WHAT KIND of society applauds women who want to be away from their young children? A sick society. You may have seen the many, many articles this week reporting on a small study that supposedly shows that women who take care of their children full-time are unhappier than women who are away from them. Instead of questioning what conditions and pressures might bring about such an unnatural state of affairs or offering any substantive analysis at all of the findings, the articles uniformly suggest that because a small number of women according to the lead women psychologists are unhappier with their children then it must be good that women in large numbers leave their young children for full- or “part-time” jobs, which are defined as jobs that occupy between one and 30 hours a week.

Once again the structure of home, work and society – indeed the whole social order – is reduced to the question of whether women surveyed by women psychologists are “happy.”

I hope to have more to say about this study later. It was so badly reported with so many questions left unanswered it is impossible to evaluate it without actually examining the results. But the most striking thing was the bias with which it was presented. Fortunately most children under three can’t read. Imagine what it would be like to wake up and find the whole world reporting that mothers are happier away from children like you.

We live in a sick society in which children are not full human beings. They are cargo. They are toys. They are crown jewels. They are not imperfectible human beings striving for perfection. They are the toys of psychologists.

                                          — Comments —

Nathan writes:

The findings from this study likely suffer from self-report bias, a common, widely known methodological flaw regarding social studies. It doesn’t take a Ph.D to see, from a mile away, why these kinds of studies are unreliable. If a stranger sits down to ask women face-to-face: how happy are you? How does your lifestyle make you feel? Are you depressed? Does anyone really expect to get honest results?

Lydia Sherman writes:

The anti-motherhood campaign has been going on a long time. Anyone who has listened to the news media long enough can see their pattern of destruction. In the early 1970’s, many women were still home, but their husbands listened to the car radio on their commute home from work. They then reported to their wives what they had heard, namely, that families would no longer be able to live on the husband’s salary, and that women would have to go to work. In the 1980’s, reports abounded about the effect of working mothers on children’s development. It began in a slightly negative manner, so that we would all agree with it: Mothers at home mean better adjusted children, less inclined to crime. There was a gradual alteration of this report, beginning with the prefix “a study has shown.” A study has shown that children in daycare do not do as well in school. A study has shown that children in daycare do just as well as children at home. A study has shown that children at home are no better off emotionally than children in daycare. Children in daycare are as emotionally stable as children at home. Then ir gradually decline to kids in daycare do better than children at home.

The media did the same kind of reporting on the subject of marriage. Studies showed that women who were religious were happier in their marriages. Then, this was dismantled by reports that women who were at home were not as happy as women at work.

The whole thing is designed to change the dynamics of the family by mobilizing women from the home to the work place.

Yet, in this 50-year propaganda effort by the media to get the women away from their maternal instinct and their desire to look after one man for a lifetime, many women did not believe it, nor did they follow it. I heard the report that women at home are less happy, from a woman in my weekly ladies Bible class, who had heard it on the radio on the way to the class. My first response was that it was pure propaganda, designed to demoralize women at home. Still, there are women who will not leave, because they have a higher king, who rules in their hearts through the Holy Scriptures. That book divine gives women the freedom to guide the home and to train up their own children, and gives men the responsibility and duty of providing and protecting her so that she can do that. This is what the alternate power wants to do: substitute its system for God’s system, which is laid out in the Bible.

A former KGB agent wrote a book about how Communism would defeat the free West. (See “How to Brainwash a Nation here and a conversation on the demoralization of America here.) It would not be an obvious war, and there would be no bloodshed. Instead, they would defeat us by first demoralizing us, and making us think that what we are doing in our free enterprise system is bad. By making us ashamed of who we are, and losing confidence in what we are doing, they can substitute their own program.

Please follow and like us: