I think I’m having an identity crisis. When the news that Mitt Romney had selected Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running-mate broke late Friday night, I was ecstatic. However, according to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, I reacted inappropriately because Ryan is “not a pick for women.” Now I’m confused. I’m a woman, yet still borderline giddy with excitement about the pick. I mean, have you seen Paul Ryan? But I digress… In all seriousness, I believe Mitt Romney made a strong, wise pick in Representative Ryan and his selection will bring the discussion back to the appropriate focal point: the economy. However, according to Andrea Mitchell and all the liberals who claim that the so-called “War on Women” comes from the Right, I must be doing something wrong.
Not wanting to betray my gender, I decided to look a bit further into why exactly Paul Ryan is not a good pick for women. Mitchell claimed that Ryan’s opposition to both abortion and Obamacare place him in opposition to my gender. Think Progress continued along the same line of reasoning when they posted “5 Reasons Why Paul Ryan is Bad for Women’s Health” on Monday. The reasons included:
1. Ryan’s support of a “Personhood Amendment” which would give a fetus legal rights.
2. His opposition to all forms of abortion.
3. His desire to ban abortion coverage from state Obamacare exchanges.
4. Ryan’s comment comparing Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision.
5. His support of defunding Planned Parenthood.
I think I see a trend here. At one time, women’s rights encompassed suffrage, equality in the workplace, etc. Now, the “right” liberal feminists claim to fight for falls under the umbrella of “reproductive rights.” The real question is: what really is a “reproductive right?” Is it the right to have a child? If so, that’s certainly not something liberal women support, considering that being pro-life is seemingly synonymous with being “anti-women.” Could it be the “right” to contraception? While I don’t believe we have a “right” to birth control, few, if any, conservatives support banning contraception altogether. What we don’t support is a contraception mandate that will interfere with the morals of certain religious groups. Hence my confusion. To be socially conservative is to be anti-women according to liberals. Apparently conservative women are a paradox. I will say, it’s quite strange to live in a country where I’m considered an anti-woman woman.
Although liberal “women’s groups” claim to support my gender, they are actually pushing us backwards. What I find most insulting about this ideology is the implication that women think not with our brains, but rather with our reproductive organs. This is not only pandering, it’s patronizing and insulting. Liberals and feminists, you do not stand for women. You do not own our vote. I find the patronizing much more insulting than the imaginary “War on Women” cooked up by liberals. I’m sick of the claims that conservatives are “anti-women.” This claim is a manifestation of a classic liberal tactic of bipolar stances. If you’re not for a liberal viewpoint, then you are “against” an entire group of people or viewpoint all-together. For example, if you are not in favor of the liberal concept of “social justice,” then you’re for injustice. If you’re against abortion, then you’re anti-women. It’s merely a fallacy, not the truth.
It is ridiculous that liberals have pandered to women so much that they believe we only care about their imaginary “reproductive rights.” You know what women want? We want a country where equality of opportunity is prized, not equality of outcome. What we don’t want is to be under an administration that implies women cannot make it without government support. Or one that allows millions of female (and male) children to be murdered through abortion. You’ve heard of race traitors, right? Well, if it turns out that conservatives are against the female gender, I guess I’m a gender traitor. If that’s what liberals call a pro-life, socially conservative stance, then I wear that with a badge of honor.