I appreciate how this guy tells it like it is when he says, “Having mom as primary bread winner is bad for kids and bad for marriage.” And calls mom working outside the home “Anti-science”. I have to admit, I kind of agree. And by kind of, I mean whole-heartedly. When you really think about it, it does make sense. I mean it’s SCIENCE people! Duh. Biology and stuff. (Maybe chemistry. I’m a woman so I’m not that good at sciencey type things) Women have been know for years as being too fragile, too delicate, and let’s face it, not smart enough to be in the work force so it’s about time someone said so. They should be the opposite of bread winners, anti-bread winners, if you will. (Water losers?)
Do you know where you never see anti-science at play? In the animal kingdom. Really, go to any zoo, do you ever see the man koala chillin’ with the kids while his wifey brings home the eucalyptus? Fuck no. God wouldn’t make it that way (When we talk about science we mean “God’s will”, I assume.)
Thank you Erik Erickson for teaching us about the scientific research you put into this study that proves you are correct.
But he isn’t the only person who, for some reason people listen to. This Mississippi Governor also has a more than valid point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/04/mississippi-governor-says-working-moms-led-to-education-problems/
When asked about why educational outcomes in the U.S have gotten worse in recent years, he cited the fact that more mothers are working. He’s right. The education system is bad and kids are failing not because of lower standards, over worked, underpaid teachers, and an under funded system, nope. It’s good old mom’s fault.
The lesson we should take from this man’s comment is to blame mom. She decided to have these kids, which means she shouldn’t be doing anything but be a mother. She decided to be a woman and therefore chose to forfeit her right to have a family and a career without repercussions. She needs to accept responsibility for these choices and deal with the consequences, which is to stay at home, take care of her man and take care of her kids.
Get with the program working ladies who want a career, working ladies who want to contribute to, not only their own families, but society as a whole, and working ladies who think they are being good role models for her children by working outside the home. As my hero Donald Trump might say, “You’re fired!”
And on to my next point. Why are we bothering to educate girls? Seriously, there is no real value in having women educated if they are never going to go to work outside the home, so why should we spend resources on them? While mom is home all day thinking of delicious meals to serve her husband, she can also be teaching little Sally how to darn socks, remove stains and the intricacies of using a vacuum cleaner. Think of how much better children (boys) will do in school when they know mom is home setting a great example of how a woman should be treated. Think of how much better they will feel knowing there is a population of uneducated subservient women waiting for them to put a ring on it. Lucky little buggers. It makes science sense to only be educating young men to be worthy, productive, valued members of society. I can really see this as being great for everyone.
Now unfortunately there are a few snags in this otherwise flawless logic. All teachers educating our youth (boys) will have to be men because the women are home anticipating the six o’clock hour when their hubbies will come back from a long day at work and be treated to a cool glass of brandy, a rolled up newspaper and a pair of slippers being placed on their feet. Not to mention the other fields where women dominate such as nurses, receptionists and maids will now have to be staffed by men. They are going to have to get used to getting paid less and underappreciated more. I don’t know how their egos will take it. Maybe some genius man will create a robot that can do the job of all these women who are now exclusively raising children.
Another problem is these darn single moms (who have higher poverty rates than almost any other group in the U.S.) They will have no one to bring home the bacon since they selfishly decided to be single moms. If they are poor, serves them right. They will just have to figure it out themselves. Another snag are lesbians. Sure, since there are two women to stay home the house would be spotless but where would the income come from? What am I thinking? Gay people shouldn’t be having children to begin with so I guess that’s a moot point. Problem solved.
The more I think about what these two men said the more I think they are brilliant for voicing such a well thought out, problem free solution to our education system and our science problem. Pat yourselves on the back fellas, you certainly both deserve a hot, delicious meal from your women when you get home.