Note: On the Facebook page, I mentioned a little while back that I had a folder full of drafts I never finished: More than 60 of 'em, in fact. I'm going through that folder now, deleting what's not worth it, posting what might entertain you. This dates back just to June 2013.
So, by now you may have seen some of the hubbub over on Fox News. Apparently, there are conservatives who believe that women should be at home with their babies, and apparently, some of their colleagues, who are women working tirelessly to advance the cause of conservatism on TV wish they would shut the hell up.
That is an oversimplification, for sure, but not much of one. I do not need to speak for Megyn Kelly and Greta Van Susteren; they are happy to speak for themselves.
Now, you might think what I'm all riled up about is the sexism — or even the homophobia. Yawn. I am used to the sexism, and it does not surprise me at all when it rears its ugly head. Particularly on Fox News. Like, Kelly and Van Susteren should not have to stand for that crap, and should call folks out on it when they can, but if they are just now noticing it, I am going to have to start calling her Greta Van Winkle, because, y'know, wake up.
I am more interested in getting riled up by following the argument to its logical conclusion, which would appear to be that nonrich people should not breed.
I know there are people of many sexes and genders who work because they love it. I also believe that most people, regardless of how much they love their jobs, or enjoy the work they do, work for pay largely so that they can pay for stuff. If those people, regardless or sex or gender, happen to be parents (or hope to one day become parents) much of the stuff they hope to pay for is kid-related, directly or indirectly: diapers, education, housing, food, 8th-grade trips to Washington, whatever.
And if your family situation is such that you can buy those things (or at least the things you prioritize) with no woman-generated income, and all the adults in the household are pleased with that as an arrangement, then great. I can think of a number of ways that might be true: Wealth. Heterosexual couple with a high-earning male in it. Gay male couple. Single dad doing the best he can. Polyandry.
But even if Lou Dobbs was right that kids with working moms are worse off (which has not been demonstrated), the logical conclusion of his train of thought is that households with one or more women in them, all of whom need or want to be earning a living, should be disqualified from having or raising children.
And I can think of a couple ways to accomplish that, but I don't much like them.