Are stay-at-home moms dangerous?

By Joseph Farah

I remember when feminists – even the radical ones – at least gave lip service to the idea that their movement was about “choices.”

For sure, the Gloria Steinems and Betty Friedans of the world always were rather condescending toward any woman who made different choices than them.

But, only now, with the “women’s liberation” movement in its fourth decade, are those other choices – those alternate lifestyles, if you will – being characterized as subversive, dangerous and morally wrong by a new breed of pious, feminist fundamentalists.

Exhibit A is Gretchen Ritter, who apparently makes her living directing the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Texas and as associate professor of government and women’s studies, who maintains stay-at-home moms are dangerous subversives and a plague on society.

“It is time to have an honest conversation about what is lost when women stay home,” she wrote in the Austin American-Statesman earlier this month. “In a nation devoted to motherhood and apple pie, what could possibly be wrong with staying home to care for your children?”

Ritter goes on to tell us:

  • That choice by women denies fathers the chance to be involved;

  • Women lose a chance to contribute as professionals and community activists;

  • It teaches children the world is divided by gender;

  • It stresses children out;

  • It victimizes women who work because employers fear women professionals may opt for the same choice some day and quit their jobs;

  • It makes it tougher for families with two working parents because schools and libraries will neglect their needs;

Ritter pulls no punches. She comes close to calling for laws to outlaw full-time motherhood.

“Full-time mothering is … bad for children,” she insists.

“… the stay-at-home mother movement is bad for society,” she states.

Of course, there is not the slightest effort to cite empirical evidence. There is not the slightest effort to cite anecdotal evidence. There is not the slightest effort to cite her own personal experience – if she has any.

No, these judgments are handed down from on high as if from the university of Mount Sinai. We’re just supposed to believe it – in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Mind you, Ritter is someone who says she supports “alternative lifestyles.” But what she means by “alternative lifestyles” is anything but traditional. These feminists don’t really support the idea of allowing people to make informed choices about how to live their lives. They want to coerce people and badger people into living the lifestyles they prefer – those they consider sacred, holy and sinless in their new religion of goddess-worshipping feminism.

Should we just disregard nut jobs like Ritter? It is sorely tempting.
If only we had the choice to do so.

Here’s the problem: What Ritter teaches at the University of Texas is de rigueur of what is taught at colleges and universities across this country – at taxpayer expense.

In other words, this is the official government line. What Ritter teaches about stay-at-home moms being dangerous to society is considered culturally mainstream in academia. Women who choose to raise children are looked at as if they came from another planet.

It’s easy to point out this kind of demagoguery as if it is an isolated incident. It’s not. It’s the norm on campus. Your children – those precious beings you sacrificed to raise, sometimes as stay-at-home moms – are being indoctrinated into these ideas at your expense.

It’s not enough to battle the corrupt ideas – that’s the easy part. We’ve got to go further – much further.

It’s time to pull the plug on the gravy train that funds them at nearly every public college and university in America today.