It should be illegal to be a stay at home mother

[Shaungotti]

My girlfriend stayed home until my daughter started school. We were pretty broke but we made it work.

Call me old fashioned but it just worked better. I didn't have a lot of extra running around to do driving her to a daycare. I didn't have to take sick days every time she had a fever and I didn't have to worry about how she was being treated.

I would have been fine staying home as well. Having a parent at home just works better if you can swing it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

And you're coming to a conclusion that this is what modern feminism represents because an author, in probably the 60s? 70s? said something similar.

You don't know who Simone de Beauvoir is, do you? It's OK, because a lot of people don't, but feminists do. She's one of the intellectual founders of modern feminism. Not all feminists agree with her, but neither can her words be easily ignored when debating what feminists stand for. She was the first person to my knowledge e to advance the notion that gender is a social construct, which is enormously influential in modern feminism.

The reason she is important to this discussion is because stupid ideas in the posted article is very much in the same vein with this feminist icon's thinking. This means that the dumb shit this op-ed writer is spewing has a fair amount of support within modern feminism. And Simone De Beauvoir is just one writer who I trotted out because she is a very famous feminist writer, but there are many others. Shulie Firestone right off the top of my head.

As for the context of de Beauvoir's comments, they were made in a considered dialogue with another feminist icon. She wasn't shouting slogans at a protest rally.

A lot of people are hesitant to acknowledge the authoritarian (and even totalitarian at times) strains within modern feminism, which were almost completely lacking in first wave feminism. This is mainly because they aren't very familiar with feminist writings and feminist policy proposals. Perhaps this is your case. A great many of todays feminists are radicals who cloak themselves with the respectability of earlier generations.

 

[Bendo MMA Hero]

You don't know who Simone de Beauvoir is, do you? It's OK, because a lot of people don't. She's one of the intellectual founders of modern feminism. Not all feminists agree with her, but neither can her words be easily ignored when debating what feminists stand for. She was the first person to my knowledge e to advance the notion that gender is a social construct, which is enormously influential in modern feminism.

The reason she is important to this discussion is because stupid ideas in the posted article is very much in the same vein with this feminist icon's thinking. This means that the dumb shit this op-ed writer is spewing has a fair amount of support within modern feminism. And Simone De Beauvoir is just one writer who I trotted out because she is a very famous feminist writer, but there are many others. Shulie Firestone right off the top of my head.

As for the context of de Beauvoir's comments, they were made in a considered dialogue with another feminist icon. She wasn't shouting slogans at a protest rally.

A lot of people are hesitant to acknowledge the authoritarian (and even totalitarian at times) strains within modern feminism, which were almost completely lacking in first wave feminism. This is mainly because they aren't very familiar with feminist writings and feminist policy proposals. Perhaps this is your case. A great many of todays feminists are radicals who cloak themselves with the respectability of earlier generations.

No, but I think that illustrates my point. My undergrad major was English, and I have 100% never heard of her. I highly doubt the majority of modern feminists are actually taking women's studies courses, and the ones that are probably have the intellectual capacity to read her work and know what is or is not a good theory. I included a date, because time changes context. So this woman may have articulated a stupid point in hindsight, but you can't hold it against her now. It probably doesn't take away from her overall message.

Like, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a famous white wash of the jazz age, but no one calls him a racist because we know he was just a man of his time. He is still valuable and a part of the literary cannon.

But if you wrote about the Jazz age now and didn't include any black characters, everyone would assume you were an idiot or a racist.

I think modern feminists struggle with how to handle women of color issues, among other problems. Plenty of loud idiots, but again, you're making an assumption based on very little evidence. This thread topic is a ridiculous viewpoint, and it is one that I, and most other feminists would reject. It's like watching one of those BLM youtube videos where they chant "kill whitey" and deciding that viewpoint is fueling everyone in the group. Loud idiots tend to get noticed. I respect what you're saying, but I don't follow.

 

[IDL]

De Beauvoir hated the family, which I find absurd. And now this nincompoop today is saying the same things. Who is going to watch kids if the parents don't? Some day care center or nanny, most likely a woman. And that's fine in her eyes, but for a mother to stay home and raise her own children is something she thinks should be prohibited by law. It's very stupid, and should be easy for anyone to condemn.

At first I didn't really understand the anti-family strand of Marxism/Communism but it does make sense under social engineering terms. A family is like a little tribe that may have other interests that deviate from the state, which constantly tries to condition people to conform into the collective. What the social engineers desire is very unnatural, so the separation of children from the 'impure' or 'corrupt' ideas and behaviors of their parents which they pass down, becomes appealing.

An extreme depiction, which shows the utility of this, is Brave New World, where the state begins conditioning children immediately and the children have no parents (literally). So the child can be completely molded by 'experts' serving the system.

 

[Thurisaz]

Yes, there was never any poor male leader or good female leader ever until 1918.

There are exceptions to the rule, but drawing rules from those exceptions leads to where we are now. For every wise Inga there's several women who vote for Trudeau because of his youthful looks, niceness and fabulous hair.

The policies that directly result from women's suffrage are literally suicidal for a society. We've seen them across the whole West.

 

[Banchan]

There are exceptions to the rule, but drawing rules from those exceptions leads to where we are now. For every wise Inga there's several women who vote for Trudeau because of his youthful looks, niceness and fabulous hair.

The policies that directly result from women's suffrage are literally suicidal for a society. We've seen them across the whole West.

I hate trudeau but what does voting for him becsuse of his looks have to do with feminism? People who vote for him tend to be liberal and as are feminists or the idea that women are equal to men and all people are equal all tend to fall under the liberal umbrella.

 

[Banchan]

My girlfriend stayed home until my daughter started school. We were pretty broke but we made it work.

Call me old fashioned but it just worked better. I didn't have a lot of extra running around to do driving her to a daycare. I didn't have to take sick days every time she had a fever and I didn't have to worry about how she was being treated.

I would have been fine staying home as well. Having a parent at home just works better if you can swing it.

Short term is fine but long term greatly depends on finances. If one income earner makes enough for the family to live and to save for retirement for both thats great but what if they dont? How will the stay at home partner retire on just a government income benefit? Its just not smart to put your retirement funding in the hands of someone else. I think the message is sound but obviously mandating it is a little extreme. If you dont mind spending your golden years as a walmart greeter than by all means stay at home as long as you like, its your life.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

There are exceptions to the rule, but drawing rules from those exceptions leads to where we are now. For every wise Inga there's several women who vote for Trudeau because of his youthful looks, niceness and fabulous hair.

The policies that directly result from women's suffrage are literally suicidal for a society. We've seen them across the whole West.

So you don't like women, Jews, or blacks voting?

 

[Thurisaz]

So you don't like women, Jews, or blacks voting?

I don't like anyone who isn't a net taxpayer voting. Where'd you get Jews and blacks there? Do you have a narrative going on?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

you're making an assumption based on very little evidence. This thread topic is a ridiculous viewpoint, and it is one that I, and most other feminists would reject. It's like watching one of those BLM youtube videos where they chant "kill whitey" and deciding that viewpoint is fueling everyone in the group. Loud idiots tend to get noticed. I respect what you're saying, but I don't follow.

So you've never read basic feminist literature that are required reading in any feminist courses, and I'm the one making assumptions based on nothing? I'm trying to tell you what kind of things feminists talk about, and a lot of them talk about things like whether women should be "allowed" to stay at home.

Your attempt to marginalize a central feminist figure is futile. Your attempt to place it only in the context of the past is futile, because here's an article from yesterday spouting the same crap.

For feminism to have any value as a movement, it's going to need to be purged or separated from radicalism that has so strongly influenced the movement since the 60s (and a little before).

What you have been effective in communicating is your disinterest in what feminists say when that transgresses the line of what you think feminists ought to say.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I don't like anyone who isn't a net taxpayer voting. Where'd you get Jews and blacks there? Do you have a narrative going on?

I'm sincerely sorry if I made a false assumption about you. So you do support blacks and Jews voting then? If so, I was laboring under a false impression.

As far as net taxpayers voting, I'm not going to say such an idea has never occurred to me.

 

[frandie2b]

Well, stay at home mothers can't be taxed....

 

[Thurisaz]

Ok, sorry if I made a false assumption about you. So you do support blacks and Jews voting then?

Sure.

As far as net taxpayers voting, I'm not going to say such an idea has never occurred to me.

Another good idea would be one vote per intact family. When people have their skin in the game, through their money or their blood, they seldom support suicidal policies.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Sure.


Another good idea would be one vote per intact family. When people have their skin in the game, through their money or their blood, they seldom support suicidal policies.

So a couple that divorces would get 0 votes or 2 votes?

 

[Thurisaz]

So a couple that divorces would get 0 votes or 2 votes?

Zero. If they can't figure out how to make their family function, how could anyone trust the future of the nation to them?

 

[Da Left Cross]

An editorial by Australian feminist Sarrah Le Marquand.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...m/news-story/fbd6fe7b79e8b4136d49d991b6a1f41c

She advocates forcing women to get jobs once their children are school age:

"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.
...
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."

In doing so, she exposes the ugly underbelly of much second and most third wave feminism; it isn't about liberating women at all. It's about forcing women to adhere to the standards and values that feminists dictate:

"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."

Feminism like that espoused by the author is anti-freedom and anti-woman.

Anything to deflect from the fact Donald is a traitor, eh?

 

[Tamriel Terror]

So you've never read basic feminist literature that are required reading in any feminist courses, and I'm the one making assumptions based on nothing? I'm trying to tell you what kind of things feminists talk about, and a lot of them talk about things like whether women should be "allowed" to stay at home.

Your attempt to marginalize a central feminist figure is futile. Your attempt to place it only in the context of the past is futile, because here's an article from yesterday spouting the same crap.

For feminism to have any value as a movement, it's going to need to be purged or separated from radicalism that has so strongly influenced the movement since the 60s (and a little before).

What you have been effective in communicating is your disinterest in what feminists say when that transgresses the line of what you think feminists ought to say.

Agree. Same thing with a lot of platforms nowadays. They need to seperate from the radicals. Feminism was an extremely brave movement back in the early 1900s with fighting for suffrage around the time of President Wilson, but during around the 1960s it became more and more radical where women wanted to be equal to men (but avoid the draft), or in other words they wanted inequality instead of equality. Now the modern feminism that we see in the West is about what women "should or shouldn't be allowed to do". Its sad that what started as such a brave and noble cause has been highjacked by radicals.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Anything to deflect from the fact Donald is a traitor, eh?

Lol. One has to be obsessed to think that any topic other than Donald Trump is some sort of deflection. I for one am happy when I don't have to think of US presidents at all, whether Democrat or Republican. I don't believe they should be kings. I don't believe they should dominate our lives or our thoughts.

This particular thread is not about Donald Trump at all. If that bothers you, or if the very absence of discussion abut Trump makes you think of Donald Trump, then I think the problem lies with you.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Agree. Same thing with a lot of platforms nowadays. They need to seperate from the radicals. Feminism was an extremely brave movement back in the early 1900s with fighting for suffrage around the time of President Wilson, but during around the 1960s it became more and more radical where women wanted to be equal to men (but avoid the draft), or in other words they wanted inequality instead of equality. Now the modern feminism that we see in the West is about what women "should or shouldn't be allowed to do". Its sad that what started as such a brave and noble cause has been highjacked by radicals.

This. One problem is that radicalism has been allowed to advance so far and for so long in feminist circles that people can't distinguish between radical leftism and feminism anymore. There's a lot of hypocrisy in any political movement, but none so much as modern feminism.

 

[Thurisaz]

This. One problem is that radicalism has been allowed to advance so far and for so long in feminist circles that people can't distinguish between radical leftism and feminism anymore. There's a lot of hypocrisy in any political movement, but none so much as modern feminism.

Feminism has been more destructive to society than Communism. That's an incredible feat.