MOMMIES take generous maternity leaves. They return to work and receive part-time assignments or lightened schedules, imposing heavier burdens on other workers and creating frequent interruptions in the workplace. What do the mommies do in return? They sue their employers. Welcome to the wonderful world of feminist corporate welfare.

Lydia Sherman writes:

“It is clear that Goldman Sachs views working mothers as second-class citizens who should be at home with their children,” the plaintiff said.

Goldman Sachs has probably been reading my blog regularly and has rightly concluded that women are important citizens that should be allowed to be home with their children, and children are too important to be left in the care of anyone but their mothers, and that men are also first-class citizens, important enough to deserve jobs that working mothers have taken.

Laura writes:

How do you like that backhand insult to children? Feminists shamelessly lay their cards on the table for all to see. Children are pretty accessories and beautiful hobbies but only a second-class citizen would spend all day with them. Meanwhile this woman probably spends half of her working hours thinking about her children (as she should) and planning what she is going to pick up for dinner or what color to paint the living room. All on company time.

Sheila C. writes: 

O corrupted womanhood! There she strides, the career “mommy.” Watch her leave her vaunted position vacant for months of paid maternity leave, while her employer carries on valiantly without her, never needing anyone to fulfill her duties or see to her clients, happily paying her to stay home and celebrate her choice of working “parenthood.” Watch her triumphantly return months later (courtesy of her illegal immigrant nanny), ready to conquer industries and achieve the pinnacle of success (with frequent downtime to see to her child’s illness or daycare or merely sleep on occasion). The indignities of the rat race or the glass ceiling are not for one such as she. The traditional time working in the trenches and laboring to advance come effortlessly to these steely eyed denizens of the Sisterhood. We mere mortals and untermenschen, the stay-at-home mothers, can only watch admiringly as she bestrides the colossus of the career world and, with the able help of the legal profession, ensures she gets her fair share.

A reader writes:

Perhaps you should consider yourself fortunate that you are able to be so critical of working mothers.

Laura writes:

Interesting that you seem to criticize me while this woman at Goldman Sachs bases an entire legal action on the idea that women at home are “second-class citizens.” I suppose you expect women such as me to say, “Oh, that’s okay. She’s right. So sorry if we offend anyone by our sheer existence.”

I am critical of those who celebrate careerism in women, not of working mothers per se. If a mother must work and yet supports the traditional vocation of women and the primacy of men in the working world, we are comrades in arms. We uphold the same ideals. That’s what this is all about, what our prevailing ideals are. Remember, there are not an unlimited number of jobs. The idea that they should be fairly meted out between men and women is in essence discrimination against men, who will never be mothers.

During his trial, Socrates was asked what authority he had to claim he was not acting out of self-interest. He responded: “My poverty.”  

Please follow and like us: