Falling Birth Rates and the Importance of the Traditional Wife and Mother

Sex Education in Europe Turns to Urging More Births

So let me get this straight…You want us girls to do our “duty” and have babies to save the future of a civilization that has been telling us for decades now that we are not doing our part or duty by having babies..? It can’t possibly be that women in the home bearing and caring for children might have been fundamental for society to function properly? But we can’t admit that. That would be politically incorrect!

One word: SECURITY

There’s no WAY I’d consider having kids with the way things are today. Fix the family, fix society.

12 thoughts on “Falling Birth Rates and the Importance of the Traditional Wife and Mother

  1. When state agencies like schools start urging births, you know its for the economy, for the state, and not for the ultimate good of people or the desire to please God.

    1. Thank you for your comment Lydia. And, yes, I’ve always been of the personal opinion that the whole thing is ridiculous. In my opinion it’s all about having more workers to pay into their socialist systems. Besides, they aren’t telling them about the importance of family. Us humans have adapted to many different circumstances in life. The economy exists for man, not man for the economy. It’s not the end of the world.

  2. If fewer women work there are more jobs for men, especially young men who suffer the indignity of unemployment. More babies would be born, economies would ensure taxpayers for the next generation, the balance between the masculine and feminine would be restored.

    But no, they want women to work, men to work (more taxpayers, but more unemployed men – who should be the primary breadwinner of the family, higher divorce rates, more burden on women in child care, house work, and earning income. The children become neglected and act out, they do poorly in school, the world suffers.

  3. What I find to be contradictory is when some men state that they believe women should be stay-at-home mums, but then go on to imply that stay-at-home mums don’t do anything. So they want a woman to raise their kids whilst also looking down at her for doing so and not “contributing as much to the economy” and “spending all the husband’s money”. Stay-at-home mums are considered a financial burden to society because they’re a pure expense, never mind what they ACTUALLY do behind the scenes. So which is it? Do you want her to have a career and contribute economically at the expense of your children, or do you want her to actually dedicate her full time to your children so that they can grow up to be emotionally secure individuals? Society really expects the impossible from women these days.

    I remember reading a particular guy’s article (self-proclaimed MRA) where he literally stated that “stay-at-home mums do not realise how easy they have it. I wish I could be a stay-at-home parent myself, though I admit that I’d never make a superior replacement for a mum.” ………………… If what they do is so easy, then why does he admit that he wouldn’t be able to do the job as well as them?And what gives him the right to think they have it easy without having walked a mile in their shoes? People forget that women who are stay-at-home mums are not just stay-at-home, they are basically 3 or more people in one package. They not only do the usual feeding, bathing, clothing and changing of diapers, they interact with the child, hone their skills, discipline them when they are disobedient, take the child out for walks or to the park, are attentive towards the child’s emotional and physical cues, ensure the child doesn’t get injured by any dangerous objects, put the child to bed, might wake up a couple times throughout the night when the child cries (especially during early days), nurse them when they’re ill, clean up after the child, do the cooking, clean the house generally, go shopping for food etc. with a young child in tow, and more. Now add more children into the mix, and suddenly it feels like juggling 10 balls at once. She does all these things on no official wage. But because there’s no monetary proof of her efforts, they go unnoticed, and you have douchebags like the guy mentioned above who say women do nothing. Gosh, I knew people who got paid and did hardly anything at work. THEY have it easy.

    If men really want their wives to “pull their weight” and stay in the workforce like them, then just hire a nanny, a cook and a cleaner to replace her and pay them all, or is that too dear? Geez, suddenly stay-at-home mums may not look so expensive after all. Not many people realise that while mothers may not contribute financially, they do a lot more than that; they are raising future contributors to society. Contributors who will have been raised within stable and intact nuclear families, and will support you when you reach retirement age. That is something that you can’t put a price on.

    1. Yes but more than that she is actually making a home, regardless of any housework or errands she runs. She is actually THERE for her children and family and others. Do you think children care about the amount of housework their mothers do? Of course not. They care that they are there, that there is a stable home and family. Women at home are invaluable assets to society. I’m planning on writing another post about this when I get around to it. And a father is not an adequate replacement. The sexes are not interchangeable. Men staying at home is nowhere near the same thing either for the family, children or society.

      1. I bring up the housework thing because there are some husbands (that I know) who ask their wives “What do you even DO all day at home?” and think that she just sits around and drinks coffee while the house cleans itself and all the chores get themselves done etc. etc. But aside from that, I fully agree, the mother is not just a person who does chores, she’s a human being, and provides the emotional touch that can never be replaced by anyone ever. Kids crave it during their earliest years, and it has profound effects on a child’s psych. That’s what I was meaning when I said “do [men] want her to actually dedicate her full time to the children so that they can grow up to be emotionally secure individuals?” They’d be emotionally secure, not because she cooks and cleans, but because she’s there for them, and has created a stable home, but because the results are intangible, it’s not as easy to see. I mean, how does one quantify that? You can’t. I hear of mums saying “Oh bull. I went back to work straight after giving birth. Now he’s 5 and there are no problems with him.” (I’ve seen such comments online) and I think to myself “Well, one, self-assessment is hardly objective. Obviously you’ll claim your child is fine. Two, just because your son has no obvious outward symptoms, doesn’t mean that you’ve had no effect on him. And three, he’s only five now, his life is relatively simple, but fast forward 20 years, what will he be like in his interactions with people at work, with his friends, with his personal relationships etc? How will the effects of choosing your career over him manifest themselves within him?”

        A child doesn’t care if the mum is out conquering a high-powered career. He doesn’t even understand what that means. All he cares about is that she’s beside him and can offer the emotional, mental and intellectual comfort and guidance that he desperately craves, and that’s what he’ll remember. I’ve heard people talking about how they resented their own parents putting them in day care full-time, that they remembered how they missed them, and how they’d never to do that to their own children. It has a huge effect. I would argue that being a stay-at-home mum is the most crucial job anyone can ever take, because it concerns society as a whole. It requires so many skills rolled into one, but it’s the most misunderstood and thankless job, too. Being a professional in a specific field is just not as broad in its outreach and its skill set. I just wish more people could understand that, and it frustrates me that they don’t.

    2. Oh and MRAs would rather women have as many rights as slaves. Women better be good and obedient and go out to work when husbands command yet at the same time be traditional and feminine and have no rights to either property, kids or financial support of any kind upon divorce.

      1. Oh geez, I met an MRA like that. His reasoning was so messed up and paranoid and he claimed to be a traditional man, but cherry-picked the traditional parts that were convenient for him. He truly believed that women were the problem. Just a toxic person. They want women to be like contortionists and, at the click of a finger, turn into whatever the MRA wants them to be. They claim to be different from feminists, but if you ask me they have lots in common and both are as bad as each other. Both play the victims. I don’t think MRAs actually know what they want because they keep changing the rules depending on the situation.

      2. Yes MRAs do nothing but promote 1980s feminism but with a twist where men can somehow still remain in charge. They are feminists plain and simple only parting ways to whine that they are the REAL victims. They are mentally deranged. They are more dangerous than feminists and what they promote is much worse.

    3. They must be career oriented traditional women so that men don’t have to have any responsibility for them but can exploit them to their advantage. I mean, seriously!

    4. Men also underestimate the time it takes to do housework- at least to do it right. It may not seem at all times like the housewife is busy but if she just stopped doing work around the house you would see real soon how much she really works! If I am ever sick it is evident because the house becomes a complete wreck. Sometimes my husband will do dishes to try to help but he plows through them in 10 min. and the next day I have to redo everything. I also don’t see men who stay home ever doing anymore housework. Women still do the majority of it even if they are out working, it’s ridiculous. I would never stay in a situation like that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s