draft and co-ed prisons. This amendment is not about rights; it is about the promotion of a gender-neutral agenda through the suppression of natural differences between men and women.
What is the driving motivation behind the ERA? In America, women enjoy equal rights and protection under the law. Even supporters of the amendment recognize the redundancy. Sue Madison, an Arkansas state senator sponsoring a state version of the ERA says, “I mean, think about it. It’s largely accepted as a matter of law, and yet it’s not in our Constitution.”1 Most laws do not require an amendment to the Constitution; this is no exception. Therefore, proponents are either repeating common sense recognition of the political, legal and social rights of women, or they are attempting to introduce an agenda contrary to American mores.
Many ERA supporters claim that this would not impact laws that protect women from serving in combat units, federally funded abortions, co-ed prisons and homosexual “marriage.” The purpose of this amendment, they claim, is simply to stop discrimination against women and correct wage disparity. Eleanor Smeal, of the Feminist Majority, is more honest about what the amendment could do: “Smeal said the ERA could be flexible enough to allow for gay marriage and state-funded abortion. She said she is convinced the ERA will eventually be ratified, because society is trending to be more tolerant of women’s rights and gay rights.”2 Both the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protect women from discrimination. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) states the irony of their proposal:
“It is inadequate for ERA proponents to argue that all sorts of ‘common sense’ exceptions will be made to the ERA when this is already the law today. The courts will always assume (properly) that the intent of a new constitutional Amendment is to change the law. If the ERA would maintain in force the ‘common sense’ exceptions of present law, it would not be needed.”3
The most accurate method of discovering how this constitutional amendment would impact law is to look at the impact state ERAs are already having on state laws.
Maryland passed a state ERA and legalized same-sex “marriage” as a result. In the Baltimore Circuit Court, the judge ruled that the ERA made banning same-sex “marriage” unconstitutional. Hawaii’s State Supreme Court also ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage” after an activist “proposed that the state’s refusal to issue a license presumptuously violates Hawaii’s ERA which bars discrimination on the basis of sex.” New Mexico’s Supreme Court decided unanimously in New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson that the refusal of the state to fund abortions under Medicaid violated the state ERA.
This amendment not only provides a basis for dangerous new laws; it also strips away the very rights that ERA proponents claim to promote! Legislation specifically protecting women such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would be considered discriminatory against men. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Office of Women’s Health, which seeks to “ensure that FDA functions, both regulatory and oversight, remain gender sensitive and responsive,” could be found unconstitutional under this new amendment.
In addition to the various problems with the application of the ERA, the manner in which it has been introduced in Congress and ratified by the states is unprecedented. Although the ERA was approved by Congress in 1972, the states failed to ratify it in the required amount of time even when a ten year extension was provided. During those ten years, however, five states – Tennessee, Kentucky, Idaho, Nebraska and South Dakota – overturned their ratification votes. Even if the ERA is approved in this session of Congress, the states will have to re-ratify the amendment. The Washington Post reports, “Even backers of the amendment such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) expect a legal battle on that question. They are reintroducing the amendment in Congress and hope to start the ratification process again from scratch.”
Same-sex “marriage,” federally funded abortion and the inclusion of women in the draft are issues that have actually been discussed in the courts. It’s not too difficult to think of other areas of social life that this amendment will obstruct. Would sororities be required to admit men if a young man thought it would be fun to live in a house full of girls? Would child support laws be done away with because they put an unnecessary burden on a man to provide when a woman should be equally capable? Let’s not wait to find out what an uncontrollable court could decide. The Equal Rights Amendment must be rejected in order to uphold standards of decency and put control in the hands of the people, not judges.
- Kellams, Laura. “26 years later, Senate to vote on ERA issue: Effect of resolution uncertain.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette. March 27, 2005.
- Sheffield, Carrie. “Equal Rights Amendment battle enters new era.” Politico: April 24, 2007.
- Senator Orrin Hatch, The Equal Rights Amendment: Myths and Realities, (Savant Press: 1983).