Why does the government hate stay-at-home mothers so much?

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:

http://j4mb.org.uk/2013/06/21/quentin-letts-does-maria-miller-the-prosaic-plodder-deserve-chivalry/

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:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487259/Maria-Miller-says-mothers-need-to-work-secure-economic-recovery.html

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.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • “It’s feminism gone mad.”

    Was it ever sane to begin with?

    • Now that’s a good question, to which we both know the answer.

  • “Women returning to work after having a family are vital to the economic recovery.” Mrs Miller, your administration must be desperate for ideas on how to get out of the downturn!

    “Mrs Miller was launching a Government-commissioned study to probe discrimination against pregnant women and mothers at work.” It isn’t surprising there is discrimination against women who become pregnant or are of child-bearing age. Take a look at the time off work to which they are entitled and the remuneration that must be paid to them by following the links at https://www.gov.uk/maternity-pay-leave. And the employer is expected to pay the mother during her time off work and, quite probably, also the salary of a short-term replacement?

    ‘Nuff said for now.

  • Nick diPerna

    A ‘daddy state’ seeks to undermine the sovereignty of all the institutions it is in direct competition with; namely the nuclear family, community, church, real charities, friendly societies and private associations. Along with welfare, this creates more state dependency which is the ultimate goal of any bureaucracy or system of control.