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.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
Roger F. Gay said,
Read about the pledge:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/11/07/illiberal_statism
November 7, 2007 at 7:39 am
PolishKnight said,
Hello BRSK.
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 first part of this sentence is totally false. Men are still required to pay alimony where applicable. On the contrary! Feminists duped traditionalists into expanding “child” support to support unwed motherhood and even transform children into cash cows if the men’s pockets are deep enough!
What has changed isn’t the legal requirement for men to support women but rather the supply of men willing and able to deliberately do so. I have had many conversations with women with entitlement attitudes who were SHOCKED that the men weren’t willing to enjoy the privilege of working harder so they could quit their job at their leisure. The nerve of these slacker men, eh?
It would be simplistic to blame feminism but the real blame belongs here with men who actually indulged such attitudes (fathers and insecure men) in young women as well as the young, normal women themselves who thought they could “double dip”: That it’s possible for women to get equal (or better) access to all the good jobs and still all marry up in income (at least themselves.) One woman even told me: “Well, I don’t object to OTHER women marrying down but that’s just not a choice for me, that’s all.” Gee, I’ll think of that the next time I throw trash out of my car window. Doing what’s good for the environment is all very nice, but just not for me, that’s all.
The problem here is that men don’t know how to say NO. They don’t want to be unpopular and say, well, that women can’t be protected helpless princesses and at the same time enjoy the same opportunities for risk and adventure as icky men. Marxism in successful because of this libertine phillosophy and “pays” for it via class warfare and finding some convenient target scapegoat: (The Rich, Jews, White Males…)
The rest of your analysis is right-on and I’ve long said that women are going to wake up someday and realize that all the “free” stuff that feminism promised will cost way more down the line for nearly all women. We should include career women. Yes. No kidding! They might have had to go against sexism in the past, but with incomes being higher and taxes being lower, they probably made out in the long run!
November 7, 2007 at 12:46 pm
GreatMRNI said,
A house wife is privileged and she should realize it. She should thank her husband every damn day for that privilege. She should make his life as comfortable as she possibly can. Not nag, and complain about every decision he makes. She should keep herself slim, attractive and fit. If she becomes too unattractive (not just physically) to her husband she should expect to be divorced. After which she should only receive what her ex-husband deems appropriate based on how she treated him.
While she was his wife, she received housing, clothing, food, entertainment, paid vacations, transportation (automobile(s)), sex, luxury items like jewelry and watches. She also received protection, affection, respect, companionship, and kindness. She deserves nothing else after a divorce. If she divorces him, (decides the pool boy is cute) chances are he will give her nothing, which would be very appropriate.
If they have children and the husband doesn’t want custody, he must pay child support, but that child support goes into an account in the child’s name, and is an amount that he can afford. These funds can be withdrawn by the ex-wife, but she must show where the money is being spent otherwise the money stops.
If they both work while married, after a divorce (assuming they kept their assets separate) they keep what is theirs and move on. Any community assets are sold off and divide accordingly.
This is logical and fair for both people anything other than this is anti-male oppression, which is the current state of affairs.
November 7, 2007 at 1:18 pm
SM777 said,
—————————————————-
OK. How about this: “Well, I don’t object to OTHER getting screwed over in divorce court, but that’s just not a choice for me, that’s all.”
I mean, really, what man with any noticeable degree of common sense would make the hazardous mistake of getting married in Amerika?
Gentlemen, be careful of what you ask for. If you get married, although the mainstream media makes sure not to report this, your chances of being financially raped in divorce court will be well over 50% regardless of whether or not you have children.
Is it worth the odds?
Oh, by the way, you can always say no to women. In fact, you probably should. If you want sex, hire a hooker. They are a hell of a lot cheaper than dates and most keep in shape.
If you want a meaningful relationship, get a nice dog. They always appreciate you and are very affectionate.
Life in the 21st century is pretty easy. Why screw it up with a marriage proposal?
November 7, 2007 at 5:26 pm
PolishKnight said,
GreatMRNI said: “Only men should be wage slaves? She is promoting female privilege, and therefore a feminist. Women are above working for a living, they are too privileged to work? You see this feminist attitude all the time in the southeastern part of this country.”
BRSK is saying that if women are to enjoy the privilege of not having to work, that they will then have to give up equality in the workplace. She has a role for women and this includes men supporting women in this role. She also appears to accept that this role has limits for women.
It’s ironic that the biggest proponents of equality for women in the workplace happen to be here on MND. Everyone else, even if they won’t acknowledge it consciously, doesn’t take the notion of real equality for women very seriously. Throw women out into the world, like men, and children in their care will suffer along with everyone else. It would be great if it was possible for women to live like men and help take the burden of work off of men’s back, but women’s modern role in the workplace has become a Potemkin’s village with massive social support systems disguising the reality that these women are not equal and not making a net contribution as men do.
Add up the costs of welfare, affirmative action, “child” support, sexual harassment legislation, divorce trauma, suburban sprawl, daycare, higher taxes, etc. and it’s clear that the “equal pay” women bring home is MORE THAN offset by the higher costs to EVERYONE. BRSK recognizes this reality even if she hasn’t fully acknowledged the responsibility of normal women. She’s still ahead of the curve of many MRA’s though… [tips hat]
It’s not just the southern belles that think men owe them a living but also New York and Blueblood middle class Democrat women as well who have led shielded lives from the effects of their beliefs and double dipped. Even today, there are still career women who are lucky enough to go to a nice school, land a 6 figure paying job, and then marry a professional man who will give her the choice to work part-time or stay at home when it suits her. It doesn’t happen as often as in the past, but it’s there. Look at how people buy lottery tickets. They all believe the good things can happen to them.
As long as women with bad attitudes about men enough to vote for a monster such as Hillary Clinton can still find men to bankroll their lifestyle, why should they change their minds. Huh? I hold ALL these people accountable for their stupidity!!!
BRSK, welcome to the icky world of men here. Sometimes, we can be rather cooty creatures but when you meet us (as sometimes happens), we’re usually very polite and friendly and even, daresay it, chivalrous to the right woman. Times are tough though and just as with any war, things can get ugly. Ironically, unlike a war overseas where young men get shot up, we live with the ugliness here at home. In a way, that’s a good thing. At least it’s good if they can learn from it.
November 8, 2007 at 11:12 am
Lots of news! « Being Feminist said,
November 10, 2007 at 11:40 am
steven deluca said,
In my town, unless the female shows up in court with a needle in her arm, the man will lose. Some men have lost until the visit by social services found her passed out, or a gun unlocked near by a child… true.
We don’t really know if the average man or women can handle children better because there are not enough men who gain custody and we don’t know what average is, … but for sure, the average single man couldn’t do much worse than single women seem to be doing “on average” …
December 21, 2007 at 6:47 pm