I obviously disagree with her on abortion and economic issues, but Myers mostly includes common-sense solutions to our problems. She acknowledges the we don’t have to reach parity in every. single. job. field. to achieve balance in the working world as the recent Shriver Report recommends. Myers also approaches the issue as a woman who appears to have actually worked in the real world and likes men (unlike many of her peers in this field). I actually agreed with her on some points, such as her chapter on “The Confidence Gap.”

Myers does a good job of demonstrating that a third way is possible in the mommywars. After leaving the White House, she was able to carve out a career of public speaking, punditry and writing. Now that isn’t available to most women, but technology has dramatically altered the way that we view work. I truly believe that much of the hyped mommywars will be insignificant within the next decade. Offices are much more flexible for men and women, and working from home, telecommuting, flex time and alternative schedules will be the norm in the coming years.

She also devotes time to explore ways to stop the gap in science, technology, engineering and math fields. (In a previous job, I worked extensively on this issue, so I follow it closely.) Myers presents interesting facts that I had not seen.

Myers shares that people who think with both spheres of their brain are overwhelmingly likely to go into liberal arts. Since the majority of women think with both sides of the brain, they are more drawn to psychology, history, art, English, etc.

There’s also research that women are drawn to “people-focused” careers because our brains are wired for discussion and empathy. Because science is presented to kids as stark, boring and lonely, women aren’t drawn to it. Meyer’s shares an idea that would feasibly work:

…much of math is now theoretical, and physics doesn’t require as many “people” skills as, say, medicine. Which may mean fewer girls will be interested. Or it may mean we need to find new ways to make disciplines like physics and engineering more appealing to women’s more diverse interests. Maybe if the field’s most visible leaders talked about the practical, “people-oriented” benefits of the physical sciences–like how rural villages in Africa might get clean water and affordable energy–more girls might be interested.

On gender roles:

The hardcore ideologues on the left flank of feminist thinking insist that gender roles are not just artificial, but designed to hold women back. So until their desroyed, women will continue to be victims of a patriarchy, virtual slaves in their own homes. But most women–even many who call themselves feminists–don’t want to be “the same” as men. Nor do they believe that equality demands it. That’s not to say that questions about what equality means or how it might be achieved have been resolved. Far from it. But the vision of a one-size-fits-all world simply denies too many women’s experiences–and their aspiration.

On equality in the workforce:

For starters,  I think we have to abandon the idea that even if all the obstacles were eliminated, there would be an equal number of men and women in virtually every profession. We don’t need gender parity among elementary school teachers or bond traders before we can declare victory. We don’t even need it among physicists. That’s not to say that it won’t happen. It could. But isn’t it more likely that even if we eliminate the conflict between having a high-powered job and having a family, unravel the mysteries of innate aptitude and interest, and root out discrimination, there will still be more women in social psychology and more men in engineering? And isn’t that okay? I think it is.

Is this a book that will dramatically alter the landscape of gender politics? No. But is refreshing to remember that there are common sense Democrats out there.

Every so often, I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of the left. For example in 2007, Condoleeza Rice was attacked for not having children. One year later, feminists questioned if motherhood hampered Palin’s abilities to govern.

Palin was also attacked for using a ghost writer for Going Rogue when Hillary Clinton had one for It Takes a Village, and no one on the left complained.

Anyone else confused?

Today, I ran across an editoral by Daved McGrath attacking Palin’s use of the feminist label. While I have my own issues with that movement, try to notice the glaring hypocrisy:

As usual, she talks a different game. In her vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden in the fall of 2008, she identified herself as a feminist, asserting she supports equal rights for women. She pointed to her own experience to prove women can “do it all.”

In reality, women in American have been “doing it all” long before Sarah Palin was born. As early as 1960, 40 percent of women with school-aged children were keeping a house while also working outside the home. The figure is 70 percent today.

This is interesting. According to all women’s movement lore, women did not experience liberation until 1963 when Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique. In 1960, three years before publication, women were still toiling away in their suburban living rooms feeling oppressed. Hmmm…. Perhaps McGrath and the feminists need to get on the same page.

Also note that women “doing it all” is still a very intense debate. Google “Mommywars” if you want a taste. When Palin invoked those words, she showed that she’s like most other American women who are struggling to find balance in their lives.

McGrath continues:

Frontiers for rights for women, as articulated by the National Organization of Women, have extended to abortion and reproductive rights, economic justice, lesbian rights, bringing an end to sexual discrimination, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping violence against women, immigration reform, and public health care.

Palin is anathema to nearly all these goals…

So “frontiers” for women’s rights also happen to mirror the agenda of the Democratic Party? Coincidence?

What happened to other “frontiers?” I thought “frontiers” meant achievements and recognitions of women’s progress not the current progressive platform. What about all the firsts from Republican women? Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court. Condoleeza Rice was the first female National Security Advisor. Palin was the first female governor of Alaska and the first woman on the ticket for the GOP. Jeannette Rankin, a Republican, was the first woman in Congress starting in 1917. Early Suffragists Lucy Stone and Mary Livermore were also Republicans. The Republican Party was also the first party to support the equal rights of women.

When are feminists and the larger left going to get it. You either have it one way or the other. Women were either oppressed by their suburban houses in 1960 or working. When it’s convenient, these issues are rallying cries for more laws to be passed. When conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) are actually doing something productive, these are suddenly non-issues.

When did frontiers for women mean gay rights, multiculturalism, immigration and socialized health care? All of those are liberal issues, not just women’s issues. ]]> http://www.cosmopolitanconservative.com/2009/12/15/another-day-another-liberal-hypocrisy/feed/ 1