It is no secret that in recent years men and women have become increasingly politically divided, with more of America’s sons voting for Republicans while her daughters support Democrats. For this reason, one of the greatest challenges — and opportunities — facing the Right today is to put forward an attractive vision of womanhood without attacking men. Unfortunately, conservatives are not well prepared to meet this challenge, and a recent New York Times article focused on the work of the Clare Boothe Luce Center for Conservative Women demonstrates why.
On its face, the piece is another attack against the growing popularity of the “manosphere.” But just below the surface, the piece actually attempts to conflate the worst elements of this online phenomenon with many young people’s genuine support for traditional gender roles. This should come as no surprise from the Grey Lady, of course. But some readers may have been shocked to see an organization for conservative women advocating such a worldview.
I wasn’t. Living in and around Washington, DC, I have come to learn that many of the institutions that cater to conservative women tend to reject, or at least discourage, traditional arrangements in which wives and mothers are “firmly planted at home,” to quote the Times article. These groups are quick to point out that they believe motherhood is good, of course, but they are just as quick to say that it ought to be seasonal and take turns with a career. In the end, they argue that the choice between a high-powered career and staying at home is a false one and insist that conservative women can and should pursue both.
This denial of tradeoffs is not a helpful way to think about what it means to be a wife or mother in modern America. For me, and many other conservative women who stay at home with our children, the choice between pursuing a career and homemaking was very real, and we don’t view our role in the home as a season of life that we can do for a while before returning to our respective career paths.
Instead, I see motherhood more as an ultimate vocation. My role as a primary custodian of two Christian souls (with a third on the way later this year) is far more important — for the good of our country and the Kingdom of God — than anything I could do professionally. And raising my children and making our home beautiful offers me opportunities to use my intelligence and God-given gifts in unique ways every single day.
I am not saying that homemaking and economic activity are mutually exclusive. I make some money through offering tutoring lessons, for example. I am also not saying that every woman must make the same choice that I have, though I do think more of them should. I know that everyone’s circumstances are different, and unfortunately, in an economy designed around every household having two full-time wage earners, many families are in financial situations where both parents must work (even if the mother would rather be home).
What I do insist on, however, is that there are only 24 hours in a day, and each one spent working is one spent away from the home. In other words, I insist that modern women face a real tradeoff between competing goods. Telling them otherwise and constantly encouraging them to avoid confronting this reality head-on isn’t empowering; it is confusing, dishonest, and represents a recipe for failure.
The Clare Boothe Luce Center ought to know this.
Their own namesake was a truly incredible woman who achieved remarkable professional success. Ms. Boothe Luce served as managing editor of Vanity Fair, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1942, entered the Catholic Church in 1946 under the spiritual direction of Venerable Fulton Sheen, became the first woman to represent the United States in a major foreign embassy as Ambassador to Italy in 1953, and was later appointed to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board … to name a few of her amazing accomplishments.
That impressive career, however, coincided with a private life in ruins. Ms. Boothe Luce’s biographers report that her marriage to Henry Luce was marked by infidelity on both sides, profound unhappiness, and at least one suicide attempt after her husband asked for a divorce. The Clare Boothe Luce Center says its namesake inspires its work, yet they don’t seem to mention this tragic side of her story anywhere on its website. Perhaps that is because it undercuts their preferred narrative that the tension between ambition and family life is one of mere scheduling rather than real substance.
No doubt, Ms. Boothe Luce’s story is unique and doesn’t hold true for all people in public life, but it does point to a better approach for conservatives, both personally and politically.
Stop avoiding this tension and start naming it, with frankness and honesty about the real trade-offs and heroic sacrifices that American men and women make every day for the sake of their families. These choices aren’t easy, but they are real, and there should be no shame in saying so.
Plus, once you recognize the real challenges mothers and fathers face, you can create a political agenda to fix or at least alleviate them. For example, conservatives could make it much more of a priority to attack our economy’s two-income trap. They could advance policies that extend public service loan forgiveness to young parents. And they could explore ways to ensure that families who care for children at home receive comparable tax benefits to families who purchase childcare.
All of these ideas and many other pro-family policies will form the backbone of any successful Right-wing approach to women in the future. Complaining about the manosphere and attacking traditional gender roles in the New York Times will not.
