Opinion on “Childcare” as it Relates to Women in the Workforce

All we ever hear about in our current culture is “childcare, childcare, childcare.” This is only so because our society is so loath to advocate for women simply having children and then being the natural default caretakers of those children. Our society is loath to “stereotype” women as weaker or more nurturing than men, or as weaker than men and in need of protection and provision. If society were to advocate for mothers being the natural caretakers of their children from the moment of birth onward, then that would also mean that society would then be endorsing women opting out of the workforce altogether, or at least taking significant and lengthy periods of time off- such as several years of time off- where their careers are interrupted.

Endorsing mothers as being the default natural caretakers of their children, and endorsing women either leaving the workforce completely or at least taking significant time off from it, would also mean that somebody would have to be financially supporting these women when they are not working. As women’s economic independence has always been the first and foremost goal of modern feminism, this would instantly derail every bit of the “progress” of the past 50 years as far as women’s supposed gains in “rights” are concerned- hence why the media and official government institutions have and will always continue to push for “childcare” and “paid leave.” Moreover, if women opted out of the workforce by default upon becoming mothers, the vast majority of them would have to depend upon men for their financial provision and support, which would prop back up patriarchy and traditional gender roles as the social- and perhaps even legal- norm. And patriarchy and traditional gender roles are not only abhorred by the modern mainstream egalitarian culture on both sides of the political spectrum, but they are also simply not allowed under the modern political regime and federal and supreme court precedents. Patriarchy and traditional gender roles would also foreclose the possibility of “alternate” an “expanding” genders and sexualities and clamp down on homosexual rights and expression.

It is also increasingly claimed that women’s workforce participation is absolutely essential for economic progress and prosperity, yet, looking deeper, such claims just don’t add up. Perhaps on account of a democratic political base that clamors for excessive individuality and unfettered freedom, or perhaps as a result of large capitalist enterprises seeking to maintain a readily available and overabundant pool of cheap and exploitable labor, these claims ultimately amount to nothing more than mere political statements. The reality is that this nation (The United States) saw its greatest glory days of capitalism, entrepreneurialism, economic productivity and prosperity during those time periods where the male breadwinner/female homemaker dichotomy was at its strongest– such as, for instance, during the early 19^th century both preceding and during the Jacksonian era, in the late 19^th century after the Civil War, and during the mid-20^th century after World War II. These were all times of increasing invention, discovery, entrepreneurialism, capitalism, booming birthrates, and prosperity- and they were all times where the roles of housewife and mother were being revered as the greatest of all occupations or achievements for the female sex to strive for.

Nor has pushing greater numbers of women and mothers into the workforce brought greater prosperity or happiness to individual lives or families. For the past 30 years now the two-income household model has been pushed as not only ideal, but absolutely indispensable and necessary. Yet, more than ever, families report that they cannot survive financially or even afford basic housing anywhere, marriage rates are in the gutter at historic lows, “blended” families are the norm, mental health issues are on the rise, both men and women are increasingly leading single and sexless lives, and birth rates only continue to plummet. It is arguable here that women’s workforce participation- if single and childless women are excluded from the analysis- brings few, if any, immediate and short-term benefits whatsoever to either families or society. Moreover, in the long-run, the overall prosperity, happiness, and quality of life for a nation’s citizens declines, as men become increasingly unmotivated to work, marry, produce, reproduce and invent, and society overall faces long-term and possibly irreversible economic downturns and demographic decline.

In the end, the exclusive focus on “childcare,” and the “necessity” of women’s and mothers’ incomes, is political. It is endorsed officially by the media and academia, and by governmental institutions, because it reflects unrelenting non-sex-discrimination policies, the post-feminist policy goals of keeping as many women in the workforce as possible, prioritizing women’s careers first and foremost, and keeping women economically, socially- and legally– independent of men, regardless of the overall cost to children, families, male and female relationships, and human happiness. It does not reflect what all- or even most- women actually want or feel, nor has it ever.