The Intelligencer’s Sarah Jones is a mean girl.
Over the last few months, the senior New York writer has blathered about “The Relentless Fantasy of the Tradwife” and finger-wagged women about fertility, pregnancy, and marriage (“true love isn’t necessarily a sign of progress for heterosexuals or anyone else,” she insists).
Her August 29 article “The Right’s Woman Problem,” is no different. In it, Jones throws jabs at conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly, Secretary of War wife Jennifer Hegseth, Trump aide Natalie Harp, and former Department of Government Efficiency adviser Katie Miller for their roles as “reactionary young mother[s who] will always have some value to the right.”
But the real focus of her fire is Karoline Leavitt for her “binary view of motherhood” and daring to leave her post as White House press secretary in favor of spending more time with her toddler and new baby.
“For the women of the White House, power still comes with a tradeoff. Their roles hinge not only on their competence, or their commitment to Trump, but their compliant femininity,” Jones complains.
This so-called “compliant femininity,” Jones suggests, is not limited to the president’s workplace. According to her, it’s part of a widespread notion on the right “that women are pre-rational creatures controlled by their wombs.”
“Conservatives have always let women into the vanguard on a conditional basis,” she writes. “A right-wing woman earns some status by conforming to gender norms, and she often finds the most professional traction by defending her own subordination.”
The right does have a woman problem, one that we at The Federalist have diagnosed and repeatedly analyzed. But, unlike Jones’ assertions, the problem is not that women and men are wired differently or even that life generally requires tradeoffs. The real problem is that many conservative women have bought the feminist-fueled lie that they can and should have it all, when all signs suggest they are better off — happier, even — concentrating on what actually matters.
It’s true that American families with stay at home moms are officially the minority, but, contrary to Jones’ implications, that isn’t because women would prefer to spend their days wasting away in a high-rise cubicle. Much to the chagrin of the Washington Post and probably Jones, a significant percentage of working moms with young children acted on their desires to stay home and left the workforce over the last few years.
Data from a decade ago foreshadowed this exodus. According to a 2015 Gallup poll, a majority of mothers, 56 percent, would prefer to be full-time “homemakers” instead of full-time employees. Among childless women, that number tumbled to 39 percent.
“Having children under the age of 18 is a key factor in whether women would prefer to be employed or stay home, while their current employment status matters relatively little,” Gallup determined.
It’s no secret that motherhood fundamentally changes women. Even celebs and chronically online moms touting the “quiet quitting” trend recognize life is not defined by happy hours, working weekends, and the “climb the ladder” careerism sold to college-educated females if it means forsaking time and snuggles with your children. Motherhood, real, involved, and intentional motherhood, does not square with the modern vision of women-filled workplaces and jobs that require 24/7 attention.
Leavitt recognized this which is exactly why she chose to leave her position when she did. A spitfire press secretary is replaceable, Nicholas and Viviana Leavitt’s mama is not.
Understanding that kind of dynamic prioritization requires more effort than the singular “girl boss” identity label proffered by the pink hat-wearing fourth wave. Which is exactly why Jones doesn’t bother trying to comprehend it, much less sympathize with it.
Instead, she laments the fact that “men are men and women are women” and “we have different desires and different roles to play.” Jones’ magnum opus comes in her last few sentences, when she claims that if a woman “believes she can’t have anything because she can’t have it all, a little authority might sound preferable to complete dispossession.”
“She walks into a trap, locks it shut, and tells her sisters and daughters to do exactly the same,” Jones concludes.
This description is not only demeaning, but it’s also detached from reality. If anything traps women, it’s a full-time job with a company that would prefer to pay for their abortions instead of give them maternity leave. If anyone treats women and young mothers as disposable, it’s certainly not the conservative organizations, including The Federalist, that give them the flexibility they need to be present wives and mothers and exercise their talents. And if anyone reduces women to their usefulness instead of their worthiness and sanctity as a female human, it’s Jones, who spends her time bullying women like Leavitt for making the best choice they can for their future.
