Posted on 01/18/2005 6:55:59 PM PST by Lorianne
Forty years after Betty Friedan's classic "The Feminist Mystique," Americans are still divided over what a woman should be.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd laments that being a rich, powerful and famous aging feminist is not enough: Powerful men, she complains, marry women in the lowly "service" professions.
Women, perhaps, such as Laura Bush? The former teacher and librarian first lady begins her husband's second term with a remarkable 85 percent approval rating. What is the secret to her remarkable appeal across the blue and red lines that divide us Americans?
I think it has something to do with the fact that Laura Bush is not a traditional wife; she's a new traditionalist wife. She gives us hope that there can be a sphere, outside the realms of politics, money and war, which matters. She embodies the truth that grace is a virtue: It takes a certain steely discipline not to be provoked -- by the media or (say) Mrs. Kerry -- into a catfight or a gaffe. She suggests that devotion is not subservience, caring is not weakness, that a woman can give herself as a wife and mother and not lose herself, but find her own path to making a difference. To be feminine and strong, caring and competent.
Laura Bush is no wallflower. In an interview with Parade magazine, Mrs. Bush sets "an ambitious and intriguing agenda" for the next term, one that plays to all her new traditionalist strengths, mixing the best of feminism with a bold unconcern for political correctness: women's health here at home, women's rights in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), new research-based literacy programs for American high school students who can't read. And better education for boys.
Boys?
"I think we need to pay attention to boys," this mother of two daughters says. "I think we've paid a lot of attention to girls for the last 30 years, and we have this idea in the United States that boys can take care of themselves." Boys, she points out, are children, too. They need nurturing and care, like all children.
Last week, Harvard President Larry Summers spoke at a research conference on why relatively few women advance in math, engineering and science in academia. He provoked a firestorm by suggesting that (among other reasons) there just may be biological differences in the average mathematical ability between the genders. Nancy Hopkins, an MIT biology professor walked out in a huff. "It was so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way." Fortunately for the reputation of women scientists, Denice Denton of the University of California, although equally offended, stayed to dispute the view based on her own reading of the scientific evidence.
Meanwhile, nobody asked the real question: Why the focus on women? Perhaps I missed the important research conference where the president of Harvard gathered with other similar lights to discuss how universities are failing boys. For the overwhelming evidence is that if schools -- including colleges and universities -- are failing one gender, it is boys.
Today, nearly 2 million more women than men attend college. "The gender gap is wide and getting wider, and the problem isn't limited to college," Paul Smolarcik of the Business Roundtable told the New York Post. "Males are falling behind females at every level of education, from elementary school on up."
In 1970, there were only 68 women in college for every 100 men. Today, there are almost 130 women for every 100 men enrolled in college. In the next decade, 143 women will receive bachelor's degrees for every 100 men who do so.
Laura Bush is an educator. She knows that if rates of substance abuse, delinquency, violence and school failure are any indicator, it's boys our society is currently failing. And these days, it takes a strong woman to say so.
The other being Ter-RAY-zuh.
Not enough? That resume could hardly be less inviting.
I don't think Americans are all that confused. The election says it all, just like you and Poohbah pointed out.
Laura Bush is as close to the perfect example of what God intended a woman to be as you can get. She is comfortable with herself. She's not trying to be a man and she's not apologizing for being a woman. (Unlike Hil-liar who tries to prove what a man should be like.)
BTW - what is a "new traditionalist"? Seems like a bit of a contradiction going on there.
Laura Bush is one of the best First Ladies in history, a devoted wife, smart, articulate, savvy, discreet, hardworking and compassionate toward everyone except unborn babies. Go figure.
**"I think we need to pay attention to boys," this mother of two daughters says. "I think we've paid a lot of attention to girls for the last 30 years, and we have this idea in the United States that boys can take care of themselves." Boys, she points out, are children, too. They need nurturing and care, like all children.**
Outstand quote!
compassionate toward everyone except unborn babies. Go figure.
What?
Laura's only fault -- she is pro-choice.
Laura Bush will go down in history as one of the finest First Ladies in history.
Folks talk about Jackie Kennedy having "grace", and maybe she did. But Laura has it all....grace, honesty, integrity and the ability to connect with us common people. She makes us feel like she is not above us, but one of us.
I looked it up, and I don't think she gave any strong indication of being pro-choice.
Why is that MODo thinks that only a rich and powerful man is good enough for her?
I read that, the thing is that it was "The Today Show," she had to be diplomatic.
As when I first read that column posted here, that is the line that disturbs me most. What kind of snobby elitist pig would come out with a sentiment like that?
I thought all Times writers were supposed to be good little leftists. Up with the proletariat and down with the fat, oppressive bosses!
As I said before, I'm willing to bet that the cleaning lady who does Maureen's office is a better person than she is, and maybe happily married with a family to boot. Maybe she's poor and maybe she has to work hard to support her family, and maybe she doesn't enjoy her work very much, emptying Maureen's wastebasket, but at least she doesn't make her living high off the hog by insulting her betters all day long.
Are you a Fk'n idiot. She never had an abortion
Well I should google before spouting. I guess she did say onetime that she didn't think Roe vs Wade should be overturned.
"Not enough? That resume could hardly be less inviting."
LOL, well put!
I gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that for our more senior brethren, the visual representation rule should apply to Laura Bush too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.