Now Feminists Want to Force Moms Out to Work

I just love it when the dull liberal partisans miss the point. This week we conservatives are having a grand old time with an Aussie feminist Sarrah Le Marquand who argued “It Should Be Illegal to be a Stay-at-home Mom.”

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.

As I say, government is force, so anyone writing about political issues eventually gets down to the nitty-gritty issue of force, as in: What is our glorious progressive movement going to force people to do next, to bend the arc of history towards justice?

I suppose it is only natural that in a world where people get food from the supermarket, they lose sight of the fact that we humans are animals that live by reproducing ourselves through sexual reproduction, and that before we can be talking about liberation or rights-to-choose or the need to express our talents in creative careers we need to produce the next generation and get it off the nest.

As an emerging American philosopher recently told me: my job is to keep my kids alive.

But let’s recite a bit of history because it seems that your modern feminist writer don’t know much about history. Or biology.

The Story of Mankind is that back in the hunter-gatherer age men were crucially needed to protect the tribal territory and its food from the neighboring tribe. If the men failed in this the tribe would cease to exist: the men would be killed and the women sold into slavery and concubinage. Meanwhile the women did all the important work of bearing and raising children.

In the agricultural age, most men did not need to defend the borders. Luckily there was a job for them to do, because women doing the heavy work of plowing tended to suffer miscarriages. Meanwhile the women did all the important work of bearing and raising children.

In the modern age, very few men are needed to defend the borders, although quite a few men are needed to police the inner cities. Luckily there is a job for them to do, so they worked in mines and factories. Meanwhile the women did all the important work of bearing and raising children.

So it was that in the modern age the best minds decided that men should be institutionalized, either in factories or offices or prisons, just to be on the safe side. And if that worked so well for men, why not institutionalize children too, and put them in government child custodial facilities, and avoid the risk of them growing up unsupervised? Now government functionaries would do the skilled work of raising children.

I do not know at what point women decided that they wanted to be institutionalized too, but they did, and it was the rich ones that wanted to do it first. They wanted to have careers, just like men, and get put away for the day in a glass enclosure on Corporate Drive, although nobody told them that “career” (from the French carrière or racetrack) was really just a cunning trick to stop men fighting for honor and glory and compete instead for market share.

And if men were having such great fun in traditional male roles as soldiers and sailors and miners and lumberjacks then women should do it too. (Okay, women have not yet indicated much interest in underground mining and wielding mighty chainsaws in climax forests, but they might).

So now we are reaching the highly advanced state where the most advanced thinkers Down Under are toying with the idea of forcibly confining mothers in institutions where they are to work for pay or else.

Of course, it was in the mercantilist slave sugar plantations where all this social advancement was first researched and worked out, through the idea of institutionalizing humans in a workplace constructed as a piece of machinery, the whole driven with an “impelling force regular and steady.”

I don’t know where this idea of forcible mom work gangs will end up, for I suspect that stay-at-home moms might not take kindly to their forcible institutionalization in SJW converged corporate workplaces. I am talking about the home-school movement, a racist, sexist, homophobic extremist push to deinstitutionalize children -- as in “free range kids” -- and reverse two hundred years of social advancement.

Stay-at-home moms have this old-fashioned notion of women doing the important work of bearing and raising children.

But when it comes to bending the arc of history towards justice, who cares about a few rebellious bigots?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

I just love it when the dull liberal partisans miss the point. This week we conservatives are having a grand old time with an Aussie feminist Sarrah Le Marquand who argued “It Should Be Illegal to be a Stay-at-home Mom.”

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.

As I say, government is force, so anyone writing about political issues eventually gets down to the nitty-gritty issue of force, as in: What is our glorious progressive movement going to force people to do next, to bend the arc of history towards justice?

I suppose it is only natural that in a world where people get food from the supermarket, they lose sight of the fact that we humans are animals that live by reproducing ourselves through sexual reproduction, and that before we can be talking about liberation or rights-to-choose or the need to express our talents in creative careers we need to produce the next generation and get it off the nest.

As an emerging American philosopher recently told me: my job is to keep my kids alive.

But let’s recite a bit of history because it seems that your modern feminist writer don’t know much about history. Or biology.

The Story of Mankind is that back in the hunter-gatherer age men were crucially needed to protect the tribal territory and its food from the neighboring tribe. If the men failed in this the tribe would cease to exist: the men would be killed and the women sold into slavery and concubinage. Meanwhile the women did all the important work of bearing and raising children.

In the agricultural age, most men did not need to defend the borders. Luckily there was a job for them to do, because women doing the heavy work of plowing tended to suffer miscarriages. Meanwhile the women did all the important work of bearing and raising children.

In the modern age, very few men are needed to defend the borders, although quite a few men are needed to police the inner cities. Luckily there is a job for them to do, so they worked in mines and factories. Meanwhile the women did all the important work of bearing and raising children.

So it was that in the modern age the best minds decided that men should be institutionalized, either in factories or offices or prisons, just to be on the safe side. And if that worked so well for men, why not institutionalize children too, and put them in government child custodial facilities, and avoid the risk of them growing up unsupervised? Now government functionaries would do the skilled work of raising children.

I do not know at what point women decided that they wanted to be institutionalized too, but they did, and it was the rich ones that wanted to do it first. They wanted to have careers, just like men, and get put away for the day in a glass enclosure on Corporate Drive, although nobody told them that “career” (from the French carrière or racetrack) was really just a cunning trick to stop men fighting for honor and glory and compete instead for market share.

And if men were having such great fun in traditional male roles as soldiers and sailors and miners and lumberjacks then women should do it too. (Okay, women have not yet indicated much interest in underground mining and wielding mighty chainsaws in climax forests, but they might).

So now we are reaching the highly advanced state where the most advanced thinkers Down Under are toying with the idea of forcibly confining mothers in institutions where they are to work for pay or else.

Of course, it was in the mercantilist slave sugar plantations where all this social advancement was first researched and worked out, through the idea of institutionalizing humans in a workplace constructed as a piece of machinery, the whole driven with an “impelling force regular and steady.”

I don’t know where this idea of forcible mom work gangs will end up, for I suspect that stay-at-home moms might not take kindly to their forcible institutionalization in SJW converged corporate workplaces. I am talking about the home-school movement, a racist, sexist, homophobic extremist push to deinstitutionalize children -- as in “free range kids” -- and reverse two hundred years of social advancement.

Stay-at-home moms have this old-fashioned notion of women doing the important work of bearing and raising children.

But when it comes to bending the arc of history towards justice, who cares about a few rebellious bigots?

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

RECENT VIDEOS