For years, conservatives and independents have lobbed this point at feminists, and that leftist group of women have always responded that it was “just about sex” or “Monica was a consenting adult.” In fact, some groups use Monica as a champion of advancing the sexual revolution and opening the door for women to assert themselves through use their bodies or sexuality.

Katha Pollitt’s comments on Journolist effectively prove that feminists did sell out to the Democrats in order to protect Clinton, and they knowingly did it:

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

Pollitt proves that feminists do not have the best interests of women at heart. They care more about advancing the causes of their political party. Put her quotes in perspective of the current debate going on over conservative women and feminism. If they distract us or try to “refudiate” the issue by making fun of certain Mama Grizzlies or issuing mandates that we’re not good for women because we don’t support progressive causes, they’re pulling a Jeremiah Wright.

How can this ideology group be trusted? How do you know when they are working to advance the cause of women and when do you know that their working to protect a slimy politician because he has the precious D after his name? From this point forward, everything, and I mean everything, that feminists say should be viewed from this perspective.

If they previously sold women out over the likes of Bill Clinton, what happens when a true threat comes their way? What happens when conservative women –the apparent blood enemy — are closer to achieving the goals that they’ve never been able to reach in the past five decades?

Things get vicious. Oh, sort of like their coverage of a certain figure from Alaska….

Two weeks ago, SarahPAC released the now famous Mama Grizzlies video. Within hours, there were hundreds of blog posts, articles and tweets examining the video. Almost all of it was positive. There was even begrudging praise from left-wing pundits that it was good.

For the most part, the fem blogs were silent. Most of them mentioned it in their daily wrap-up posts. I guess if you can’t figure out what to say, you just link?

Nearly two weeks later, the gals at Feministing FINALLY have a response. Only, did it come from internal discussions? As the leading feminist blog on the web, you’d think they would be looking for some angle to criticize. After all, these are the next generation of feminist leaders. The future of all womankind rests in their gender-neutral, leftist hands. If they can’t get one good put down of conservative women out each day, haven’t they failed?

Who finally came up with the response? A woman named Kathryn Ruud from Middletown, Md. wrote a letter-to-the-editor in the Washington Post yesterday:

In watching Ms. Palin hugging her supporters and handing out flowers, I saw something else. I noticed only one slightly off-white face among the many people she was reaching out to. And Ms. Palin pointedly says that conservative women are “mama grizzlies,” more formidable than “pit bulls.”

Of the deeply feminine women I know, none of them exclude people of color from her personal embrace. And a claim to be nastier than a pit bull degrades, rather than elevates, the relational power women bring to politics.

I saw this letter earlier today in my Google alerts and rolled my eyes. Honestly, I was surprised that no one inferred racism earlier.  However, following the NAACP’s proclamation, it must be so.  Forget how staged “multiculturalism” is more important than the message. Scores of conservative women getting involved in politics isn’t important because…there’s no discernible minority present in the video. Isn’t this a slap in the face of all the diverse women that support Sarah Palin, a number of whom I’ve met? However, because Ms. Ruud from Middletown, Md. didn’t see any of them in the final SarahPAC video, they must not exist.

Ms. Ruud appears to be mighty busy in the Frederick, Md. area fighting for green jobs, so I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest she’s not ambivalent to Sarah Palin. However, I am surprised that it took a random letter to the editor to give the fem writers a talking point. Really, ladies? Usually, you’re up for race-baiting the right. Going soft, aren’t we?

Watch out! Other lefty sites will likely pick up on this meme: The NAACP declares Tea Partiers racist. Sarah Palin has supported the Tea Party movement. Her video appears to lack any visible minorities in it. Therefore, SHE’S RACIST.

I’m also happy to know that Feministing seems to have the same Google alerts set up as me.

According to Post Politics this morning:

Rep. Janis Baird Sontany (D-53) said of female Republican state legislators, “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote!”

Rep. Sontany is reported to have said this at a Davidson County Democratic breakfast this weekend.

I hope Rep. Sontany’s remarks were a bad joke, but they hint at a pervasive attitude that permeates the groupthink known as feminism on the left.

Women on the left have determined that they decide the correct attitudes and opinions for all women. The rest of us should just follow them and issue fealty to the Democratic Party. They are the Voice of Women,™ and it is not our place to question it or diverge from the sorority.

I guess all of the conservative women who are now running for office or engaged in the political process missed this memo.

Rep. Sontany’s remarks and this general attitude are incredibly condescending. All morning I’ve searched for the appropriate word. Sexism? Perhaps. What’s the definition of women-on-women hate?

These types of remarks are wrong. They are wrong regardless of whatever party said them. Sexism directed towards a conservative woman by fellow Republicans is wrong. Sexism (or whatever it is) directed towards women by other women over political difference is also wrong.

Women have the right to decide for ourselves what political positions we want. Even if you disagree with those views, you should respect my right to hold them. Despite what liberals and feminists think, they are not the authoritative Voice of Women,™ and it’s clear that many other women across the country agree with me on this issue.

I’m sick of the whole debate revolving around abortion. I’m unequivocally pro-life and will always be. Do I agree with you if you support abortion? Absolutely not. However, I respect your right to hold those views as a fellow American and a voter. I will never challenge or question your right to hold those views.

Isn’t this a type of McCarthyism from the left? Women are only allowed to express “acceptable” views that align with what the Feminists™ and  Voice of Women™ proclaim? Those that dare speak out will be savagely attacked in the media?

More at Red State and Michelle Malkin.

The subject of conservative women emerging in politics is one that I’ve covered for more than a year. Since the infamous Mama Grizzly remarks by Sarah Palin, I’ve refrained from commenting* and watched the debate evolve. The role of conservative women in feminism is another, much-needed blog post, but I’m excited to see the discussion. On the right, this is a subject that no one has ever wanted to discuss. On the left, it engages a decades-old debate on how to exactly define feminism. Among feminist circles, this is still a messy internal argument. In the coming months, expect a lot more from me on this subject.

With a number of upcoming primaries with female Republican candidates like Robin Smith in my home district of TN-03 or Pamela Gorman, the game continues.

Update 6/10/10: Even more stories via Google alerts.

WaPo: Can Sarah Palin Claim Credit for Last Night?

New York Daily News: GOP primaries: Sarah Palin helps South Carolina’s Nikki Haley and Calif.’s Carly Fiorina win big

CBS: GOP Women Dominate in Tuesday’s Primaries

The round-up so far today. First the feminists.

Jezebel has a fair round-up posted. Well, as fair as Jezebel (i.e. Gawker) folks get. Since two Democrats were on the list, they couldn’t do hatchet jobs on the rest.

Double X gets a few points wrong about the Mama Grizzly endorsements. Orly Taitz is a birther. I don’t know if even the radical fringes of the Tea Party would accept her. To use her as an example of a Palin loss is inaccurate since Palin never even touched that race. Claire Grossman wrote:

Though they’re just as extreme as their female counterparts, male candidates affiliated with the Tea Party like Rand Paul are shown (in a far less head-scratching spirit) as Ayn Randian, spear-carrying individualists. Whatever you think of their political beliefs, mama bears don’t deserve to be hit with the tired “hysterical woman” stereotype.

I agree with Grossman’s sentiment. Women should be discussed and debated on the same terms of men. If you’re going to do a fashion story, look at male candidates too or refrain from style all together. However, I wish Grossman had used better examples. Birthers are crazy and deserve to be ridiculed.

Debra Medina also waded birther territory. She also ran against an incumbent with high name ID who ran a stellar campaign in Texas. Palin also endorsed Perry, Medina’s opposition. Birthers are so far to the extreme of conservative politics, that pushing them aside and calling them crazy is the only option. To given them any serious consideration would only hurt the entire movement. Grossman doesn’t look at coverage of male birther candidates. They’re viewed just as nutty as the women are.

This cycle does prove that women are treated differently. Much of the coverage of these women did result in mud-slinging and name-calling. Haley’s campaign should enter the record books for new lows in public life, but the race in Nevada also got ugly at times. The California race was largely fair. Neither Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina seemed to be attacked or held to double-standards, despite Fiorina releasing the most bizarre campaign commercials ever. I’m disappointed in Fiorina’s victory,* but both women held their own in a tough state while running against men who were positioned further to the right.

EMILY’s List is scared of Carly Fiorina, which is a silver lining for me personally. Bwhahaha!

Stephanie pointed out that Fiorina is already going on the attack against Barbara — no great shock, since she’d been lobbing attacks on TV at Barbara before she even won the party endorsement. Already, choice is becoming a top issue in this race, and we can’t afford to lose Barbara’s leadership on women’s rights in the Senate.

Fiorina’s got a war chest filled with money from the $21-million golden parachute she received after being fired from her job at HP. We’ve got to help Barbara fill her campaign coffers now and make sure she’s ready to fight back!

Given EMILY’s List struggle to adapt to younger feminists and raise money, good luck with that one.

The Right-of-Center Folks:

Independent Women’s Forum. (Great post, which I completely agree with!)

Regardless of their reasons for running, and regardless of the outcome of the November elections, in my book the primary results have at least one absolutely terrific outcome. Women and girls have a great new set of role models to look up to who aren’t afraid to step up and speak out for what they believe in – and that kind of positive encouragement is good for the whole country. For too long, sitting officials have overlooked the wishes of their constituents in order to advance their own agendas – and the American people have had enough.

Susan B. Anthony List (I encourage them to not use “conservative feminism.” That’s a loaded label, but that’s another blog post.)

What an amazing night for pro-life women across the country! Without a doubt, last night victories were the greatest affirmation of the Susan B. Anthony List mission since our organization’s founding and truly telling of the resurgence of authentic, pro-life feminism–feminism true to our foremother’s belief that the rights of one group can never be advanced on the broken backs of others.

Hot Air via Ed Morrissey:

Why so many women in the GOP? One has to give at least some credit to the Tea Parties. In my experience with the activists behind Tea Party events, most have been women who have become determined to steer the course of the American political agenda back to the Right. The two national politicians most associated with the Tea Party movement? Powerful Republican women: Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN).

I agree with Morrissey here. Tea Parties are largely driven by women. Also, consider the fractured state of the GOP since 2006. With incumbents out of favor, and voters angry at “establishment” politicians, this opened the door for women. There’s a larger post here, but the media doesn’t recognize a trend until a figurehead emerges. Love or hate Palin, she motivated a lot of women who identified with her.

It also takes a much bigger commitment for women to run. Dee Dee Meyers explains in her book that it takes asking a women 5 or 6 times before she’ll consider running. With the GOP out of ideas and fresh blood, they were much more willing to woo female candidates than in previous years.

Red State via Erick Erickson

The Republican Establishment is declaring this their year of the woman. There are five in particular that I want to aggressively support: Nikki Haley running for Governor in South Carolina, Karen Handel running for Governor in Georgia, Sharron Angle running for the Senate in Nevada, Robin Smith running for Congress in Tennessee, and Pamela Gorman running for Congress in Arizona.

More from me on these awesome women later.

Other media:

Blogher: Don’t Get Mad. Get Elected.

I mean, really — isn’t it time to change the all-male South Carolina state senate or the Ohio state senate’s GOP male-female ratio (19-2) (Dems total of 11 are split 6-5)? The SC senate doesn’t even have an election until 2012 — plenty of time! Come on, ladies. Don’t get mad — get elected.

Christian Science Monitor: Women Shine in Tuesday’s Primaries, Especially GOP

The GOP still has plenty of catching up to do in recruiting women candidates – even if many of those candidates play down their gender. (Palin herself refers to an “emerging, conservative, feminist identity” in the party.) These latest primary victories for women show that the party is gaining ground and perhaps that will help bring gender equity in US politics closer to reality.

Politico: Palin’s Backing Pays Off for Pals

Some of Sarah Palin’s riskiest endorsements scored major victories Tuesday for the former Alaska governor, showing off her power in Republican primaries.

Palin had four primary endorsements in play – Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, Terry Branstad and Cecile Bledsoe – and three won or moved on to a runoff.

Palin served different roles for each candidate – sometimes spotlighting conservatives not well known to the national scene while at others validating conservative credentials to an unsure grassroots and even stepping in to deflect nasty attacks.

Fox News: Tea Party Candidates, Women Roar on Primary Night

The primary elections Tuesday amounted to a night of messages — from the Tea Party, from female candidates and for the Democrats.

With hundreds of primaries held across 11 states, a number of candidates made history while others pulled out come-from-behind wins. The elections helped set the stage for a November general election
in which incumbents are girding for a series of hard-fought battles.

Hannity’s Great American Panel will discuss this topic tonight as well.
*Disclosure: I worked on the Chuck DeVore campaign, which opposed Carly Fiorina in California.

Note the Jezebel‘s headline, which is the only fem outlet to cover this story the entire time, “Nikki Haley Refuses Polygraph.”

An article on The Daily Beast makes my skin crawl. This is exactly the type of journalism that propels me to fight feminists:

Granted, Haley has a hypocrisy problem: Like Mark Sanford, the adulterous and love-sick Republican governor she’s trying to replace, Haley is one of those preachy “family values” conservatives who seem to think the rules apply to everyone but themselves. In a May TV ad, Sarah Palin is seen describing Haley as “a strong pro-family, pro-life…conservative reformer.” A campaign flyer announces that Haley “supports traditional, family values,” and in her latest TV spot, produced after the sex scandal broke, Haley introduces her silent and slightly dorky looking husband, the possibly cuckolded Michael, in what might be termed a Spitzer reversal. Watching the ad made me cringe; it’s uncomfortable to see Michael standing there next to Nikki, just as it was uncomfortable to see Silda standing by Eliot. “What are they thinking?” you wonder. “Why aren’t they mad as hell?”

Given that the allegations are likely false, and South Carolina has the political machine that would make Huey P. Long sick, how can feminists do this? They aren’t taking the high road or waiting for evidence. They’re sitting with baited breath waiting for clear proof to come out against Haley. They’re dying to bring her down.

This is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is exactly the same hypocrisy that feminists demonstrated with the womanizing Bill Clinton. This is one of the few times that feminists could have transcended party lines and fought for a true pro-woman cause. Every feminist blog, magazine, spokesperson and pundit should denounce the sexist operation going on in South Carolina. This type of campaigning should not be allowed to exist.

By primly sitting back, feminists are silently endorsing this sleazy behavior.

Is it too much for feminists to take a few minutes each day and read right-wing blogs? If they only read Red State, they would have seen the post penned by Lori Ziganto, a South Carolina voter, on the state’s corruption.That was the focus of the Haley campaign. Nikki Haley took on establishment corruption. Shouldn’t all women respect that regardless of political affiliation?

Hanna Rosin at Double X likens Haley to Riot Grrl, an early third-wave feminist movement. That’s a silly comparison because Haley has campaigned on her record for demanding accountability and transparency in a state that nearly operates under a cloak of darkness. Riot Grrl was a small under-the-radar movement that gave us the conflicting and ambiguous third-wave feminist definition of “as long as you’re empowered to make choices, you’re a feminist.” But through their actions over the past year, that’s proved hollow.

I wish the Dana Goldstein, the sleazeball masquerading as an editor at The Daily Beast, and Hanna Rosin, sadly one of the more reasonable writers at Double X, would wake up and see how futile this quote is:

Weathering a scandal of this magnitude would help conservatives see modern women as we really are: complex, sexually liberated, and free to make our own decisions about what we do with our bodies.

No Dana and Hanna. Perhaps feminists should understand how silly and marginalized your movement is now? Modern women are far more complex and view politics through a wider lense than just abortion. That’s why your movement is decreasing in size. That’s why fewer and fewer women identify as feminists. That’s why pro-life PACS are out-fundraising the old dinosaurs like EMILY’s List and NOW. That’s why more and more Americans are identifying as pro-life. And that’s why mostly conservative women won primaries across America tonight.

Feminists, you had one last redeeming chance to prove that your movement was legitimate. I’d say you failed…miserably.

Wouldn’t feminist organizations rush to the aid of the woman? Clearly she’s taking on the good ole boy network and the patriarchal status quo doesn’t like it.

As the allegations of Nikki Haley, (R-candidate for governor in South Carolina) reverberate across the web, I’ve noticed one segment of the media and blogosphere that’s been strangely quiet.

The femblogs have barely mentioned the story.

Unlike previous situations when conservative women called out feminists, this story  has been all over the news: Washington Post, Politico, Huffington Post, CNN, Talking Points Memo, Mediaite, and Daily Kos have covered every second. Since the right-wing blogs have fixated the story, there’s really no excuse for why they haven’t mentioned it.

Could they be purposely ignoring it because it puts feminists in a sticky corner that got them in trouble for defending the actions of Bill Clinton in the 90s for political gain? Or, do they have a reason to stay quiet and watch this situation unfold, hoping that it drags out as long as possible?

By calling out Nikki Haley, which you know they want to do since she was endorsed by the “evil one” (aka Sarah Palin), they would have to side with a guy that has a guilty record for domestic violence, a history of making jokes about beating up women, and a paper trail that veers closely into creepy stalker territory. This video alone should cause feminists to lead the charge that whatever the truth, Will Folks is up to no good.

What’s a left-wing gal to do? Completely ignore the story and hope that it goes away or make the difficult job of defending a (gasp!) conservative female candidate from allegations by an extremely questionable source?

At this point, the evidence is unclear. The released text messages are hardly a smoking gun. Haley very likely could have engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Folks. If so, she should come clean and face the potential consequences. However, as Allahpundit pointed out, Folks is making everyone feel sympathetic to Haley by his sheer creep factor.

Even if Haley is guilty and had some type of affair with the then unmarried Folks, shouldn’t feminists call him out for his blatant misogyny, intimidation tactics and threats towards her physical well-being?

Quite the opposite. Their silence implies agreement. Jezebel, the only fem-outlet to cover it, all but called her guilty. As Erickson stated at Red State, they’ve all but called her a whore. By not defending her, they’re perpetuating stereotypes and the virgin/whore dichotomy that they so detest. But since Haley is a conservative, it doesn’t matter.

The concept of a women having affairs isn’t new to fem blogs. Last year, Politico ran a story on the absence of female candidates and electeds from sex scandals. Reports show that women cheat, but few female politicians have been caught. Either they are sneakier, or they don’t commit adultery while trying to balance a family and career. In April, The Atlantic and Yglesias asked the same question.

You know that feminists have to be salivating over this story. In their quest to show that there are no differences between men and women, especially regarding sex, they would love it if a conservative woman was the first one to make major news over a sex scandal. Wouldn’t it be sweeter for them if it was a Palin endorsee, particularly a pro-life Christian woman?

If definitive proof emerges that Haley did have an affair, how quickly will the smirked cries of “hypocrite!” emerge?

By keeping silent and not bringing up the questionable motives of Folks allegations, the feminists are allowing this story to drag on. With less than two weeks before the primary, it’s in their best interest to make this stick. Even if the allegations are proven false, by keeping quiet, they can potentially damage a Palin endorsement. If the allegations prove correct, they can jump in and yell, “hypocrite!”

Feminists are quick to call out guys for street harassment (and rightfully so) and search for signs of sexism in politics and pop culture, unless it involves conservative women. Remember when Arlen Specter was disrespectful to Michele Bachmann, or the countless crass sexual innuendos aimed at Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin or any other prominent female conservative? Feminists never defend women on the right in those situations. (They are quick to attack a respected 73-year-old black economist though for making sarcastic comments.)

Red State claims to have evidence that this was a set-up to bring down Haley. If this is true, will the feminists finally go after a guy for intentionally using sex and intimidation to continue the good ole boys network in South Carolina? Will they actually stand up for the women that they claim to represent and exclaim that this is not acceptable?

Once again, they have an opportunity to prove that they aren’t just shills for the Democratic Party. Will they do the right thing?

Finding her 18 rules for wives was discovering a kindred spirit. Taryn is much more affluent and moves in different social circles (I could be the middle class version), but her rules essentially sum up my lifestyle. She posts ideas and guidelines that I’ve never been brave enough to publish on my blog.

Shocked, I posted it on Facebook. Some of her rules, I disagree with, and I would add some.*  While I think her blog is a bit pretentious and the use of WIFE is taxing,** I mostly agree with her. Surprisingly, a number of my friends also replied that they loved it.

It was extremely validating to discover that I’m not alone in desiring the traditional life. Even in the midst of career-obsessed cities like New York and DC, there are other women out there like me.

What has prompted this? Pop culture? A rebellion of conservative morals? A yearning for simplicity in a world that has dramatically changed in our lifetime?

I think the answer is a combination of all three.

Being a housewife is hardly a new trend. Even in the height of the radical women’s movement, there were still young women who chose traditional roles and opted for the home and hearth. My mother is a prime example.

Until there’s an emergence of a counter-cultural movement that combines pop culture with politics, the media takes no notice. Between the show Desperate Housewives, the reality show spin-offs Real Housewives and the sudden appearance notice of conservative women on the political scene, the media has discovered that not all women want careers or march through the streets burning bras.

Much of this is driven by pop culture. Kitsch is very much in right now. Having collected vintage furniture and memorabilia since I was about 10, I’ve noticed the price of items from 1940s-1960s skyrocket. There are also new lines of retro-inspired decore and gadgets for the home. Thanks to Mad Men, the 1950s/60s style has returned to clothing, and martinis have been popular since Sex and the City launched the return of the Cosmopolitan in the late nineties.

A return to nostalgia was inevitable.

Keep in mind that the Millenial generation is just approaching 30 (gulp). We’re starting to buy homes and start families. We are also the generation raised by the most liberal group in history. Many grew up with working mothers and permissive guidelines. Is it surprising that adults who grew up in daycare would want a different family environment for their own offspring? At some point, the generation raised in the hyper-sexual media landscape will say “enough is enough.” We’re a generation without a shock factor. It’s counter-cultural to be traditional.

Secondly, it is typical for younger generations to rebel. The Baby Boomers rebelled against the traditions and morals of the Silent Generation. What we don’t hear about is that the Silent Generation rebelled against the excesses of the Jazz Age. It’s a generational cycle.

People also return to “simpler ages” when society radically changes.

Over the last 30 years, our culture and geopolitical environment has dramatically altered. We went from the Cold War to an era of democracy to the emergence of global terrorism. The last decade has also seen a technological revolution unparalleled in history. Jobs, the economy, even the very idea of work is changing. This technology has changed tradition and culture, and we’re globally accessible in ways that were never possible before. Life is essentially much more complicated than when our grandparents were starting out.

Thus, we fetishize eras that we think were simpler and glamorize them. Were the 1950s/60s simple? Absolutely not. People were just as messed up then as they are now. If anything, alcoholism and abuse were permitted culturally, which was wrong. Anyone who longs for Betty Draper’s life from Mad Men is crazy. She is one unhappy and despicable person. (There were happy housewives in the 1960s. January Jones just lacks the nuance to bring that to the role, and the unhappy housewife fits the stereotype of what we think thanks to Betty Friedan.) However, the glamor and predictability of that era appeals to us.

During the Enlightenment and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, pastoral scenes were popular that depicted happy peasant farmers. (Think of the fabric toile.) They romanticized simpler times. In no way was it easy to be a peasant farmer, but it was glamorized because society understood it. We’re seeing a similar theme.

To a large degree, I think single women writing on this topic remains taboo. The feminist movement has been most successful in removing the expectation that all twentysomething women should marry. Now, this is something that you say in hush-hush terms with your girlfriends, or you place caveats around it. (Of course I’d get married, if the right person came along…) It’s no longer socially acceptable to say, “I want to get married.” As a society, we just expect people to stumble into fairy tale romances that sometimes end in marriage.

I believe it was Phyllis Schafly who said men benefit from the Pill and feminism the most. They’ve been freed from all obligations, yet women are still expected to live a man’s lifestyle while naturally craving marriage and motherhood. As studies show, that’s a nearly impossible balance to achieve.

Danielle Crittenden captures this element of relationships in her book What Our Mothers Didn’t Teach Us. Couples enter into long-term relationships, yet don’t have any expectations for a lasting commitment. Inevitably, this changes as the proverbial biological clock goes off. Suddenly the woman wants commitment, and the guy is left thinking, “When did things change?”

While society has supposedly “liberated” women, those that want marriage and family are expected to remain silent until it magically happens. Women who are open about their goals are viewed as pushy, desperate or free-loaders. (Think of the movies Leap Year, The Back-Up Plan or Sex and the City‘s Charlotte) It’s not acceptable to be honest. I think this should change. If being a homemaker is your goal, why should you have to hide it? (Focus on the Family’s Boundless has the best coverage of this topic.)

As Liz says, “It’s possible that then, as now, there were some women who really did enjoy being completely dedicated wives and mothers. And that this being true in no way negates the fact that many women do not enjoy being full-time housewives, and that women should pursue whatever path makes them happiest.”

I think it comes down to pursuing what makes you happy. Some women are meant to work outside the home. Some aren’t. Some want children. Some don’t. It’s acceptable to make the choices that fit your life. You shouldn’t feel pressured into following a certain path because society dictates it.

Feminism claims to have made all choices available to women, but they’ve just replaced one stereotype with another. If they truly want all women to pursue what makes them happy, they should respect my pearl-wearing, monogrammed self when I advocate for traditional roles. Don’t get all huffy when conservative women extol the values of homemaking. I’m doing what makes me happy. Isn’t that supposed to be the goal of feminism?

Ladies, if you are domestically-inclined like me, come out of the wannabe housewife closet and leave a comment. You may think you’re the last old-fashioned woman on earth, but trust me, there are others like you.

*No dresses after 7 p.m. and only dressing up for church are debatable. Even my 1942 copy of Emily Post that I use as a reference would argue that attire should be determined by the appropriateness of the event. It’s now acceptable to wear a business suit or pants in the evening. Also, the leadership of the church determines dress, so it is only correct to follow the guidelines of what the pastor wears. Manners exist to put others at ease not to prove a point. If you showed up at my cburch in a three-piece suit, you would stand out.

I would also suggest Rule #19 Clean your kitchen every night before bed and don’t leave the house until your bed is made in the morning. This makes getting up in the morning and coming home at night much more pleasant.

**I do hope that Miss Cox realizes that no amount of rules, manners or pretty things will make you happy, nor are they the foundation of a happy marriage and family. Her promotion of style over substance is off-putting, but that just may be the nature of her blog. Even in the 60s, life wasn’t a Doris Day movie.

Update: On her own, my mom read this post and commented. I think her reflections are much more powerful having lived out my case for domesticity. Mom’s comments reminded me of the expression, “On your deathbed, no one ever regrets not spending more time in the office.” Sadly, our culture places work above family, and women believe this lie. My mom, a homemaker since 1980, wrote:

I’m shocked at the responses to your blog post, for example, one poster said her mom was “miserable, angry and bored” staying home, and it was “more about scrubbing toilets.” Don’t you have to scrub the toilets anyway whether you work or not?

Being a housewife is so much more than scrubbing toilets. Housewives serve a valuable function in society by being volunteers in the community keeping the doors of many non profits open and helping others. It is being the stable force in the family holding down the fort supporting your children and husband. It is also having fun like sharing long lunches with friends and doing whatever your heart desires. The possibilities are as limited as your imagination.

My memories of being home with you are happy, fun and busy. We were rarely bored and always had some craft project going on, planning something fun or volunteering together for something. I’m entering into a later phase of my life now and have never had any regrets about staying home, making due with a limited budget, driving used cars, and living in a less expensive house, to focus on my family. I can’t imagine thinking right now, “Darn, I should have gotten a full time job and put Adrienne in daycare so we could have new cars and a bigger house. I can imagine my regret if I had missed those special times we shared when you were growing up if I had worked. It is all about priorities and what is important in life. I am totally at peacewith my choice to stay at home.

Shockingly, very little research has been conducted on conservative women. In her book Righting Feminism, Ronnee Schreiber explains the dearth of research on conservative women. Aside from a blip in the early 1980s after the ERA failed, gender studies have completely ignored women on the right. In a twisted form of elitist misogyny, they viewed women on the right as extensions of conservative males. They established an academic rationale that all conservative women were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

How things have changed! Rather than waiting and complaining for the rules to be changed to “level the playing field,” conservative women are plowing through, determined to make a difference and protect the America that they love.

Recently, the Washington Post published an article covering the sudden rise in female candidates running as Republicans.

So far this year, 239 women are candidates for the House and 31 for the Senate, according to data from the Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. Among them, a record 107 Republican women have filed to run for a House seat, according to the National Republican Congressional Committee — surpassing a previous GOP high of 91 in 1994 and a sharp increase from the 65 who ran in 2008. And those numbers could grow. In each year that Rutgers has been keeping track, the final tally has exceeded the late April figure by more than 20.

There are any number of reasons for that. The anti-incumbent movement has a largely female face. Women are the main holders of the purse strings for America’s families. Doesn’t it make sense that fiscal issues would drive us to the streets? the The rise of Sarah Palin can’t be discounted. Love her or hate her, she is the first identifiable conservative woman to make a splash in politics.

A figurehead always has to emerge on the national scene in order to legitimize movements and encourage support. It took a Sarah Palin-type to burst onto the national scene and show the average housewife in Kansas or Tennessee that she could run for office.

Hanna Rosin at Slate also wrote this week on the female face of Tea Parties, “Is the Tea Party a Feminist Movement?” She captures a snapshot of a movement that fulfills what feminism has always lacked–mainstream support from women:

If the Tea Party has any legitimate national leadership, it is dominated by women. Of the eight board members of the Tea Party Patriots who serve as national coordinators for the movement, six are women. Fifteen of the 25 state coordinators are women. One of the three main sponsors of the Tax Day Tea Party that launched the movement is a group called Smart Girl Politics. The site started out as a mommy blog and has turned into a mobilizing campaign that trains future activists and candidates. Despite its explosive growth over the last year, it is still operated like a feminist cooperative, with three stay-at-home moms taking turns raising babies and answering e-mails and phone calls. Spokeswoman Rebecca Wales describes it as a group made up of “a lot of mama bears worried about their families.” The Tea Party, she says, is a natural home for women because “for a long time people have seen the parties as good-ole’-boy, male-run institutions. In the Tea Party, women have finally found their voice.”

Despite their best attempts, feminism never really caught on in Main Street. Even though Hollywood took it up, and women’s magazines became more sympathetic, the movement still remained ensconced in highly educated/urban circles.

Oddly, the Tea Party movement has done what feminism spent millions of dollars and countless public awareness campaigns trying to accomplish. They got women involved in politics in greater numbers than ever before.

While I dislike the Marxist overtones of feminists complaining about the patriarchy and encouraging the destruction of our Judeo-Christian society, their navel-gazing was the biggest turn-off for me. The endless questions about “is this feminist or feminist enough?,” the ever-changing definitions of what feminism is and the groupthink mentality that any deviation from the Democratic party is bad for women drove me to openly become an anti-feminist.

The women profiled by Rosin have done more in one year than fifty years of feminism ever accomplished. They haven’t written countless books, hosted conferences, created academic departments or built cushy government jobs for themselves. Instead they built grassroots movements from scratch from their kitchen tables and motivated their friends and neighbors to get involved with local politics. The women involved with the Tea Party saw a need and did something about it within their communities and states. They empowered masses of women.

Isn’t that what motivated the early leaders of the women’s movement? Isn’t that what the early suffragists did? Wasn’t their goal to inspire women to improve their lives and lives of their families through education, the workforce and public policy?

Compare their goals to feminism, which emerged as an outgrowth of the socialist movments in the 1960s. From the beginning the movement sought to re-structure society on a fundamental level.

I’ve developed a theory that the concept of first and second wave feminism is actually inaccurate. If you look at history, there are only tenuous ties from the 1960s radical women’s liberation movement to the suffragists who marched for equal rights in the 1920s. In the late 1960s, when two early feminists visited Alice Paul in her Washington, D.C. home (which is now the Sewall-Belmont House and Museum on the Hill), she was disgusted and slammed the door on them. To her, the women in the 60s did not represent what she and so many other women had struggled to attain.

When your movement’s historians are also the evangelists and spokespeople, they get to decide how the story is told. However, there is plenty of room for alternative theories in women’s history if they’re allowed.

Evidence shows that the women in the Tea Party have much more in common with the suffragists than feminists. They’re pragmatists. They’re fighting to preserve liberty and ensure equality for their children. They aren’t bucking patriarchal symbols of oppression or arguing that marriage and tradition are harmful to women. They aren’t oppressed (unless by taxes), and they aren’t victims.

Suffragists campaigned for civil and fiscal changes in American policy. They wanted the franchise, property rights, access to jobs and education and changes in custody laws. Birth control was an issue for some, but it was highly contentious.

Tea Party women are Americans. They view themselves in the same light as early suffragists. They see that something is wrong in America that needs to be fixed. Feminists view the picture differently. They believe that America is evil and needs to be fundamentally changed.

Perhaps, the Tea Party movement has learned invaluable lessons that neither the suffragists nor feminists have been capable of learning.

A common complaint is that women need to all get along and vote as one bloc. That won’t happen nor will it ever. Men have never voted just to show solidarity with other men. Why should women? Votes are determined by positions on policy, personal belief systems and experience. Gender is far too broad a category to determine an election or build a party.

That hasn’t stopped women from trying.

The fight for Nineteenth Amendment was marked by dissensions and splintering. While the suffragists were far more accepting of women with dissenting views than feminists, they still had the objective to unite all women to change the world. It’s not possible and won’t ever happen. Wedge issues will always emerge.

As Rosen notes:

Like many activists I talked to, Kling thinks social issues such as abortion are just wedges to drive women apart. (Varley, who is Catholic and pro-life, said the same thing: “We would be stupid to bring up abortion at a meeting.”)

Since the emergence of women’s liberation, abortion has been their rallying cry. However, it turns off the majority of women in this country. (See polls on pro-life Americans and views on feminism). Tea parties have been successful because they rally around fiscal issues. While groups like Smart Girl Politics are more conservative, their sheer growth shows that the field is wide open for conservative or moderate women who want to enact positive change in their communities.

Now, they’ve been liberated from the prison of the feminist movement to accomplish their goals.

What an accurate description! However, Feministing is one of the more prominent ones in lefty gal world, so people actually get their information and draw their opinions there. (Does that make you cringe, too?)

It makes my day when kick-ass conservative women bloggers, like Lori Ziganto, take on Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing. Given that Lori actually makes logical arguments and the extent of Jessica’s are typically, “but that’s so f—ing stupid to ME, so THEY are wrong.” (Don’t believe me? Read her books). Apparently Lori ruffled a few feathers, which resulted in Cassy Fiano responding at Hot Air.

What was all the fuss over? A simple ad in NYC subways that states, “abortion changes you.”

For the past few months, I’ve read numerous reports about pro-abortion women angered at the concept that abortion could change you. As John Hawkins described, it’s rather mild. Yet to feminists, this ad was incredibly offensive. No one should dare question their opinion on abortion. As liberal women, they have the final word.

Cassy touches on a subject that I’ve tried to understand:

It’s like they practically salivate over the thought of another woman getting an abortion. I don’t know why, but it’s sickening how much feminists try to actively convince women to have abortions.

I’ve seen that same enthusiasm and find it cold and calculating. Mentally, I’ve started referring to these type of women as the baby killer cheerleaders. You have women reveling in their abortion stories, bowling for abortion, blogging for abortion and tweeting an abortion. It doesn’t quite resonate with the “safe, legal, rare” drumbeat that liberals tried to use in the 90s. I guess the new motto is “YEA! ABORTION!”

As part of the larger liberal movement, feminists completely eliminate the concept of personal responsibility. A group of women doesn’t want to accept responsibilities for their actions and are convinced that women can and should have the same sexual abandon as a frat boy. They don’t want to deal with the consequences, and abortion makes it convenient for them. Don’t want a baby? Poof! Abortion makes the little unwanted mass of tissues disappear.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and a majority of Americans agree. Every woman who stands up and says, “this attitude and behavior is not acceptable” only highlights the shallow callousness of pro-abortion women. In order to succeed, they must silence all opposition and bully other women into agreeing with them. That’s the only pro-woman way, right?

Kudos to Cassy and Lori. I wish more women on the right would take on Jessica Valenti and others like her.

Does that kind of gentlemanly behavior still exist? Women my age have never experienced having a gentleman stand when we enter or leave a room or walk on the outside of the sidewalk to protect us from getting splashed by passing cars. Chivalry isn’t manners but acts of thoughtfulness.

The Network of enlightened Women created the NeW Gentlemen’s Showcase to prove that chivalry isn’t dead. Across the country, college women are nominating guys who have displayed character and chivalry. According to Holly Hall Carter, NeW’s executive director:

“NeW is challenging women to rethink relationships and gender roles by conducting a search for the remaining gentlemen of their generation. Some say that chivalry is dead on the college campus, but the women of NeW are seeking to revive it by honoring men who treat women with respect. They are looking for the few young men who still open doors, give up their seat on the bus and pay for dinner on a date.”

I think the concept of recognizing modern gentleman is a great idea. Many evenings, I’ve listened to guy friends lament that no one recognizes their “nice guy” behavior. They aren’t thanked when doors are held open for them. Women refuse to let them carry heavy packages, or dates complain when they pick up the bill. NeW’s Gentleman’s Showcase shows that chivalry still does exist, and there are women out there who appreciate it.

If you know a college gentleman, submit a video. Tomorrow is the deadline, so act fast.