The “tolerant” left – It should be illegal to be a stay at home mom March 29, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Here’s your daily grist for the outrage mill, a silly feminist no one has ever heard of has decided it is an affront to women’s progress for women to decide to be stay at home moms, and thus to satisfy her outrage being a stay at home mom must be made illegal, because otherwise her dreams of feminist dominance of a matriarchal society will never be realized, or something. She hinges her demand on a report generated by a UN-affiliated leftist-dominated economic development organization (the OECD), which, surprise!, found little worth in women staying at home and determined that women would be better off out there earning wages that could then be confiscated as taxes for the endless yawning maw of government (and thus, themselves). Yes that’s a bit simplistic but once again the uniworld government types sacrificing the good of children on the altar of the almighty state is just a bit too obvious to ignore:
……..the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.
“One of the areas of greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force is inactive and/or part-time working women, especially those with children,’’ concluded the landmark study. “There are potentially large losses to the economy when women stay at home or work short part-time hours.’’….. [First of all, so what? Unless one is enthrall of a marxist-derived materialist ideology, which holds the material as the highest good, a mom staying home through all ages of a child’s development to raise them and inculcate in them morals and values is one of the best possible uses of a woman’s time from even a naturalist perspective. In a Christian worldview, barring some serious need, it is THE best possible role for a mom. But see, that’s the point, this is about making everyone conform to this marxist materialists’ ideology.]
Follows some obvious throwaway language about the importance of kids, but then we get to the point, which obliterates all the obfuscating language that came before:
……Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.…….[Upon pain of what? Huge fines? Denial of “benefits,” which are most often just a refund on money already paid? Prison? So a woman has a fundamental, unalienable, unchallengeable right to murder her own child at taxpayer expense, but does not have a right not to work?!? Taken together, these reveal a breathtaking anti-child bias that goes beyond bordering on misopedia.]
…….The double standards are even greater for stay-at-home mums, with governments of all persuasions traditionally wary to tackle the unfair tax concessions enjoyed by one-income households for fear of inciting voting fury…….. [Oh, so this is really about jealousy? You belong to a two-income earner tax bracket and resent the “lower” taxes paid by those single earner families? So in your envious rage you are completely willing to injure the good of children]
……..But it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours. Not children, not fathers, not bosses — and certainly not women. [Oh really? And on what basis do you make that dramatic claim?]
Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender. [What?!? How?!? By fulfilling the demands of your demented ideology by forcing everyone to conform to them, and thus confirm their “truth” in your addled mind? By helping you overcome your bad feelz for choosing to work instead of raise your own kids, or favoring career to the extent you never had any?]
Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment, and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace. [Oh, so now we’re back to fulfilling feminist ideological items. But really, she’s all over the map. This is a rant, not a cogent argument.]
Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history. [So it’s all about demanding reality conform to a wholly unrealistic and unobtainable ideology. Like all forms of leftism.]
So long as we as a nation [Australia] cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.
That is nothing but a rhetorical flourish intended to make her feminist demands appear to have benefits for all and not just the feminist cohort. But it’s manifestly easy to prove feminists don’t give a damn about the good of men or children, abortion (and the above) prove the latter, and their reflexive invective against men prove the former.
Sargon of Akkad – who is a liberal, but an anti-leftist – takes this op-ed and other matters apart from a different perspective in the video below. One really good point is the totalitarian ethos that suffuses this woman’s rant, which is of course a central part of the leftist ideology – the good of the state trumps the needs or wants of the individual. Subsequently he covers the growing tendency among the Black Lives Matters and others in the race-baiting industry to parse themselves by skin color. That is to say, darker blacks are higher on the victimhood pyramid and thus more virtuous and enjoying more (wholly unearned) moral standing than lighter skinned ones. This was inevitable, and will hopefully lead to the fracturing and neutering of this movement.
Strong language warning.
Is it just me, or do (radical?) feminists tip their hand a bit too much about their coolness – to say the least – towards children?