It isn’t the manipulation that concerns me as much as the fact that a third of the population appears to want to be manipulated. And hard.
Yesterday, if you decided to interact with the news and social media, you may have noticed that “weird” was trending in articles about various Republicans all day. Twitter was ablaze with photos of random Republicans with the word “weird” attached. All of this was in some support of JD Vance being labeled “weird” by some Left Wing pundit.
Democrats have indeed turned our entire world upside down.
JD Vance is “weird” because he extols the virtues of marriage and family, while denigrating the single career woman “cat lady”. Now it bears pointing out that one is the foundation of every. successful society in recorded history, while the other option leads to the end of civilization if taken to it’s extreme. But where Democrats are concerned, and particularly women Democrats, absolutes and common sense make no difference.
I realize it is only anecdotal but the most miserable and unhappy people I’ve ever met in my own lifetime are childless single women around forty who pursued a career as self-fulfillment, only to find that a corporation doesn’t love you back, or hug you before bedtime at night. In reality the lack of a loving partner, and children, has them depressed and more miserable than words could describe.
And I have never met one self-proclaimed feminist in this lifetime that realizes this grand experiment of feminism is but sixty years old as measured against the historical record of thousands and thousands of years of trad wives. Women working away from the home, pursuing a career, and creating the need for full-time daycare, and others to actually care for the child outside the home, is a relatively new phenomenon.
And yes, I’m well aware of “nannies” for the rich, whether they be imported Irish in England in the 1700’s, or a Black woman in the American South in the 1800’s, but for the vast majority of our history women had babies which derailed her pursuit of career in favor of raising children. And I am also well aware that this made a great deal of sense when economies were agrarian, and that in our new Industrial Age, now supplanted by the Technology Age, that we are in a new paradigm where women in the workforce is not only a reality, but an opportunity well deserved.
What I am saying is that we have generations of young women who act as if it has always been thus, when the choices they have and embrace with such vigor are all relatively new in terms of history, and perhaps this “grand experiment” is going to experience growing pains and conflicts as these ideas come of age.
The pill, which was the core explosive device of the entire feminist movement, is a relatively new phenomenon, invented just over seventy years ago.
Everyone, women in particular, refuse to stop and address the core question that should be asked about the entire movement.
In the pursuit of happiness and self-fulfillment are women actually happier being out in the workforce, climbing the career ladder, and competing in the office and workplace, more than they would be staying home and raising a family.
I am well aware that the mainstream media, led by “Cosmopolitan Magazine”, Helen Gurley Brown, feminist icon, has informed the women of America that the stay-at-home mom is “less than”, and that the career girl chasing a seat in the boardroom is the one most fulfilled, but I think we need to question the narrative.
I’ve never met a new mother who, having used up the roughly six weeks pregnancy leave from work, leave the cradle heading to work happy to be leaving the newborn. Ever. I’ve seen tears, crying jags, and fits of depression over having to go back into the workforce and leave the baby they’ve just bonded with, and for whom they feel a love they never knew possible.
Never have I seen a woman skip out the door as they either leave the baby with grandmother, or some daycare center, saying that they can’t wait to get back to work on the “Henderson Project”, or to win a new account, or to get back to coding. Never.
Inadvertently, JD Vance stumbled upon perhaps the biggest unspoken argument of our time.
Unfortunately for women today the choice between stay-at-home mom, or career working girl, has been stolen from them completely. Once women entered the workforce they added a new salary to the family chasing all material goods, particularly homes and automobiles, which drove prices up for both to the extent that it now requires two salaries to afford the new American lifestyle.
Where at one time in the 1950’s one salary could afford a home, two cars, and a family of four, today the cost of all of that requires two incomes for most households. Only at the one percent level do you find where one salary can compete to provide it all and allow for the wife to be a stay-at-home mother.
For most American women the economy has robbed them of any choice. If they want a home, a car of their own, money for private school tuitions, and leisure time pursuits, it is imperative that they go out the door and earn right along side their husbands or significant others.
When you add in that being a stay-at-home mom has been stigmatized as “less than” since the start of the feminist movement, you create multiple levels of pressure for a young woman coming out of college and coming of age to conform to the new narrative. She isn’t just pressured to earn so she can afford the necessary material goods in life, she isn’t just pressured to be self-fulfilled in personal accomplishment, she is pressured by the entire movement to see that giving up the career to raise children makes her a member of the “Handmaiden’s Tale”, or a “Stepford Wife”.
Which completely ignores the idea that a women’s deepest sensation of fulfillment is in procreation, and bonding with their offspring. Which ignores the reality of nature that a mother nurturing her offspring is something that cannot be duplicated.
Sit at a cookout, watch as the two year old scrapes her knee playing over by the driveway. When she sees the bloody scratch, and turns to run, to whom does she turn and run toward?
It is always “Mommy”. Always. Full stop.
Never dad. And the same holds true for boys. They always, always scream “Mommy”, and run to mother. Always, it is a fact of nature.
Once again, it may be anecdotal, but I can see clearly that my children all have a bond with their mother that I could never sever, a mind-meld, a connection that I cannot breach. Yes, I have a relationship with them all, each one, but not one as deep, as personal, as thorough as they share with their mother. It truly is as if they have some ability to communicate absent conversation. It could be described as a love beyond anything that I could ever experience. That is not to diminish my own connection with them, but only to say that the depth of a connection of a mother to her children is beyond the realms of fathers.
Somewhere along the lines of the feminist movement the narrative of the pursuit of being a strong working women being superior to that of stay-at-home mom went unchallenged. And it stuck, and stuck hard. It became a foundational tenet of the movement.
Well, maybe it is time to step up and challenge that faith and belief.
We just saw a hundred thousand White women Zoom call for Kamala. Somehow they feel they must atone for their skin color and support a woman of color. They’ve been told that they should. That narrative from the mainstream media has taken a strong hold on those embracing all things Democrat.
But I’d have to say from this vantage point the happiest women I see out there are those that are stay-at-home moms. That have a free schedule. That drop the kids off at school, go to work out, pick up groceries, attend soccer practice, or sit outside the dance recitals, and go home to make dinner for all. They gave us all “Target”, and aren’t we all in their debt for that?
The question is, are they happier because they are affluent and doing well enough to afford an upscale lifestyle that allows them not to have to get out the door and earn, or are they happier because they can be intimately involved in their children’s lives and watch them grow? Be an active participant in raising their own offspring?
Which is it?
Since I heard JD Vance’s comment on “Cat Ladies” I have to tell you, I’ve put some thought into the entire concept. And I realized that somewhere along the line we allowed the mainstream media to sell females a bill of goods absent any question. That the idea that their own self-fulfillment was best served trying to have the biggest and best career possible. To “break the glass ceiling”, and compete to control and run corporate America.
But does the pursuit of a high powered career really equate to a superior personal happiness?
Did anyone stop and ask that question along the way?
Let me ask you, Satan’s Spawn pursued career above all, does she seem “happy”? Her husband walked straight over her face, she decided to have but only one child, she worked full time to steal, uh, earn hundreds of millions, when you see Hillary on television, does she seem “happy”? Or is your over-riding though, “wow, there is one miserable human being”?
It may sound ridiculous but are the real life women whose lives mirror “Sex and the City”, or “Girls”, really the happiest and most self-fulfilled women in our nation?
Is having a Birkin bag and access to Thai food at 3AM really “living your best life”?
Or are there women feeling much more fulfilled personally standing by the crib, watching their baby sleep, in some suburban home in the sticks, but at least it isn’t a rental.
Is the girl in Kansas City who married early in life, birthed a few children, and is now servant to her decisions really miserable about her path, does she wish she could just start over, move to San Francisco at twenty-one, and work for “Google”?
In our own family we’ve been fortunate. Affluence gained along the way paved the way for a hybrid approach. Careers were pursued, but as self-employed, with a self-set schedule. So no one had to ask permission to be late to work so they could see the school play in the morning, or be there at carpool when school let out. We had, and took advantage of both options. So we were the exception, not the rule.
But make no mistake, this argument is one that is foundational to who we are as a nation, how we are built as a nation. A shift back toward the stay-at-home mother approach would have profound effects on our economy, and our politics.
Methinks JD hit a nerve. The “Cat Ladies” came out one hundred thousand strong on Zoom. I wonder if they took their Xanax, or Adderall, or Paxil before the call, or after. I’m sure they all, to a woman, celebrated themselves afterwards by having a glass of wine. And not just any wine, one of those new orange colored concoctions, one of those specialty wines never before seen in the history of wine and created especially for the new American “Cat Ladies”, “skin contact” wines. Nothing washes down a mood altering “happy” drug better than a new “skin contact” glass of orange.
Are all those women on that Zoom call happier than trad wives who have children that love them back?
What say you?
We would not had be victorious in either World War™ without women in the workforce. Just another Marxist plot to separate the nuclear family and is bad if not worse than the green machine climate change nuts.