Perspective from Another Planet: A Strange Take on Stay-at-Home Moms

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | July 27, 2004 | Charles Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Gretchen Ritter, a women’s studies professor at the University of Texas, has a problem with stay-at-home moms—actually, several problems. Stay-at-home motherhood, she explains, is bad for men, women, and children alike. It damages our society as a whole and makes lesbian mothers feel bad.

Ritter made all these charges in an opinion piece titled, “The messages we send when moms stay home,” published in the Austin American-Statesman. The diatribe was her attempt at starting what she called “an honest conversation about what is lost when women stay home.” Just read her own words on the harm caused by stay-at-home moms, because no words of mine can do full justice to her ideas (as they say, folks, you just can’t make this stuff up):

“[Stay-at-home motherhood] denies men the chance to be involved fathers. . . .

“Women who stay at home . . . lose a chance to contribute as professionals and community activists. . . .

“Full-time mothering is also bad for children. It teaches them that the world is divided by gender. . . .

“The new stay-at-home motherhood movement parallels the movement to create the ‘perfect’ child. It’s not just that mothers are home with their children; they are engaged with their children constantly so they will ‘develop’ properly. Many middle-class parents demand too much of their children. . . .

“The stay-at-home mother movement is bad for society. It tells employers that women who marry and have children are at risk of withdrawing from their careers. . . . ”

And finally, “The more stay-at-home mothers there are, the more schools and libraries will neglect the needs of working parents, and the more professional mothers, single mothers, working-class mothers, and [yes,] lesbian mothers will feel judged.”

I’m not sure where Ritter is coming from. I don’t know whether her own mother worked, or whether she has kids of her own. And since she doesn’t provide any data to back up her ideas, I have no idea where she’s getting them. All I know is that she writes like someone who lives on a planet of her own—perhaps a planet where test tubes and incubators do the messy, complicated job of raising children. I would think that only someone with that perspective could believe stay-at-home moms deny their husbands opportunities to be with the kids, or that consistent engagement with one’s children will scar them for life. So far, my six children appear to be doing just fine despite—or could it be because of?—the fact that their mother is at home for them every day, and I am engaged.

Fortunately, a number of our readers, including one of our own Centurions, wrote letters to the editor rebutting Ritter’s statements, citing both academic studies and their own experience. That’s what we should do whenever a piece like this gets published. Maybe some stay-at-home moms can op-ed pieces for their local papers as well.

You know, it’s tempting just to disregard these loony ideas, but this article was written by a professor at a major university and published in a mainstream newspaper. We can’t take it for granted that everyone will disagree with her. Our job as Christians is to go on the offensive and actively but winsomely promote a worldview that makes sense and really works. Anyone out there got a few minutes to write the Austin American-Statesman on behalf of stay-at-home moms and common sense? I hope so.

[Mr. Silverback]

A perfect example of a person educated well beyond the reach of her intelligence.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[StarCMC]

YOu got that right sir!!

[randog]

I’m not sure where Ritter is coming from.

No one does--with psychology, you pretty much make it up as you go along.

[seowulf]

"Oh brave new world that has such people in it..."

Please pass the Soma!

[narses]

Gretchen Ritter, a women’s studies professor at the University of Texas, has a problem with stay-at-home moms—actually, several problems. Stay-at-home motherhood, she explains, is bad for men, women, and children alike. It damages our society as a whole and makes lesbian mothers feel bad.

You just cannot make stuff like this up.

[Paul Atreides]

and makes lesbian mothers feel bad.

And, we cannot have that, can we?

[goodnesswins]

"and makes lesbian mothers feel bad."

OMG....I THOUGHT you made that up....had to go back and read the article to SEE THAT SHE ACTUALLY SAID THAT!!!

[narses]

I would never have even imagined anyone saying that. You cannot make this stuff up. Fear for your children.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Fear for your children.

FIGHT!!!!!! for your children!

[Brad’s Gramma]

Would you be so kind as to add me to this ping list?

Thanks!

[CzarNicky]

most of the reasons she postulated are either good for society or just plain wrong.

[narses]

One way to fight? Have MOM stay home. :)

(Sadly, it will make lesbian moms mad, but then everything has a price.)

[shaggy eel]

All I know is that she writes like someone who lives on a planet of her own

,,, that sums it up perfectly. Other people have real jobs, while Ritter makes a living out of supposing.

[BenLurkin]

These types of professors must be mocked out loud and at every opportunity.

[TASMANIANRED]

Stop the world, I want to get off.

[sarasmom]

"A perfect example of a person educated well beyond the reach of her intelligence."

Exactly.

The goal of the "feminist" revolution was to enable women the freedom and right to choose their own destiny, based on their own individual ability and dreams, and not be forced to play a role they detested, based solely on their sex.

My daughter currently dreams of being a stay at home mother and homeschooling the four children she plans to have with her future husband.

She wavers monthly between doing that, or becoming POTUS.

I tell her both are worthy goals, and that it will be up to her to choose which path in life she will follow.

Sad that the largely successful efforts of past generations of women are so misunderstood by liberals.

[RosieCotton]

It's women like that that make me even more convinced (though I've never been anything but convinced) that if I do have children someday, I'll be staying home with them and we will be homeschooling unless there is a very, very good alternative. I do NOT want people like this brainwashing my children, especially my daughters, into believing that motherhood is somehow a second rate profession for evil wackos who want to undermine society.

[Old Professer]

I long for the good old days when lesbian-mothers was still an oxymoron.

[Mr. Silverback]

You are added, ma'am!