The Work Force: It Should be Illegal for Moms to Stay Home

By Jennifer Hartline Published on March 24, 2017

The Daily Telegraph recently published a piece by Sarrah Le Marquand in which she says it should be illegal for mothers to stay at home once their children are school-aged. She draws on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which said mothers “would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.”

My first reaction was, what in the world? My second reaction was laughter at the absurdity of her argument. After reading the whole thing, I prayed to God that enough people in America would unapologetically tell the government where to get off if an idea like this was ever proposed here. Because while it is idiotic, it’s also genuinely wicked.

Le Marquand says, “Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.”

Practically, What Would That Look Like?

Charity requires that I first give her the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she was under some sort of intoxicating influence when she wrote this. It is hard to imagine it coming from anyone of sound and sober mind. She wants the law to force every mother to be “gainfully employed” once the kiddos are off to school (and I assume that means preschool.)

Are there really that many jobs in Australia that every single woman could find work for which she was qualified and wanted to do? Or does it not matter whether she’s qualified? Or does it not matter whether she wants to do the work? Are we talking forced labor here? What’s the minimum number of work hours required?

How exactly does Le Marquand propose enforcing such a law? Shall women who don’t want employment be fined? Prosecuted? Imprisoned? Will women have to “register” for some Work Force manifest that includes their children’s birth dates so that the government can notify them when their kids are “old enough” and Mom must now leave home and get a “real” job?

Will mothers of special-needs children be included in this new mandatory Work Force? What about disabled women?

Will this requirement come with a maximum-child cap? It would have to, or you’d never know when Mommy was “eligible” for the Work Force. If she has another baby, then the clock starts over, and we can’t let that happen indefinitely, now can we?

State Before Family

Le Marquand first denigrates and patronizes stay-at-home mothers by talking about Play-doh, nappies and play groups. Next, she tries to pay homage to the importance of parenting and the needs of children, and makes much hay about taxes and benefits.

Finally, we get to the wicked heart of this proposal: “Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours. Not children, not fathers, not bosses — and certainly not women.”

For Le Marquand, the primary responsibility is to the State, not the family. Gainful employment that pays taxes is a higher duty than parenting. Children’s interests are best served not by their mothers, but by the State. Women’s interests can only be fulfilled by the State. We are accountable to the State.

Home is merely where everyone lands to sleep after doing their duty to the State earning a taxable income all day. The children will be shaped and indoctrinated by the State each day to be obedient little wards who become compliant adults who keep their “responsibility” to the State. (Necessarily axed by all this, of course, would be homeschooling. Can’t have children educated and shaped by their parent’s morals and values rather than the State’s!)

What Liberal Feminism is Really About

Le Marquand also admits that liberal feminism isn’t about freedom:

Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.

Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.

I wonder if Le Marquand caught the irony of insisting that “choice” is dead. We all know the only “choice” liberal feminism allows women is to kill the child in the womb.

No, we’re expected to hold down a job and earn money. In the State-centered universe, the purpose of life is work, and serving the State, and the interruption of children will only be tolerated for so long. Husband and wives are not free to decide for themselves how to meet their family’s needs, because the family’s needs are secondary to the demands of the State. Women are not free to be fulfilled in caring for their home and children. We’re “better off” being “gainfully employed.”

There’s no mention at all of the physical and emotional needs of children, and how to best provide for those needs. Such concerns are irrelevant, and contrary to the real agenda here.

We can’t just shrug and say this kind of coercion could never happen in America.

We have abandoned the truth that marriage is between a man and a woman for life, for the benefit of their children. We’ve forgotten that the family is the first cell of society. The adults’ wants now outweigh the children’s needs, so we’re well on our way. When the State becomes god, then get ready for the Work Force and all the tyranny that comes with it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Inspiration
Guaranteed Success
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us