From Russ Reeves's blog, Tolle Blogge, here's part of
an excellent post on the obscene folly and blindness of a recent example of feminist thought (please excuse the oxymoron)
Russ writes:
From the feminist periodical In These Times: Now Time gives us the cover story "The Case for Staying Home" with the subtitle "Why more young Moms are opting out of the rat race." Interestingly, on the cover we don't see the "mom's" face at all. We see a little blond toddler dressed in white (!) hugging a mom's leg, also clad in white (!!). We don't need to see her face; her expressions, her thoughts, her desires are irrelevant. Here the fragile needy child, looking up into mom's face, makes the case for "choosing" to stay home.
What can even be said to someone who thinks that toddlers looking "fragile" and "needy" is some kind of evil conspiracy masterminded by "Team Bush" in a "war against women"? I've learned something from having children and watching children: toddlers are needy and fragile, and frankly, the simple fact of a child's fragility and neediness does make a powerful case for mothers to stay home.