Oh the joy of living in a feminist paradise

Posted on November 17, 2007
Filed Under Child Support, Custody, Families, Family, Feminism, Men's News Daily | Leave a Comment

Yes indeed, feminism has contributed so much to our current way of life… Lucky us.

This piece I found on the Men’s News Daily website pretty much says it all.

Enjoy





From: Brunette Republican Sex Kitten

Things Feminism Doesn’t Want You To Know About Motherhood and the Economy

November 7, 2007 at 7:31 am · Filed under Families, Feminism, Child Support & Custody, Family, Vox Populi
It is ironic that I, who thanks to personal experience am automatically suspicious of all parents, should be such a staunch supporter of the nuclear family and of full-time, stay-at-home mothers. It wasn’t until I started studying conservative thought a few years ago that I became aware, to my astonishment, of the overwhelming statistics in favor of these things.
At a gut level, it’s still difficult for me to imagine parents as anything other than vicious petty tyrants who can’t pick on anyone their own size, but the evidence has piled up: in most cases, they’re good for children. At least, if both parents are there. How fathers would do on their own we can’t say since they rarely have the opportunity to show us, but three-fourths of violent criminals, as well as the majority of substance abusers and assorted neurotics, come from female-headed households. And being “securely attached” to one’s mother – that is, having her around and attentive when one is small – makes a significant difference throughout life, in grades, earnings, health, and successful relationships.
Recently I got into trouble for ranting about an irresponsible woman who is wasting taxpayer money by suing for longer breaks during the National Board of Medical Licensing exam so that she will have more time to utilize a breast pump. The sheer insanity of this would never have been contemplated a few decades ago. Nowadays, we have become so out of touch with reality that it does not occur to us that a woman who cannot go that long without “expressing milk”, as they quaintly put it, BELONGS AT HOME WITH HER BABY.
When I pointed out this blindingly obvious fact, several people protested that while it’s certainly good for children to have their mothers with them, often financial necessity requires that mothers work. (I did not make this rant anywhere that feminists loony enough to think that a woman’s “right” to a “fulfilling career” is more important than her baby’s right to be taken care of would see it.) While this is tragically true, it should nonetheless be obvious that a woman who is breast-feeding is not going to have any business practicing medicine for at least a year to come. You can’t treat patients in between frequent breaks to nurse, change diapers, etc. Besides which, even feminist doctor Louann Brizendine reported in her book The Female Brain that women’s brains literally shrink during pregnancy and do not return to normal size until about a year after childbirth. (Dr. Brizendine also admitted that when she went back to work when her son was five months old, she “was a wreck on most days”, and then went on to argue that her wreckedness was biologically based, without apparently noticing that perhaps women who are biologically incapable of working competently ought not to be trying.) In short, it isn’t really the best time to be taking an exam. And while I know this is a horribly sexist backward point of view, the fact is that small children need to be taken care of. And sorry, not by strangers being paid minimum wage. Children that small need their mothers, not just anybody with two arms.
Let me add that I do not, in most cases, blame working mothers. I do blame this silly tramp who is wasting the taxpayers’ money with this frivolous lawsuit designed to force the professional world to accommodate her attempt to evade her responsibilities. If she were really in dire financial need, she would be having her mother babysit while she worked a shift at Wal-Mart. That she had the wherewithal to attend medical school shows that she is merely amusing herself, not paying her utility bills. And let’s face it: unless she cures cancer, nothing she could possibly do as a doctor could even begin to equal in importance the positive contribution to society that doing a good job of raising her child would.
But I don’t blame women who are in genuine financial need. Many mothers have told me how much they wish they could quit their jobs and stay home with their children, but their husbands simply can’t support the family on their own. Various surveys confirm this. These mothers are victims of the crushing tax burden and spiraling inflation caused by leftist economic policies, victims just as much as their children are. (And of course, feminist/socialist schemes have saddled millions of women with the necessity of working as cashiers or waitresses to pay their bills with the current crippling tax burden; most of them aren’t in professions anybody could imagine are “fulfilling”.)
For at least since the 60′s, one of the main goals of feminism has been to conscript women into the labor force whether they want to be there or not, assuring them that they can only gain satisfaction the same way men can, in the workplace. The anti-mother propaganda actually began a few decades before that, with feminists and socialists making the ludicrous claim that motherhood was a pursuit for brainless parasites and that it contributed nothing to society. Well, while certainly there are women who are doing good work as doctors, office managers, and so on, the hard fact is that civilization got along just fine without women being doctors or executives or lawyers for hundreds of years. We have now gone for about forty years without women being mothers. The crime rate has skyrocketed, education is in the toilet, our health problems are multiplying like inner-city illegitmate children, and Social Security is about to go belly-up. So much for motherhood contributing nothing to society.
One of the things feminists don’t want us to know is that there’s a lot more to “equal pay for equal work” than that catchy slogan reveals. Before the 60′s, men were obliged by law to financially support their wives and children. Consequently, married men were routinely paid more than single men (and single women). The bachelors never complained about this because they knew perfectly well that that extra money was paying for diapers and tuition and braces.
But liberals need to control what every citizen learns during his formative years. Compulsory education wasn’t enough; they needed children in day care, in after-school care, in front of the television set for maximum indoctrination. Problem was, back when mothers thought that raising their own children was their job, they kept interfering and telling their children things that weren’t part of the program. To make sure no mother had the time or energy to spend confusing her child by contradicting the left-wing messages schools and television wanted to get across, mothers had to be conscripted into the labor force. Not just the handful of women who have a burning innate desire to follow some profession, either, but all women. (Very few people of either sex work for any reason other than a burning need to pay the bills. Maybe one out of every million people works for “personal fulfilment”.)
But how to screw up the economy sufficiently that most men wouldn’t be able to support their families anymore? The laws enforcing men’s duties to their families were done away with, welfare programs were expanded which raised taxes, and the custom of paying married men more was abolished by spinning it as a feminist measure. The propaganda is so extensive that hardly anyone who isn’t old enough to remember it even knows that the disparity in men’s and women’s pay was almost entirely due to this, NOT to sexism as liberals pretend. Suddenly only the wealthiest men could do what any decent man could have done only a few years before: support his family. Mothers were forced to join the drudgery, er, fulfilment of pushing papers across a desk so that raising their children would be in the hands of others.
Liberals and feminists are hoping we’ll forget that in the 19th century, one of the things socialists and union organizers promised workers was that they would guarantee them a “family wage”, meaning “a social order in which men could support their families and receive the services of women; and women, dependent on men, could stay out of the labor force.” (Alice Kessler-Harris, A Woman’s Wage: Historical Meanings and Social Consequences.) In other words, not having to work was something women wanted and saw as desirable. And for decades, Western women had that, until feminists started informing them that they could only be happy if they were wage slaves, too.

<$BlogFeedsVertical$>

Print Friendly
Share

Comments

Leave a Reply




 
SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline