Baby Let’s Play House

Feel free to listen to The King of Rock ‘n’ Roll as you read. You’re welcome.

Georgia US Representative Phil Gingrey has the audacity to suggest that traditional gender roles may matter. From The Huffington Post, Gingrey is quoted:

“You know, maybe part of the problem is we need to go back into the schools at a very early age, maybe at the grade school level, and have a class for the young girls and have a class for the young boys and say, you know, this is what’s important,” Gingrey said in a speech supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. “This is what a father does that is maybe a little different, maybe a little bit better than the talents that a mom has in a certain area. And the same thing for the young girls, that, you know, this is what a mom does, and this is what is important from the standpoint of that union which we call marriage.”

Gingrey, the leading Republican candidate for Senate in Georgia, said he realizes the “father knows best” adage he subscribed to “back in the old days of television” is antiquated, but he still believes that children need fathers and women need husbands in order for families to thrive.

Gingrey made his remarks while speaking on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which he supports. The US Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on DOMA during this session.

It may not be politically correct, but perhaps a traditional family works best. Recognizing that this is not always a possibility, discuss.

26 comments

      • greencracker says:

        Instead of the old days, what if we went back to the Bizarro old days, and it was dudes who had to sit down, shut up, stay ignorant and raise babies.

        lol.

            • Ken says:

              It’s an outdoor fish fry so all of the cooks are men, though I believe the deserts are all prepared by women because they’re made indoors. A kinda, sorta equal-opportunity affair beneath spreading oaks with wooden tables and an occasional hound hoping for a hush puppy – and live music at the right times of year.

  1. TheEiger says:

    Wow. Well, we know what Gingrey’s biggest problem will be during this campaign. Not his voting record, but his mouth.

  2. Three Jack says:

    Gingrey endorses, ‘It takes a village’.

    I thought GOPers were the party of teach your kids social crap at home, the 3 Rs at school. It’s like hypocrisy on roids.

    • Ken says:

      I’m pretty sure Gingrey is talking about 1 man + 1 woman + (X) children and not an entire village. Just an FYI.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        Nope. He wants to teach my kid, your kid, TJ’s kid, all the kids in taxpayer funded schools. Gonna have to agree that the hypocrisy is strong with this statement.

        • Ken says:

          Lea,

          I think Congressman Gingrey might be under the impression that the opposite is currently being taught or, at least, shown approval.

  3. newby says:

    I think he is just saying that boys and girls are different. Some folks seem to need reminding at times. Studies have shown that children do better in school and have less trouble with the law if there is both a mom and a dad in the home. I have no problem with his comments.

    • pettifogger says:

      Moving ever closer to an environment where it is entirely taboo for white male elected officials to comment on the fairer sex (OMG so sexist) or gender at all.

      Gender roles for children. Oh the horror.

      • Lea Thrace says:

        Shouldnt that be up to the parents to teach as they see fit? Why try to put that on a school’s shoulders?

        • pettifogger says:

          I agree. I suspect Gingrey was rambling more than he was really suggesting policy implementation, but if he was, then I’m with you.

          Now, to the extent schools recognize and respond to gender roles or differences, which will be embraced by the large majority of students to varying degrees, I’m fine with that. I don’t want classes on gender roles, but I don’t have a problem in having pink things for girls or acknowledging that female children may become mothers one day, etc. We don’t need to “teach” gender roles, but we also don’t need to ignore them in the classroom.

        • Harry says:

          Lea, problem is the schools have been teaching what they see fit, which often is not in keeping with prevailing community standards.

    • George Chidi says:

      So, discussion of gender roles when we’re talking about “traditional” relationships is perfectly healthy and appropriate for classroom discussion. Discussion of gender roles when we’re talking about gay and lesbian relationships is evil liberal social engineering that must be prevented at all costs with voucher programs for Christian schools.

      If you all don’t nominate Jack Kingston, you’re probably going to have to spend some money to win.

      • pettifogger says:

        I don’t have a problem with acknowledging gay and lesbian relationships. The problem is, and will continue to be, a push to promote GLBT as coequal with heterosexual relationships. I don’t mean coequal in any moral sense, I mean in volume or quantity.

        It makes zero sense to push a subject to prominence that will impact only a small number of children (extremely small number when we’re talking about transgender students) unless you’re trying to influence kids rather than simply respond to social norms. GLBT is the societal exception, sorry. I don’t want to ostracize the GLBT community and I certainly don’t want to shame students in those situations (whether personally or familial), but putting an “or” in every gender scenario just doesn’t reflect reality.

        I feel the same about religion. I don’t want schools pushing faith, but when it comes to ancillary items to faith (holidays, etc.) it is dumb to put 3% of the classroom on entirely equal footing as 80%. Our attempt to make minority experiences in America feel like majority experiences is textbook social engineering. We can recognize a Sikh holiday without going out of the way to make sure it gets just as much attention as Christmas. And yes, I expect the same in non-Christian schools.

  4. Bull Moose says:

    He’s an embarrassment to the state at this point. To suggest that we need to be teaching appropriate “gender roles” in school, to me is an insult to every single parent working hard out their to raise their kids.

    When you’re a single parent, sometimes you have to wear both hats and if he can’t understand that, he doesn’t deserve to have a seat at the table making public policy.

    You combine this with his comment about women not being likely to get pregnant from rape because “they need a glass of wine to relax” and you have the incarnation of Ted Akin, but worse, walking along through GA.

    • Scott65 says:

      Someone needs to tell Gingrey to “shut that thing down”.
      (sorry it was just too easy)

  5. newby says:

    Really folks, I think most of that statement was tongue in cheek. Republicans usually are not on the same page with that site. Guess some will be in a election year if their candidate is not Phil Gingrey.

  6. Dave Bearse says:

    ….and Congressman Phil opposed Paycheck Fairness Act boys and girls, so you girls should prepare to earn less money for the same work just like your mommies.

  7. Dave Bearse says:

    It’s GRTL doing what many GOP types do—support nothing when they won’t get everything, even when it’s not futile.

    An example is the PPACA needing some tweaks. Church-sponsored health plans were inadvertently not included among the “qualified health plans” that could participate on the exchanges and receive tax credits and apply the subsidies that make health insurance more affordable. Even though key GOP constituency SBC is lobbying for change, it doesn’t appear that Republicans in Congress will cooperate change the PPACA. The GOP instead is more likely to demonstrate what it knows about governing by scheduling a 39th futile attempt at repealing PPACA, since the GOP thinks it needs to be junked. .

Comments are closed.