Full-time mothering is … bad for children?
Gretchen Ritter, a woman 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, 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.
To read the full article, go here.
Ok, I think this woman is a total psycho. Her opinion wouldn’t even bother me since, hey, everyone is entitled to one, but apparently this crap she’s teaching is considered culturally mainstream in academia. Huh?!? I’ve never heard this before, but then again, I’m not in school so I wouldn’t know. Anyone know if this is true? How would you like this quack teaching that to your child(ren)?
Well that's ridiculous! Even if I don't have any kids, I think it's up to the parents to decide how they want to raise their children.
Also, so it "denies the father a chance to be involved.."???? So..... we are supposed to instead deny BOTH parents of a chance to be involved? Let's make sure the "uninvolvedness" is equal between both parents... that's the goal.
ETA: My husband feels plenty involved anyway. He is a wonderful daddy and does a ton to help me w/ our child. That's just an ignorant comment.
I could spend pages retorting her article, but since I don't need to lecture any of you about the merits of mothering, I'll spare you.
However, having read the rest of this particular article I don't much agree with the idea that we have to 'pull the gravy train' on these types of teachers. In fact, I'd be more than willing to let one of my kids take one of these classes and be a regular thorn in the side of the teacher. I certainly hope that I will raise confident children who will know when they are being fed absolute BS and will even have the strength to intelligently poke holes all through the opposing argument.
Yeah, not the best for getting top grades in the class, but making sure a roomful of other students at least take a moment to question the authority figure is worth it
omg-- i just re-read the info on the woman above... LOL! I had no idea she was actually a professor for women's studies.... (I didn't read the intro very closely...) I was only speculating since it sounds so much like the arguments of a prof I had at IU.... That's funny.
Ariella