Feminist Manifesto Excoriates Stay-at-Home Moms for Not Going to Work

Regular Guy Paul is on a roll. This time, he's fisked an interview of the author of Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World:

I started researching ... how families were making egalitarian marriages a generation after feminism. And I learned in fact that they weren't. I stumbled across the information that educated women who are in a position to have a whole range of choices about their lives were choosing to marry and stay home with their children instead of remaining in the world of work.

What they actually had done was recreate the 1950s life. Then I asked the question, “Is this good?” according to the standards of secular Western goodness.

I applied those standards to the decision to stay home and tend children and the household, and I found that they were, in fact, lacking. These women are not using their full human capacity. They are not independent, and they are not doing more social good than harm.

Can't you just feel the contempt for people who think raising their own children is the most important thing they can do? No?

The most frustrating thing about the whole business is the nonsensical stories that they tell themselves and me about what they think they're doing. The delusional quality of it is a little weird.

Do we feel despised yet? There's more, much more:

If they, in fact, believe the things that they tell me, then they are incredibly stupid and foolish. I'm hoping that they're reciting it like a mantra: "choice, choice, choice, choice," or "I never met a man who wished on his deathbed he spent more time at work." These are mantras that these women recite; they send them to me in e-mails.

So, "choice" is only for those who choose work. It's only for those who make the approved choice...

[More]

(emphasis added by Paul)

My Comments:
Read the whole thing, including the entire interview to which Paul links. What a sick world view that sees raising one's own children as less noble or desirable - nay, as more damaging to all of womynkind - than working outside the home.

It is reminiscent of this story that I blogged about several months ago regarding a Dutch feminist parliamentarian who wanted to penalise the "destruction of capital" represented by educated stay-at-home women by making women who chose that route pay back the full cost of their government-funded educations.

As was the case with the Dutch parliamentarian, the feminist author that Paul blogs about views women as commodities whose value is "wasted" unless their human capital is being put to an approved use - one, of course, that does not involve the nurturing and raising of a future generation.