"Mommy-hood": A choice or a title of distinction?

Today I heard someone say that you don't "earn" the right to be a Mom you choose it and that the celebration of Mother's Day was sexist. 

While working your fingers to the bone as a mother is certainly a choice, being called, "Mommy" is one of the most hard-earned titles in existence. We men constantly are told that there is a difference between being a biological father or "baby daddy" and being a "Dad." If being a "Mom" is just making a choice about having a baby, then that kinda tears down any argument the women who (accurately) say such things about men. 

Being a mother is THE HARDEST JOB in the world, and some would say, including me, that it's one of the most important (and currently one of the most poorly executed) jobs that the human race takes part in. I have been an at-home dad for going on five years now. I work very hard to keep my house looking like a home, but I've yet to do as good a job as my wife did at it. I work very hard to be the understanding, available at-home parent my children need, but I am at best adequate to the task (and sometimes not even that.) While I hope to be a good dad for my children, when my children scrape a knee or bump their head it's not Dad they call for. They call for Mommy.

People who argue the role of women in the home tend to devalue it by calling it merely the "propagation of out-of-date gender roles and sexism. I'll state for the record, however, that anyone who can say that the genders have no separate qualities and are in all things equal are not only devaluing thousands of years of women's toils (a rather callous and sexist act in and of itself), but are ignoring the vast majority of psychological research and evidence to the contrary. I would love to say that my work as an at-home father was equal to that of my wife but the fact that saying so would be convenient to my ego does not change the inconvenient truth of the matter. 

Now before I get a bunch of hate mail from single parents, let me say this: I'm not saying that a single parent such as a widower or divorcee can't provide a loving home for their children. I'm not saying that a man or woman cannot do a good job of raising their children by themselves. I AM saying that the all-important role of Mom is a role custom-fitted to the qualities women possess much more so than men. If you want to call me sexist on that point, then keep in mind that that statement was not critical of the professional qualities of women, but of the significantly smaller portions of motherly qualities in men.

While women can be and often are great/equal to/better than men in some professional outlets, the majority of women are and will always be better suited than men to the task of being a "Mom." In other words, you can choose to be a biological mother or baby-mommy, but only your children can decide you're worthy of being called "Mommy."

Defending our nation from the inside.

The Democrats (AKA: the Progressives/The Rinos/The KKK/The Socialist Party of America/The Mainstream Media) have done a very good job with their use of political correctness and critical theory to divide the nation into a bunch of self-interested, squabbling children, and the best defense the RNC has managed to come up with has been to attempt to redefine the Republican party with a "New Coke/let's-try-to-imitate-our-competition" image. 

The fact of the matter is that the reason the Republicans did so well against the Dems in 2010 was because of the influx of truly conservative voices that wholeheartedly believed in the freedom, liberty and justice the original Republicans spoke out for; the party that fought tooth and nail to end slavery, segregation, and other such evils both in the 19th and 20th centuries. 

The "Old Republican Guard", though, were unhappy in their being pushed aside for a more pure conservatism and thus we ended up with Mitt 'Mittens' Romney, (just as we had run with the John 'the RINO' McCain in 2008)... and subsequently lost an election that could have easily been won had the RNC listened in 2010 to the majority of their own party. 

What I'm about to say is gonna make heads explode and eyes roll, because it runs counter to everything the mainstream media (and liberal college campuses and other state run institutions nationwide) has been preaching for the last 4-5 years, but if the RNC had listened to the so-called "tea party" in the first place, we'd have had not only won the election, but we'd have been able to run a real contender instead of the milquetoast the RNC squandered our chances with. 

I contend that if we truly want positive change, we need to turn off our TVs, do a bit of research ourselves on the upcoming elections and stop listening to the talking heads to make our final decisions. Debates are nice, but as was seen in the debates for 2012 the guys who run the debates are hardly unbiased and will kowtow to the far left, because those stands are what most of them earnestly believe. 

We need to know our beliefs and be able to aptly defend them if we are ever to recognize the country we live in again. We need to know that our cause is not racist, it is true freedom because it levels the playing field instead of leveling (and subsequently decreasing) the rewards. We need to realize that the govt doesn't give a hand up, it buys votes with bribes of substandard living. Govt doesn't create jobs, it can only support or destroy a healthy workforce. Govt will not be our loving caretaker, it will only ever be the one that holds the whip. I am not an anarchist. The govt needs to exist, but it needs to be pruned, because the fruits it currently bears are small and bitter.

Truth Trumps the Race Card

About a week ago a friend of mine asked my opinion on President Obama. I told him that I disagreed with his views and was unhappy with his actions as president. A college student nearby overheard what was said and immediately confronted me telling me that I was racist and that what I’d said was equivalent to hate speech. Nothing I said to the young man mattered. I disagreed with him and that made me a racist.

                Of course this made me wonder. Why wouldn’t he give me the benefit of the doubt? Had I said this same thing about Clinton (which I did) the idea that I was a racist would have been obviously preposterous. The fact that Obama is half black doesn’t concern me. I respect him as a fellow US citizen and would endeavor to be a good neighbor to him if we ever shared a fence. I believe him to be at least a relatively intelligent man, even if I fundamentally disagree with him on many issues.

                A short history lesson is all that is needed of course. Shortly after World War 1, after everything had been said and done, there were a group of seriously upset people. These people were socialists. Before the world war had even started, these people had believed it to be “scientifically proven” that worldwide socialism would have been the end result of the world war, and would have eventually ended in transforming the world into a blissful one world utopia.

Their “science” didn’t quite work out. The major world powers that were the US and Britain didn’t lose control of their countries to their own “victimized” workforces.  In fact, the places where socialism did take root were not the international powerhouses, but the technologically and socially backward places like Russia and China.

They found that the workers they’d staked their bets on didn’t get angry at their “mistreatment,” instead they became prosperous and found themselves in a boom of industry that made the common people of the US and Britain wealthy by comparison to the majority of the world.

For most people, seeing an economic system that made the common man wealthy would illuminate an obvious reaction: adopt that system, but by this point these people were too invested emotionally in the ideas and principles of socialism to let them go and so they set up a school in Germany. They called it the Institute for Social Research (also nick-named the Frankfurt School.) 

They eventually came to the conclusion that all-out war and economic superiority were areas in which socialism could not win head to head. Instead, they came to the conclusion that a far more insidious course of action must be taken in order to install socialism. Subterfuge. The only way to destroy capitalism and free trade was from the inside. Indeed, it was to be a war of culture, or at least the destruction of one.

In their search for “weaponry” to use against their targets, they found an offensive tool and a defensive one. The common names for these tools are “critical theory” and “political correctness.”

Critical theory sets up a “divide and conquer” scenario.  Find groups of mildly to moderately unsatisfied people and, in turn, tell them they deserve more and that their current society isn’t meeting their needs. Wash, rinse and repeat and you have dozens if not more groups of motivated people who, energized by either greed or a sense of victimization, will endeavor tirelessly to tear apart anything they see as the status quo.

This is easily seen in today’s news as hundreds of individual groups assail the American culture as a whole. They’re told America is the most racist country of all. This is an obvious lie as we have more multicultural civic leaders in our elected positions than any than any other three countries. They’re told that we were the worst slavers in history. This is another lie. As abominable as the practice is, it is still in practice to this day in various forms all over the world, and the US didn’t invent it, either, as it existed for centuries beforehand. These are only two of the many anti-American lies being perpetrated by these groups and others like them.

The second tool, “political correctness,” is defensive in nature. It is used as a diversionary tactic against anyone speaking out against the goals of the aforementioned groups. When a moral person is accused of saying something hateful or bigoted, it is only natural to stop and recount one’s words, as being hateful is not a desirable goal for them. However, this moment of pause gives the opponents of this individual a chance to destroy the perceived character of the person making an argument against them. Put bluntly, it shuts them up.

In truth, this tactic usually works only on people who aren't racist. Would you bother telling someone in the KKK they were bigoted against black people? How about telling a Nazi they’re anti-Semitic? Most of these kinds of people take pride in this fact! Telling them the obvious won’t give them pause.

This tool is also used constantly and can be seen everywhere. The commonly used phrase “pulling the race card” by calling someone a racist or bigot is a perfect example of this but it also applies to several other areas of social disagreement. The wealthy are called classist or elitist; the religious are convicted of being puritanical or sexist or any other branch of bigotry. In fact, the recent “hate speech” laws some places have enacted are merely an evolution of this thought and lend the threat of legal recourse against anyone speaking out as well.

Do people of these branches of society have bigots among them? Of course! But by tying these terms to these people it is yet another form of putting people in categories. It is yet another form of bigotry.

And so, in conclusion, I find myself in the position of stating for the record that, while I do not find any portion of humankind to be worth less than myself, I occasionally must say things that others do not agree with and will, in turn, be called a number of awful things. From here on out, I will try not fall to this trap. Blind accusations of bigotry will not shut me up. If you want to win an argument with me you’ll need to use logic and facts instead of name-calling. God Bless.