Fifteen Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast:
1. A mother who works a full-time job and delegates to strangers the raising of her children eight hours a day, five days a week does just as good a job as a mother who hand-rears her children full time.
No, no. I'm going back BEFORE feminism in what I'm discussing. I realize that's difficult for a lot of you to even picture, having been reared in (and by) the Feminist Theocracy, but there was a pre-feminist world.
The idea that we used to have as a universal given -- and which functioned admirably and I think could function admirably again -- is that a home with a stay-at-home mother is a very different thing from a house that a feminist returns to every night and from which she departs every morning. The FACT of a wife-mother being in residence 24/7 -- except when there's something she needs to do outside of the home -- is the thing that MAKES it a home. It's the thing that makes her a Homemaker as distinct from a housewife. A housewife or househusband is a bare subsistence version of what I'm talking about.
There's a centrality to the Homemaker construct that makes it sustainable and allows a family to flourish. The husband leaves the home every morning to earn a livelihood that finances the home that the homemaker is making. There are a nearly infinite number of ways to make and then improve a home. But it requires someone being IN the home to do it. Yes, if she's just a resentful housewife -- "I'm a wife and I'm in this house and all I do is the same housework over and over and over blah blah blah..." -- well, yeah. That's a problem, but that's an attitudinal problem, in my view. This is what "happily ever after" is: you are the central figure in your life story and your husband's life story and your children's life stories. Why? Because the central fact is the home and YOU'RE the one who's there all the time.
A mother bird, to cite an obvious example, can't make her nest and hatch the eggs and take care of her offspring AND go foraging. The father bird can't either. It's an either/or thing if it's to be done properly.
The Feminist Theocracy maintains that that's not true. And I can see that you've bought into that (as most people have): A house that is empty from nine in the morning til six at night is JUST AS MUCH a home as a house that has a homemaker in it during those hours.
To me, that's self-evidently ludicrous. It certainly wasn't my experience. Our house was just our house. It wasn't a HOME because my mother worked outside the house. My mother was a school secretary but it was pretty obvious that that was who she was. She slaved like a trojan to create the illusion of being a homemaker but there's a difference between an actual homemaker and a housewife. I had friends who had homemaker mothers and friends who had housewife mothers. The difference was obvious. The homemaker is making the home and making dinner and cleaning and doing laundry ALL DAY, timing it so that there's a "dinner hour" a "family meal". The housewife arrives like a bat out of hell along with everyone else and tries to do everything the homemaker spent ALL DAY doing into the same four hours everything else needs to be done.
You can call that a home if you want -- and I'm sure you do -- but I don't think it is one.
I visit with the Kitchen families twice a year and have for six years, both with homemaker mothers. It's very nice to visit a home and see it function as such. "I thought so".
Ericka always jokes about getting her kids t-shirts that say "Too Good For Daycare". If she doesn't, I probably will. It's entirely true. And her kids are very aware of it, because they have friends with "evening parents" and they know the difference.
I mean, it's INSULTING to actual homemakers to suggest that what they do ALL DAY can be done just as effectively between 6 pm and 10 pm. THINK about how that would make YOU feel.
But, that's nothing new for the Feminist Theocracy. A big part of what feminists do is insult, condescend to, patronize, disparage and dismiss Homemakers.
It's necessary for feminists to do that because without stigmatization of 24/7 Motherhood and Homemaking, I'm really pretty sure that would be what MOST women would opt for because I'm pretty sure they're hardwired for it.
I also think if women back in the 1960s could see what feminism has turned into -- the plummeting replacement birth rates, plummeting successful (i.e. lifelong) marriage rates, 86% of women out in the workforce -- I doubt that MOST of them would have "opted in". Their assumption, I think I'm safe in saying, was that birth rates would remain the same and successful marriage rates would remain the same. MOST women had lifelong marriages prior to 1970. A small percentage of "tomboy women" wanted to be like men and were.
But, I think if MOST women were being honest they would trade -- happily -- what they've "achieved" since 1970 for a much higher successful marriage rate.
And a successful marriage needs, I think, that "orbital" quality, with the Homemaker as the central reality.
Marriage as it WAS was more successful than marriage as it IS today.