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.
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.
Video shows the U.S. president groping a woman. But the President is Clinton, not Trump, so the political left is perfectly OK with it.
Here’s a video of the U.S. President groping a woman, when he mistakenly thought the camera was turned off.
If this was President Trump, the political left would, justifiably so, be very upset.
But it’s not President Trump. It’s President Clinton. And to those on the political left, that makes it perfectly acceptable.
Also, note the ABC News logo on the bottom right corner. The video’s description at YouTube refers to the video as “uncovered ABC footage,” which suggests that it was never aired at all, on any local or national news broadcast. If this had been Trump, the national mainstream media would be playing this clip all across the country, day and night, for a very long time. But since it’s Clinton, that kind of media exposure didn’t happen, so almost no one knows about it. Media bias at its finest.
Linda Sarsour organized the recent women’s march.
Below is a screen capture of a tweet that she made, which says the following:
“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”
And this woman is a role model for millions of U.S. women?
In my opinion, that’s pretty scary.
She also made this tweet, which says
“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”
and this tweet, which says
“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”
and this tweet, which says
“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”
So there you have it. Millions of U.S. women support a woman who wants the U.S. to adopt a legal system that bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s.
Of course, immigration patterns prove that women overwhelmingly prefer living in the U.S. over Saudi Arabia. I’ve never heard of any woman who was born in the U.S. who chose to permanently move to Saudi Arabia. But I have heard of plenty of women who were born in Saudi Arabia who chose to permanently move to the U.S.
Sarsour herself was born in Brooklyn. I’m glad she was born in the U.S., because she has far more rights and freedoms here than she would in Saudi Arabia. It’s too bad that she mistakenly thinks that women women are better off in Saudi Arabia than in the U.S. I hope she will reconsider her position.
Huffington Post says it’s “Islamophobic” to say women’s march organizer Linda Sarsour supports Sharia law, but doesn’t mention her tweets that support Sharia law
The Gateway Pundit recently published this article about Linda Sarsour, who organized the recent women’s march against Donald Trump. The article states that Sarsour supports Sharia law, and as evidence, includes these two tweets:
The Huffington Post responded by publishing this article, which says that the Gateway Pundit and other websites had
“… deployed classic Islamophobic tactics in trying to discredit Sarsour, claiming… that she supports the spread of Sharia in the U.S….”
Nowhere in that article does the Huffington Post actually say anything about Sarsour’s two tweets.
Organizer For DC Women’s March, Linda Sarsour Is Pro Sharia Law with Ties To Hamas
January 21, 2017
She also advocates for Sharia Law in America and has ties to terrorist organization, Hamas.
Linda Sarsour is very active on Twitter. She is pro Sharia law and a couple of her tweets even have a seditious tone to them where she romanticizes Sharia law and hints at it taking over America whereby we would have interest free loans.
Here’s a five minute interview with a refugee who fled an Islamic hellhole so she could come to the U.S.
This whole thing is great, but the best part – I think – is when she asks why “western feminists” want their own countries to import the same kinds of scumbags that she came here to get away from:
London’s Muslim Mayor Hosts EU ‘Remain’ Rally With Hijab-Clad Women Forced To Stand At The Back
June 6, 2016
London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave a speech in Manchester on behalf of the EU ‘Remain’ campaign, with women noticeably absent from the front of the crowd.
In an effort to bolster the ailing Remain campaign, newly elected London Mayor Sadiq Khan has gone on a road trip across the country to try and boost support for remaining in the European Union (EU).
A photograph from one of Mr. Khan’s speeches in Manchester posted on the Guido Fawkes blog reveals that in at least one of his speeches, meant to galvanise Labour voters in the north of England, women were excluded from the front row and relegated to the periphery of the event.
Mr. Khan is said to be attempting to distance himself from the government’s official campaign that has been dubbed “project fear”, and is expected to tell Labour voters in the party’s northern heartlands that voting to remain in the EU is the “positive, proud and patriotic thing to do,” the Evening Standard reports.
The London mayor said: “I am backing Remain because it’s by far the best option for protecting working people’s jobs, wages and rights…the world won’t end if we leave Europe — but it won’t be in Londoners’ interests or the interests of working people.”
It is not the first time that a Labour event has seen the segregation of women. The party has often been accused of pandering to hard-line Muslims, with a number of incidents being revealed last year.
The Mayor has also been in hot water before when it comes to questions over his links to Islamist groups and those who practice a more traditional form of Islam that often sees women segregated at events from men. Adding further fuel to the accusations that Mr. Khan is attempting to enforce a more traditional role of women in public life is his new ban on sexualised advertising on London’s public transport.
According to Mr. Khan, the ban on sexualised advertisements was to prevent exposure to images of scantly clad models making women feel “ashamed” of their own bodies. Though the move plays into the desires of feminists who want to see a more prudish take on women in public life, it also plays to the views of Islamists and Islamic traditionalists who desire women to cover up for reasons of “modesty”.
The speeches in the north of England see Mr. Khan team up with not only Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, whose engagement in the campaign has been lackluster so far, but also Prime Minister David Cameron who merely weeks before the London mayoral election referred to Mr. Khan as an extremist. Mr. Cameron and Mr. Khan appeared at a rally together at the end of last month in London to extol the virtues of the EU and the benefits of staying in the political bloc.
The north of England tour is scheduled to see Mr. Khan make speeches in Manchester, Oldham, Leeds and possibly Bradford. After the tour he will return through the Midlands to London on Sunday ahead of a BBC debate with former London mayor and pro-Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson at Wembley Arena on Tuesday evening.
This is disgusting.
Apparently, in New York City, it’s illegal to defend your wife from the scumbag who is trying to rape her.
What was the husband supposed to do – call the police so they could fill out the paperwork after his wife was raped?
Husband facing assault charges for beating would-be rapist to death with tire iron
May 31, 2016
Bronx cabby Mamadou Diallo was looking for a parking spot outside his building when he got a call from his wife that filled him with shock and fury.
She said a stranger had just tried to rape her in their apartment — and was still upstairs.
Diallo grabbed a tire iron and did what most husbands in the same situation would do: He rushed to his wife’s aid and then bludgeoned the pervert.
The attack killed career criminal Earl Nash, 43 — and left Diallo facing assault and weapons charges Tuesday.
“He threatened my wife,” Diallo explained as he was led out of the 42nd Precinct station house in handcuffs.
“He threatened my wife,” he said again.
Nash first knocked on the Diallos’ apartment door in Claremont Village at about 9:15 p.m. Monday. The livery cabby’s wife, Nenegale — who was home with a female cousin — assumed it was her 16-year-old son.
When she saw it was a stranger, “she went to shut the door, and the guy pushed in the door and then punched her,” said Mamadou’s brother, Ibrahima, 52.
“I don’t want money — I’m going to rape you,” Nash told her, according to an account Nenegale gave to DNA Info.
Nash slugged her in the face several times before ripping off her clothes and tossing her to the floor, police sources said.
“Please, anything you want, I give you,” Nenegale remembered saying, while being pummeled by Nash. He even hit her with a chair, she said.
“He broke all of my clothes. I had no clothes at the time,” Nenegale explained. “[I was] very dizzy at the time.”
Nenegale’s cousin helped fight Nash off, and the half-naked woman called her husband.
“I took my phone and see my husband’s number first,” Nenegale said. “I pressed the number. I made a loud noise, screaming, ‘Please, help me! Help me! Call the police!’ Then he slapped me again. The phone [was] falling, but I was making noise so my husband could hear the noise.”
Mamadou Diallo — a native of Guinea and a longtime livery driver — was hunting for a parking spot on the street and ran inside with the tire iron, fearing for his wife’s life.
He took an elevator to the sixth floor — where he came face to face with Nash, who was shirtless in the hallway.
Surveillance footage shows Mamadou walk past Nash, but wheel around when Nenegale pointed him out as the attacker.
The enraged husband swung the weapon at Nash — driving him into the elevator. He followed with several more blows, in a beating that lasted up to two minutes, sources said.
Nash fought back with a belt, but the pounding left him with a fractured skull, sources said.
Emergency responders rushed Nash, who also had severe body trauma, to Lincoln Hospital, where he died from his injuries.
Diallo was initially charged with manslaughter by cops, but during his arraignment at Bronx Criminal Court, the charges were dropped to two counts of assault, harassment and criminal possession of a weapon.
“This was not an offense where the defendant committed an aggressive act,” defense attorney Anthony Michaels said. “This was an attack on his family, in his house under extreme circumstances.”
At the hearing, which was attended by more than a dozen members of Diallo’s family and mosque, prosecutors didn’t ask for bail, and instead said they would agree to whatever Judge Julio Rodriguez thought was best. He released Diallo on his own recognizance.
“It was self-defense,” said his 22-year-old son, who didn’t give his name. “Anyone would have done the same to protect their family. You’re going to defend them. Who wouldn’t do that to protect their wife or mom?”
Diallo’s brother agreed — saying he, too, believed his sibling’s actions were justified.
“I don’t think he’s going to be charged,” Ibrahima said. “Somebody comes to your house to kill you, what do you do? It’s your last minute — you do everything to survive.”
Diallo’s nephew described him on Tuesday as a devoted family man, saying he made a tragic mistake in the heat of the moment.
“My uncle, he didn’t intend to take anybody’s life,” the nephew said, refusing to be named. “Any one of us in that position would do the same thing to protect their family.”
A close friend of Diallo’s said he was a “good guy” who worked hard as a livery cab driver for 20 years.
“He’s been in this country 27 years and never had a problem with anyone,” said the friend, adding that Diallo is “innocent.”
Diallo’s neighbor said that “he did what he was supposed to do.”
“I saw him right after it happened,” he said. “He saw his wife with the blood and screaming for his help, and he did the right thing.”
There is no academic subject that is more meritocratic, and less discriminatory, than math. What this college is doing is wrong.
For their entire careers at this university, these women will be known as the math professors who got hired not because of their abilities at math, but because of their gender.
What this school is doing is condescending and sexist, and it reinforces the false stereotype that woman are not good at math.
Melbourne University advertises female-only jobs in bid to remedy gender imbalance in maths
May 18, 2016
The University of Melbourne has taken the extraordinary step of opening up jobs to female applicants only in an attempt to drive change in the male-dominated area of mathematic academia.
Only about a quarter of all mathematics academics in Australia are female, and the university is now advertising three positions in its School of Mathematics and Statistics for female applicants only.
It is believed to be the first time it has limited applications to women only for permanent academic positions.
The jobs, in pure mathematics, applied mathematics and statistics, may range in level from lecturer, to senior lecturer, to associate professor, depending on the candidate’s experience.
The head of the School of Mathematics and Statistics, Professor Aleks Owczarek, said the decision had been taken to promote change.
“We clearly have an issue with attracting female applicants appropriately to our workforce,” Professor Owczarek said.
“So this is an agenda to attempt to address that.” Reaching gender equality in maths stubbornly slow
Women are notoriously underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, but mathematics has the lowest representation of all studies.
Lesley Ward, an Associate Professor of Mathematics at the University of South Australia, and chair of the Women in Maths Special Interest Group of the Australian Mathematical Society (WIMSIG), told ABC’s PM it gets worse the more senior the rank.
“At the first academic rank of associate lecturer it’s still only 30 per cent women, by the time you get up to the second highest rank of associate professor it’s down to under 20 per cent women,” Professor Ward said.
“At the highest rank, of professor, it’s 9 per cent women, according to the most recent data we have from 2014.”
She said there were many reasons for the low percentages, but a key cause was unconscious bias which sees men promoted more often than women.
Because of that, Professor Ward welcomed The University of Melbourne’s move, saying change so far had been slow.
“There have been many measures taken by universities and by individuals and by professional societies to help the advancement of women and the achievement of gender equity in these disciplines,” she said.
“In some disciplines it’s been harder than others and in mathematics it’s one where it’s taken a particularly long time.”
Equal Opportunity Act allows for positive discrimination
The University of Melbourne positions have been advertised using a special measure of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act.
“The use of this kind of special measure that we’re using has been used with regards to Indigenous employment,” Professor Owczarek said.
“For this kind of positions, permanent continuing academic positions, I believe it might be the first time it’s been used,” he added.
Discrimination lawyer Rowan Skinner said the Act allows organisations to take actions to promote equality.
“The Act specifically permits an organisation to engage in what is overtly a discriminatory act, but for the purposes of ensuring that there is equal opportunity overall,” Mr Skinner said.
This three minute audio segment from NPR is called “Blind hiring, while well meaning, may create unintended consequences.”
It says that “blind hiring” is a process where job applicants are interviewed by computer instead of in person, so there is no bias regarding gender or race. Applicants are given online tests such as doing a math problem, or writing computer code.
I think this is a great idea.
In the NPR audio segment, the “unintended consequence” of “blind hiring” is explained by a black female college student, who complains that under “blind hiring,” she would not get special treatment.
In the comment section, someone wrote:
“The response of the black female student to blind hiring shows that in today’s job market male whites are not the privileged group.”
I think that commentor makes a great point.
It appears as if NPR has unintentionally revealed the existence of “black privilege.”
You can hear the three minute NPR audio at http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473912220/blind-hiring-while-well-meaning-may-create-unintended-consequences
Obama administration sexually assaults 10-year-old girl, and says anyone who objects is a “domestic extremist”
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has treated non-terrorists in a very different way.
In March 2012, the Obama administration gave a very invasive patdown to a three-year-old boy in a wheelchair, which caused him to tremble in fear.
In April 2012, the Obama administration gave an aggressive patdown to a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy, and caused her to miss her flight.
Also in April 2012, the Obama administration said that a four-year-old girl was a “high security threat.”
In May 2012, an 18-month-old girl was forced to get off a plane because the Obama administration had placed her on its no fly list.
Also in May 2012, the Obama administration gave a patdown to Henry Kissinger.
In July 2011, the Obama administration forced a 95-year-old cancer patient to remove her adult diaper and fly without it.
In March 2011, the Obama administration ripped open the urostomy bag of a 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor, and forced him to fly covered in his own urine.
In October 2013, the Obama administration harassed a sick 3-year-old boy, and caused him to miss his flight.
And now we have the latest outrage: in the video below, which was filmed on December 30, 2015, the Obama administration sexually assaults a 10 year-old-girl. In this video, the security guard repeatedly touches the girl, over and over, again and again, in the same private areas. And the guard uses her palms and fingers, instead of the backs of her hands.
How this is security guard not acting like a pedophile?
Why is this behavior not being prosecuted as sexual assault?
And why did they make the girl remove her shoes, when they never actually checked to see if there were any explosives inside the shoes?
This has nothing to do with security, or with looking for explosives. Instead, it has everything to do with power and control, and with making people feel helpless, and with making people feel frightened of their own government. The government is trying to condition people into being blindly obedient, and into accepting anything that it does to them, no matter how awful.
I am 100% certain that Obama’s own daughters will never have to go through this.
In 2015, testing showed that the TSA failed to find “fake explosives, weapons and other contraband” 95% of the time.
And to top it all off – the final insult – the Obama administration labels anyone who objects to this sexual assault as a “domestic extremist.”
Here’s the video:
Live Leak reports:
TSA Pat down and groping of 10 year old girl
January 1, 2015
Maybe I’m over reacting ? I would have no problem submitting myself for a pat down, I support a high level of security, but I feel invasive touching of Children crosses the line, unless credible evidence exists.
On 12/30/15 TSA ordered a full Pat Down of my 10 year old daughter & detained us for over an hour.
TSA policy states PAT Downs of children under 12 should be method of last resort.
In my 10 yr old daughter’s case, after clearing metal detector, a forgotten Capri Sun juice pack was found in her hand bag by x-ray & agent swabbed bag resulting in a false positive.
Rather than retesting bag or alternate screening methods, my daughter was immediately ordered to submit to a full body Pat Down, and I was told I could not record the process. Luckily I knew the law regarding video recording and agent subsequently allowed me to record.
TSA policy states children under 12 will receive a “Modified Pat Down” yet my 10 year old received a full adult pat down. I feel it was intrusive, invasive, and unnecessary.
TSA made it clear I would be arrested if I resisted the search of my daughter.
TSA attempted to persuade me to allow my daughter into a private room, I felt safer with the general public surrounding us and refused several efforts to whisk us away.
TSA agent repeatedly touched my daughters buttocks and other sensitive areas with her palm & fingers not back of hand.
Wikipedia says of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam:
Traditional sources dictate Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad, with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old.
Wikipedia also says:
The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents’ home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.
So, according to most scholars of the Islamic religion, when Muhammad, upon whom the religion is based, was 53, he raped a girl who was, at most, 10 years old.
Here’s a video about this subject. As a child, the female speaker in the video, against her will, was raised as a Muslim.
Today, as an adult, she chooses to be non-Muslim.
She says that anyone who knowingly chooses to honor a child molester is evil. I agree with her.
Although she doesn’t specifically say so, I think, in my opinion, her demeanor suggests that when she herself was a child, she was raped by someone who honored Muhammad. In the video as an adult, when she talks about how Muhammad was a child molester, she seems nervous and terrified, as if she is suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome. I sincerely believe that she is trying to prevent other little girls from suffering what she herself has been through.
Here’s what Barack Obama thinks of child molester Muhammad, and the religion that is based on child molester Muhammad:
For other examples of how Obama supports Islam, the religion that is based on child molester Muhammad, please see this other blog entry that I wrote, which is called Here are 36 reasons why I would not be surprised if Obama wanted Iran to destroy Israel
It doesn’t make any sense to care how many Fortune 500 CEOs are female. Instead, what does matter is how many of the Fortune 500 companies were started by a woman in the first place.
A fake feminist demands that companies created by men hire more female CEOs. A real feminist starts her own company and makes herself the CEO.
The Hill recently reported:
… the president is proposing a new $500 second-earner credit to help cover the additional costs, such as commuting, of families with two working spouses. That plan is expected to benefit 24 million couples, the White House said.
Another proposal would streamline and expand childcare tax benefits, providing up to $3,000 per child under age 5, helping 5.1 million families that make up to $210,000 a year and cover costs for 6.7 million children.
A real tax cut means that marginal tax rates are cut, and people can spend that money however they want.
But that’s not what Obama wants.
Instead, Obama wants to use the tax code to reward people who put their children into day care, and to punish families with a stay-at-home parent.
If you want this tax cut, you will have to behave in the specific way that Obama wants you to behave.
If your lifestyle is different than the way that Obama wants you to live, then you will not get a tax cut.
Whatever you tax, you get less of. Democrats understand this, which is why they support carbon taxes, gasoline taxes, the Tobin tax, and other taxes on things that they would like there to be less of.
In Sweden, six scumbags convicted of gang raping a 15-year-old girl will not receive any time in prison
The Local reports:
Six teenage boys aged 15 to 17 were convicted on Friday after raping a 15-year-old girl in a north-western suburb of Stockholm in March.
Five of the boys have been sentenced to over 100 hours of community service each, and have been ordered to pay 55,000 kronor ($8,500) each in damages to the victim.
This is despicable.
For all practical purposes, rape is now legal in Sweden.
For a country that has a reputation of being one of the best in the world when it comes to protecting women’s rights, this suggests that the reputation is not deserved.
In the July/August 2012 issue of Atlantic magazine, Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote this article called “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.”
The very title of the article smacks of radical leftist feminism – an ideology which see victimhood everywhere. In the real world, regardless of one’s gender, it is not possible for a person to “have it all.” And yet, because Slaughter does not “have it all,” she assumes that she is a victim of sexism and gender discrimination.