Sarrah Le Marquand: It should be illegal to be a stay-at-home mum
By Sarrah Le Marquand
March 20, 2017
There’s one issue guaranteed to trigger hysteria across the nation every time it comes up in the news, and it has nothing to do with Pauline Hanson, international terrorism or Married at First Sight.
It’s the topic of stay-at-home mums. More specifically, the release of any data or analysis that dares recommend Australian women should get out of the living room/kitchen/nursery and back into the workforce.
So the outcry has been predictable in the wake of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent report which had the audacity to suggest stay-at-home mums would be better off putting their skills to use in paid employment.
“One of the areas of greatest untapped potential in the Australian labour force is inactive and/or part-time working women, especially those with children,’’ concluded the landmark study. “There are potentially large losses to the economy when women stay at home or work short part-time hours.’’
Right on cue, hysteria ensued, with commentators from coast to coast howling in indignation at the very idea that the uppity OECD would insinuate Australia might have a tiny bit of a problem with our female workforce participation rates.
For days you couldn’t walk past a television, radio or computer screen without encountering a defensive rant about how the most valuable work a woman can do involves nappies, play-doh, and a strict adherence to only leaving the family home during the hours of 9am to 5pm to attend playgroup or a similar non-work sanctioned activity.
And then we wonder why Australia continues to languish in the bottom third of OECD member states when it comes to female employment. It’s no mystery; our collective support for working women makes Donald Trump’s cabinet look like Women’s March HQ by comparison.
First, a few facts. Anyone who has a child — and this goes for both mothers and fathers — knows that everything else in life becomes a distant second to that child’s welfare, happiness and wellbeing. So this is not a discussion about the importance of parenting — that is beyond dispute.
And yes, the role played by parents in the early months and years following the birth of a child is vital and irreplaceable. It also stands to reason that for many (but certainly not all) families, it is the mother who opts to take time off work during this period to solely focus on caring for her baby.
Once again, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, that time at home should be a privilege afforded to more new mums, which is why a few years back I was a lone voice in supporting Tony Abbott’s grossly misunderstood and thus ill-fated paid parental leave scheme, which proposed all female employees receive their normal salary for six months.
So it’s not as simple as suggesting that the OECD’s rallying call to utilise the potential of stay-at-home mums is an insult to mothers — on the contrary, it is the desperately needed voice of reason that Australians cannot afford to ignore.
Rather than wail about the supposed liberation in a woman’s right to choose to shun paid employment, we should make it a legal requirement that all parents of children of school-age or older are gainfully employed.
The OECD was right to criticise the double standards applied to Australia’s work-search rules regarding welfare benefits. While young people face strict criteria when seeking to access the dole, those aged over 50 can still receive it despite not looking for a job by citing 15 hours volunteer work a week.
The double standards are even greater for stay-at-home mums, with governments of all persuasions traditionally wary to tackle the unfair tax concessions enjoyed by one-income households for fear of inciting voting fury. (No doubt they refer to Abbott’s aforementioned paid parental leave scheme as a cautionary tale).
But it’s time for a serious rethink of this kid-glove approach to women of child-bearing and child-rearing age. Holding us less accountable when it comes to our employment responsibilities is not doing anyone any favours. Not children, not fathers, not bosses — and certainly not women.
Only when the female half of the population is expected to hold down a job and earn money to pay the bills in the same way that men are routinely expected to do will we see things change for the better for either gender.
Only when it becomes the norm for all families to have both parents in paid employment, and sharing the stress of the work-home juggle, will we finally have a serious conversation about how to achieve a more balanced modern workplace.
Only when the tiresome and completely unfounded claim that “feminism is about choice” is dead and buried (it’s not about choice, it’s about equality) will we consign restrictive gender stereotypes to history.
So long as we as a nation cling to the lie that only a stay-at-home mum is best placed to assume the responsibilities of caregiver then working fathers will continue to feel insecure about stepping off the corporate treadmill to spend more time with their children.
It’s not good enough — and only when we evenly divide the responsibility for workplace participation between the two genders will we truly see a more equitable division between men and women in all parts of Australian life.
I have published an amazon kindle book about Obamacare.
You can buy it at
You can read it for free at
The complete list can be found at https://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/obamacare-59/
Here are the new entries:
338) After Obamacare caused Obama supporting graduate students at the University of Missouri to lose their insurance, they falsely blamed it on the school
In August 2015, the University of Missouri issued the following message to its graduate students:
“The Affordable Care Act prevents employers from giving employees money specifically so they can buy health insurance on the individual market. Graduate teaching and research assistants are classified as employees by the IRS, so they fall under this ruling.”
However, in November 2015, left wing graduate students who had voted for Obama, falsely blamed their loss of insurance on the school, instead of on Obamacare.
339) A federal judge ruled that some of the funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional
In May 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that some of the funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional, because it had not been approved by Congress.
340) Obama falsely said that opponents of Obamacare did not have a plan to replace it
In November 2016, when talking about Republican opponents of Obamacare, Obama said:
“You watch the press conference and you realize, they got no plan… It’s not like, they don’t even have a pretense of a plan. They don’t even have a semblance of a plan. Not even a hint of a plan. Not even a remote — not even a — there’s no plan. Nothing, zero, nada. You can’t just be against something. You gotta be for something.”
However, several months earlier, in June 2016, the Republicans had announced this plan to replace Obamacare.
341) Obama falsely said that none of the predictions that were made by Obamacare opponents came true
In November 2016, when talking about predictions made by Obamacare opponents, Obama said:
“None of what they said has happened.”
However, in the real world, Obamacare opponents accurately predicted that Obamacare would cause millions of people to lose their insurance.
6-year-old gave up birthday party to feed the homeless instead
March 12, 2016
Armani Crews, who turned 6 earlier this month, had been begging her parents for “a few months” to feed homeless people in her community, but her parents thought “she was joking,” her mother, Artesha Crews, told ABC News.
“I said, ‘OK, we’ll make some sandwiches,’ to which Armani said, ‘No. I want the same thing we’d have at my birthday party,'” her mother recalled.
Even when her father, Antoine, informed her that if she wanted to go through with this, she wouldn’t get a birthday gift, the girl, whose birthday was March 5, persisted.
So the Chicago family spent about $300 buying food to deliver to homeless people in the city’s East Garfield Park neighborhood. They purchased chicken, fish, spaghetti, corn, green beans, mashed potatoes, rolls, cake, cookies, fruit and water.
After Armani mentioned her plan at the family’s local church, congregation members donated other items to create care packages for the homeless.
Each care package included a toothbrush, toothpaste, deodorant, hand sanitizer and a snack, such as a granola bar.
Armani’s birthday party was a success, with the family feeding more than 125 people who gathered.
In a statement, the kindergarten student told ABC News, “It was nice to be nice.”
Her mother added, “She was excited. She was happy. Everybody was being fed. …One of the gentleman said he hadn’t had a hot meal in a long time.”
Now the 6-year-old wants to host another community meal for the homeless. Her mother said the family plans to return to the park “within the next couple of weeks.”
In this seven minute video, a physiology (a branch of biology) major at UC Berkeley says that one of her classes had 700 students, there were not enough chairs, she had to stand behind the professor, and so she could not see what the professor was showing on the overhead projector.
Iraqi-funded Muslim spy who worked for U.S. House Democrats had Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s email password
The trouble in this new scandal just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
About five weeks ago, it was reported that dozens of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives had allowed four Muslim spies to have access to sensitive security information that they weren’t legally authorized to see, and had paid each of them a salary of $160,000 a year. The Democrats had ignored various red flags, such as their shady real estate dealings, massive amounts of debt, and criminal activities, because they did not want to be accused of “Islamophobia.” You can read about it here and here.
Then about two weeks later, we were given an update with new information: at the same time that these House Democrats allowed these Muslim spies to steal U.S. security secrets and paid them salaries of $160,000 a year, these Muslim spies accepted a $100,000 payment from an Iraqi politician. And again, these House Democrats looked the other way, because they did not want to be accused of “Islamophobia.”
Now we have another update with more new information: one of these Muslim spies had Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s email password at the same time that the hacked DNC emails were given to WikiLeaks. And yet again, these House Democrats looked the other way, because they did not want to be accused of “Islamophobia.”
Shame on Rand Paul and 22 other Republican U.S. Senators for wanting to let corporations sell people’s private internet history!
Shame on Rand Paul and 22 other Republican U.S. Senators for wanting to let corporations sell people’s private internet history!
These are the 23 Senators that introduced a bill to let telecoms sell your private internet history
March 8, 2017
Protection of your Internet history is up in the air thanks to new, pending legislation. A new bill coming before Senate aims to completely dismantle the FCC’s ability to enact data security or online privacy protections for consumers under the powers of the Congressional Review Act. Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res 34) was introduced by Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and cosponsored by 23 other Senators. Its goal is to remove all the hard-earned net neutrality regulations gained to protect your internet history from advertisers and and worse. Specifically, the FCC had been able to prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from spying on your internet history, and selling what they gathered, without express permission. This legal protection on your internet history is currently under attack thanks to these 23 Senators and lots of ISP lobbying spend. While S.J.Res 34 has support from two dozen Republican Senators, Senators willing to champion the privacy of Americans’ internet history have also come out of the woodwork.
These 23 Senators want to let your internet history be sold.
The list of 23 Senators cosponsoring this bill, including Senator Jeff Flake, is:
– John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
– Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
– Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
– John Boozman (R-Ark.)
– Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
– Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
– John Cornyn (R-Texas)
– Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)
– Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
– Deb Fischer (R-Neb.)
– Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
– Dean Heller (R-Nev.)
– James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
– Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.)
– Mike Lee (R-Utah)
– Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
– Pat Roberts (R-Kan.)
– Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
– Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
– Dan Sullivan (R-Ark.)
– John Thune (R-S.D.)
– Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
– Jerry Moran (R-Kan.)
We can always count on Nancy Pelosi to provide us with humor and entertainment as she, time and time again, displays proof that she is bat guano insane.
For her latest display, Breitbart reports:
Pelosi: ‘I Would Have Been Gone By Now’ If Hillary Had Won
While speaking with reporters on Friday, House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi stated of the 2016 presidential election, “I would have been gone by now if she had won.”
Pelosi said that the Affordable Care Act is “a pillar” and that if Clinton was in office, she wouldn’t worry about the ACA going away. Pelosi continued that “we all knew” Clinton would win.
She added that Trump winning “motivated me her to stay.” And “I would have been gone by now if she had won.”
So, here are the facts, according Pelosi:
1) Pelosi “knew” that Hillary Clinton would win the election.
2) If Clinton won the election, Pelosi would no longer stay in the U.S. House of Representatives.
3) Pelosi ran for reelection.
See the contradiction there? If Pelosi “knew” that Clinton would win, and if Clinton winning would mean that Pelosi would no longer be in the House, then why did Pelosi run for reelection in the first place?
If everything that Pelosi had said was true – i.e., if she truly believed that Clinton would win, and if Clinton winning would mean that Pelosi would no longer be a member of the U.S. House – then Pelosi would not have run for reelection.
But she did run for reelection.
Therefore, her statement is completely lacking in logic.
Recently on Interstate 40 between Winston-Salem and Greensboro in North Carolina, an anonymous party paid to have a billboard put up which says “Real men provide. Real women appreciate it.”
Here’s a photograph of the billboard (which comes form this website, and which I am showing under fair use):
Two women who disagree with the message on the billboard – Paula Atwood and Kathryn Rende – have set up this GoFundMe page to raise money to put up a billboard with their own message to counter the message on the original billboard.
However, according to the the list of people who have donated to their fundraiser, these two women, who are trying to disprove the claim that “real men provide – real women appreciate it,” are themselves accepting and appreciating money from men.
So while the intent of these two women was to disprove the claim that was made on the original billboard, the actual result of their actions was that they ended up reinforcing the claim.