Comment (43)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiA ‘Nazi moment’ for Eva
A blunder by German motherhood campaigner Eva Herman will be hard to live down. It's a pity, because her message deserves to be heard.
Eva Herman, German media personality and motherhood campaigner, has put her foot in it. Launching her latest book in defence of the family and women's domestic role, the television talk show host happened to mention that family values were one thing the Nazis got right.
"It was a gruesome time with a totally crazy and highly dangerous leader who led the Germans into ruin as we all know. But there was at the time also something good, and that is the values, that is the families, that is a togetherness," she said, adding that it was all later "abolished" by "the 1968 generation".
Predictably, Ms Herman and her book -- The Noah's Ark Principle: Why We Must Save the Family -- were nearly buried by an avalanche of fury and indignation. For 60 years, the Third Reich has been the epitome of evil, all its policies and activities contaminated by the racial theory that led to the Holocaust.
Clearly, drawing inspiration from the Hitler era is not the way to win converts to family values. Actually, it is hard to think of a worse way. Be that as it may, somewhere under the rubble of this incident is a message that Germany and much of the world needs to hear.
That includes the Lebensborn programme, instituted in 1935, under which women were encouraged and given every assistance to have children -- the more the better. Married or unmarried, it didn't matter. What did matter was that a woman and her mate had the correct racial and genetic characteristics. This was all in aid of building up the master race, the "Aryans", which in Germany had taken such a beating after World War I.
For Ms Herman to find "something good" in this sounds, to some ears, tantamount to Holocaust denial. She might just as well have said that at least medical science was advanced in the death camps. The wounds of the Nazi era are far from healed in Germany and people are hypersensitive both to any signs of regression into Nazi ideology (like neo-Nazi skinheads kicking migrants to death) and to how this looks to the international community.
So, try as she might to clarify her intention ("This isn't about Hitler's values but about basic human values, which were abused in the Third Reich and later abolished"), and insist as she did that she rejects both far-left and far-right political parties, the damage was done. Applause from the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) did not help. Her bosses on the public television network ARD sacked her on the spot. They said guests had been cancelling their appearances on her show.
Clearly, drawing inspiration from the Hitler era is not the way to win converts to family values. Actually, it is hard to think of a worse way. Be that as it may, somewhere under the rubble of this incident is a message that Germany and much of the world needs to hear.
Although in many respects the leading nation of Europe and one of the leading nations of the world, Germany has an abysmal birth rate (1.39 children per woman) and the outlook is grim. Its population of 82 million has been maintained by large-scale immigration -- notably from Turkey -- but even if that continues, the birth dearth will see the population shrink over the next four decades by 8 to 13 million.
Eva Herman is not the only one to be sounding the alarm about this trend. With the possible exception of the Greens, everyone from the government's Minister for Family Affairs to those in the resurgent nationalist movement is concerned about a Germany in decline, dependent on immigrants -- with all the cultural issues that involves -- to maintain its workforce and pay its escalating pension bill. It is three years since Frankfurt newspaper editor Frank Schirrmacher wrote his best-selling doomsday tract, The Methuselah Conspiracy.
Disagreement arises over what and how much to do to encourage baby-shy Germans to produce more than one or two children. The government, following the global trend, is encouraging women to combine motherhood and a career in the workforce. This not only satisfies the dominant feminist school of thought; it is also an economic necessity, given the shortage of younger workers looming. Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen, herself the mother of seven children, has pushed through policies to rapidly increase day care places and new parental leave laws designed to involve fathers and to get mothers back into the workforce more quickly.
The originality of Eva Herman lies in her surprising rejection of this dual-track womanhood. In her own best-selling 2006 manifesto, The Eva Principle, subtitled Towards a New Femininity, she tackles feminist assumptions head-on, calling for women to embrace motherhood again and find their primary source of identity and happiness in the domestic sphere. "Let's just say it loud," she writes. "We women have overburdened ourselves -- we allowed ourselves to be too easily seduced by career opportunities." Women can't simultaneously raise children and pursue a career and do both jobs properly, she avers. Germans will die out if women do not change their ways.
Ms Herman is far from being a textbook champion of domestic bliss and motherhood. She certainly hasn't followed the conventional career path for one. At 48, she is four times married, has only one child -- a son, now 10 -- has always worked in a jetset career, and has enough free time to write a book every year or two.
Her "Nazi moment" also raises questions about her intellectual powers, if not her politics. But when you think about it, what other model of family oriented policy could she draw upon in Germany's recent history? She is at least right about the "1968 generation", whose radicalism lives on in the entrenched feminist prejudice against women having a distinct role to play in society. This was the generation that welcomed the contraceptive pill and saw the birth rate in Germany drop from 2.5 children per women in 1967 to 1.5 a mere five years later. It is the generation that still, largely, runs the country.
And the Nazis weren't the only ones who used an ideology to clobber their opponents. Sure, Nazi manipulation of the population for political ends merits outrage. But what about the state-sponsored birth control which has prevailed in the West for the past 40 years? Isn't that also a form of social engineering? Social engineering, one might add, that has its eugenic elements, as seen in the practice of abortion for fetal abnormality, and in the current desire of some Western governments to encourage births among professional middle-class women without giving new incentives to women who are already economically "unproductive".
In her enthusiasm for a good idea (and motherhood is a good idea) Ms Herman has overstated the case against combining motherhood with another career. There are women -- Ursula von der Leyen is a dramatic example -- who can do it very well. The majority of women, however, may be less interested in a dual "career" than in "work" that can bring in a second income for the family as well as develop their talents. How this can be done is very much a work in progress today, with the role of husbands in the home a significant part of the picture.
Where Ms Herman's strictures against working mothers count is in the first few years of a child's life. Evidence is mounting against the benefits of day care for children under four, even as governments, including Germany's, opt to expand this sector.
Eva Herman, like other pop-sociologists, sends a muddled message. What is important is not its detail but the direction in which she frantically points. In a country where 30 per cent of women have not had children, it may take more than a year's paid maternity leave plus two months' "papa leave" to prevent the slow decline of the German people. Carolyn Moynihan is Deputy Editor of MercatorNet.
Nazis did horrible things, we know this, and so does she, and even said that as well. What she pointed out was, were the things that everyone wants to ignore, that the Nazis also did good things. The Nazis did a study involving 10,000 people, regarding the connection of smoking and cancer, they concluded, what we did hear about until 50 years later, that smoking is bad, and encouraged people not to smoke! Does that make anti-smoking lobby Nazis now? The Nazis researched the benefits of fruit and vegetable, and less fatty foods, thats right, 60+ years ago, so if you’re a health nut, does this make you a Nazi? She didn’t praise Hitler and the Nazis, she praised some of their values, just like we all do, such don’t smoke, and eat healthy!!!
There is a growing realization in my country (the United States) that we fought on the wrong side in WW2, and that the world would have been a lot better off if it had been Stalin who had died in a bunker in Moscow instead of Hitler in Berlin. Half of Europe would not have been enslaved behind and iron curtain, ruining hundreds of millions of lives over three generations, 20 million Russians would not have been murdered in Communist purges, tens of millions of German civilians would not have been carpet bombed to death, millions of Jews would not have died from Typhus in the labor and relocation camps from the resulting destruction of Germany’s water and sanitation infrastructure, Communism would not have spread to China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, and we would not now be looking at the prospect of Marxist, Hillary Clinton, becoming the next American President!
Carolyn Moynihan´s article is well balanced and straightforward. Just two points: right wing parties are not resurgent in Germany. They regularly get less than two percent in the general elections. Only in two provinces in the former communist part of Germany they managed to get into parliament. The media perception often distorts the real influence.
Second: “what other model of family oriented policy could she draw upon in Germany’s recent history?” - Well in the first 20 years after the war ( and also from 82 to 98) Germany was governered by Christian democrats who - note: at that time in the 50 and 60ies, not now - were strongly influenced by the social doctrine of the Church. Families profit(ed) from a tax bonus (tax benefits calculated on the basis of the combined income of a married couple
), Kindergeld (154 € at present), tax deductions if you built a house. This last help has been abolished a year ago by the present coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in the wake of other abolitions of tax-privileges/subsidies.
“They said guests had been cancelling their appearances on her show.” Herman´s boss at ARD gave as reason for this, that Herman encouraged German bishops at the Frankfurt Book Fair to take a more active role in the media, also in talk shows on behalf of the family!
Ditto to the solution for the Natural Family...and also mass immigration....Taxes are a form of slavery...A liveable wage is a wage that the head of household can earn
and raise a family on...within moderation. Those without skills can be trained.. Everyone has a RIGHT to work and a liveable wage. The solution to all of our problems is POPULATION...People bring with them, not just another mouth to feed...but IDEAS. People are our BEST RESOURCE.
Mothers should be encouraged to stay at home and raise their children and if they need help, it should be available. If we regain our population growth, then we can help, not just our own countries, but those countries that need assistance, then their citizens would not NEED to emigrate...but would want to stay in the country of their birth, unless there was a personal reason to go elsewhere. This would increase National Security for each country, while making all Nations more ameniable to immigration.
The problem can be summed up in two words
“high taxes”
Families now need two breadwinners, one to support the family and the other to support the preposterous thieving socialist/communist anti-Christian economic policies of so many governments.
The solution, lower taxes, abolish the socialist system totally, abolish all wefare and social security, and take the role of providing charity away from government and keep it in the hands of churches individuals and private charitable institutions.
High taxes are bad for the traditional/natural family.
Low taxes are good for the traditional/natural family.
That is all there is to it, these liberal lunatics just keep trying to make things so complicated.
1) By making the reference to the Nazi’s, Eva was able to draw attention to a message that otherwise would have been lost in the wind. She has an agenda and has successfully exploited the hypersensitivities the Germans have towards their Nazi past. She has sacrificed her career in hopes the future German nation.
2) Just because the Nazi’s said it doesn’t make something false. Please read a book on logic. Here’s an example: I think we can all agree that eating fruits and vegetables is good for you. Well if the Nazi’s had said eating fruits and vegetables was good for you, does that fail to be true? Of course not. The Nazis did some horrible things, but that doesn’t mean everything they believed in was wrong. Each belief should be addressed on its own merits.
3) Europe is finally starting to feel the effects of mass immigration from third world countries. There are advantages to immigration but there are also disadvantages that are often clouded economic pressures, guilt, and a desire to help those who are seeking to make a better life for themselves and their families. The problem is that once you go down the path of allowing mass numbers of immigrants in, you can never go back, and after the honeymoon is over, social problems start to emerge and animosities take root.
4) Now go… be fruitful and multiple :).
I am in full agreement with all the pro-motherhood and pro-family posts. My daughter and her husband are Bradley Childbirth Educators and I am presently taking their course.
I have learned a lot of concrete info that backs up what I instinctively knew as I battled to have my babies born naturally and later to be a stay-at-home mother. I will take the course to become a Doula sometime next year and I hope that I can make childbirth an empowering experience for women and a sacred experience for the whole family. It is time to do what we women do best..and are designed to do...it is our BIRTH RITE and our BIRTH RIGHT
I do not know what it is like in Germany, but in the UK many surveys have indicated women’s views on the career/motherhood debate quite clearly: only a small percentage of women really want to work fulltime when they have very young children; a somewhat larger group would prefer to stay at home with their children if they could afford to do so; and the largest group would like to build part-time, flexible work round the needs of their family, so that they could contribute an income to the household economy but not to the detriment of their children.
Few employers are (as yet) sympathetic to this idea.
I am a member of a pressure group called Full-Time Mothers. Its aim to to persuade our government in the UK that women have a right to choose to be at home with their children if they want to. The present economic climate makes it very hard to have such a choice. No-one wants to coerce women to be at home (as Comment 1 seems to imply). FTM wants our government to recognise the enormous contribution mothers make for the good of society as a whole in raising happy, emotionally well-balanced future citizens.
I would further point out to That Lady Down The Street that she does not, by her own admission, yet have children. Thus she will not have experienced the very powerful maternal feelings that follow from giving birth or after adoption. There are many well-attested examples of career women stating their determination to return to work after giving birth, only to discover that their outlook changes completely when they bond with their baby. When the Lady Down The Street does have a child I will watch this space carefully.
Apparently, the research on the negative effects of smoking had been delayed for decades in the US only because the Nazis also conducted it (as we know, Hitler was a rabid anti-smoker.) Isn’t this throwing the baby out with the bath water? Come on, let’s stop reacting like Pavlov’s dogs and admit that nobody is completely wrong or completely right!
I was asked exactly this question during an interview with a television news show in Kiev. “Aren’t the pro-family policies you are advocating identical to Adolf Hitler’s?”
My answer? “The Ukraine recently had two candidates running for president (a communist who wanted the Ukraine to have close ties with Moscow, and a Ukrainian nationalist who wanted the Ukraine to sever most of those ties - their followers hated each other). Both of those men wanted a powerful Ukraine, a nation worthy of respect. They had dramatically different attitudes towards how to attain that respect.
If I hated one of these candidates, would I therefore be forced to say that Ukraine shouldn’t be a great nation? Of course not - the idea is good, even if I don’t like the methods used by one of the men who wants to achieve that greatness.
It is the same thing here. Hitler was not a stupid man - he was right about the importance of the family. But the means by which he wanted to achieve it, those were totally wrong. We aren’t advocating his methods, we are advocating the goal that every smart person, even someone as evil as Hitler, can never deny MUST be the goal: strong families.”
Dear Carolyn,
Mrs. Hermans words have been deliberately put out of context. Scandal is a new media product. She has no doubt that Hilter instrumentalised Family. The campaign against Mrs. Herman ist part of the campaign against family in Germany.
To talk about Mrs. Herman requires reading her books first.
Regards
José Pons
Cologne, Germany
No person is all good… no person is all bad...there is good in the worst of us...and bad in the best of us.. The same is true for governments...and regimes. She was pointing out the good that was existent in that evil regime. Even satan uses a combination package of truth with a hint of a lie or vice versa. The same is true for the woman who is married and is a mother. To pursue a career while nurturing a young child is to do neither well. We women can do it all...just not at the same time. Even though we are great multi-taskers...that works best in the home and all the tasks required to raise children..and be a homemaker. As children get older a woman can pursue a passion, especially if it is related to something she does as a homemaker and mother. She can even further her education along with her children. My daughter and I attended College classes together. Sadly, children get robbed of needed early bonding when a mother is absent or distracted by outside interests. I think she herself regrets not doing what she now knows was the right thing. I hope she doesn’t allow her message to be silenced. We need to hear the wisdom of women who have “been there...done that” or “been there...didn’t do that”
Let’s bring back Motherhood as the best Profession
Well, some people have opinions, and sometimes those opinions turn out to be crazy ~_^
I dunno about her, but I plan on working when I have kids. Maybe it’s possible to love your kids -and- your job?
‘Women can’t simultaneously raise children and pursue a career and do both jobs properly’…
To put it politely, that’s balderdash.
I’m fine with women who only want to have a job, women who only want to have kids, and women who want both. It’s a matter of personal choice I don’t think anyone should have a right to interfere with.
And I -mean- not anyone!
Page 3 of 3 : « First < 1 2 3