Rational, linear thinking has never been a strong point for radical feminists.

The author, Kate Meikle, introduces this article by quoting her husband who, referencing family life during COVID-19, bemoans the return of the nuclear family from the 1950s. You know, the golden period post-WWII when living standards were high, economies were booming and wages were growing strongly; a period when families could afford the incredible luxury of choosing whether or not mothers would work. Given this financial freedom, mothers commonly stayed home, cared for children and maintained the household, while fathers worked full-time and provided necessary financial resources for the family.

The article goes on to illustrate family life during COVID-19 (from a mother’s perapective), which doesn’t resemble said 1950s nuclear family in any way, shape or form.

Many mother’s have been forced into a “stay-at-home scenario” the author advises, and family violence is a “chief concern” as a result. Sorry, 1950s mothers weren’t forced to stay home; they chose to and, unlike families today, could afford to. Not sure why family violence enters the discussion here? The author fails to draw a link to family violence in families from the 1950s and the reference to family violence is in direct contrast to the negotiation, cooperation and general functionality of families cited in the remainder of the article. If, indeed, mothers are concerned that staying home puts them at risk of family violence, then why is there no further discussion of the issue? Why are these women not encouraged to leave their violence-prone husbands? Clearly, the notion of increased family violence concerns is an opportunistic, ideologically-driven load of rubbish.

The author goes on to advise that she was “shocked, angry, frightened and stressed” during the initial weeks of the pandemic and bemoans her “loss of freedom”, “reduced ability to work”, a change in her “identity after long days at home caring for the children” and the additional household cleaning burden. In the same breath, the author acknowledges that “we are all playing our part, trying our best”, that families are negotiating who will stay home, who will work and how additional “home duties and parenting” responsibility will be divided. Further discussion towards the end of the article cites families “sharing the load”, fathers being at home on a full-time basis and various other caring, work and household responsibilities being divided between parents on a 50-50 basis.

The mind boggles?!

If freedom, working and an identity unblemished by the tedious burden of parenthood and home duties are so crucially important to the author and she was “shocked, angry, frightened and stressed” when faced with responsibility for raising her own children, perhaps it was unwise for her to have children in the first place?!

Putting that to the side, I again fail to recognise any hint of the referenced 1950s nuclear family. Indeed, the picture painted of families during the pandemic strikes me as the polar opposite. Families in the 1950s did not “share the load” and divide parenting, working and household duties on a 50-50 basis; mothers stayed home, assumed primary responsibility for caring for children and maintained the household, while fathers worked and provided for the family financially. Mothers from the 1950s didn’t cry foul of their parenting responsibilities or pursue identities that devalued their central and crucially important role as a mother. No, such mothers put their families and children first and, it must be said, were much happier and more satisfied with their lives as a result. There are numerous studies confirming the diminished life satisfaction of contemporary mothers when compared to those of past generations.

The article concludes in a similarly confusing, disjointed and contradictory manner. The author sings the praises of the 1950s mother, citing the challenging and undervalued tasks of educating and caring for children. She insists we should all respect those performing such roles, after crying foul of the same fate being temporarily imposed on her during the pandemic. The final sentence of the article says: “I truly hope the 1950s aren’t here to stay”. The problem with all of this is, as described above, that the burden experienced by contemporary, pandemic-impacted mothers bears no resemblance to the role of mothers from the 1950s.

The entire article is a feeble attempt to pour derision upon traditional gender roles by trying to draw parallels between the role of mothers in 1950s nuclear families and the increased burden of mothers during the recent pandemic. It fails miserably.

Anyone with any sense knows that the role of mothers in 1950s nuclear families bears no resemblance whatsoever to the role of contemporary mothers during the pandemic; that mothers in the 1950s were infinitely more happy and satisfied with their lives than contemporary mothers during the pandemic; that the burden of contemporary mothers during the pandemic is a direct result of radical feminists’ insistence on the destruction of traditional gender roles.

Anyone with any sense knows that women can’t have it all; that trying to juggle a career and raising children is a burden too far, regardless of the pandemic.

Why do radical feminists continue to deny the obvious? Why do radical feminists, who claim to be championing the interests of women, continue to champion an ideology that indisputably diminishes womens’ happiness and life satisfaction?

Kate Miekle, noone is buying your radical feminist propaganda.