In response to Kathy Gyngell: How the Left have stolen the foundations of life from children, Kola said:
I hear what you are saying. But from the moment I gave up work to care for my daughter, I have had judgement passed on me. I’m not a role model to my child; I don’t have a purpose; what do I do all day? and so on. Yet my child is happy, healthy, well-behaved and well-mannered. And sending her off to full-time school, I know I have done my best to help get her there.
I have felt nothing but pressure to go back into paid work, that my ‘work’ at home looking after my family is meaningless and without reward.
I saw a very good point by Peter Hitchens that says there has been an unholy alliance between feminists and corporations so that women are pressured to become yet another form of income for Big Business. This current monstrous incarnation of the Left actually has a very cosy relationship with Big Business which makes one think, well, what actually is the Left these days?
And who is it that ccmposes the Left?
Good question but when I think of the Left I think of the SJW/feminist/globalist type.
The housing market was skewed when the financial “services” industry was able to expect two salaries to fund a mortgage. The natural symbiosis of men and women which has endured for centuries has been vandalised by grievance-ridden ideologues to become an unnatural construct bringing many negative consequences to society.
But was it not inevitable? Once housework was shortened and simplified by the invention and mass production of labour-saving devices around the home, which was also always going to happen eventually, nobody could expect women to be satisfied by staying at home with “idle” time on their hands. The two world wars also gave women a taste of paid work; they no doubt did not enjoy the work so much, but they would certainly have relished the pay packets that invited a degree of independence from men. That was the start of the two-salaries concept, and it soon gathered pace. I don’t really see how the following rocketing of house prices, thereby enforcing the requirement for two salaries to pay for them, could have been avoided.
Was it inevitable? Probably. But there was/is a lot more to that symbiosis than just housework. And, regardless of natural progression and free choices of women, in recent years the government-corporate partnership has worked tirelessly to coerce conformity to the idea that everyone should work, that fulfilment for men and women is no different and that “growth” is the be all of everything.
There’s a chicken and egg question in your comment. Did house prices rise because of two earner families, or did two earner families cause the rise in house price, or perhaps both. I don’t know the answer and suspect it is different in different areas.
The modern feminists trumpet the tune of social justice but are in truth vulture capitalists. Abandoning the moral conscience of their ancestors, they began promoting prostitution and other degrading professions that cast women as products for male consumption under the terrible lie that this could be turned around as “empowering” and the blubbery phrase, “sex positive”. Of course, the facts would indicate anything but in an industry where women are predominantly bought by men. So the same goes for driving women into the workforce, rather than letting women, who have always preferred a more egalitarian balance between work and family life, decide for themselves.
Progress innit.
Big business also has a lot to profit from the legalisation of drugs.
The decision to stay at home and raise children is a matter of personal choice. I thought the Left supported personal choice– or is that only when one wishes to behave irresponsibly and indulge in self-gratification? Personally, I have been a working woman since 18 and would be loath to give it up. I also think two-earner families are more economically sustainable; there is a lot of work that women at home can do. That’s why so many women elect to either work from home or start a business. I would personally prefer that. But again, it is a matter of choice. Family is one of the most important structures in society and the destruction of it is a disgrace.
I don’t think they really do support personal choice. Our choices according to them are strictly table d’hote. (NB, moderator, that is not a rude word.)
My sisters and myself grew up in a very traditional division of labour household through the 60’s and 70’s with a working dad and stay at home mum. Despite this (and because we had wonderful enlightened parents) we never felt that their parenting / work choices had to be our own. Having said that my three sisters all chose (and had the opportunity) to be predominantly stay at home mums. The only one to buck the trend was me – I became a stay at home dad. I’ve loved every minute of it.