The war against traditional women and their households is not a new one (see Yes! Conservative Women Fight Liberal #ADayWithoutAWoman Protest… and Dear Feminists: Stop Lying. You Really Don’t Care About Women…). But one frumper has taken her peeve with stay-at-home moms to a new plane. She's hoping to outlaw women who'd rather raise their children than work. It seems backward because it is.

Sarrah Le Marquand, the Australian columnist, cited a study that read:

“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.’’

Okay, so looking at this from a numbers perspective, I can kind of see where she's coming from. If more people are working, productivity rises. More productivity = more ca-ching. Let's play that out. First, though, let's address parenting. Check out this disclaimer:

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.

I'm totes on board so far. Parenting is important, yes. Productivity is important, yes. So where does this woman go so wrong? Right about here:

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.

Make working mandated. Get those mothers away from nappies, away from playdates, and no more cooing at your child if he bruises his knee. For Chrissakes. Get back to work woman, and ship your kidlet off to some state-run institution where someone else can raise and teach it. You need to WORK. FOR THE COUNTRY.

A few things here. One, note that while feminists claim feminism is about "choice" what feminists really mean is, it's about making their choice. If you don't make the correct choice, this particular feminist is going to insist the state make it for you. That choice being: your kid's at school, go to work. Do it for the country. Your choice is gone, lady. Don't stay at home, occupy a desk. #Feminism

Secondly, if you don't feel creeped out by the Nazi-ish attitude this woman takes, I'd kindly refer you to an article we wrote a while back, wherein a World War II survivor, who lived in Nazi Germany, talks about how women were encouraged to leave the home (and the children) to work. For "the country." Read WW2 Survivor's Account Draws Chilling Similarities between Nazism and Liberalism.

I can't believe it needs stating, but this is 2017, which is already a real doozy of a year. "Feminism" should still mean women can make their own choices as it relates to their own life. This doesn't include, though, chop shopping children. Born or unborn. To be clear. But the choice should include whether or not the woman stays at home as a full-time mom, a house-wife, or even if she just wants to chill on the La-Z-Boy downing Tim Tam Slams. If her husband is okay with it and supporters her, why should the state have any involvement at all? Why is it a columnist's duty to petition the state to force a woman with school children to work?

Welcome to liberalism. Make the correct choice to serve the state, or they'll make it for you. By force of law.

JOIN THE MUG CLUB AND GET ACCESS TO NEW CONSERVATIVE MEDIA VIA CRTV! ORDER YOUR MUG CLUB MEMBERSHIP NOW!