March 25, 2021
Question of the Week: What does it take to become a feminist spokesperson?
That mystery flooded my mind as I read that Jill Filipovic, who self-identifies as a “feminist,” says women who do not work outside the home – stay-at-home-moms, as they are known – are unambitious and set a bad example for their kids. I had never heard of Filipovic until my daughter sent me a article from the Daily Mail detailing her most recent feminist exploits.
To answer the QOTW, it is my impression that being a feminist requires only equal amounts of big mouth and narcissism. It certainly requires no objectivity, intellectual honesty, or even intellect. (By the way, several people have mentioned to me that I display all of the traits of an individual who is about to be cancelled. I don’t think so. Why? Because I don’t post my screeds on social media.) Apparently, to become a feminist spokesperson requires only that one memorize a narrative and a few soundbites and announce to the world, through social media (where anyone can be anyone they want to be), “I am a feminist spokesperson!”
I am hereby announcing, albeit not through social media, that I am a spokesperson for SAHMs, which is a new acronym I learned this week, courtesy of my daughter. It means stay-at-home-mom, but you probably already knew that. “How can a man be a spokesperson for moms?” you ask? Because the world needs to know that men love, or should, SAHMs. My wife Willie (nee Wilma), for example, was a SAHM for most of our childrearing years. According to feminist spokesperson Jill Filipovic, Willie was a bad role model for our two kids, both of whom are self-supporting. Our daughter, divorced, works two jobs and owns her own home, which she did not obtain through the settlement. Our son is a highly respected corporate pilot who has been the primary breadwinner in his family for going on thirty years. Obviously, Willie’s bad example failed to stick.
Filipovic claims that “girls with working moms do better in school, men with stay-at-home wives are less likely to promote and support women in their workplace, and sons of working mothers do more housework and childcare when they grow up.” Let’s take those one at a time:
Single, unemployed moms are skewing that statistic. It’s invalid because no one would argue that girls whose moms are single and unemployed probably don’t do as well in school as girls with moms who are married and employed. In fact, the single best predictor of school success in boy and girls is not parent employment, but two parents in the home.
Men married to SAHMs are less likely to support women in the workplace? No, they are simply more likely to say that they don’t think women with kids should work outside the home, which is a valid opinion.
Sons of working moms are more willing to help with housework when they grow up? In all likelihood, this “statistic” has nothing to do with working moms versus SAHMs and everything to do with kids having chores, whether their moms work or not.
Our feminist spokesperson needs to re-take some of the “Feminist Studies” – rigorous curriculum, that – classes she took at whatever Marxist college she attended. On the one hand, she says mothers who don’t work outside the home are setting bad examples for their kids. On the other, she says, and I quote, “Care work should be valued much more than it is.” Huh? Maybe she could begin upping the value of “care work” by applauding the energy many women devote to it.
Filipovic then reveals the clarity of her thinking: “The reality — in our capitalist society — is that if you are at home full time, your husband is your boss and there is no HR department. Should care work be valued much more? Yes! In the reality we live in, are women who stay home taking on significant risks? Also yes.”
So, our capitalist society is a problem but Filipovic wants women to become cogs in its impersonal war-making machine. Makes no sense. And yes, there are men out there who believe themselves to be their wives’ bosses, but who is the spokesperson for the longsuffering men whose wives micromanage them to the grave? It’s hard to tell what point Filipovic is making sometimes, but that is true of leftist ideologues in general. Pray tell, what risks are women running if they choose “care work” over allowing themselves to be exploited by the capitalist warmongers? Are vacuum cleaner injuries on the rise? Yes, cooking involves more risk than operating a computer, but I don’t think that’s the sort of risk to which feminist spokesperson Filipovic refers. Oh, I should mention that later in her stream of consciousness social media posts, Filipovic says lots of SAHRs are very ambitious. At some point, she begins to sound diagnosable.
Okay, so here’s what I think: I think a family works better when the husband/father is the breadwinner and the wife/mother is a SAHM. That’s the way God planned it, obviously, and I think we put ourselves at risk when we ignore His design and go our own merry ways. Drum roll, cymbal crash, that’s all, folks!
Copyright 2021, John K. Rosemond