Indeed, I agree with you. The ‘reforms’ towards genuine equality have gone so far overboard as to have become the evil themselves. In what universe is it good for children to be raised by one parent? No, women today are not victims: they are the authors of their own unequal situations, if they did but understand it. And this is not to be addressed by a study group of biased researchers paid out of a misguided public pocket, but by an entire cultural shift towards ‘loving and conscientious’ families, parents working together to build lives, raise children. The ‘female’ voice can be equally as respected in this scenario as in the other — more so. In fact, a woman who has come through the child-raising years with family intact is in the best position to enter politics and work in the best interests of women and other constituents.
If - as seems to be the case - I've misjudged your initial comment, I apologize.
I tend to have a short fuse if I perceive any conservative to be effectively doing the left's work for them by employing any of its principal 'weapons of choice' - e.g. promoting needless acrimony between the sexes / demonizing all heterosexual males, especially fathers - in its on-going campaign to undermine & then abolish the traditional family.
To me the feminist whining covered in the article is a back-handed slap at stay-at-home mothers and thus indicative of the 'blurring of conventional gender roles' weapon which leads straight - so to speak - to 2 mommies/daddies being no different (preferable?) to a child being rightly raised by his/her natural mother & father.
I've got no problem with female MP's per se.
Cheryl Gallant &
Lynne Yelich are plainly 2 of the finest large or small 'c' conservative now sitting in Parliament.
Plus, with repective electoral pluralities last time out of 17,000+ (!) & 7,000+, both pretty much eradicate the lies of there being any voter bias against females and/or principled conservatives.
Numerous defeated women candidates (or the likes of Peter Kent) who chose to run as red-Tories should rightly be asking themselves what ever made them think voters would opt for 'liberal-lite' when the real thing remained available rather than claiming 'discrimination'.