Liberal New York Times columnist Gail Collins appeared on Monday’s Good Morning America to complain that one of the biggest unresolved issues for women is a lack of government-provided pre and after-school care for children. She complained, "And we still have not come near dealing with the question of who takes care of the kids if both parents are out working."
Highlighting the favorite bogeyman of the left, Richard Nixon, the New York Times columnist whined that in 1971, "Congress passed a bipartisan bill giving quality early childhood education and after-school programs for any family that wanted them in the entire country." She lamented that the legislation was vetoed by President Nixon.
Collins, who was promoting When Everything Changed, her new book about the role of women since 1960, blurted, "I can forgive him [Nixon] for Watergate before that [the veto]." Co-host Roberts prompted the columnist, whom she never identified as a liberal, to tout the benefits of the sexual revolution: "And you also said, which I never thought about until I read your book, the sexual revolution was really helped women and explain why that was."
Collins responded:
GAIL COLLINS: And until then there, had been this double standard, forever, in which men could do whatever they wanted, sexually, but women were supposed to be chaste and virgins this will they got married. And if that was the rule then, really, it explained a lot about why women didn't think they were going to go to graduate school or go to business in a serious way. You were going to get married to protect your chastity and then you were going to have children and it really lapped off into everything else.
At no point did Collins or Roberts even consider the possible downside, such as the skyrocketing number of children being born out of wedlock. Instead, Roberts closed out the segment by touting the "fascinating" book. The ABC host, who played high school basketball and tennis, did offer this political aside, "I was born in 1960. I'm a product of Title Nine."
And as for Collins' attack on Nixon and the government not doing enough for after-school education, the then-President's veto of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1971 came with this explanation:
RICHARD NIXON: ...Given the limited resources of the Federal budget, and the growing demands upon the Federal taxpayer, the expenditure of two billions of dollars in a program whose effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated cannot be justified. And the prospect of costs which could eventually reach $20 billion annually is even more unreasonable.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 8:41am EDT, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: And now, an important new book that’s getting rave reviews. It is called When Everything Changed: the Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present. And New York Times columnist Gail Collins combines the big dramatic moments in women's stories with fun details like the critical role of orange juice cans in beauty rituals. Gail, good to see you.
GAIL COLLINS: Good to be here.
ROBERTS: So, let’s- I can remember- I didn’t have them in my hair but remember the orange juice cans and the roll-ups.
COLLINS: This may have been the critical thing, I think.
ROBERTS: Explain the people who don’t know.
COLLINS: Concentrated orange juice cans. And Women would take the empty cans and roll their hair up in them to get a perfect kind of Mary Tyler Moore flip.
ROBERTS: A page boy flip?
COLLINS: And then they’d sleep on them all night. you would sleep all night on the orange juice cans. And I really feel that a generation that could sleep on orange juice cans could do anything and that's the entire story right there.
ROBERTS: Anything is possible to go through that. And we did. From 1960- And why did you choose 1960?
COLLINS: 1960 Is really exactly like- it's 50 years ago, really. And it's really very close to the way things were throughout recorded history kind of the way people looked at women and what they could do and what they couldn't do. And the reason I started writing this was the idea that in our lifetimes, these feelings about what women couldn't do, about the restrictions on the sex that had existed throughout all recorded history changed while we were alive in our little slice of time. I think that's just so neat. Knocks me out when I think about it.
ROBERTS: It does. And the book really reflects that and talking with the number of women that you did. And you also said, which I never thought about until I read your book, the sexual revolution was really helped women and explain why that was.
COLLINS: There were so many revolutions, that was the most popular by far, the sexual revolution.
ROBERTS: Sure.
COLLINS: And until then there, had been this double standard, forever, in which men could do whatever they wanted, sexually, but women were supposed to be chaste and virgins this will they got married. And if that was the rule then, really, it explained a lot about why women didn't think they were going to go to graduate school or go to business in a serious way. You were going to get married to protect your chastity and then you were going to have children and it really lapped off into everything else.
ROBERTS: You can't, of course, when you're talking about American women and the progress, you have to talk about- politically so. And we see such strong women now and it's nice that you reflect upon- like before Olympia Snowe there was- In Maine.
COLLINS: There was Margaret Chase Smith in Maine, just a very similar woman, very spunky,. She was the only woman in the Senate for most of the time she was there and she was on Armed Services and when they'd have long meetings somebody always had to come and take Margaret for a walk because the men felt that they should not be forced to sit too long with the discomfort of this woman there.
ROBERTS: Get out.
COLLINS: Yeah, I mean that's the way- she had to go to the bathroom in the women's visitor's bathroom, of course, because there's no bathroom. Stories about getting women's rooms in places is critical to the story.
ROBERTS: What is the biggest unresolved issue for women now do you think?
COLLINS: You know, it's got to be the fact that we've gotten all this way- that we've come to a point where all women now work as a matter of course in their lives, where 50 percent of the workforce is female. Where many, many houses women make more money than their husbands. And we still have not come near dealing with the question of who takes care of the kids if both parents are out working.
ROBERTS: And remind us, I didn't know this till I read your book about-
COLLINS: 1971.
ROBERTS: Yes.
COLLINS: Congress passed a bipartisan bill giving quality early childhood education and after-school programs for any family that wanted them in the entire country.
ROBERTS: And it was-
COLLINS: Vetoed by Richard Nixon, yes.
ROBERTS: I don't think many people realized that.
COLLINS: I can forgive him for Watergate before that.
ROBERTS: Before that! [Laughs] Well, there’s not enough time. Gail, it is a fascinating read. I was born in 1960. I'm a product of Title Nine. Very appreciative of your work and those that have really made it possible.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Universal after-school care? Are these people serious?
October 19, 2009 - 16:42 ET by R D HelmThese kids have already had about seven hours of government indoctrination by the time they get out of school at the end of each day.
I would say that is quite enough, wouldn't you?
I mean, we are already a nation half-full of blithering idiots that cannot even manage to wipe their own behinds without the aid of the government, and these goobs want to create even more?.
-Dave
Dave, you're right on
October 19, 2009 - 17:01 ET by boomerconWhen I saw this thread, my very first thought was along the lines of "Total Nanny State", and what next? I can't wait for some poor hapless liberal to cry out that we need the gov'ment to provide "Universal butt wiping for all", so that proper hygiene will be assured for everyone.
(next comes the butt-wipe inspectors...and of course, they'll need a "butt czar")
We need the goverment to provide "Universal butt wiping for all"
October 19, 2009 - 17:04 ET by CO2MakerIsn't that what the White House has a docile media for (all except Faux News, which is too busy making inappropriate amounts of lucre to serve the administration in this way)?
Either that or government baby-sitters for nights and weekends
October 19, 2009 - 17:08 ET by R D HelmHeck, they could do both.
God only knows what they would have your children doing while you and the spouse are out on the town, or taking in a football game, or whatever.
Scary.
-Dave
A game that, thankfully,
October 19, 2009 - 17:09 ET by CO2MakerRush Limbaugh has nothing to do with. >Whew< Sharpyton saving us from the racism.
Forget "After School"; How about "Instead of School?"
October 19, 2009 - 18:52 ET by mom_roxHawaii just lopped off 17 days of instruction from their school calendar. Now Obama can create a "Universal Instead of School" federal program to provide federal oversight of the children on those 17 days. Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm
~~save your tea, dump congress~~
mom_rox,
October 19, 2009 - 19:38 ET by R D HelmThe Nazis came up with all kinds of programs that were designed to wean children away from their families, and it wasn't just the Hitler Jugend, either.
This is a common trait of totalitarian systems throughout history, and it is happening right here in America today.
-Dave
Campaign for universal orange juice
October 19, 2009 - 16:44 ET by CO2MakerPulp-free, with calcium. Everybody needs it, but not everybody has access to it. I think we all have a right to orange juice. It's found in the Kirilian aura of one of the emanations of the penumbra of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Yeah. That's the ticket.
No, no, no!!!
October 19, 2009 - 16:46 ET by BlondeUniversal rum.
Dark rum, not that sissified clear stuff.
I hope he fails, too.
J, Universal Rum?
October 19, 2009 - 19:39 ET by R D HelmLOL-Now that might just be one I would be willing to support.
-Dave
What sexist coverage!
October 19, 2009 - 17:21 ET by Radical1979What sexist coverage! There are two parents, why would this only benefit women! Quickly, lead the charge, this is a sexist report! Does this trump racism? I can't remember.
Seriously, if a couple wants children they are responsible for the child's care. If the woman is a professional she can afford to pay for her child's care. If she isn't she may find it's cheaper to stay home and raise her child herself. Maybe that's what she should do when she has a child.
Men aren't neccessary
October 19, 2009 - 21:24 ET by Mike76Apparantly, Radical, you haven't read the new report. They've determined that men are not longer neccesary. We should be getting our papers soon, telling us where to go to recieve our "end of life counceling." Then, it's off to the "processing" plant.
Oh where have all the trollops gone?
October 19, 2009 - 17:56 ET by SickofLibsAll this sexual freedom men were exclusively enjoying in the 50s/60s - were they just partnering up with each other?
ps: Robama R. is more a product of Plan 9 than Title 9.
After school food care for the children
October 19, 2009 - 19:19 ET by tateofpaWhen will these people get to nub of the hole problem? The finacial pit that adults parents are digging, because of having to pay for dinner is just crazy. These parent are deciding between food for the children or clothes, what is an adult to do? The responsibilities are not fare, that they should act like a grown up. The public school system just didn't prepare them for this. I left out the W because it reminds people of a time of no hope or change.
This must wait
October 19, 2009 - 19:21 ET by tim413We have to achieve universal health care first. I believe "universal" means for everyone - 100% of the people. I have a better solution than anything that is being discussed in Congress. Well-to-do liberals should "adopt" as many individuals/families as they want/can and buy health care coverage for them. This would work much the same way as we have traditionally adopted needy families during the holidays.
I'm being serious here. If the libs start this, I believe that conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders would join them. I have not yet determined who could administer this program since ACORN could not be trusted. Maybe existing agencies in every state?
Once started, we could then expand services for before and after school programs and other programs the contributors deem to be worthwhile. This seems to be infinitely more fair than taxing everyone.
This would also free up time for our elected officials in Washington. They could then focus on things - like national defense - that cannot be done at the state, local, or individual levels.
Stop federal judges from foisting their notions of "fairness" on the States. Amend the 14th Amendment! - tim413
→ This, too, must wait
October 19, 2009 - 19:23 ET by Cool ArrowCan't make a decision on Afghanistan either.
We've got a health care bill to stuff up the American colon.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
How about I have a kid and
October 19, 2009 - 19:44 ET by goldboughHow about I have a kid and just hand him over to the government? He can sleep at my house on the weekends. Is that what they really want?
This is indeed a great
October 19, 2009 - 22:26 ET by RR GOPThis is indeed a great problem in our country-doesn't mean I have any faith whatsoever in the Federal government dealing with it...nor the Democratic-run cities, nor State level.
I'm thinking that something could be done on the community/county level where families kick in baby sitting rates to (hopefully) competent/trustworthy folks to watch and engage the children in learning activities as well as play. The pay if you add it all up based on some kind of ratio of children to care giver would be a damn good pay check, but only if there were no administrative costs including some kind of superviser who really does nothing and gets paid the most...a typical bureaucratic/business model that isn't always the best way to go.
This is one of those industries where the profit/overhead model makes costs prohibitive for those barely making it, and we as a community should work to come up with a solution for people who actually want to work and contribute rather than sitting around and doping themselves up all day.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
No Problem
October 19, 2009 - 23:32 ET by sic721"And we still have not come near dealing with the question of who takes care of the kids if both parents are out working."
I'm sure Kevin Jennings has a few ideas on this.
Babying
October 19, 2009 - 23:38 ET by UnsaneIs there anything these fools DON'T want the government to do for them? Seriously, how can these Leftists survive the trauma of purging their colons and then cleaning up afterward without a government babysitter holding their hand the entire time?
This constant, nonstop whining for total government babying has got to stop.
(Not to mention that the faith that I have in the public school system cannot get any lower these days - or so I think, when circumstances occur that promptly depress them further. Of course, the cure for this? MORE government babying.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)