Wingnuts: Women Who Work Don’t Love Their Children


Boy, the wingnuts sure are freaking out about that report that found an increasing number of households where women are the primary breadwinners (never mind that 2/3 of them are single moms, so they have no choice). Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner, always ready to deliver the craziest possible take on a subject, say that women who work outside of the home have been taught not to love their children:

Swanson: Because there are so many women in the work force, the women’s hearts are not home. There are far more men who say it would be better if moms could stay home because apparently the dads still care about the kids. The moms, it’s a lower percentage Dave, 45% say it’d be better if moms were home, 67% of men say it would be better if moms were home, meaning there are far far more women- or far far more men- who say that it’d be better if moms were home because women care less about their children and about the influence they could have on their children because Dave I think they’re already in the work force and they certainly don’t want to say it’d be better if I were home. That’s the issue.

Buehner: Well Kevin this may run contrary to the social narrative but the social narrative is wrong. Think about it. The vast majority of divorces, they’re filed by women. The vast majority of children who are killed in the womb are killed on the sole discretion of a woman. So when we get this idea in our social narrative that women love children more than men, women love family more than men, are more protective, the data is absolutely the opposite way. That’s why you end up with more men who think it would be good if their children had a functional household and mom was there to raise them.

Swanson: They’ve been the recipient of a culture, a Margaret Sanger culture, Dave, that has told them ‘You do not love your children, you kill your children. You do not love your children, you kill your children. You do not love your children.’ The Betty Friedans have said, ‘You do not love your children. You get out of that house, you do not raise your children. You do not love your children.’ They have been under that nonstop for the last 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 years. The feminist zeitgeist has been incredibly powerful in working in the hearts and minds of so many tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of women in the Western world. Friends, women do not love their children as they used to.

Oh, and this is — stop me if you’ve heard this one before — the end of humanity:

Swanson: 78% of moms are working outside of the home. 17% dad is the primary breadwinner. 61% the mom is the primary breadwinner. 29% are single moms. Okay, there it is. That’s it. 17% of dads, 61% of moms. Friends, it’s over. It’s over, it’s done. That’s it. That’s the end of it. It’s the end of manhood, it’s the end of men, it’s the end of fatherhood, it’s done, we’ve gone over the cliff. 61% of moms are primary breadwinners, 17% of dads among the millenialls, and 78% of moms are working outside of the home. It’s over. There will be no more mothers and of course there are no more fathers. It’s over. And that’s the way that the average Christian, Christian homeschooler, Christian public schooler, that’s the way they’re raising their kids. They’re raising their kids such that 61% of their daughters will be the primary breadwinners and 17% of their sons will be primary breadwinners. Those are the numbers and that’s the numbers that came out from the Pew Research last week. And this is not going to last another generation friends. This is the last generation. You all understand, this is the last. Our society, our social systems are not going to last for another generation. This is the end of it. When there are no more dads, no more fathers, it’s over.

It’s amazing how many things have been declared to be the end of the nation, civilization or humanity itself, and yet we’re still here.

Comments

  1. Trebuchet says

    Single moms are, of course, either sluts or disrespectful wives who should have stayed obedient to their husbands no matter what. If not both.

  2. raven says

    Did the kooks just call Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann bad mothers? I could agree but not for their reasons.

    And women who stay home and let their kids starve in total poverty are what? Good mothers.

    Most women work because they have to.

  3. says

    Somehow those figures Swanson cites don’t ring true..

    You can imagine their response to any single mother who said “Okay, I won’t work. I’ll apply for welfare instead, so I can spend all my time with my kids.”

  4. Abby Normal says

    There is so much in there I want to challenge. But for the sake of time and my blood-pressure I’ll simply ask, if dads love their kids so much more and moms are so much better at bringing home the bacon, why aren’t they advocating that dads stay home to raise the kids?

  5. Synfandel says

    Look, it’s simple. Ward loved his wife, had a job, wore a tie, and was called “Sir” by his kids. June loved her kids, stayed at home, was immaculately coiffed, made up, and dressed, and apparently cooked and did housework even if no one ever saw her do it. Anything else is clearly Muslim-atheist-Communist-Satanic-Nazi courting of Armageddon.

  6. bbgunn says

    Trebuchet @ 1:

    Single moms are, of course, either sluts or disrespectful wives who should have stayed obedient to their husbands no matter what. If not both.

    Don’t forget the widows. If they’re widows, they’re probably guilty of something, or else their husbands wouldn’t have died before the kids grew up.

  7. John Pieret says

    why aren’t they advocating that dads stay home to raise the kids?

    Because this isn’t about what’s best for kids and families, it is about the special priviledge that men once had, especially in Fundagelical circles, that they are afraid is slipping away.

  8. says

    So…. I’m confused.

    Single mothers exist, there is no denying that. Either their husbands died, or the bastard abandoned his family, or the woman was the target of sexual abuse and, for whatever reason, chose to keep the child (just like the wingnuts say she must.)

    If she gets a job to support her family on her own, then she is an evil woman who hates her children by denying them the time and love that a mother is supposed to provide. But if she stays home to provide that love, then she is a presumed drug addict sucking at the government teat who should not be “rewarded” with welfare because she is too lazy to get a job to support her family.

    Huh?

  9. karmacat says

    It is very telling that they go on to say it is the “end of manhood.” It is obvious they don’t really care about children. It is all about their insecurities and not being “manly” enough.

  10. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    So now they’re using faux-concern “Think of the children!” strategies to preserve our manly priveleges? They just sink lower every time…

  11. Subtract Hominem says

    Bah! Typical barbarians! Everyone knows civilization ended in 195 BCE, when Rome repealed its law forbidding women from driving chariots.

    All other men rule over women; but we Romans, who rule all, are ruled by our women.

    ~ Cato the Elder, reacting to the law and laying some ground for his namesake institute

  12. Johnny Vector says

    The Betty Friedans have said, ‘You do not love your children. You get out of that house, you do not raise your children. You do not love your children.’ They have been under that nonstop for the last 50 to 60 to 70 to 80 years.

    That’s the problem right there. It’s all these 80-year-old women having kids.

  13. D. C. Sessions says

    I’m so glad to have the approval of these experts for my daughter and son-in-law-to-be. They agree that she can make (much) more money than he can (that PhD does come in handy) and that he’ll be a wonderful househusband when the time comes.

    Works for me.

  14. matty1 says

    If she gets a job to support her family on her own, then she is an evil woman who hates her children by denying them the time and love that a mother is supposed to provide. But if she stays home to provide that love, then she is a presumed drug addict sucking at the government teat who should not be “rewarded” with welfare because she is too lazy to get a job to support her family.

    It’s simple all that has to happen is that her mother has to quit as governor of Alaska to spend more time on TV and the single mother will become a saint.

  15. iknklast says

    So, let me get this straight. If a woman loves her children, she will stay home with them. If she doesn’t stay home, she doesn’t love her kids. A man is not only capable of both working and loving his kids, but in fact will work if he does love his kids, so that he can support them. This seems really messed up. I didn’t quit loving my son because I worked; in fact, I probably loved him better, because I was able to feel fulfilled myself. I didn’t cling to him or require him to complete me; I completed myself, and he became a true joy to me.

    I used to pray (if you’ll pardon the expression; I don’t mean it literally!) my mother would get a job outside the home, so we could get a break from her wild mood swings and her miserable unhappiness that came from her being something other than what she really wanted to be. But she was so committed to the ideal of the Cleavers that she couldn’t notice we were about as far from the Cleavers as a creationist is from an evolutionist.

  16. frog says

    Speaking strictly as the child of a two-parent-working household, from an era when that was less common, let me say how FREAKING STUPID these wingnuts are.

    If my mother had been at home all day, and been home when I got home from school (I became a latchkey kid at age 7), I would have been so annoyed. Trust me, parents, leave your kids the fuck alone! They don’t want you hovering over them all the damn time.

    I assure you, this will not make your children neglect you or not call you when they are older. My mom hears from me at least once a week, often more. I often say that the best bit of parenting she did was to not be all up in my business.

  17. says

    Single mothers exist, there is no denying that.

    And that’s their first crime. Just like gays and lesbians, single mothers need to stop existing so that these fundjelical types never have to see any kind of family arrangement that diverts from their Leave it to Beaver ideal.

    Look, if the slutty slut gets pregnant, she’s supposed to go live with her “aunt” in another town until she can give the little bastard up for adoption or let herself be stoned to death. Either one works. And once she gets married, divorce should never be an option for her. If she loved her children, she’d overlook his alcoholism and abuse. Besides, those things are probably her fault anyway. Oh sure, sometimes a husband may die, but then she should marry his younger brother, just like it says in the babble.

    If women would just realize that they’re not individuals with dreams and aspirations of their own, they would be much happier. Unless of course, Jesus calls her to run for Congress or become a Fox News contributor. Then it’s perfectly acceptable for her to work outside the home.

  18. ronjaaddams-moring says

    Oh FFS!

    Yeah, my husband is a bad father because he was not the _primary_ breadwiner during each child’s second year of life – he was “only” at home taking care of the kid(s)… And I really don’t love my kids when I arrange my working life first around that I can be at home when they come back from primary school and then around that I can stay at home when one of them is ill, because hubby’s current job requires quite a bit of traveling.

    Cheese’s crust! TFSMIF, ’cause I need a stiff drink after reading that quoted excrement.

  19. magistramarla says

    And then there is the case of my daughter and her husband.
    When they met and married, they were both working for the same Fortune 500 company.
    It became apparent that she was a rising star in the company and began to make an outstanding income.
    They made the decision that he should stay home to work on his master’s degree and to manage the home and take care of her son from her first marriage. He quickly became a great step-dad for my grandson.
    After trying for seven years, they have finally had a child – my first grand-daughter.

    My daughter was able to be home with her for the first three months, and can still tele-commute when necessary. She’s still breastfeeding her now eight month old daughter, and she has done a wonderful job of integrating her work and family life.

    My son-in-law has dedicated his life to the two children, and tends to their every need. He’s beginning to work on his PHD in child psychology. When my daughter retires from her high-power job, he plans to “hang out his shingle” as a child psychologist, and she will support his career.

    These two have followed the example of the way that my husband and I have conducted our lives. We’ve taken turns being supportive of each other in our lives and careers, while both being supportive parents for our five children. We’ve found something that the patriarchal wingnuts can’t understand – equality and mutual respect in our marriage. I think that my daughter and her husband have found that, too.

  20. says

    At some point in that conversation, Kevin Swanson’s high school math teacher became sorely disappointed with his life’s work. Because if in 17% of households the guy is the bread winner and in 61% the woman is the bread winner, then in 22% of the households either no bread is being won or the dog/cat/children are the bread winners. Also were are all of these bread-winning contests being held? I would like to win some bread myself.

  21. Synfandel says

    We’ve taken turns being supportive of each other in our lives and careers…

    Hey, that’s just like my wife and me. Each time one of us is downsized, the other earns our subsistence until the next downsizing. It’s such a great system we’ll probably be doing it until we both die.

  22. says

    Typical. The world is going to end in this generation and, instead of defending patriarchy, you liberals are only concerned about your children.

  23. says

    Wingnut: ” Our society, our social systems are not going to last for another generation.”

    Well, in all seriousness, they’re not entirely wrong, actually. Y’all are just reading that type of declaration too broadly. Society as they know it: the endemic, unquestioned patriarchy, etc, is ending, as the broader American society is changing to new forms. It’s the last gasp of the dinosaurs, lamenting the end of dinosaur society.

  24. kermit. says

    Barefoot Bree: It’s the last gasp of the dinosaurs, lamenting the end of dinosaur society.
    .
    If you want me, I’ll be over here with my small mammal wife and daughter, gathering recipes for dinosaur gumbo.
    .
    All the women I happen to know personally work or worked because they had to – like the men I know. If the sociopathic financial elite hadn’t been so greedy the last thirty years, maybe more of the working class would only have one working parent instead of two. Although I see no particular reason why it has to be the male.
    .
    My future father-in-law left his wife and three daughters when the kids were quite young, in the 1950s. Mom worked as a bank teller for 25 years or so and raised those girls into fine women, and I was lucky enough to snag one. These wimps need to go check their own accounts in life. Why do neocon white men whine so much? They embarrass me.

  25. iangould says

    If Republicans are so upset about the number of women working, maybe they should rethink “workfare”.

Leave a Reply