What sense does it make to have a career before marriage if you plan just to be a housewife or stay at home mother? How on earth can you expect employers to not discriminate when your plan is to work for a few years and then just up and quit or plan to take a lot of time off? Of course this brings up the point of why the women’s movement had to abolish legal protections for housewives and also to degrade her role and promote full-time work for women, regardless of their marital status and regardless whether or not they have children. If society just assumed that women would quit their work after marriage then it would be unreasonable for employers not to discriminate. As it now stands, however, it’s illegal to discriminate no matter if the woman plans on getting married and no matter if she has children, which just complicates everything and honestly disrupts businesses.
What sense does it make to keep giving leave to women to take off for their menstrual cycles and for childbirth when instead companies and businesses could just hire men who would ultimately be more reliable? Besides, women in the workforce cause problems and make it hard for men to really get any work done. Also, there are the issues of sexual harassment and the like that wouldn’t even be issues if men didn’t have to work beside women so much (and if we went back to the days where a good old-fashioned slap across the face and men’s chivalrous duty to protect the honor of women took care of a man who was getting a little too fresh).
It doesn’t make any sense to me why women would waste years in college and get a career just to up and quit it. Also, I believe it is just plain awful to leave children in daycare or with babysitters/other family members just so you can go off to work or so that the parents can fight and divorce. The memories of my childhood are nothing more than warring parents and riding the bus to daycare after school. My childhood was hell because of it. We talk all the time about “the best interests of the child” but in reality this is nothing more than code speak for “don’t say anything politically incorrect” and a justification for gender-neutral policies and laws.
The feminist movement knew it was bad news if women just wanted to be housewives and if society accepted that women should be housewives because it would ruin all their plans of women becoming fungible with men. If society saw that the ideal was for women to be housewives and care for their children and love and obey their husbands after marriage then our customs would change to favor men in the workforce on the logical basis that the men would more than likely be sole providers for families one day and the logical basis that a woman would have a husband to provide for her. Society would also see that women need protections due to the vulnerability that comes along with being dependent in their traditional roles. Denying protections to women and degrading traditional women goes along with feminism’s plans to make all women independent from men and to refute any thoughts of women being potential mothers and weaker and more vulnerable than men.
If on the other hand society sees that married women should have careers then the protection of women isn’t even an issue and nobody cares. Indeed, that’s what we have today- nobody cares. But we need to care. Men need to provide for and protect women and society should impose these responsibilities upon men as it is ultimately in the best interest of all of society.
More on anti-discrimination: