Saturday, 23 October 2010

The strange upside-down world of socialist 'economics'

Reading this crap from Ed Balls' fuck-buddy Yvette Cooper, I stop to ponder what exactly she means by the word 'independence'? Here's the context:
Not since the end of the first world war have we seen such a complete reversal of women's opportunities and economic independence. We haven't seen an attempt to turn the clock back like this for very many generations.
The question is: independent from who or what? The answer is simple; from a husband, who was traditionally tasked with providing the means to support and sustain the wife, whilst she was engaged in the rather time- and energy-consuming business of bringing up a child or children.

So, how were women liberated from this dependence? By the Big Daddy State, set in motion by the would-be social engineers. This is not independence, but only another form of dependence, and one without the many mitigating advantages that the family provides.


Anonymous said...

Absolutely 100 per cent correct.

Though if you have the parallel universe occupying brain matter of your average Marxist, women are an alien species, enslaved by (white) men and must be set free.

A deranged view; family is an abstract; fatherhood is oppression; children belong to the state, etc - you could never build a nation under socialism.


Trooper Thompson said...

No, but you could destroy one! It's worse than 'family is an abstract', more like family is the enemy. This is how 'progressives' of the early 20th century saw it, as it was the family that was perpetuating beliefs and values that were antagonistic to the scientifically-managed society that they wanted to engineer.

TheBoilingFrog said...

This from the party that bought us the Lisbon treaty, which effectively disenfranchises women (and men) even more.