Belinda Brown: The State has become the forbidding guardian of the family

(Last Sunday, TCW writer Belinda Brown braved the The Big Debate: Women and Politics in the 21st Century, taking on the arch feminists Bonnie Greer, Dr Leslie Orr and Heather Wakefield. This is the third in a series of posts in which she sets out her argument as to why their feminist demand for equal political representation is so deeply flawed.)

Many detractors rightly see links between feminism and Marxism. However, because feminists attach such importance to the workplace, feminism has actually become the handmaiden of capitalism in its rawest form. As feminists have prioritised participation in the workplace over family and the community their ideology has been easily co-opted into the government’s economic concerns.

As feminism has become ever more deeply embedded in government so it has provided our ministers with the rationale and justification for getting ever increasing numbers of women out to work. Over the past few decades women moved from being housewives with a peripheral economic role, to the majority being in employment, and while this was initially part-time there are now ever increasing numbers of women in full-time work. The housewife is almost extinct.

The main thrust of our Government’s policy in relation to women has been to provide more and more childcare; this also dominated the Labour party manifesto. Furthermore, the tax and benefits system is structured in a way that prevents a main breadwinner from being able significantly to increase his income; financial thumbscrews are in place that force women out to work.

Yet in 1998 the government conducted a postcard campaign to find out what women’s concerns were. They received 30 000 responses which showed that work-life balance was women’s primary concern. There have been numerous surveys, all of which have shown that women would prefer to spend less rather than more time at work. However government policies steered successfully by feminist pressure groups have ensured that women spend less time at  home with their families and ever increasing amounts of time out at work.

As there are fewer and fewer people at home to protect our young and old and families, this provides justification for government bureaucrats to meddle and pry ever more deeply into our private lives. So for example we now have domestic violence laws which take into account emotional and psychological abuse, new rape laws which will influence how we conduct our sex lives or in Scotland the Named Persons Scheme, which heavily undermines the parent’s role.

Instead of shoring up and supporting what remains of the family a feminised government ever more deeply intervenes. They focus on surrogacy, donor conception, transgenderism – these are all extremely minority concerns, the outcomes of which risk damaging our children and further destabilising family life.

A top heavy political system

The result is that  the mechanisms required to watch over the diets of our children, educate them about the ever increasing complexities around sex and gender, monitor the social care of our elderly, provide wraparound childcare for our children, follow our Twitter accounts – all of these require bureaucratically heavy top-down mechanisms. This makes it increasingly difficult for processes of political representation to work bottom-up. This is before we factor in that the organs in place to encourage 50:50 representation will inhibit the organic processes through which selection occurs.

The utter corrosion of bottom up mechanisms

However, all political change of any value starts from the desire to look after and protect our homes, our families and our communities. It starts from bottom up. It is not self-interest in female representation that motivates activity but declining schools standards, the waiting lists in our local hospitals or neighbourhood deterioration, which provide a catalyst for women’s concerns.

It was ever thus. The most effective social reformers, social movements, and even revolutions start with anxieties about feeding our children, the health and wellbeing of the workers who do this, and other concerns around health and home. For example, Mother Jones, “the most dangerous woman in America” helped establish the United Mine Workers Union so that men would “get a wage which would allow women to stay at home and care for their kids”.

We have much to worry us in contemporary society. However, the increasing employment of women, which is a product of feminism, means that the State is increasingly becoming the appointed guardian of the family. When it comes to identifying, defending and protecting the interests of our men, our elderly our children – there is nobody, except the conservative woman, at home.

Feminism has also resulted in women becoming increasingly alienated from the political process as a whole. Research conducted by Geoff Dench into British Social Attitudes has revealed that since BSA first started in 1986 there is an increasing proportion of the population who don’t support any political party. This has doubled among working women, trebled among housewives and quadrupled among single mothers. The women who feel that no political party represents their interests have significantly stronger pro-domestic values – across a whole range of variables – than any other group.

This is devastating for grassroots political activity, for bottom up participatory mechanisms, for processes of interest representation.

In my next blog I will look at what we should be doing about this.

Belinda Brown

  • Colkitto03

    Really great analysis, Feminists really are the “useful idiots” of the big state and the corporations. You will not find a single survey that shows women today are happier then comparative surveys from the 70’s. So who is benefiting? Its time that this minority of fanatics were stopped from spoiling the life choices of the majority of women.

  • Groan

    It is all the more surprising because of the move to take adults and older children out of institutional forms of care. From mental handicap hospitals “winterbourne” to sheltered housing for older people to adoption and fostering and so on the negatives associated with institutional care are powering more human alternatives. Yet for our youngest most vulnerable members more impersonal care is recommended? Longer and longer time in congregate group settings it seems is OK . The contrast could not be greater.

  • Earthenware

    “the increasing employment of women, which is a product of feminism,
    means that the State is increasingly becoming the appointed guardian of
    the family.”

    That’s quite deliberate. When we call them Marxist-Feminists, we aren’t just making up insults.

    Taking it step further, now that feminists are so entrenched in the government, that delegation of authority from the family to the state means that feminists will ultimately be in control of how children are raised.

    A small number of radicals will have managed to completely overhaul the most basic building blocks of society and without the slightest hint of democratic legitimacy. Incredible.

  • Jolly Roger

    No, the state isn’t the guardian of the family.

    A guardian would have preserved the family. The state has neutered the opposition to itself that the family always would be a source of. As Earthenware indicates below, once the state can raise other peoples’s children with beliefs that the political caste approve of, indeed ones they create, then forevermore there will be no more loyalty to parents or traditions or anything above the state, but only loyalty to the state. Everything within the state, nothing against the state.

  • John Smith

    it looks like the left & the state have won
    The family is dead, long live the family

    • Colkitto03

      I know how you feel, believe me. That said, I think that those who think they can outwit human nature are fools. Mother nature will triumph, she has been playing this game for a long time! and she has a lot more patience than her opponents..

  • Mister Cis (The Unashamedly H

    … the increasing employment of women, which is a product of feminism,
    means that the State is increasingly becoming the appointed guardian of
    the family.

    No, the increasing employment of women doesn’t mean that; it has resulted in something like that but doesn’t ‘mean’ that. What the increasing employment of women actually ‘means’, if it means anything at all, is that the independent woman is a creature of risible female fantasy, notionally independent only because she no longer has to do all those distasteful things (washing dirty underpants, kissing rough lips above a dirty chin, ‘smiling’ in the face of beery breath, suffering the occasional insistent demand for sex long since reluctantly agreed to and unresponsively participated in) that were once universally considered the duty of the good wife and it means that She is increasingly spared the daunting obstacles facing ambitious young men (qv all women shortlists for parliamentary constituencies). What the increasing employment of women ‘means’, if it means anything at all, is that She can walk into a job She is not best qualified to do, that She can use and consume, without a moment’s thought, the products and services She cannot provide, that She can flush Her unmentionable waste away without a thought for where it goes or what must be done with it and that She can take money borrowed by government – on a promise of the slavery of a million and more unborn men, rather than just that of one who may be past his prime and not as handsome as once he was – on trash produced by people who are effectively slaves, men and women not like her, in conditions She would not tolerate. That’s what it means, if it means anything at all.

    None of the foregoing withstanding, the state is increasingly becoming the self-appointed mistress of what was once seen as ‘the family’ not, as you write, the appointed guardian of
    the family.

    You must understand that what you hanker for has gone and only men can get something like it back for you, and not in your lifetime.


    Mister Cis, (The Unashamedly Hetereaux Bigot)

  • It looks like the moderators and moderatresses here are determined to eradicate contrariness.

  • Russell

    It may be whistling in the wind to mention it on this site but, when surveyed, men also report a desire to work less and spend more time with their family.

    • What men want doesn’t matter.

    • Belinda Brown

      Actually I often think about that. And I think flexible employment such as it exists is – up to a point – a good thing to have come from recent changes. And to the extent that dads are spending more time with their children that is great. But I think it is up to women to campaign for women to be able to spend more time looking after their children and if men want to spend more time with their family they should campaign about it. Why should we campaign for you?

      • Russell

        Point proven.