The War on Men
II am a woman, and I'm offended.
I am offended that, once again, parties in positions of power have decided to pretend that all women are cut from the same political cloth. I am offended, and alarmed, that religion is seen increasingly by many of those same parties not as a vibrant good in our democracy, but as a mere sideshow for nostalgic people or citizens in need of a crutch.
I am offended that the Catholic Church has been attacked as being anti-woman -- the same church in which strong women like Sister Elizabeth Ann Seton built a world-class education system for the poor in a less-than-welcoming environment. I am offended that my government would penalize religious women like Seton in the future, telling them they cannot be who they are called to be; telling them their consciences must be dictated by the state.
And I am deeply offended about what is being said about men. A few good men have stuck their necks out lately in defense of religious freedom in America, and they deserve to be thanked and defended as they counter a dedicated campaign of dishonesty, hysterics and even raw bigotry.
Reasonable women cannot remain silent as the secretary of state pretends that the U.S. under a President Santorum or Romney would be an oppressive state for women. Or as a New York Times columnist echoes her, insisting that good men protecting conscience rights are "cavemen," and that Republican men are trying to "wrestle American women back into chastity belts" in an "insane bout of mass misogyny." Or as Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, calls the U.S. Catholic bishops "violently anti-woman."
This is miserable, insulting, desperate stuff. It's just not right. Women of reason cannot let it stand, and we're not.
Standing alongside men like Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Bishop William Lori of Connecticut are a cavalry of women, a new sisterhood that challenges the feminist establishment that has always appeared preoccupied with abortion. There are vocal women leading the opposition to the mandate, but they're often ignored by the left because we don't pass their ideological test. We include Sen. Kelly Ayotte, U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, former ambassador and Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon, and radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, along with doctors, lawyers, religious sisters and fresh young faces at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and elsewhere.
When you start to realize this, when you hear these women on social media and C-SPAN, you begin to realize that the "women's health" talk is really just a cynical political ploy to divide Americans in an election year.
Hillary Clinton warns that her political opponents "want to control how [women] act," and "even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and bodies." That's, of course, not what Rick Santorum -- to take one of the most prominent targets of the left's scorn -- wants to do. He might talk about the downsides of contraception in a far-reaching web interview, he might even do it when prompted on center stage, but he's not going to issue mandates to enforce his views. Ironically, it's only this White House that is demonstrating the heavy-handed mandating of mores, colliding with the freedom of conscience of Americans who might choose to live differently.
As the president accuses others of using religion as a bludgeon, he ought to reflect on the division he's created. And those who oppose the mandate ought to be as relentless as those waving a "war on women" banner in defense of it. The White House is counting on us to be demure, as they and their allies scare single women into voting Democrat in the November elections. Don't be. We're in a fight for a foundational principle, a first freedom, and the stakes are too high to give in to the cynical ploy that we're engaging in a "war on women."
This is a not a war on women, and it shouldn't become a war on men, either. This isn't a battle of the sexes, it's a fight for freedom as we've known it -- for the conscience rights we've known before this administration changed them with the stroke of a bureaucratic pen. And if we have a fighting chance to preserve the liberty we've enjoyed here as a beacon for those who suffer under real oppression, we had better get out of the cave that mandate supporters hoped we'd hide in and be clear and confident in what were preserving, together, for women AND men -- no matter what their faith.

Kathryn Lopez
Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, writes a weekly column of conservative political and social commentary for Newspaper Enterprise Association.Top Opinion
-
Dandydon 2012/03/18 20:26:07





















The very best thing for women are the profamily values supported by very few politicians, Republican or Democrat. The best husbands and protectors of women are decent, gentle men with sweet natures and the courage of giants. The government is the poorest of substitutes for these good men.
I think a man that denies a woman the right to exist because she disagrees with him to be very scary. That is a whole lot of hate, to think she doesn't have the right to exist. That is misogyny to the extreme.
But this is what you wrote, and it is frankly frightening that you would even think this way. Everyone has a right to exist, even people who disagree with us.
"Pathetic that such women exist that would write such rot."
This is what your statement means to me:
"Pathetic that gracious43 exists, when she agrees with such rot."
Let me just make this clear one more time again. It has never occurred to me that it is pathetic that you exist, just because you don't agree with me.
A woman's best interest lies in having a decent husband. I have never heard of a husband who refused to pay for his wife's contraception methods. I have never heard of a man who would consider that it wasn't his obligation. The government is not going to be nearly as loving and protecting to a woman as a husband would be.
If a woman refuses to have a husband because she wants "sexual freedom" or whatever else she wants, that doesn't obligate me to serve as her husband. Being a 'big girl' means taking responsibility for one's own behavior, and paying the bills for one's own behavior. Demanding that adult women grow up and take some responsibility for their actions is not "treason" or "hypocrisy", or going "against their own self-interests".
Shame you can't take the entire message in context. I stand by my statement. I think it is pathetic that anyone would write such rot. I am sorry you feel offended but I just don't support republican mandates for example that women who wish to have an abortion by made to have ultrasound. As I said, such rot should not be given any credibility.
Of course you stand by your statement. You have said a shameful thing about Christians, but you are shameless. What will you do? Hold the cloaks of those who would stone me to death for my beliefs? Or would you as soon pick up the stones to heave at me too?
Enough said.
Well have seen your other comments so will assume it was trash - try reading an article before posting.
Thank you for posting a persuasive and heartfelt insight against the Liberal propaganda. Your honesty is commendable; I hope to see some of your future posts.
Thank you for speaking the truth.
for people like you
Thank you, you are awesome too.