Why have successive British governments, including the Conservative-led coalition, hated stay-at-home mothers with such a vengeance? The legislative ‘direction of travel’ has for many years been to drive these women into paid employment, against their better judgement, although the evidence showing that children fare better when cared for by their mothers is overwhelming.
My thanks to SF for pointing me towards an article about comments made by Maria Miller MP who has two roles in the Cabinet, as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and Minister for Women and Equalities. ‘Women and Equalities’ – you couldn’t make it up, could you? A few months ago Daily Mail columnist Quentin Letts wrote an insightful piece about Ms Miller:
No man so utterly devoid of talent as Ms Miller could reasonably expect to become (or remain) a cabinet minister. ‘Hold on!’ I hear you shout, ‘What about John “Slugger” Prescott?’ Well, OK, there are exceptions to every rule…
Ms Miller’s determination to drive stay-at-home mothers into the workforce would surely have earned her a medal from the state in the darkest days of the Soviet Union. Successive governments have seen stay-at-home mothers as economically inactive wastes of space. A piece concerning Maria Miller’s remarks in today’s Daily Mail:
Perhaps the most sensible section of the article:
Lynne Burnham, of campaign group Mothers At Home Matter, said:
‘It just makes no sense. What we need is to get our youngsters into work. Why such an almighty push to get mothers into work, leaving their children as young as six months? It’s feminism gone mad. The mother-child bond is paramount and it’s absolutely crucial babies have that time with their primary carer.’
‘It’s feminism gone mad.’ It is indeed.