Jennifer Roback Morse of the anti-gay Ruth Institute has some very strange thoughts about the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling. In fact, she thanks God for the men on the Supreme Court who were “sticking up for women” in their ruling. But she means real women, not those evil feminist justices on the court.
Which brings me back to the subject at hand: whose interests do the women on the Supreme Court actually represent?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a lifelong radical feminist ideologue. She came of age in the short window of time when women could still get married, have kids, go to law school, and have a career after child-bearing. Her two children were born when she was 22 and 32. Thanks to radical feminism, highly educated women have a much more difficult time doing these things. They can go to law school and have a career alright. But getting married and having children sometime before menopause, not so much.
*scratches head* How exactly does “radical feminism” — by which, of course, she means any feminism — make it “much more difficult” for a woman to go to law school and have a career while having children too? By pushing for decent and affordable child care and maternity leave policies? By paving the way for women to go to law school and have careers at all outside of being a nurse or a school teacher? This is a bafflingly stupid claim that she doesn’t even attempt to support or explain. Then again, she’s writing this in the Christian Post, so evidence and logic might actually diminish her ability to persuade her readers. Best to stick to substance-free stereotypes, amirite?
Justice Ginsburg had the lifelong support of her husband in her career aspirations. Thanks to no-fault divorce, women today cannot count on a lifetime of mutual support with their husbands. Justice Ginsburg has been safely insulated from the negative fallout of the sexual revolution which she and her radical feminist colleagues did so much to champion.
Uh…does she think that women could count on a lifetime of mutual support with their husbands before no-fault divorce? Does she think that any woman who wanted out of a marriage prior to that was going to get such support from her husband? Does she think it was better for women before they actually had the chance to have a career to support themselves so they were completely dependent on a husband? Sorry, but the good old days certainly weren’t that for women stuck in terrible marriages.
The other two women on the Supreme Court, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, are childless. It is highly unlikely that the two of them understand and respect the lives and aspirations of women like my friend Katie and me. And for less educated women, family is everything and “career” is a job to put food on the table. Elite women know nothing of “everywoman,” the people who have endured the sexual revolution, and who do not have high status jobs as compensation.
Oh yes, the old “elites” versus “Jane six-pack” trope. Morse’s solution, her way of helping those “everywomen” is to make sure they have as little control over their own reproduction and sexuality as possible. That’ll fix everything, eh Jennifer?
All I can say is: thank God for the men on the Supreme Court. At least someone is sticking up for “everywoman” against the Elite Women.
Yes, “everywoman” wants nothing more than to have their own choices limited and to have men control their ability to decide whether and when to have a child.
Like Dispatches on Facebook: