The foundation of a nation is built on the strength of its families. The family is important because it transmits to the next generation culture, religion, and values. It is also the best arrangement that society has developed to provide health, education, and welfare to its members. One of the founding fathers of the U.S., Thomas Jefferson, aptly stated, “it is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known”.
One would assume, therefore, that the state would be grateful to families, which contribute so much towards a stable society. This especially is the case in regard to the intact family, where both the biological parents live with their children. According to six decades of uncontradicted social studies, the intact family is the most favourable environment in which to raise children. A separated family, despite the heroic efforts of the single parent, is much more conducive to a child succumbing to substance abuse, criminal activity, and dropping out of school. A fatherless home is particularly worrisome. According to the 2021 Census, 1.3 million families in Canada are headed by a mother only. A father is much more than a positive role model, but also provides perspective, wisdom, guidance, and advice in addition to the mother’s unconditional love, all of which are necessary to raise a healthy child.
The state, however, is threatened by the family and uses aggressive, progressive policies to deliberately undermine and chip away at it. The progressive elites who control our nation actively seek to displace parental authority and assume ownership of the children so as to make them creatures of the state.
This occurs not only in the education system, but also in the media, where intact families are given little space and scorned, with emphasis placed on alternative arrangements and lifestyles. The media also promote the substitute care of children provided by the $10 a day childcare system as superior to or at least equal to a child raised in the home by a parent.
A Blistering attack on Motherhood
A blistering attack on motherhood, against the natural instincts of a mother to protect and care for children, was published in the Toronto Star on October 8, 2022. A similar article deriding motherhood was also published in the New York Times in October. These articles were written by lesbian partners who were promoting same-sex parenting, claiming that biology has nothing to do with parenting. One doesn’t have to give birth to a child to be a loving parent, of course, but it does make it much easier to do so.
A Major Error among Feminists
Although feminist policies are frequently based on false premises, perhaps their most serious error is believing that women’s interest in motherhood is merely a social construct which must be set aside. Unfortunately the credibility of this argument is undermined by the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are not gender neutral activities. The inconvenient truth is that equality in the workplace cannot compete with the inequality of nature, which allows women only to become pregnant. Moreover, most women possess a strong inclination to nurture their child and are more torn about work-family issues than men. This is why mothers are much more attracted to part-time work than fathers.
Feminist Revolution Derailed by Motherhood
A mother’s natural instinct to care for and protect her child has long been an obstacle to the feminist revolution. As a result, feminists have found it necessary to “liberate” women from motherhood, by attempting to destroy the concept that it is a natural and normal phenomenon. They do so, despite research by psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, child development experts, and the very real experience of women themselves. Instead, feminists apply the Marxist concept that reduces everything to a power and class struggle and argue that the patriarchy has, for centuries, oppressed women by promoting motherhood in order to keep them in the home.
Men and Women are Equal
Feminists believe (correctly) that women and men are equal, but they make the fundamental mistake of assuming that men and women are the same. They are not. There are striking differences between men and women, not just in our obvious, physical differences, but also in the fact that women have a greater inclination to nurture infants and children, which is rooted in the endocrine system and women’s brain structure. Women’s bodies have more receptors for the nurturing hormone, oxytocin, than do men, especially during pregnancy and breastfeeding. More recent imaging research shows that the mother’s brain changes during pregnancy and after birth in ways that increase emotional attachment to their babies.
Because feminists believe that men and women are the same, they have erroneously based their policies on the pre-existing male-oriented career model. They should insist that society adapt to a female career model that requires changes in the workplace to accommodate women’s needs.
Simply put, feminists apply the male vision of success, which is control and power, based on ambition and education. This has become an integral part of the feminist platform. It is misleading. It encourages young women to achieve university degrees in order to serve corporate efficiency and to have a career. Feminists argue this is the only way to achieve satisfaction. Motherhood, if desired, is to be postponed until the woman is well established in her career and is financially secure. This delay makes it much more difficult for many women to become pregnant, a situation which may haunt a woman later in life.
Motherhood does not lead to Professional Suicide
Choosing a career and having a family should not be professional suicide. The workplace should be revolutionized to adapt to the needs of women. Flexible working hours and remote work-from-home options are essential. Another policy helpful to women is to provide them with a genuine choice by way of income-splitting of a family income between the partners. This already occurs in regard to pensions and greatly reduces the income tax paid by a family living on a single income. A truly progressive policy to be implemented is the successful policy introduced by Finland, which provides parents with the choice to either place their children in a government-operated childcare facility, or, alternatively, remain in the home caring for the child themselves until the child begins school at seven years of age. Those caring for the children at home receive a government home care allowance. About half of Finnish parents choose the home care alternative. Significantly, Finland’s policy of children starting school at age seven seems to be to their advantage as Finnish children consistently outperform other European children academically.
When women are told to define themselves by their accomplishments, just like men, they do so at an onerous social cost. In fact, something is fundamentally wrong with having to defer family on the altar of a career when, in fact, marriage and children establish a more substantial identity than that sought through professional advancement and personal pleasures without family.
There are many reasons to reject the cultural pressure to put off having children, but the heart of the matter is that our culture is mistaken in pressing this policy, since family matters deeply to most individuals and to society.