Children of Career-Obsessed Moms Better Off

One thing I have noticed is that the pathologies left in feminism's wake, like divorce and single motherhood, are consistently ignored. If they are acknowledged at all, it is to assert that the outcomes for the children are better. Not just as good, but better.

Case in point is the story about some findings out of Harvard Business School, leading to articles like this one, entitled Kids of working moms are better off. The female news anchor reading the story off the teleprompter this morning was positively beaming. "That's very encouraging to me as a mother," she said.

Among the study's findings:

Daughters of working mothers earn 23% more than daughters of stay-at-home moms in the U.S.

Adult women who grew up with a working mother are not only more likely to be employed, but they are also more likely to hold supervisory positions than women who grew up with stay-at-home moms.

Sons of working moms are more likely to grow up contributing to the childcare and household chores.

Wow, it sounds like this study checks off every single box on the feminist wish-list. "Looks like my little girl is well on her way," the female news anchor concluded. The study did produce a confounding statistic, but good news! It only reinforces the hugbox.

Career prospects of children who identified as conservative were unchanged regardless of whether or not they had a working mother. If your child identifies as a conservative, you have failed as a parent.

Conclusion? You are abusing your children and condemning them to a life as lower-caste underlings if you don't work outside the home.

This story will get a lot of traction and it proves the power of fallacious reasoning. In this case, there is a clear appeal to authority. Everybody is supposed to recognize the fact that the study came from Harvard, and is thus unassailable. The study doesn't look at any measures of happiness or well-being. It concludes that women being supervisors and men staying at home to raise children is good. It sounds like the researcher started with a premise and then cherry-picked evidence which supported it.

The study's author is Kathleen L. McGinn. Her bio states that "Professor McGinn studies the role of gender at work and in negotiations." She has a BA in Psychology, an MBA, and a doctorate in Organizational Behavior.

McGinn's CV is dotted with papers such as Beyond Gender and Negotiation To Gendered Negotiations, and When Does Gender Matter In Negotiation? I wonder how she feels about Ellen Pao banning salary negotiations at Reddit on the basis that women are disadvantaged by them.

In other words, McGinn is a glorified psychologist. Is it any coincidence that social sciences like organizational behavior are totally dominated by women? Women like her study our culture and recommend changes, and because they have fancy degrees, mainstream media swallows the message whole.

Just don't tell boys that you expect them to stay home with the children.