In response to Laura Perrins: Girls take after their mums – who’d have thought it?, Peter Evans wrote:
One of the most iniquitous, wretched and unforgivable things that contemporary victim feminists have done is to undermine and scorn women who want to be stay-at-home mothers. Why should the most noble, altruistic, beautiful and devoted everyday activity that one human being can do for another – give unbroken love, nurture, happiness and security to a helpless baby from one year to the next until he or she is ready and equipped to face the world – be caricatured as a form of self-imposed impoverishment, a ‘penalty’?
My wife (and millions of other women) couldn’t wait to do this – becoming the mother of our boys was for her the most joyous and fulfilling ‘work’ she could imagine doing. She returned to work on a part-time basis (and therefore willingly contributed to the non-existent gender ‘pay’ gap) when the children had reached school age so that she could be there to collect them from the playground, feed them and let them relax in a warm, safe, comfortable home with a deeply trusted and solidly reliable mum quietly present (John Bowlby described this as ‘a secure base’, the most precious gift that parents can bequeath their children).
By emotionally blackmailing young women into thinking that they can only be ‘truly’ fulfilled through well-remunerated careers, victim feminists have deprived them of the happiness of being a young, healthy mother, and driven them to become pregnant as acts of near-desperation in their 30s, when they sense their biological clocks are ticking against the prospect of the fulfilment they’ve craved since girlhood.
This coercive nastiness from contemporary victim feminists is rooted in a delusion: that there are no essential differences between boys and girls, men and women, so that any and every outcome discrepancy between the sexes, including differences in interest and preference, are brutally recast as the effects of social conditioning and patriarchal oppression. Neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine gave the lie to this in her superb work of 2006, The Female Brain.
Here’s a telling (and rather delightful) little excerpt that reminded me of my little granddaughter:
‘One of my patients gave her three-and-a-half-year-old daughter many unisex toys including a bright red fire truck instead of a doll. She walked into her daughter’s room one afternoon to find her cuddling the truck in a baby blanket, rocking it back and forth, saying, “Don’t worry, little truckie, everything will be all right.”
‘This isn’t socialization. The little girl didn’t cuddle her “truckie” because her environment molded her unisex brain. There is no unisex brain. She was born with a female brain, which came complete with its own impulses. Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they’re born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values, and their very reality.’
As the great Thomas Sowell once put it, ‘When intellectuals discover that the world does not behave according to their theories, the conclusion they invariably draw is that the world must be changed. It must be awfully hard to change theories.’
But when you decide to change reality on the basis of ideological lies, you need vast, coercive state power to pursue your ends, which will never materialise anyway but will cause incalculable misery and distress for those subject to them along the way.