<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">

    <channel>


	<title>The Ethics &amp; Religious Liberty Commission | Some common sense in the &#8220;mommy wars&#8221; | Comments</title>
    <link>http://erlc.com/</link>
    <description>This feed provides all comments on &quot;Some common sense in the &#8220;mommy wars&#8221;.&quot;</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <webMaster>web&#45;master@erlc.com</webMaster>
    <copyright>&#x2117; &amp; &#xA9; 2008 ERLC</copyright> 


		
    <item>
      	<title>Comment 1</title>
      	<link>http://erlc.com/article/some&#45;common&#45;sense&#45;in&#45;the&#45;mommy&#45;wars#comment1</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">http://erlc.com/article/some&#45;common&#45;sense&#45;in&#45;the&#45;mommy&#45;wars#comment1</guid>
      	<description><![CDATA[<p>While Mrs. Friedan seemed harsh in using the word &#8220;parasite&#8221;, I understand the point she was trying to make, and that no personal insult was intended. In economic theory, a parasite is a person/entity that benefits from something w/o contributing back to it. From an economic standpoint, homemakers&#8217; efforts don&#8217;t make a contribution to the nation. I know about the studies on how many billions of $$ in unpaid work they do, but the catch is: this work doesn&#8217;t enter the larger scheme of things. It benefits their own families, but that&#8217;s where it stops.
<br />
   I think that while homemaking should be an available life choice, those who choose to be homemakers should be not supported by national resources, because they don&#8217;t contribute back to the welfare and security of the public, or the workings of the gov&#8217;t. If stay-at-home Mom needs to go to a doctor or dentist, for example, then Dad or other working family members--NOT a dear old uncle by the name of Sam--should pick up the tab.
</p>]]></description>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 07:43:08 CST</pubDate>
    </item>

		
    <item>
      	<title>Comment 2</title>
      	<link>http://erlc.com/article/some&#45;common&#45;sense&#45;in&#45;the&#45;mommy&#45;wars#comment2</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">http://erlc.com/article/some&#45;common&#45;sense&#45;in&#45;the&#45;mommy&#45;wars#comment2</guid>
      	<description><![CDATA[<p>Betty Friedan was a bitter haridan whose list of idiocies only began with her lifelong embrace of Stalinism and Marxist economic theory.&nbsp; Her grasp of economics was so weak that her arguments fail on their own myopic terms.&nbsp; The economic value of women who bear and raise children is literally incalculable.
</p>
<p>
Friedan claimed that it was the housewife who was the &#8220;parasite,&#8221; but in fact it is the non-child-bearing-and-rearing woman who is a parasite, feeding upon the millennia of human development and evolution while doing her best to bring it to a complete stop.
</p>
<p>
Women who embrace Friedan do one of two things.&nbsp; They (1) don&#8217;t have children, or (2) have children and then turn them over to the loving embrace of the state.&nbsp; Choice (1) is voluntary biological extinction. Choice (2) is voluntary extinction of the human spirit--a surrender to fascism, the enormous boot stomping on the human face--forever.
</p>]]></description>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:06:39 CST</pubDate>
    </item>

		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:11:52 CST</pubDate>
		
    <item>
      	<title>Comment 3</title>
      	<link>http://erlc.com/article/some&#45;common&#45;sense&#45;in&#45;the&#45;mommy&#45;wars#comment3</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="true">http://erlc.com/article/some&#45;common&#45;sense&#45;in&#45;the&#45;mommy&#45;wars#comment3</guid>
      	<description><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Rogers, your views seem to smack of Darwinism. Just so everyone can understand you, can you state your views on origins? (Are you a creationist, or an evolutionist?)
</p>]]></description>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:11:52 CST</pubDate>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>